The NAP rift

The gulf between the army and the government on the implementation of NAP seems to have widened, provoking the ISPR to issue a strong and strident statement in public criticising the government’s role in countering terrorism. At the corps commanders’ meeting a day after the third high-level review of NAP, Army Chief General Raheel Sharif was reported to have outlined the need for complementary initiatives on the part of the government to secure long-term gains against terrorists and securing peace in the country. The statement raised the question of what action the army wants the government to support it with. The focus seems to be on implementing key NAP provisions, speeding up the investigation of terrorism cases and reforms in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata). Key areas of action include stopping terrorism financing, taking action against banned organisations and madressah reform. The rise of hate speech and sectarianism across the country were also flagged as key areas of concern.
But why was there a need for the ISPR to issue a public criticism of the government after similar concerns were reportedly raised recently in the meeting at the PM House? Coming a week before the army chief’s five-day visit to the United States to discuss the regional situation, the criticism could be seen as a primer for what is to be discussed with US authorities. Many will be left wondering if there is a political element behind the tirade. Mechanisms already exist for the civilian leadership and the army to discuss matters within closed rooms. Why then should the doors be opened? Doing so does not go in the army’s favour, even if this was the intention behind the statement. The army has made sacrifices in the war against terrorists – and that we cannot and will not forget. But when an atmosphere of open and public hostility or conflict is created, then questions of who has done what in the past also arise when the point in fact is

to move forward and begin anew our resolve to take on militancy. