Editor's Choice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Featured Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Let us build Pakistan" has moved.
30 November 2009

All archives and posts have been transferred to the new location, which is: http://criticalppp.com

We encourage you to visit our new site. Please don't leave your comments here because this site is obsolete. You may also like to update your RSS feeds or Google Friend Connect (Follow the Blog) to the new location. Thank you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label Peace Deals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peace Deals. Show all posts

Monday, 2 March 2009

Seema Mustafa: What the people of Pakistan think about the Taliban



This site has moved to http://criticalppp.com/archives/1063, click this link if you are not redirected
Read more...

Sunday, 1 March 2009

Swat Peace Deal with Taliban: Questions which ANP must answers

Swat Peace Deal with Taliban: Questions which ANP must answers

By: Ahfaz-ur-Rehman, Daily Express, 1 March 2009

Read more...

Tuesday, 24 February 2009

Militants in Swat: Can we negotiate with them from a position of weakness?

No, a thousand times no!

Tuesday, 24 Feb, 2009


Taliban militants holds several  men prisoner in Swat in this file photo. - Reuters
Taliban militants holds several men prisoner in Swat in this file photo. - Reuters


YOU never negotiate from a position of weakness: not in business; not in banking; not while making real estate deals; and certainly not when dealing with cold-blooded killers who think nothing of slaughtering defenceless old men and women and hanging their carcasses from electric poles in the main squares of the towns and villages which that night face their wrath.

The government of the Frontier, Pakhtunkhwa, call it what you will; and the Government of Pakistan, including their agencies both covert and overt, have cravenly given in to the murderous thugs who have brought so much pain and misery to Swat; who have made its once pristine rivers run red with innocent blood. They have given the mullah the proverbial inch; as said in this same space last week, just wait until he demands a thousand miles, and more.

Those that write that the situation was so bad in Swat that there was no other way but to make a deal with Maulvi Sufi Mohammad, who would in turn make a deal with his son-in-law Mullah Fazlullah (aka Mullah Radio), and that the crowds that came onto the roads to welcome Sufi’s caravan testified to the fact that the deal was a good thing, should think again. For the deal is unravelling before our very eyes.

On the very day after the so-called deal was signed young Musa Khankhel, a journalist, was brutally shot in broad daylight; three days later the newly appointed DCO of Swat was kidnapped along with his half-a-dozen guards and some hours later exchanged for two Taliban with a third release promised impendingly. Already, the Waziristan Taliban have formed a ‘Shura Ittehadul Mujahideen’, to wage jihad “in an organised manner”.

The Taliban commanders who have united under one banner are Hafiz Gul Bahadur of North Waziristan; Maulvi Nazir of Wana, and our old friend Baitullah Mehsud of South Waziristan. According to news from Miranshah the three have declared President Barack Obama, Hamid Karzai and Asif Zardari ‘infidels’. An aside: if this is not a wake-up call, Mr President, what will be, for you to make up with the other big political party, the PML-N, and face the country’s enemies, which includes the establishment, together?

This is not all. In a clear, and alarming, sign that it is in a state of utter denial, the agency which was given the responsibility for combating the now victorious insurgents, and which failed all ends up to do its duty, is once more flexing its muscles in another worthless show of fake bravado. The ISPR has the gall to say that the “military option was still open if the Swat peace deal failed”.

Nor is this all. It has the brass to say that it needs “modern equipment” which would not only “enhance the efficiency of the armed forces [read Pakistan Army!], but also help reduce collateral damage”. What absolute poppycock is this, sirs? Just WHAT modern equipment are you asking for? More artillery pieces and helicopter gunships that were your favourite weapons while you were making feeble attempts to ‘fight’ the Taliban? No artillery gun or helicopter gunship that will reduce collateral damage has yet been invented.

The only way to limit collateral damage is when you physically ‘contact’ the enemy at close quarters. Not once has this tactic been used by the army in Swat, or anywhere else in the Frontier.

The extent of the failure of the Pakistan state and its great army is frighteningly alarming. The ineptness shown defies description and the refusal to even now accept its shortcomings and improve is extremely disquieting, nay distressing.

Swat was/is not the only ‘theatre’ in which the army has shown it is unequal to the task. Please consider the daily attacks on the main supply route we have offered to the Americans/Nato through the Khyber Pass. Think back to the photographs of the bridge most recently blown up, in place of which army engineers quickly put up a temporary structure capable of handling the supply-carrying vehicles.

Clearly seen in the background and barely a few hundred feet away is a picket post: little fort-like buildings for accommodations for up to a platoon of soldiers that dot the Khyber Pass, indeed all the passes leading into the Frontier and Balochistan. It was once said that these pickets were so located that each of them either had a water source of its own or was near enough one from where donkeys or mules could carry the water up to it — therefore the term ‘mule-tank’. It was said too that using heliograms, messages could be relayed for hundreds of miles, from picket to picket, warning of impending danger.

I digress. The question to ask is if the picket seen behind the blown-up bridge was manned; and if it was not, why not? WHY this lackadaisical approach to everything, even tried and tested standard operating procedures? It is galling in the extreme to me as an old soldier when I see that the most basic tactics of operating in an insurrectional situation are not employed.

It angers me no end when I hear people who should know nothing of our country and its people’s ways, lecture us that our troops, particularly the Frontier Corps, don’t know how to fight an insurrection. If the Tochi Scouts don’t know tribal warfare who does, for God’s sake? If the Kurram Militia doesn’t know, who does? US Navy Seals?

If only our brass-hats gave more time to training their commands than they give to running housing colonies and factories and bakeries and tikka joints and tarting up their cantonments.

This deal should never have been made. It is the thin end of the wedge. Punjab is already under attack: Mianwali has had two police posts blown up and that poor Polish geologist who was then duly beheaded, was taken from Attock. We will rue the day. And now for the harsh words spoken by an increasingly distressed Nawaz Sharif.

Asif Zardari should even now do the right thing and, in keeping with the Charter of Democracy and his own promises, immediately ask his party to move the 18th Amendment removing all the undemocratic changes to our constitution made by the Commando. Who, by the way, has some gall too, smoking his fat Cohiba on television and lecturing us angrily. The man should be held to account for his many crimes, chief among which is the near destruction of the Pakistan Army.

Asif should also know that having Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif disqualified through the courts will only make him look worse, and make them ever more popular.

P.S. The same crowds would have come out on to Swat’s roads had the Frontier government moved itself and all its minions to Saidu Sharif to govern from there. What good now to distribute 30,000 rifles among the villagers?! Poppycock again. (Dawn)


...


Militants in Swat

Tuesday, 24 Feb, 2009


TTP is looking to carve out a place for itself in the future set-up from which it can ensure its relevance and safety.—AP
TTP is looking to carve out a place for itself in the future set-up from which it can ensure its relevance and safety.—AP

The kidnapping of the Swat district coordination officer by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan is an indication of just how rocky the road to peace in the area is. Muslim Khan, the TTP’s spokesman in Swat, initially denied the DCO had been taken hostage but later admitted to having swapped the official and his bodyguards for militants in state custody.

This was not the only transgression by the TTP in recent days: several locals belonging to the ANP have also been kidnapped from Mingora. Given that Maulana Fazlullah’s militants have declared a 10-day ceasefire and are engaged in peace talks with Sufi Mohammad, the kidnappings suggest the militants remain conflicted about peace in the region.

