***Interesting Article :ik:
Dr Sabreena Razaq Hussain***
**‘There appears to be a popular notion that to endeavour to understand or to explain terrorism is to sympathise with it. I reject this completely.’ – Louise Richardson PhD and Assistant Professor International Relations and Terrorism Studies Harvard University.**I accept that in a country where many are uneducated it may be unbecoming of a sensible person to have expectations encompassing broad mindedness and objectivity from the majority, but of those who are literate and well versed it should not be a big ask. Particularly if by default, you are the opinion makers of a country that has been touch and go for longer than we choose to remember.
PTI’s stance on ‘talks’ with TTP preceding any further action is not hot off the press, in fact it’s pretty much yesterday’s news. They took a bashing for it from some critics, and surely we all have a right to an opinion, a short while before the general elections. If they were voted into KPK or received the second highest number of votes across Pakistan however, it was well with the awareness and support of this stance which was no secret.
Ever since this stance has been recognised and endorsed by other parties at the APC, a decision which as far as we know will be honoured by the Federal Government, PTI and Imran Khan in particular have earned a rocky transition into round two of the boxing ring with various media and analysts. This has been clearly exacerbated by Khan’s recent suggestion of inviting the TTP to open an office in Pakistan to aid talks, provoking some shocking personal responses from certain media personnel.
What is quite hard to understand is why talks are such an alien concept to many in the media, and also why a few give off the impression that they are among the only Pakistanis who’s blood boils when we witness horrific loss of life at the hands of these terrorists? For committed party workers to be called apologists or even ‘twins’ of terrorist organisations by people in positions of social responsibility is surely an extreme form of behaviour in itself, is it not? Those that believe PTI invented the idea of negotiating with terrorists or that Pakistan is the first country that is having to deal with terrorism, are firmly mistaken.
The first sentence of this piece pretty much sums up it up. ’There appears to be a popular notion that to endeavour to understand or to explain terrorism is to sympathise with it. I reject this completely.’ These are the words of Terrorism Studies expert and Assistant Professor at Harvard University Louise Richardson who firmly believes after thirty five years of experience, comprehensive study and research into terrorism that talks and negotiations are the key to resolving terrorist conflict. She describes ‘the most efficacious way of containing terrorism is to understand it’s appeal to those who practice it and to use this understanding to form effective counter terrorism studies.’ This is a huge point that many in the media are missing or again choosing to ignore.
The plan is not for the government/army to have a chat with the TTP and then retire to their beds after realising they are not open to talks or that their demands are unacceptable (which they almost certainly will be). Any talks may help establish an appropriate military action and also educate our government and army about motives and issues to assist them in anti-terror policy in both the present and future. Already, well informed anchors admit they have less than satisfactory information about the numbers of groups and what each wants. It’s better than throwing on a blindfold, popping in the ear plugs and pulling the trigger, surely? Also, one of the two factors that Richardson presents as necessary in tackling terrorists is isolating them from their communities. Again, engaging tribal leaders caught in between this mess through talks will allow for better engagement including evacuation if necessary if and when things escalate to full blown military action.
Many across the world have used talks in attempting to deal with terrorism, and we can safely say they are not terrorist sympathisers. Negotiations are always done under such circumstances, the situation is never pleasant and nor do governments consider terrorists the kind of people they would call around for afternoon tea but a responsibility is a responsibility. Doctors have to examine people who have raped children and police to those who have murdered. Were the Sri Lanka government terrorist sympathisers when they talked with the Tamil Tigers? Were the British government terrorist sympathisers when they spoke with IRA? Did they legitimise terrorists by speaking with them or were they unable to speak with them if they refused to recognise their constitution? Of course they may not recognise it, isn’t that often where the problem lies? Whether a country is occupying the terrorists’ native land is not entirely relevant, terror is terror and murder is loss of life whether done in attack or defense there is always a motivation and talks are a globally recognised and valued step of initiation/continuation of dealing with terrorism, albeit challenging and sometimes unsuccessful.
Some have said that if PTI or others experienced their loved ones’ loss of life in these blasts they would know how it felt and then couldn’t possibly think of speaking with terrorists. I would ask that if someone’s loved one was hijacked/kidnapped for a ransom, wouldn’t they want to talk then? TTP are holding our whole country at ransom, they have hijacked our sense of security and it would be ignorant to go into the situation without at least offering talks – not to surrender but to equip ourselves as best as possible before we declare a full blown showdown. Because there will be more blasts inevitably and God forbid perhaps more than we can imagine. They could strike anywhere, and they will. If we can save some lives from these talks then isn’t it worth it? It’s about being in a potentially stronger position, not a weaker one. It is imperative we handle this situation with precision and practicality as per the thoughts of the experts in this field, not the armchair analysts we find in every drawing room of Pakistan nowadays, not to mention twitter.
It is every person’s right to agree or disagree on a particular stance, but it’s a humble request to all including a few media persons to do so with some grace. Please think twice before calling party members or a leader a TTP apologist – nobody should make such morbid accusations on the basis of their disagreement on initiating/continuing a process with proposed talks – something endorsed by various experts in the field and now all the major parties in the country. If you disagree to such an extent then perhaps you should channel your frustrations more productively (instead of twitter) towards PM or other parties that have agreed to this stance including the left wingers. Or better still, pressurise the Federal Government (who appear to be stone cold at the moment) to establish what the next steps of this harrowing process will be especially now that Nawaz Sharif has declared to the the UN that talks with the Taliban should proceed albeit with reports on the same day that the TTP are not willing to engage.
On a parting note, I often think of activities of the MQM and how journalists (who their leader referred to as dogs) can’t be seen for dust when it comes to holding them to account. Forget an office like Imran Khan suggested, these guys are in parliament and you invite them to your studios and interview them over cups of tea. I also think about the four sisters who jumped into a river because of the burden they felt they were to their poor family who were struggling to marry them off. Or the poor girls that are being raped and murdered every day. Or the old man who chooses between new clothes for his children or actually being able to afford to travel home for Eid after a year. How often do the media leave their air conditioned studios and sit with them and inquire about their misery, instead of regurgitating the dictionaries they have swallowed? If the media doesn’t hold those responsible to account for the sorry state of the country then who will? It was just today that a well known and much respected journalist coincidentally responded to some my silent thoughts through a tweet – ‘media criticise PTI more because media proved PPP and PML-N are corrupt and PTI is better choice. The day IK starts acting like NS-AZ media won’t hit him.’
I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry.
My Name is Khan and I’m not a Terrorist – the Sequel. | Saach.TV