A Negotiated Settlement with the Taliban – Can it Be Achieved?

It won’t be wrong to state that today Pakistan’s society is extremely polarized, divided and confused over what is going to happen between the state and the terrorists – The Pakistani Taliban.

Looking at the print, electronic and social media, one finds that Pakistanis have been visibly divided into two camps on the potential relationship between the state and Taliban. One camp suggests that negotiated settlement is the only way out to bring peace and stability to Pakistan. And the other camp is of the view that peace negotiations with Taliban have been tried and tested before and its time when the state needs to take action against them. They argue that the Taliban have been attacking the innocent civilians in Pakistan and have killed more than 40,000 Pakistanis; hence they are ‘unforgivable enemies’. This is a very strong argument and any concerned Pakistani would agree with the fact that Taliban have almost changed the social fabric of Pakistani society because of their terrorist activities in Pakistan.

The ‘pro-peace talks’ camp, however, contends that it is important to look back and fix the root causes of the terrorism in Pakistan rather than treating the symptoms. They argue that the present chaotic situation in Pakistan is because of the disastrous domestic and international policies in region that started during the Afghan Jihad time and deteriorated after 9/11. Pakistan was dragged into the war against terrorism, the Pakistan Army started an operation in Waziristan and Taliban, who never posed a direct threat to Pakistan, called for a ‘Jihad’ against the state of Pakistan. Increased Army operations by Pakistan’s security forces coupled with the notorious US drone strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan escalated the situation and eventually Pakistani people had to pay the price of this ‘Forced Marriage’ between US and Pakistan and a ‘Forced Divorce’ between Pakistan and Taliban. This is their narrative

Both sides have some truths and I think I will be one of those few people who will agree with both. However, I need a solution as well. I want to look beyond the ‘point-scoring’ debate because I know that winning any debate will not bring a workable solution to the problems faced by my country. To find a solution, we must find answers to the following questions:

• Are we aware of the realistic connection between Pakistani Taliban and Afghani Taliban?

• Is it sensible to talk about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban? Do we have to move on from stagnant positions to ones which bear risk though which can yield rewards?

• Can we institute confidence-building measures for a workable negotiated settlement?

The first and foremost element for strategizing a practical road map of peace negotiation with Pakistani Taliban is to understand the complex relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan based Taliban. Any negotiated settlement with Pakistani Taliban cannot be advanced in a vacuum – without taking the reconciliation process with Taliban in Afghanistan into context in which the Afghan Government, US, ISAF and especially Pakistan are the stakeholders. According to a recent report by Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS), in the ‘Peace Process Roadmap 2015’ ( A strategy paper by the Afghan Government), Pakistan is considered as a key facilitator of direct contact between the Afghan Government and Taliban leaders.

The popular narrative about Taliban is that the state of Pakistan gets along with the Afghani Taliban but take Pakistani Taliban as public enemy number one. Apparently, the founder of the Tahreek e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Baitullah Mehsud, was dismissed by Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Omar because of his continued attacks on Pakistan. However, Baitullah Mehsud always took Mullah Omar as his leader. It is interesting to see that often the talks with Pakistani Taliban are viewed by many analysts as a completely separate subject without realizing the ideological bond they have with Afghani Taliban. Members of both the groups cross the Durand line on a daily basis and are hosted and protected by each other. One must not forget that the narrative of Pakistani Taliban only varies from Afghani Taliban in their stance against the state of Pakistan. Undermining any negotiated settlement with Pakistani Taliban will have an impact on the global efforts for reconciliation with Afghani Taliban.

Perhaps, the most ridiculed idea in Pakistan is considered to be a discourse around the ‘Good and Bad Taliban’. In principle, I also agree that there are no good Taliban because those who justify violence and kill people to popularize their ideology can’t be ‘good’. However, our sense of history tells us that this idea can actually work to isolate more radical members of the extremist groups from those who are interested in a dialogue to end the conflict. The peace deal between the IRA and the British government is a perfect example by which to understand it when the more extreme elements within the radical republican wing were isolated from the IRA. Pakistani Taliban has no structured organization. Various media and research reports suggest that Pakistani Taliban are splintered into dozens of smaller factions. Even the TTP (Tahreek e Taliban Pakistan) does not represent all of those groups. This situation has pros and cons but a major opportunity in it for Pakistan is that the state can devise a strategy to start getting on board all those groups who envisage that peace process is worth negotiating.

Lastly, can the stakeholders sustain the peace process by developing the right confidence building measures? There is another common narrative in Pakistan that no negotiation with Taliban can be successful because all such previous efforts were failed. Indeed there were serious efforts made for negotiation in 2004, 2005 and 2008 but it must be noted that there has never been a formal peace agreement or a structured dialogue between the government of Pakistan and the Pakistani Taliban. A strong anti-drone policy with some sort of agreement from the US government is central to build confidence for a successful negotiated settlement with Taliban. However, what is the realistic likelihood of this when US foreign policy in Pakistan relies heavily on the use of drone technology.

In the wake of the recent killing of TTP leader, Hakimullah Mehsud by a US drone strike, once again the negotiation process is in danger. Although Pakistan has officially condemned and denounced the attack, the situation over the coming days will unfold if the Pakistani Taliban are still interested to settle down the conflict through a dialogue or they will prefer continuing their violent movement. I hope the coming days will bring the message of a real peace to Pakistan but that entirely depends on devising a right strategy to end the conflict with Pakistani Taliban and then sustain the peace process without compromising our national interest and our core democratic values. Peace is required but not at a price that throttles the future of Pakistan. 

These views are the personal views of Rehman Anwer and are not necessarily reflective of positions taken by Faith Matters.

The Attack on All Saints Church is an attack on Pakistan

Christian and Muslim communities have been living in Pakistan since independence. The Christian community is around 2% of the total population of Pakistan and, like other members of minority faiths, they also experience prejudice at various levels in their everyday lives. This faith-based prejudice is both casual and institutionalised. The majority of Christians in Pakistan are extremely poor and do menial jobs across the country.  The contribution of the members of the Christian community towards the protection and development of Pakistan is totally missed in the school text books.

Although there have been various incidents of Christian-Muslim conflict in the recent past, the incident on Sunday 22nd September turned out to be the deadliest attack to ever be committed against the Christian community in Pakistan. Two suicide attackers blew themselves up near the All Saints Church in Peshawar at a time when hundreds of Christians were returning home after the Sunday Church service. So far, 81 people have reported to be killed and over 100 terribly injured in the incident. According to the Interior Ministry of Pakistan, there were 7 children and 34 women amongst the victims who lost their lives.

A splinter group of Pakistani Taliban known as TTP-Jandullah has taken responsibility for the attack, saying that such attacks will continue against the non-Muslims until the US ends drone strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan – a demand that makes little sense.

The persecution of minorities in Pakistan is not new; but the recent incident in Peshawar has an interesting element to look at. The present Pakistani government has recently decided to initiate a peace process with the Taliban and is actively discussing the modalities of peace talks. There is a perception in Pakistan that there are certain elements in the country who do not want the peace process to go ahead and they are trying to sabotage the negotiation strategy of peace with the Taliban.

However, given the state of minorities in Pakistan since its independence, there requires a comprehensive strategy to ensure the protection of the minority communities. The response from the civil society and wider public is similar to that which they exhibited in the past. The majority of the people are showing solidarity with the victims’ families, but it certainly requires more than a timely support. We should not allow this vicious cycle, in which we condemn the ruthless mass murder of our minority communities and then no concrete actions are taken against the perpetrators, to continue. It is time to learn from the past. What did we learn from Shanti Nagar, Sangla Hill, Gojra and Badami Bagh incidents? Did we develop a counter-terrorism strategy? Did we increase the security of religious places? Did we train our police to deal with the terrorists? Did we start monitoring the hate-based narratives against minorities? Did we think of legislating against hate crime against religious minorities? Did the government start supporting the interfaith organizations operating within Pakistan to promote a dialogue between members of the faith communities to foster better relationships among them?

The answer to all the above questions is one word – NO

The government has announced ‘Three-Day’ mourning in the country after the barbaric attacks against the Christian communities in Peshawar but would this mourning ensure the protection of minorities from future attacks?

This government of Pakistan must think beyond sheer condemnation and timely solidarity with the victims and their families. Pakistan certainly needs serious and consistent efforts to tackle the challenges of terrorism and extremism. It is the time to prove that the ‘Attack on the All Saints Church is an Attack on Pakistan.’