At the very least, it can be surmised that Maulana Fazlullah has been wrong-footed by the government’s pledge to implement Sharia in the region more effectively. The TTP commander has acknowledged that the new regulation is in line with what the militants have been demanding, but what he can’t say is that their agenda goes beyond simply introducing a better legal system, and includes territorial control.

Having camouflaged their fight against the state as a quest for justice, now that the state has acted to strip away the militants’ fig leaf they are resorting to accusing the state of artifice and deceit. ‘The government violated the (ceasefire) agreement by arresting our men in Peshawar and killing one in Dir. Therefore, we had to do this,’ Muslim Khan has said, justifying the kidnapping of the DCO.

In the days ahead, the TTP may well keep upping its demands and imposing new conditions for peace that the state will find difficult to accept. Top of that list would be the withdrawal of all troops from Swat and the release of all militants in state custody.

From the TTP’s point of view there is an additional problem: ensuring their personal safety once normality returns to Swat. After beheading and killing and maiming with frightening savagery for the past two years, the militants have made many enemies among the locals; remaining there in peace time will almost certainly invite revenge attacks.

So if this is really the endgame of militancy in Swat, the TTP is looking to carve out a place for itself in the future set-up from which it can ensure its relevance and safety. Hence the mixed signals of talking peace while reminding everyone of their capacity for violence.

However, the state must remain firm: legitimate demands for a better justice system should be met but control of the area should be taken back and the terror infrastructure dismantled. Sufi Mohammad’s call yesterday for the militants to end their violence, not interfere in the administration of Swat and accept a phased introduction of legal changes is the way ahead. It remains to be seen if the TTP will acquiesce. (Dawn)


Read more...

A resident of Swat writes: What the people of Swat really wanted

What the people of Swat really wanted
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Lakhkar Khan

The writer is a resident of Swat who had to flee his home and is currently living in Lahore.

The Feb 16 agreement hasresulted in the planned promulgation of the Nizam-e-Adl regulation in Malakand division, in which Swat district is situated. The government's plea is that this is the demand of the people of Malakand division. However, those who made this announcement – in particular the ANP chief minister Amir Haider Hoti – should know that the people of Malakand division voted in favour not of Sharia but for secular, nationalist and democratic parties in the general elections of 2008.

The fact of the matter is that the ANP and the PPP contested the election on the stand that they would fight to eliminate terrorism and extremism, so it is a bit ironic that both parties have now done just the opposite. They failed to face the situation in Swat and have gone down on bended knees before the extremists.

The people of Buner, Shangla, Malakand, Lower and Upper Dir and Chitral never voted for the implementation of Sharia and did not rise up against the state for its implementation. In Buner people actually went after and killed some of the militants, and rose together as one against the extremists. And as a result of this, the militants killed over 40 people in one village of Buner alone as revenge. Despite this the people of the area never surrendered to the extremists, so they are going to be right in wondering that if they did not surrender, why has the government done just that? They ask why the state, despite having all the resources to nip this evil in the bud, chose to yield to the extremists.

Sufi Mohammad, someone who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of young men of Malakand, was inexplicably released from prison and his crimes of the past were conveniently forgiven. He is the very person who in 1994 challenged the writ of the state to the extent that his followers killed security personnel and even an MPA. This happened in Swat and Dir but the then Sherpao government ruling the NWFP for some reason withdrew all charges against Sufi Mohammad and his colleagues. In 2001, he declared jihad against the US in Afghanistan and took several thousand of his followers there to fight. Sufi Mohammed led these young men to their deaths in Afghanistan, and was the first to leave the battlefield together with his close followers when the American B-52 bombers came. Hundred of the others who went with him lost their lives and hundreds are still missing. On his return, the political agent of Kurram Agency imprisoned him under the Frontier Crimes Regulations and that was when his son-in-law, Fazlullah, filled the gap and established a foothold in Swat.

Strange are the way of politics in this country because one day someone is a killer and the next day he is labelled as a hero – and this is done by parties that claim to be the most secular and democratic in the country.

As for Fazlullalh, we all know what he did and continues to do. He challenged the state's authority and his followed killed police constables, and army and paramilitary personnel in a most brutal manner. His group bombed schools and bridges, as well as the houses and hujras of many who tried to stand up to them. They deliberately targeted social, political and moderate religious figures and journalists in the district and many were killed and the rest compelled to leave Swat. Hundreds of thousands of people, like myself, were dislodged from their homes, and had to flee Swat. Most are now living a miserable life in other areas of Pakistan, and despite the so-called peace deal they are not sure if they can return to their homes. Not only were people's lives and property were destroyed, the region's whole economy was devastated by the terrorists. Fruit orchards went to waste because people were too afraid to work in the fields, and local businesses suffered immensely because tourism vanished. Over 2,000 innocent people, including many women and children, were killed and thousands were disabled and wounded in indiscriminate shelling and firing by security forces and the militants. As a result of the barbaric actions of Fazlullah and his followers, the centuries-old soft image of Swat and its inhabitants, based on its rich heritage dating back to its Buddhist and Swat-state eras, was lost forever. Did the government consider all this when it chose to capitulate to the extremists? What the people of Swat wanted was for the government to ensure that those behind all these murders and mayhem are held accountable for their crimes.

This brutality and carnage will not be forgotten easily by the people of Swat. It has taken its toll not just in physical terms but also on the mental wellbeing of the people of the area whose minds have been scarred. The mental health of women and children in particularly has been damaged by the actions of the militants and the incessant violence that they indulged in.

It is abominable that the government is actually now going to declare a general amnesty for Fazullah and his men, people who are directly responsible for all these deaths and atrocities that were inflicted on the people of Swat in the last two years. In this instance I would like to quote from one of this newspaper's recent editorials following the so-called peace deal. "Fazlullah's numerous acts of violence, his attempts to stifle learning and the way in which he targeted the most vulnerable citizens, show that he indeed cares nothing for Islam – a religion that advocates kindness for the oppressed, emphasises the significance of learning and lays down rules of respect for women, for minorities and even for enemies…. It seems obvious the ignorant forces of Fazlullah seek only power and are willing to use any means to obtain this." This is precisely what the people of Swat think of Fazlullah and his men, but for obvious reasons were not able to articulate or demonstrate in public.

And what is the end result now? What is one to make of this deal? That Fazlullah has emerged victorious. And that both the federal and provincial governments are taking credit for the promulgation of Sharia in Swat. As for the people, they see this as nothing but an abject surrender to the forces of obscurantism and darkness, a surrender which presents a bleak future for the people of the area.

Sufi Mohammed is now the officially-sanctioned saviour of the people, but what about the people themselves? They have lost everything and gained nothing. And I say this because the deal gives them nothing in terms of holding accountable all those who killed, butchered and slaughtered hundreds of Swatis. Who will heal their bleeding hearts and souls? Certainly not this agreement.

The fear is that the militants will not remain confined to Malakand but will demand the same deal in the settled areas of the NWFP and in FATA as well. And they will use the same tactics and brutal force against the security forces and the people as they did in Swat. What will our politicians do then? Will they bow before them again? Or will they exercise the state's authority? It shouldn't take too long to wonder what the likely option will be, keeping in mind the Swat experience.

