Some stray thoughts in response to imran khan article
Accepting dialogue as an option does not mean that everyone has same point of view regarding the scenario. If dialogue is the only option then what IK did in Karachi? What he did in Balochistan? Regarding Taliban phenomenon, there r numerous point of views 1- who r supporting WoT but were against afghan jihad 2- who supported afghan jihad but now r against WoT 3- who think both were fake wars 4- who think we should support every act by international forces and get dollars. In APC all r supporting dialogue but it does not mean that they r following PTI stand
Special
to The News
By Imran
Khan
The
debacle of East Pakistan, which led to the breakup of our country, left me with
a strong conviction that military operations are never a solution to any
problem, least of all one involving one’s own people.
I stood
firmly with those who opposed Musharraf’s Balochistan operation and earlier the
sending of the military into Waziristan.
It was IK
who himself accept his close relationship with Zia and Musharaf. In his book he
recorded his meeting with zia who wanted to nominate him future PM yet his
plane crashed. Regarding musharaf he already apologized in public. So till
2003, he was neither against military dictators nor against operations by the
military. He left musharaf when general opted for chudries.
Today,
as I remain convinced that peace cannot be restored in Pakistan through
continuing military operations, the entire political leadership of the country
has shown the same conviction through the APC held last month. Three previous
APCs had also sought peace through dialogue.
Accepting dialogue
as an option does not mean that everyone has same point of view regarding the
scenario. If dialogue is the only option then what IK did in Karachi? What he
did in Balochistan? Regarding Taliban phenomenon, there r numerous point of
views 1- who r supporting WoT but were against afghan jihad 2- who supported
afghan jihad but now r against WoT 3- who think both were fake wars 4- who
think we should support every act by international forces and get dollars. In
APC all r supporting dialogue but it does not mean that they r following PTI
stand
Yet, the
saboteurs of the call for peace are at work too.
Here IK
used the word too, it means that there r some more saboteurs , can he identify
them? But he is silent even to mention.
With
each series of bomb attacks, war hysteria seems to be increasing with demands
for military operations. It is therefore critical we understand how we got to
this state of affairs in the first place. We have been seeing continuing
military operations since 2004, beginning in South Waziristan, and they have
not stopped so far, even up to the APC. According to an ISPR statement, 100
people were killed in Orakzai Agency and in Tirah, Khyber Agency also army
action has taken place.
We have
seen over 3000 military personnel martyred in the process and we know the
suffering of their families along with the families of the injured personnel,
especially those permanently handicapped. We have seen our ill-equipped police
martyred in the frontlines of terror attacks, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
We have also seen our civilians suffering, not only through the illegal and
inhumane drone attacks in FATA but also through the displacement of whole
tribes who continue to remain homeless in their own country. The sacrifices of
our people at so many levels are immeasurable.
Military
operations without an overarching strategy to restore peace in the country are
mere holding operations. The APC provides the legitimacy for a holistic
approach, beginning with a structured dialogue. Military action and war are
always the last resort option.
In the
end they too, after much bloodshed, lead right back to the dialogue table,
especially when a state is dealing with its own people.
Some
groups r in favor of dialogue because funding on WoT is closed. Someone still
want to use talibans as future assert so they r supporting dialogue. So numerous
groups and parties have their own reasons and understandings but IK is trying
to give it a gandhian twist
Most countries have eventually had to dialogue
with their people who have taken up arms and conducted acts of terror against
the state and innocent civilians - be it the UK with the IRA, the Sri Lankan
government with the LTTE, The Philippines with the Moros, India’s Andra Pradesh
Government with the Naxalites, to name just a few cases. Even the US had to
hold talks with the Viet Cong and now with the Taliban.
Do it in
balochistan and Karachi too. Why only wazieristan
Yet we
went headlong into a one-dimensional militarist path with disastrous
consequences after 9/11.
We are
following this one-dimensional militarist path since 1958 why r u hesitant to mention
pre-9/11 incidents. The fact is that one-dimensional militarist path is a
British colonial legacy yet an atechisonian mindset will never say this.
Musharraf misled the nation about his
commitments to the US on behalf of Pakistan. In the September 2001 APC, where
all the political forces present questioned why our country was being dragged
into the US-led War on Terror, he lied by saying that Pakistan was only
providing the US with logistical support.