Rehman Anwer

Finding Sustainable Peace in Karachi

2012 has been one of the deadliest years in Karachi for a long time, with more than 2,000 people killed in violent attacks. These have mainly been connected with ethnic and political tensions, carried out in order to create fear before the recent general elections.ⁱ Not much seems to have changed in 2013 with regard to this sort of violence, either - in the present year, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, 735 people have been killed and 622 injured so far in the on-going incidents of violence in Karachi.ⁱⁱ

This kind of violence in Karachi has a particularly serious impact on Pakistan’s national security situation, and on its economy. Because Karachi is one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse cities in Pakistan - home to Pashtun, Mohajirs (Urdu Speaking), Punjabis, Baloch and Sindhi - any unrest in the city is likely to have a significant knock-on effect on the other parts of the country. On the economic front, Karachi contributes 25% of the total GDP in Pakistan, and any disruption, interruption, or cessation of its economic functioning risks destabilising the country’s economy.

As well as being culturally and ethnically diverse, Karachi is, unfortunately, one of the most diverse cities in terms of the range of extremism and terrorism to be found in the city. This terrorism is mainly ethnic and political in nature, although the significance of the sectarian and Taliban elements present in the city should not be understated, especially when taking into consideration the fact that Faisal Shahzad, the person who tried to blow up New York’s Times Square in 2010, was connected to the terror network of Tahreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in Karachi.

On top of this general threat of violence, power struggles between the major political players in Karachi including MQM, ANP and PPP have made the city a battleground. All of these major political parties have their own militant wings, and these groups have been fighting with each other to gain control of the city’s resources. The urban violence primarily takes place between between MQM (who represent mainly the Mahajirs) and ANP (who primarily represent Pashtuns). Reports suggest that both of these parties have very well-equipped armed wings and they have created an environment of enormous fear for the residents of Karachi. Not only does this sort of armed violence represent a direct threat to the lives of people in the city, but it also makes their lives much more uncertain and precarious generally – it’s difficult to live a normal life with the constant threat of violence hanging over your entire community.

The elections in Pakistan are over now, and the new government is being formed. What the leaders of Pakistan need now is to learn from the brutal and harsh incidents of violence that have wracked Karachi in recent years, and work towards making the city a more peaceful place that is safer for its residents. It’s important that this is not a short-lived or fleeting end to political violence, either – what can be done to make sure that peace is sustainable in Karachi?

Based on the complexities of the ethno-political dimensions of the violence in Karachi, one of the first steps for the local politicians to take should be the recognition of the effect that their conflicts have on both Pakistani people, and on Pakistan as a country; the violence, the suffering, and the self-perpetuating division that this creates. A strong political will is required to address these issues, but it’s important to confront the serious threat that these issues pose to the integrity of Pakistan, and to grapple seriously with this issue.

One of the most important and immediate actions should be the dismantlement of the armed wings of the various political parties. This, of course, is a difficult first step – who would be the first to lay down arms? – but a collaborative and mutual process of disarmament, if handled carefully by a neutral arbiter, is very possible, and would be very effective. Once this is done, and armed criminal groups are detached from the mainstream political process in the city, then real change can take place.

Beyond these necessary political steps, however, it’s also important to look at the underlying social and cultural causes of the violence, that enable extremism and division, and allow it to continue. A culture of promoting diversity and encouraging understanding among the communities living in Karachi is essential to combating this; while economic and political factors play a part in perpetuating the violence, undermining mutual hostility, suspicion, and misunderstanding in Karachi society will go a long way towards resolving the problems. Vulnerable segments of the society including minorities, young people and women should be involved in the social programmes and decision-making processes, as well; not only are they often excluded from many of these debates and processes, but they can also offer new and important perspectives on these issues based on their own perspectives and experiences. In addition to this, the government needs to promote initiatives to promote peace, national cohesion, and solidarity among the residents of Karachi to deal with the challenges of terrorism and extremism facing both the city and Pakistan as a whole.

Peace in Karachi would certainly be a good thing, but by showing the way for these conflicts to be resolved, it could pave the way for so much more. Indeed, peace in Karachi could mean peace in Pakistan.

Rehman Anwer

---

ⁱ http://dawn.com/2013/01/07/2012-deadliest-year-in-karachi-for-two-decades/
ⁱⁱ http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/sindh/datasheet/karachi_incident.html