The people of Swat ask why the state is silent, rather than ensuring their rights, and why it treats those who are murderers and criminals and those who took up arms against the state as born-again heroes. They ask why this is done. What message is sent to those who abide by the law and want to have nothing to do with these militants and born-again heroes?

The people of Swat also say that financial compensation as is being announced by the government will not help heal the wounds. But what will is an independent high-level judicial probe into what happened in Swat, followed by accountability of those involved in the killings and violence. This is what the agreement should really be providing them – not the space and the legitimacy to the militants which is what they think has happened. (The News)


Email: lakhkarkhan51@yahoo.com

Also read:

Dialogue with Taliban not an option - Farhat Taj

An analysis of drone / missile attacks on Al-Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in Pakistan's tribal areas. March-Nov 2008... Dawn, BBC, Daily Times Reports

Farhat Taj: A survey of Drone Attacks in Pakistan. What do the people of FATA think?


Read more...

Monday, 23 February 2009

Two divergent perspectives on the Swat deal with Taliban....

Two perspectives on the Swat agreement with Taliban. The first one is by a pro-Taliban right-wing journalist Ansar Abbasi. The second op-ed by Kamal Siddiqi offers a critical, dialectical analysis of the situation on ground.





Does the Swat deal promise peace or more conflict?
In the national interest

Monday, February 23, 2009
by Kamal Siddiqi

The writer is editor reporting, The News

The deal between the government and the Tehreek-e-Nifaz Shariat-e-Muhammadi has drawn a variety of responses from within the country and abroad. Stakeholders have welcomed the move in some quarters while in others there has been outright condemnation. Our well meaning but clueless politicians have hailed it as a major political initiative of the president. One wonders whether this is indeed the case.

Generally, many people in the valley have welcomed the deal. Most have done so not on the merit of the agreement but more in the hope that it will bring peace. The people of Swat are shaken. The daily toll of beheaded bodies in Green Chowk in Mingora, which has been renamed “Zibah-Khana Chowk,” continues. There are unsubstantiated stories of assault of women in parts of Swat, which only add to the sense of anger and frustration.

People do not talk against the Taliban or the extremists in public for fear of being targeted. The area has become a state within a state. Some allege that the army targets civilians more than it does the Taliban. These are things on which one cannot comment much, only wonder. There is fear and there is anger.

In reaction to the peace deal, many people not living in the valley have rejected it, saying that the government has capitulated to extremist elements. They say that this may have a snowballing effect on the area as more and more parts of the NWFP are given to the Taliban or other forces. The deal, they argue, will bring more violence in the long run.

While there can be much debate on the merits of entering into any such agreement, one thing that is clear is that the peace deal is not an open-and-shut affair. The government wants us to believe that it is the beginning of the state of normalcy to the area. One can only hope that this is so.

There are many questions that remain unanswered. The NWFP chief minister has said in a press conference in Peshawar that it was a historic deal and one that is the first step to normalcy. He was clearly upset with the questioning of the reporters. It seemed he too was not altogether convinced of the merits of this move. For his part, President Zardari has said that it should not be seen as a sign of weakness for the government. But some weeks back we had been told that there would be no compromise. And yet, now we seem to be seeing the same.

As things stand it seems that the answers are not forthcoming. For starters, why has the government entered into a deal with a group that has been advocating and allegedly practicing violence as a means to an end for so long? Were these persons part of the senseless killings that took place there over the past couple of years? Should we be negotiating with those who promoted violent means while all along we have said we will talk only to those who talk peace? What message are we giving to the peace-mongers?

In this deal that has come to be, the families of victims, and there are quite a few, are within their right to ask the government how those who killed someone’s near and dear ones will be brought to justice. They would like to know what the status of these murders will be and will they ever be investigated to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Take, for example, the killers of Shabana, a wedding dancer. Her throat was slit and her body left as an example to others. Will her murderers be allowed to go scot free? Hundreds of policemen, government servants and private citizens were shot, injured, terrorised or killed. What happens to those who did this?

This whole peace agreement sets a bad example for others if there is no provision to bring to justice those who bombed, killed, attacked and maimed. In this manner, it encourages others who are following the same violent path and who, inevitably, will also end up signing deals with the government. The deal gives them a clean slate.

The issue of killings and accountability for actions past and present should have featured in the final agreement. Another point is why the government negotiated from a position of weakness when all along it has been claiming that it was in a position of strength. The wording of the agreement clearly shows that the government has gone out of the way not to offend the other side and committed to things that should not have been conceded.

Another pertinent matter is whether the TNSM has the ability to deliver in the areas it has promised. Will Maulvi Sufi Mohommad be able to convince Maulvi Fazlullah to lay down his arms? Does the TNSM have the strength to silence the Taliban outfits in the valley, and, if not, how will it help the government do so?

From the tragic killing of our colleague, Musa Khankhel, and the other attacks and bombings following the signing of the agreement, what seems apparent is that not everyone is on board. The killing of Musa Khankhel is a clear signal to the government that there are still many within Swat who want to escalate the violence. Will we let them do so?

For the government, the biggest issue is not only whether the deal can be honoured but what happens if it breaks down. Who guarantees such deals and what are the penalties for violations? Even more pertinent is the question as to who would punish the parties that break the agreement and what would be the parameters of the punishment.

Then there is the issue of the implementation of the Islamic laws and the appointment of judicial officers. Merely changing the titles from Judge to Qazi will not satisfy the hardliners. Who will arrest, sentence and accord the punishment. This is all up in the air.

For Pakistanis, the more pressing issue is how the government has allowed a different system of justice within the country. One can only wonder at what this will do to further complicate the search for justice for the common man. It is clear that while the stipulation of a time frame will help ensure speedy justice, how will this judicial system work within the larger framework? These are questions that the people of Swat would want to ask.

Another logical worry for the people of Swat Valley is whether the peace will last. For most Western countries as well as regional powers, there is a fear that this deal is yet another attempt by the extremists to buy time and cut their losses. As a bonus, they have managed to secure a sweetheart deal from the government.

One can ask, and rightly so, what the long-term objectives of the militants and the religious extremists are. If we look at the history of these deals, it is clear that they are a stopgap arrangement, in many instances, a tactic to buy time or to focus on another operation. There are fears that this deal will allow the militants to focus once again on cross-border activities.

What we do know is that the army operation, despite the collateral damage, was hitting hard at the militants. But at the same time, there were many in Swat who were saying that things were not as clear as they are made out to be. Who do we believe and whose side are we on?

Finally, what is the game plan of the government? It says one thing but does another. We will continue to suffer from such ad hocism or will we follow a more long-drawn-out option which will give us results in many years, but these would be such that are long-lasting and durable. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, an important player on the NWFP political scene, says that the proposed implementation of Shariah laws in Swat conveys to the world that legislation is not acceptable through democratic process but through use of force. That seems to be the crux of the matter. (The News)

Email: kamal.siddiqi@thenews.com.pk

Read more...

Sunday, 22 February 2009

Rauf Klasra: Wrong policies of appeasing the Mullah....