Curse
those including you who believed in him
Through
a series of lies, we saw an “invasion” of all manner of US personnel being
given freedom of action within our country, with no control or accountability,
and renditions of Pakistanis and others - some landing in Guantanamo, others
simply disappearing. We slid further into an abyss of terrorism alongside drone
attacks and military operations as we fell in line with the US militarist
approach to the US ‘war on terror’. Drones have always been opposed on
principle by PTI because not only are they a violation of international law,
they do create more space for militancy.
Are u
against militancy? Our textbooks are promoting Militancy; does u ever talk
about it? U has a government in KPK so just remove such trends in KPK
textbooks.
The attack on a Madrassah in Damadola in 2006
killing 80 civilians, including 60 children, is just one example of how it is
civilians that have been the major victims of these illegal strikes. Damadola
also directly led to a sharp spike in terror attacks in Pakistan. Simply
ignoring the impact of drone strikes is an ostrich-like approach. A judgement
of the Peshawar High Court earlier this year, awaiting implementation,
vindicates our position on drones.
The question
we need to ask is: has terrorism and violence increased or decreased in
Pakistan both in terms of numbers of acts committed and the severity of these
attacks? If we are honest, we will recognise that this policy has not only
singularly failed but has also brought more instability, destruction and
heightened extremism to the country.
So
today, the nation and all the political forces stand united in giving peace a
chance through dialogue, while recognising that there are no easy options
available anymore. The September 2013 APC recalled previous ones calling to
“give peace a chance” and reiterated its commitment to the same. In this
context, the APC gave a mandate to the federal government, inter alia, “to
initiate dialogue with all the stakeholders forthwith and for this purpose,
authorize it to take all the necessary steps as it may deem fit, including
development of an appropriate mechanism and identification of interlocutors.
Needless to state the process should be as inclusive as possible, with full
participation of the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and other stakeholders.”
When
some in the country, in an accusatory fashion, declare that PTI has given
legitimacy to the Taliban by asking that an office be set up, they should
recognize that it is the APC that used the word “stakeholder”. What I am
suggesting is the initiation of a mechanism whereby we can begin to
structuralise the dialogue process. We should know the nature of the enemy -
there are 15 big Taliban groups and around 25 smaller ones, some of whom are
funded by our enemies.
Therefore
we need to identify and separate those groups willing to dialogue with the
government and those not prepared to move beyond their agenda of violence, so
that the latter can be isolated and dealt with. For that to happen we need to
have a structured approach to dialogue rather than conducting it through the
media. It is incumbent upon the federal government to inform us about the
structure of the talks. As part of aiding the government in this context, we
are suggesting that those groups willing to dialogue should be brought together
and have a common base from which to conduct the dialogue and be held
responsible for it - hence an office or “offices”. Structuring the talks
prevents sabotage of the process. This will also show our sincerity to the tribal
people who have the greatest stake in peace today and they can help in
isolating the hard core militants.
All the
political parties of Pakistan have given the federal government an unequivocal
mandate to conduct talks to restore peace in the country, including for the
first time in the context of FATA.
Previous
attempts at dialogue and peace in FATA were attempted by the Army and they
failed. The agreements reached were between the army and the militants, not the
government that represents the state; and the federal head of state’s
representative in FATA, the Political Agent, was opposed to these dialogues.
Now it is the collective leadership of all the political parties of the country
that has given a mandate to the federal government to move to dialogue and
beyond.
In
conclusion, I am aware of the fact that people voted for peace, especially in
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. That is the PTI mandate from the people and PTI is
committed to fulfilling this sacred trust. We realize our responsibility to
protect the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and we remain steadfast in taking on
this task, despite the province being surrounded on three porous sides by FATA
over which it has no authority or control. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is deliberately
being targeted by those forces who do not want to see peace and stability
restored in Pakistan. But we are determined to face the challenge of giving
peace a chance against all odds and against all those forces determined to keep
us weak, war ravaged and divided.Imran Khan is Chairman Pakistan
Tehreek-i-Insaf, Pakistan’s second largest political party
No comments:
Post a Comment