Accord in the Parliament

The joint session of the two Houses adopted a ‘fit for all’ resolution which somewhat encompass the government’s present strategy of continuing with the military operations as well as the opposition’s stand, led by PML(N), which calls for seizure of operations and negotiations leading to a peace settlement. It needed no Pirzada or constitutional expert to figure out a way to break the deadlock between opposing views on the policy on tribal areas and militants. Both the government’s view and the opposition’s were included in the final draft by a Committee which was formed specifically for this issue. Whether it can be called a consensus or a document full of contradictions would be determined through the political bickering which would follow soon afterwards, the focal point of which would be as to the ‘real intent’ of the vague and broad resolution.

It was surprising to note that the House fell in line and voted unanimously in favour of a resolution when all signs of discord over policy issue were visible between the PPP plus its coalition partners on one hand and the PML(N) headed block, which had threatened to move its own resolution just a few days ago on the other. An editorial had captioned the session: ‘A dangerous lack of consensus’, just a day earlier.

Media pundits and experts had predicted a deadlock over the issue since the session was being criticized for being more of a military debriefing affair rather than outlining the policy of the present government in detail on how it sought to put up its case of ‘ownership of the war’ by Pakistan as well as detailed progressive approaches it had planned to achieve the desired objectives, which were also to be defined by the government itself. Sherry Rehman, Information Minister had to participate in the session, having been chosen by the government for the purpose, to dispel this impression and clarify the position of the government over the matter. She reiterated that the government was following a three pronged strategy, namely political dialogue, socio-economic uplift and the use of military force.

However this missed the important points requiring the scrutiny of key questions by an elected body for the first time since our alliance with the U.S. in the so-called ‘war on terror’; some of which being: Who in fact are the Taliban and like-minded militant organizations some of whom are not so well-organized? Why were they ‘Pakistan’s enemies’? Whether we were fighting them at our own behest or at someone’s instance? This latter question requires an in-depth analysis of the Taliban movement as well as the role of the government in promoting the cause it stood for during the 1980s as well as throughout 1990s. Crucially, the role of these elements leading up to 9/11 and the early period beyond it when Afghanistan was invaded needed detailed presentation. The period which was most important namely when a decision was made to break links with the Afghani Taliban required a studious debriefing and analysis including its repercussions to date.

Since the government now has access to classified documents and meeting minutes which reveal the extent and nature of the American interaction with the Musharraf regime and the concessions and approvals it bestowed upon it including extradition of its nationals to Guantanamo, the time was more appropriate than ever to reveal the agreements and concessions, including the alleged tacit approvals in favour of NATO and American drone attacks across the Durand Line. It should have been clarified which of the agreements are still in place or were renewed since the PPP-led government took power. Rather than condemning territorial violations, the resolution calls upon the government to ‘deal with it effectively’.

At a time when the world has since long looked down at the offensive and degrading treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and revelations of inhuman interrogative methods used upon them like water boarding surfacing, the time was apt for a call for a return of Pakistani citizens who await justice in this ‘prison’. The deeply flawed system has been criticized by even former prosecutors who accept that the much evidence which has substantial bearing upon the defence of the detainees is suppressed during trials and subsequent reviews which makes a conviction or upholding of a conviction upon review highly likely. Yet the Pakistani parliament had no mention of it in the resolution and the Government Minister had overlooked this important point. It would be too optimistic to suggest that the Pakistani detainees may have returned as a result of such a resolution passed by our Parliament but the families of the missing people would have been relieved somewhat upon hearing that the representative body had started owning the prisoners who were sold for a few million dollars and for a change those at the helm of affairs were not turning their backs on them as if they are a ghost from the past, never to be heard from.

The contents of the resolution passed is more like a promising opinion of the Parliament that in the future, politicians from opposing factions would dilate upon a phase oriented policy. One hopes that the formation of the Special Committee for follow up could lead to such a move in the future. A study should also be commissioned which focuses on the geo-strategic conditions leading up to the participation of Pakistan in events which eventually led to the inflammation to the militant organizations who easily identified any abettor to American designs in the region as their enemy much like the Taliban who ruled Kabul declared us when we allowed our intelligence services and airbases to be used for the successful overthrow of the Taliban regime from Afghanistan. It is imperative that the longer term implications of our continued participation be gauged and monitored with recourse to outcomes. It would not be a bad start to define our objectives emphasizing our interest in the conflict of ideologies and exploring the prospects for reconciling those who feel disillusioned or forced to join extremism and use of violence substantially aided by the pro-Israel and imperialist policies of the U.S. which seem inequitable to many Muslims.

There is a need to improve upon the dangerous law and order situation which makes the common man insecure, further imperils our already weak economy and shatters the confidence of investors. The level and expertise of security and intelligence services should be markedly enhanced and brought at a level to cope up with the increase of suicide and bomb attacks in the major cities of late.

Merely providing Chinese AK-47s to the rifle-bearing tribesmen or ‘lashkars’ as they are more fondly called will not do to the trick since the tribesmen have limited influence and following in their sphere and are in a weak position against the well organized and well supplied Taliban who brandish latest weapons systems. The hesitance of the U.S. to provide the logistical and military support in the way that it used to do in the past is a severe handicap (and quite recently as happened in Iraq) is a stark reminder of the issue-based ‘friendship’ of the U.S. with Pakistan which has more often been self serving for the U.S. and corrupt leaders of the past. An independent foreign policy, as urged in the resolution must be pursued and relations must be expanded with other countries to counter the increasing influence that the U.S. asserts over us due to our over-dependence on it for aid and military supplies.