Tacit support for violence?
By Huma Yusuf
Saturday, 21 Feb, 2009 (Dawn)


WHEN Frontier politicians and members of the Tehrik Nifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi (TNSM) are done patting each other on the back, Pakistanis should take a moment to reflect on the terrible precedent that the peace-for-Sharia deal in Swat has set.

In its long stumble towards democracy, Pakistan has developed a history of political activism. But the recent agreement between the government and TNSM indicates that a violent struggle is the only path to successful representation in this so-called democratic state. Make no mistake. The Nizam-i-Adl Regulation 2009 has struck a severe blow to Pakistan’s delusions of democracy. A political infrastructure that has variously been described as failing, flailing, and fledgling is now fundamentally flawed.

There is no point denying that the government was cornered by violent means into accepting Maulana Sufi Mohammad’s terms for the imposition of Sharia in Swat. None other than Chief Minister Amir Haider Hoti directly linked militancy with the drafting of the Nizam-i-Adl Regulation when he said that there is now “no motive left for the people who had taken up arms for the enforcement of Islamic judicial system”.

Of course, all manner of democratically elected politicos — including Afrasiab Khattak, Sikander Sherpao and Pir Sabir Shah — have celebrated the regulation for articulating the aspirations of the people. But where have the people of Swat spoken? The only position stated was that of the gun, the explosive.

Indeed, these politicians now find themselves in a tricky position: measures that they have been advocating for peacefully — in the halls of assembly and through public debate — have now been implemented through intimidation. By praising the government-TNSM deal, these politicians have tacitly supported violence as a means to an end. The message then is clear: to earn representation and enforce legislature, take up arms against the government, army and the civilian population.

Sadly, the government’s decision to kowtow to the writ of the gun cheapens our history of democratic struggle and highlights the futility of peaceful civic engagement. Think, for example, of the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy, which agitated against Gen Ziaul Haq’s military dictatorship through political alliances, public protest and the boycotting of polls — with little success. (Ironically, in that instance, three army divisions were deployed to quash civilian mobilisation efforts while in our present circumstances, the army has stepped down from tackling no-holds-barred militancy.)

Similarly, the Women’s Action Forum, which has been fighting for women’s rights since the 1980s, is still struggling to achieve its goals. Years of public protest, awareness campaigns, media initiatives and calls for new legislature resulted in the half-baked Women’s Protection Bill in 2006. And yet the effort to have the Hudood Ordinance repealed in its entirety continues apace.

More recently, the lawyers’ movement took on Gen Pervez Musharraf’s authoritarian regime to great effect before slipping out of the headlines. At the height of its momentum, the movement was being lauded throughout the world as an example of the efficacy of peaceful protest and ‘non-violent disobedience’ in the Muslim world.

Many thought public action was enjoying a second coming when the lawyers successfully protested former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry back into office in July 2007. But now, months have passed, YouTube videos have been circulated, Facebook groups have been populated, blogs have been posted, SMS text messages forwarded, protests well attended, and long marches long endured, but Mr Chaudhry remains deposed — the peaceful mobilisation initiatives of the Black Coats are proving insufficient. In this context, the government’s caving in to Swat-based militants suggests that resorting to violence is the most strategic option.

Implying that violence is the default mode for provoking socio-political change is problematic for many reasons. Obviously, any trend that promotes further conflict and weaponisation will continue to destabilise our civil society. In a recent interview, author and journalist Mohammed Hanif was asked about mushrooming parallel judicial systems. He responded that there are already too many parallel systems in this country — “jirga, panchayat, husband, jilted lover with acid bottle”.

By equating men who throw acid with localised justice systems, Hanif highlighted the fact that violence has already been internalised by many members of this society as the best way to seek recourse or express an opinion. Concretising that perception — in the way the peace-for-Sharia deal has — will make for a tumultuous society indeed.

Moreover, favouring violent means is a surefire way of further marginalising Pakistan’s most disenfranchised populations. The groups least likely to resort to violence — including women, poverty-addled Christians, Hindus and Ahmadis — are the ones with the least rights, suffering the consequences of insufficient representation.

This is not to say that the acquiescence to violence is the only undemocratic aspect of the agreement between the government and TNSM. The willingness to deal with an individual, as opposed to a constituency, goes

against the very tenets of democratic rule. Despite the ‘thousands’ who marched for peace into Swat, Pakistanis are aware that Sufi Mohammad is essentially putting on a fine one-man show. His shifting allegiances — he was dispatching jihadis in 2002, and championing peace by 2008 — makes his credentials as a negotiator all the more dubious.

Further, the fact that he is brokering a deal with his son-in-law leaves a niggling sense that the government has been caught up in a tribal power play between contentious family members. This is an unfortunate turn of events as good democracies are meant to transcend the particularities of their participants.

Ultimately, any agreement that rests on the shoulders of strong-arm tactics is bound to collapse. It is hardly surprising that the first news out of Swat was that of journalist Musa Khankhel’s assassination. The writ of the gun is not bound by agreements and ordinances, nor is it accountable to referendums or public opinion. If militants believe that their violent tactics can get them what they want, they will see no compelling reason to lay down their arms once and for all.



Snags in TNSM-Taliban talks in Swat


Quite predictably, Sufi Muhammad of the Tehreek-e Nifaz-e Shariat-e Muhammadi (TNSM) has run into snags while negotiating peace with his son-in-law, warlord Fazlullah of the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The Taliban have raised two questions, the matter of amnesty for the heinous crimes they have committed against the people of Swat, and the matter of their retaining the weapons they have at their disposal. The Sufi is supposed to have argued fruitlessly with them and is now carrying the Taliban reservations to the NWFP government.

These complications should have been foreseen before the offer of peace talks. Negotiating from a position of weakness usually leads to such drawbacks which then have to be swallowed. The ANP leader Asfandyar Wali on Friday justified parleying from a weak position when he said that his party could no longer see “the soil of my country flowing with streams of innocent blood”. Concealed in this sentence was his disappointment with the state elements, notably the military, to face up to the challenge of the Taliban.

The only good that has come out of the TNSM-TTP talks is the opening up of a shuttered Swat. There is ceasefire in place which the Taliban are willing to extend beyond ten days. The people of Swat have gathered around the Sufi hoping to see him succeed where the state has failed. Business is back in the markets. But the Taliban want to remain armed and don’t want to become targets of the sharia law they have welcomed at the hands of Sufi Muhammad.

One can’t see how the Sufi can enforce the new order unless he hands it over to warlord Fazlullah and contents himself by becoming its presiding figurehead. The age-old axiom that all law flows from military dominance is once again affirmed. A new rule of the game is coming into force: if you accept sharia in a region in Pakistan you have to accept the terrorists as its guardian. The logic of this development will dictate changes in the maps of Pakistan and Afghanistan in the long run with a territory between them that they will agree to tolerate. But that scenario too is an unstable one. (Daily Times, 22 Feb 2009)
Read more...

Saturday, 21 February 2009

Abdul: Peace deal in Swat - An Analysis

تعميرپاکستان




http://im.videosearch.rediff.com/thumbImage/videoImages/videoImages1/blip/rdhash964/RealNews-NewHeadOfISIKarzaiCallsForTalibanTalks906-717.jpg

Taliban in uniform


http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/taliban3.jpg

Taliban in civil dress


Here are my two cents in regards to the current situation in Swat:


  1. The success or failure of the current agreement between the NWFP Government and the TNSM/Taliban should be defined by its 'intended' outcomes. The situation will be much clearer in the next few weeks. It may be noted that previously a similar peace deal by Mushararraf with the Taliban in Waziristan failed because Musharraf double-crossed both the USA and the Pakistani nation in order to safeguard the interests of the ISI. In my view, the strategic depth syndrome (re General Zia, Hamid Gul, Mushy, Kayani) is very much alive and kicking.
  2. TTP, TSNM, other jihadi and sectarian organizations are fully entitled to claim victory in the shape of this so-called shariat peace deal. However, the victory was planned and engineered in the ISI headquarters, not in Swat or FATA.
  3. The success of the military operation was dependent on the willingness and sincerity of the most powerful stakeholder, i.e. Pakistan Army /ISI. That will was simply lacking. The loss of low ranking soldiers, civilians, Talibs was accepted as collateral damage/ cannon fodder/ minor sacrifice in hope of much bigger jihadi gains.
  4. Indeed, the TTP will use this time to further reinforce their terrorist (wrongly known as jihadi) capabilities.


Here are some quick references / worth reading articles:

Implications of the Swat deal —Najmuddin A Shaikh

Amir Mir: Peace deal in Swat a high-risk affair

ANP deal with TNSM in Swat: What do ordinary Pakistanis think?


Will the Taliban be answerable to Shariat Courts? An analysis by Abdul Haye Kakar, BBC Urdu dot com:

Who controls Swat? Report on BBC Urdu dot com:


Finally, the bigger picture, this warning by Mr. Holbrooke:

Mr. Holbrooke, you got it right. Pakistan's No. 1 challenge is to control its rogue army, particularly the ISI-Taliban alliance...

Which explains why new alliances are being forged:


The ISI forges the Taliban alliance in Waziristan against the war on terror...


For a change of taste, this piece by a right-wing journalist, Ansar Abbasi:

Ansar Abbasi: Indian agents to be wiped out from Swat


In the end, a few questions for critical readers:


  1. In your view, why could not our army jam/eliminate the FM radio stations used by terrorists?
  2. Why could not they locate and eliminate terrorists and their leaders, e.g. Baitullah Mehsud and Molvi Omar in Waziristan, and Mullah Fazlullah and Muslim Khan in Swat, who conduct regular media briefings, conduct shariat courts and administer 'swift justice' on regular basis.
  3. Why were so many schools destroyed during the military curfew in Swat?
  4. If this army could not save Swat from a ragtag force of 2000 to 5000, how could it save us from India or the USA? (By that standard, it seems that Indian Army has shown much better performance in Kashmir.)

Read more...

ANP deal with TNSM in Swat: A critical perspective

Can ANP afford to offer more sacrifices against a ruthless enemey (ISI-Taliban allaince)?



ANP to uphold Swat peace deal, says Asfandyar

Saturday, February 21, 2009

By Tauseef-ur-Rahman

PESHAWAR: Central President of the Awami National Party (ANP) Asfandyar Wali Khan on Friday said his party would prefer quitting ministries to withdrawal from the Swat peace deal under pressure.

“We’ve a commitment to the Pakhtun nation about the restoration of peace on their land and will not pay heed to the reservations of the Nato about the deal,” Asfandyar said while talking to media persons at the residence of late MPA Alamzeb Khan, who was assassinated in a bomb attack in Momin Town, last week.

The ANP chief said he was more concerned about safety and security of his people than what other forces believe or think. He said the ANP would abide by the peace agreement in Swat and would fulfil the commitment made by the party with Pakhtuns for the restoration of peace.

He said the United States had accepted the peace deal which was evident from the statement of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He said the deal was in accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan and they would convince the world and address their concerns.

Answering a question, the ANP chief said the provincial government had yet to send the draft of the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation to President Zardari for approval.

To a question about amendments to the Constitution, Asfandyar said the matter would be sorted out soon after getting two-thirds majority in the Senate.

Earlier, Asfandyar Wali met family members of late Alamzeb Khan and offered Fateha for his departed soul. (The News)

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=20484


...

I am shocked

I am shocked at the ANP government in the NWFP for agreeing with a banned TNSM party for the resolution of the conflict in the area. How can one negotiate with a banned entity? If the TNSM imposes its brand of Sharia, it would be terrible for secular parties of Pakistan since only fundamentalists would be elected from that area. And there would be no room for the women of the area. Rather than roping in the leaders of the TNSM, the government is talking to them. What guarantee is there that this wouldn't inspire religious zealots in the other areas of Pakistan? Parties like the ANP and the PPP shouldn't support such things. This would only give official cover to the banned parties to start the Talibanisation process with more fervour and enthusiasm. It is quite sad that the government has changed its stance. These laws would be another blow to the already fragile situation in Pakistan. Our economy is on the brink and the country is on the anvil of civil war. Appeasing terrorists who blow up schools and chop off people's heads is no way to solve our problems; the writ of the state should not be compromised. If the laws were brought into place, it would mean that there would be two kinds of laws in the country. If we concede this, we will go on conceding and there would be no hope for this nation and the country will disintegrate. The government keeps on rambling about democracy and how democratic Pakistan is. If that is truly the case, then why weren't these laws and this deal discussed in the provincial assembly? This should have been brought into the assembly and then discussed. I just hope that good sense prevails and the laws are not implemented. (Fawwad Shafi from Lahore, The Frontier Post)

...

Some relevant comments

Utmankhel1 said:

Whether the deal works or not is decided in GHQ not by Fazlullah.

From the look of it, this does not sound an agreement by any standards. It seems more like Sufi Mohammad is feeling guilty for his role in starting this bloody game and now since he is dying he wants to undo some of his dirty work.

So far as ANP is concerned, well they did not have any option left.

1) They sent army to curb militancy, Army did the opposite; out of the 2700 killed in Swat, 100 are militants while 2500 are civilians. There is no point continuing the military operation.

2) Taliban’s representatives like Imran and Qazi were shouting full throttle for dialogue, and the right-wing media was out fully supporting them, so ANP had to do that.

3) ANP is trying to strip Taliban of any legitimacy in their demands. Sharia was one, though everybody knows it is strategic depth and not shariat which is the motive.

AClarionCall said:

This agreement is only to buy time before Taliban terrorists re-group themselves. Imagaine an agreement on a blank piece of paper. What a Joke! Pakistan ka Khuda Hafi

Utmankhel1 said:

AClraionCall,


sal said:

You never negotiate from a weak position. This agreement is no different from the past agreements done in North Waziristan etc. This just gives the extremists time to re-group and advance.

Another thing to ponder, if we go around telling the world that we are secure and we can maintain and protect our nuclear assets, what kind of signal this surrender sends to the rest of the world. We just gave up our territory to a group of thugs. If we can’t even control these worthless Taliban germs, then how are we to protect our nuclear assets in case of an invasion from a foreign country. Why should anyone believe us that we are competent when we obviously are not.

What we need is a sustained effort of a media blitz against the extreme ideology promoted by these loonies, a re-education of the masses about basic concepts of jihad, tolerance, Adal -o- ehsan, etc. We need to teach our idiot brothers and sisters out there that no 70 virgins are waiting for them if they blow themselves up and kill even one innocent person. At the same time, instead of maligning out military and security agencies, we need to use them to infiltrate the mosques, and madrasahs that are operated by the militants and identify the leaders and the next in command and the next in command and the next in commend and finish them off. Instead of coming in to our towns with roaring tanks an blazing guns, we need to use reconnaissance, and sharp shooters to eliminate them one by one. All the same time educating and propagandizing the true intentions of the militants to the masses. Of course a little governance and job creation would also help the local people.

The reason why we remain silent when the extremist talk about our faith with their perverted interpretations si quite simple. It is unchallenged because somehow, deep down, we too believe that perhaps music is haram, that singing is haram, that maybe, women should stay home behind curtains. After all, we all have read or heard about those ahadith, haven’t we. It is the twisted interpretation of these ahadith that is the culprit. Unless we equip ourselves with the correct interpretation and the knowledge and at the same time, garner the courage in ourselves to reject a false and weak hadith that is polluting everything, we stand to loose our country to these anarchists.

AClarionCall said:

@Utmankhel1

Have you ever thought who is making Talibans stronger?
Have you ever thought who is supplying Talibans arms and logistics?
Have you ever thought who is giving Talibans financial support?
Have you ever thought who is providing Talibans moral support?
Have you ever thought who is behind Talibans?

Have you ever thought why our nation is fast becoming pr0-Taliban?
Ask yourself these questions first then you will realise why Talibans are so strong (and getting stronger) and have become such a headache for our society. W need more than a Panedol tablet to get rid of this headache. I bet this weak agrrement will be an another futile exercise to bring peace in entire NWFP and FATA.

Wrong policies of last 30 years have given immense boost to extremism throughout our country especailly NWFP region where so-called champions of Islam have used it for their own vested interests. Our nation as a whole has become hostage to misleading slogans of Islam where decency and tolerance have no place. Suicide murderes are praised and their inhuman acts are justified through absurd arguments using Hadess and Quran. There is a shower of sympathy in our society for people who are burning schools and blowing up mosques even fuenarls. If one does not follow a particular brand of Islam will be declared Kafir by another group. This is the pyche of our nation where people fear to oppose Taliban brand of Islam. Our limited knowledge of Islam is a big drawback for this nation. 90% people have read Quran but never understood it because they read it in Arabic not in Urdu. Unfortunately we are losing a whole generation of our youths in the name of extremism and the writing on the wall is very disturbing for the future of this nation.

May Allah bless Pakistan


Utmankhel1
said:

AClarion,

Sorry if i misunderstood you. I have been following Swat’s situation and ANP’s stance on that. I was critical of the first deal that ANP did with Fazlullah in April, because i knew the nature of those militants and my view point was that the deal provided them with legitimacy, which they did not deserve.

I am supporting ANP on this deal for few reasons.

1) ANP had no way out. Army was not willing to eliminate terrorists and were deliberately causing huge civilian casualties. So ANP was failed by army and with each passing day the sufferings of ordinary people were increasing due to that military operation. So ANP was left with only two options;either invite NATO or try something else. Sufi Mohammad is the something else.

2) Sufi Mohammad, so far as i read him, is fully on-board with ANP and is sincerely trying to solve the problem. By sitting opposite to Fazlullah he will definitely weaken his standing in eyes of people.

3) In case the deal fails, ANP will be at the previous position, so no loss.

4) These negotiations will shut the barking mouths of Qazi Imran Khan, who were bent upon misguiding people.


fanaticmulla
said:

Aclarioncall

totally agree with you ..yes i have seen people in media justify every inhuman act…Hamid Mir is one, Javed Ch is another idiot and there is a group n iSI and ex generals who support talibans..i am sure that sooner or later whole NWFP will be under control of Taliban with the help of some present and ex ISI Mullahs and some media guys who present suicide bombers as heros


Utmankhel1
said:

fanatic …….

I think it’s already under control of the militants. They can drag anyone out of his home and kill him.

The only thing we need is to aware people of this drama, although, most of them already know it. Anyways, the night is not gonna last for ever. This ISI/Army is doomed sooner or later.


Read more...

Friday, 20 February 2009

Implications of the Swat deal —Najmuddin A Shaikh



Implications of the Swat deal
—Najmuddin A Shaikh

It is a sad but almost foregone conclusion that this agreement will be no more effective than the ones concluded in the past, and that while there will be a welcome albeit temporary respite from the daily bloodletting in Swat, the strife will soon resume

Last week, I recommended that all power centres should adopt a clear direction and give a mandate to the foreign minister for his visit to the United States to review US policy towards Afghanistan. The general belief, which I shared, was that the army was evolving a new strategy in its war against the insurgents in Swat and that this would reverse the ongoing Talibanisation of the area.

What we have instead is an agreement crafted in Peshawar by the provincial government to enforce the ‘Nizam-e Adl’ in Swat.

This is an agreement with Mullah Sufi Muhammad. He may be the founder of the Tehreek-e Nifaz-e Shariat-e Muhammadi, and may have been a potent force in the 1990s. His spectacularly unsuccessful effort to assist the Taliban by taking 10,000 Swat youths to Afghanistan in 2001 and the decimation of this force, however, made him into a spent force. He courted arrest because he would otherwise have been lynched by the grieving parents whose children he led into Afghanistan.

It taxes credibility to suggest that this man will be perceived after his long years of incarceration and his isolation from the current insurgency — led by his estranged son-in-law Fazlullah — as being genuinely representative of the insurgents, or even of the people of Swat, who voted overwhelmingly for secular parties in the last election.

One cannot see Fazlullah — a.k.a. Maulana Radio — and his new patron (or partner) Baitullah Mehsud accepting Sufi Muhammad’s leadership even if the latter’s 300-vehicle convoy is welcomed in Mingora by crowds of war-weary Swatis. Fazlullah, and more importantly Mehsud, have a vision that goes well beyond the narrow confines of Malakand Division or even the tribal areas, and will not accept any restrictions on their ability to use Swati territory for operations elsewhere.

So why did the ANP leaders in Peshawar enter into this agreement?

That there was nostalgia for the swift justice that was available in the days of the Wali of Swat was clear, but it was also clear that the Swatis did not want extremism, and the induction of the Nizam-e Adl under the auspices of the likes of Fazlullah could mean nothing else. Sufi Muhammad has already declared that there is no place for elections in Islam and that he is opposed to democracy.

The ANP did this perhaps because it saw that the army and law enforcement agencies were not going to be able to quell the insurgency. The army would plead that no insurgency could be vanquished without the cooperation of the locals; yet the locals prepared to fight the insurgents felt that they could not get government support.

Local leaders, including ANP and PPP stalwarts, had developed the perception that for some reason or the other, elements of the insurgency were regarded as “untouchables”, protected by powerful patrons, while locals resisting the insurgents received short shrift from the authorities. They were perhaps hoping against hope that the agreement would buy them time to set things right elsewhere.

There is now a second argument that the purpose of the agreement was to drive a wedge between the Swat insurgency and the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan of Baitullah Mehsud. This is based on the pious but implausible belief that the TNSM wants nothing more than the imposition of Sharia in Swat while it is the TTP that has other ambitions.

Both arguments are fallacious. The time bought is time bought for the insurgents. Sufi Muhammad, as shown by his unsuccessful foray into Afghanistan, shares the TTP’s ambition to re-establish Taliban rule in Afghanistan. He may not, but Fazlullah certainly wants, like Mehsud, the rest of Pakistan Islamised.

Furthermore, Sufi Mohammad and Fazlullah do not control all elements involved in the insurgency. If rumours are to be believed, there have been insurgents from Uzbekistan and Punjab that have moved into Swat.

It is a sad but almost foregone conclusion that this agreement will be no more effective than the ones concluded in the past, and that while there will be a welcome albeit temporary respite from the daily bloodletting in Swat, the strife will soon resume with the government in an even worse position than it is now. In the meanwhile, analysts in Pakistan and abroad will be examining with foreboding the fallout elsewhere in Pakistan and the region.

So far the Americans have been cautious in commenting on the agreement, suggesting that this was Pakistan’s internal affair, that it fell within the ambit of Pakistan’s constitution and that they were expecting further information from Pakistan on its implementation. There is no doubt, however, that this has caused concern in the establishment and is not seen as boding well for the region.

The foreign minister’s visit to Washington may take some time to materialise but our chief of army staff will be leaving for the United States on his first official visit as Admiral Mike Mullen’s guest today. He will be the first authoritative interlocutor to whom the American establishment will put questions about the import of this agreement:

Why does it mean for Pakistan’s internal polity; for the situation in the tribal areas; for the policy of denying sanctuary to Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban in Pakistan; and for the efforts toe ensure that Afghanistan is not used by extremists to launch attacks on the West?

His answers hopefully will be along the following lines:

* The agreement is admittedly unique in so far as it seems to have different laws in different parts of the country. But this has a long history; it is not an act of desperation. It has been entered into in good faith and in the belief that Sufi Muhammad will carry weight with the insurgents. The army will, however, continue to maintain a heavy presence in Swat and the training of forces for counterinsurgency will continue in Swat itself. While the army will be in reactive rather than proactive mode, it will make its presence felt whenever necessary.

* One element of the agreement, once peace has been restored, will be that insurgents not from the area will be asked/forced to leave. There will be an expectation on the part of the administration that connections with such clearly anti-Pakistan elements as the TTP will be attenuated if not severed.

* The agreement will ensure that normal administration is restored even while the courts are made more sharia-compliant. Normal administration will mean that in all other respects, there will be no restrictions on citizens that do not apply in other parts of Pakistan. As normalcy returns, there will be growing demands from local business interests to adapt the application of sharia to the requirements of the tourist trade, a major source of employment in Swat.

* If the agreement does not yield these results, proactive military action will be resumed and from then on there will be no “untouchables”. All locals prepared to resist the insurgents will get protection and there will be no more incidents of paramilitary forces not receiving army assistance when they call for it. Specially trained police forces will be inducted and their concerns about the measure of institutional support will be fully addressed.

* The Pakistan Army realises that if the peace deal fails, the army, as much as the politicians, will be engaged in a battle for the survival of Pakistan and this will take priority over the protection of the eastern border. India will realise, or should be persuaded to realise, that Pakistan’s internal problem is part of the larger problem of the region and it is in India’s interest that Pakistan’s armed forces should have no distractions. With the government’s blessings, the size of the force deployed in Swat will be multiplied and will work closely with local politicians and administrators.

* The situation in the tribal areas and the other border areas will continue to see a combination of military, political and economic development measures. We need to highlight the economic development aspect by identifying and undertaking on a priority basis high impact projects that generate employment and provide alternatives for the youth of the area. (Daily Times)

The writer is a former foreign secretary


Read more...

'Pakistan had no choice but make a deal in Swat' - Rahimullah Yusufzai


Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi


February 19, 2009


"Zameeni haqeeat alag hain. Swat ke log to aman aane se bahut khush hai! (The ground realties are different. The people of Swat valley are very happy to have peace!)," Rahimullah Yusufzai, the distinguished Pakistani editor based in Peshawar, told rediff.com. He was referring to the Pakistan government's peace deals with hardliners that has created an international uproar.

Yusufzai is a long-time observer of the Taliban movement and a prolific commentator on the tumultuous events in the lawless tribal areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Resident editor of The News daily in Peshawar, he told rediff.com in a telephonic interview that the people of Swat are celebrating the peace deal because they will not be killed, attacked, uprooted or displaced in the ongoing confrontation with various shades of the Taliban and the government.

Yusufzai says the peace deal is primarily about the security of people living in the Swat valley.

Wednesday's brutal murder of Geo TV reporter Musa Khan has been extensively covered in the Indian media. rediff.com contributor and Geo TV newscaster Hamid Mir told a press conference in Swat on Thursday that the tragic killing is aimed at disturbing peace in the Swat valley.

According to Yuufzai, "In the last year, four journalists have been killed in Swat. Nine journalists have been killed in the tribal area. We are on the frontline. One journalist died this year in a suicide attack; one was killed in a crossfire. Things are difficult. We are in the wrong place at the wrong time!"

"If you don't want the Taliban," Yusufzai said, "then defeat it! But if you can't do that what is the government's option? This deal is a difficult deal. One cannot guarantee its success, but it is for peace in the region."

People living in the Swat valley want peace with or without Sharia laws.

The strict implementation of Sharia laws worries critics as does the possibility of the Taliban taking physical control of the region, which is located just 160 km from Islamabad

Yusufzai says the deal is not stopping children from going to school. "Why do critics get upset about Sharia laws? Islamic law has been always there in the North West Frontier Province. People have been following it since (then prime minister) Benazir Bhutto allowed it in 1994. It is not new or brought in with the peace deal. This area was unique and has been following its own unique ways."

India has repeatedly said that it does not distinguish between the good, bad and ugly Taliban.

But the ground reality is that the government of Pakistan has no choice but make the not-so-fine distinction to save its people getting killed as collateral damage when its army fights the Taliban.

The Obama administration in Washington, DC has decided to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Some critics have said it is possible that the peace deal with a milder faction of the Taliban suits the American plan in Afghanistan since the Pashtuns on the Pakistan side will remain pacified to some extent at least.

While the deal with the Taliban has dominated news coverage in India for the last three days, a commentator based in Islamabad told rediff.com that the Indian audience is receiving a mix of facts, lies and propaganda.

Actually, the peace deal is not with the Taliban, it is with a defunct and banned outfit older than the Taliban. The Pakistan government's peace agreement is with Maulana Sufi Mohammad, the amir of the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi. Sufi's outfit was defunct, but he has revived it with this peace deal and made it legitimate. The TNSM is older than the Taliban and came into existence in 1992.

Sufi has been an anti-government agitator for many years.

Yusufzai does not deny the inherent dangers of the peace deal with the Taliban because Sufi's son-in-law Maulana Fazlullah, who heads the Pakistan faction of the Taliban, is fighting a war against the Pakistan army and its paramilitary forces.

The controversial deal is now on a weak wicket because it is believed that Sufi does not have much influence over his son-in-law. What Sufi can bring to the table will depend on Fazlullah's readiness to "surrender."

"The success of the peace deal depends on many factors," says Yusufzai. "How do you reconcile with the Fazlullah-kind of leaders? But I still have a little bit of hope for the success of the peace deal."

http://in.rediff.com/news/2009/feb/19pakistan-had-no-choice-but-make-a-deal-in-swat.htm

....

Peace deals, Mumbai moves and politics
Reality check

Friday, February 20, 2009
by Shafqat Mahmood

There was no great enthusiasm within the PPP for enforcement of Sharia in Swat. But, it was felt that if this was all it took to bring about peace there, then it should be done. The ANP government in the Frontier was already under extreme pressure of the militants with some of its leaders killed and others hiding in safe places. It too needed some relief. Thus, the decision to go ahead and cut a deal with Sufi Mohammad.

This may have bought some breathing space for the federal and provincial governments, but the problem is that such deals in the past have only strengthened the militants. The people of Swat are fed up with bloodshed and the disruption of their normal life. It is natural for them to welcome anything that could lead to peace but there hopes may be misplaced. Just a day after the ceasefire a correspondent for Geo TV and The News, Musa Khankhel, was killed in cold blood. By the time this goes into print other violations may also have occurred. With such early signs, it is difficult to be optimistic.

The reason for this is simple. The militants in Swat may claim to be fighting for the enforcement of Sharia – and a small minority may be motivated by this – but not all. The likes of Fazlullah are fighting to claim territory and create a state within a state. In this, they are backed by a fair number of foreign militants who have penetrated into Swat. A peace deal for them only means no military interdiction and greater freedom of action.

A day after the accord, TV channels were reporting that check posts on approaches to Swat were being manned by the militants. Does the deal then only mean an abdication of responsibility by the state and a virtual takeover by the Taliban? It may have given some political relief to the PPP and the ANP but this clearly is not peace. It is surrender. Real change would be if the militants melted away and the state was able to establish control. Is that likely to happen?

I am not even going into the codification issues of Sharia acceptable to all but there are other issues not strictly judicial. Where do men's beards, girls' schools, women's right to work, choice of curriculums and other such things fall? Will these too be determined by the militants? There is a bizarre story doing the rounds that Sufi Mohammad ordered driving on the right side of the road during an earlier episode of Sharia enforcement. It resulted in many accidents but his self-righteous zeal was not deterred. Will such things too be part of the deal?

It is going to be rough going. The external situation may also be not conducive. The NATO allies in Afghanistan are already expressing scepticism and this is likely to grow, although there are some reports that the US is okay with it. The government, though, may have won some international credit by conducting a thorough inquiry into the Mumbai tragedy. It was also courageous to accept publicly that some local elements might be involved in it. This has established Pakistan's sincerity and the credibility of its investigative process.


http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=163596

.....

Scarred in Swat
The Pakistan report card

Friday, February 20, 2009
by Fasi Zaka

A week ago I went to Peshawar to deliver a seminar at a business school. By the parking lot I had an undergraduate student waiting for me. He stopped me and said, "I read your columns, and I am disappointed. You don't write about the slaughter in Swat." We agreed to meet in an hour's time so I could hear him out.

He arrived on time, and his mood was subdued. A tall and handsome young man, his face was blemished near the edge of his lips and eyes. I thought they were birthmarks of some kind; he told me it was from a bomb by the Taliban in his city. Shrapnel was lodged in his chest near his heart, and in his legs. His calm demeanor wouldn't lead one to believe he was a survivor of something so tragic and violent.

Like some of the Swatis I had spoken to, he was desolate. He felt abandoned, and the most apt way to describe him would be to say he and his people were trapped in a crossfire between the Taliban and the army, both of whom they distrusted. Once a proud Pakistani, now the title felt like an identity badge, a titular title, no pomp, no authority, no recourse or empowerment.

This particular boy had an uncle who was killed. He could not go back to Swat because the Taliban had set up check points with long lists of names of people they would abduct, or do worse. He had been marked for death. Whenever he could, he would visit Swat to avoid the roads where the Taliban roamed. He said even in the idyll of the evenings the air was filled with terror.

Young children not old enough to be at a funeral had seen dead bodies in the streets. The slightest offenses mandated death. His gripe was the same refrain, he had never seen dead militants, every action whether by the Army or the Taliban seemed to result in the loss of life for civilians. The colour green had bled to red, the green chowk now known as the Khooni Chowk. His old school was gone, the entire middle class with enough money to do so had taken their daughters out of the city. Schools were either occupied by the Taliban or the forces, and those that weren't had been destroyed. Those that remain face an uncertain future. He didn't believe the government was serious at all in doing anything for them.

For him, and several others I had spoken to, it seemed like they were watching their memories being washed away in front of their eyes, the warmth of the place they called home now unrecognizable.

He asked me to put his name in my article; it was the only way to show his defiance. I told him I wouldn't; he was too young to attract any more attention. But, at the time I was confident that things would change.

Rehman Malik, Asif Ali Zardari and Yousaf Raza Gilani had begun to give unequivocal statements to the country at large that they would no longer stand by the abandonment of Swat and the extinction of government writ in the area. They were going to conduct an operation that would end the mayhem once and for all.

And now we know. Their "swift and decisive" victory was a compromise of capitulating to the demands of the Taliban to enforce Sharia. By giving in, they have legitimized the Taliban.

I read Ansar Abassi and Rahimullah Yousafzai's pieces on the development, citing it as favourable. I have a great deal of respect for both, especially in Ansar's case, because their reporting is literally singlehandedly helping drive the national agenda in terms of highlighting the failures of the government. But I disagree.

Yes, the nuances they highlight are true. Swat always had a judicial system similar to the one proposed, yes Maulana Fazlullah and Sufi Mohammed are different in their approach, yes some of the people want a new judicial system that is more effective in solving their issues.

But, are the problems of the people of Swat with the judicial system truly different from that of the rest of the country? Everyone in Pakistan wants speedy justice. No one wants to wait ten years for a decision. So doesn't that mean we should apply the solution to Swat's problems to the rest of the country? If not, why not?

The government's solution is insincere. If anything we need to make the whole country uniform in the writ of the law, and that includes the tribal areas. This "settlement" is basically a stop gap solution to ensure that the government has some breathing space rather than do what is truly necessary, bring to retributive justice those who indulged in the killing spree in Swat and restore order.

Yes, people point out that there have been peaceful marches for the new "judicial system", but if a man like Sufi Mohammed can send thousands of people to fight in Afghanistan, surely he can manage a few rallies in his neighborhood? What of the other Swat, the people still afraid to come out of their homes, and those who have left their homes, is this what they want? This concern for the judicial system in Swat should also extend to the deposed Chief Justice, to the Farah Dogars of this world as well. The insincerity and incompetence with which this issue is now being resolved will not solve anything in the long run. Will Maulana Fazlullah now redeem all his arms and ammunition to the government? Will a Sharia that is of Malauna Fazlullah's liking allow girls to go to school beyond the arbitrary cap of the fourth grade?

It's best summarized by what one reader wrote to me. He said, "Please we cannot take this anymore, from the savagery of the Taliban to the indifference of the government. Please use atom bombs on us, it will end our misery." (The News)



The writer is a Rhodes scholar and former academic. Email: fasizaka@ yahoo.com


....


Swat peace deal: Another retreat? Article on BBC Urdu dot com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2009/02/090218_swat_nizam_analysis_rh.shtml


The second innings of Sufi Muhammad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2009/02/090219_sufi_profile_rh.shtml

Read more...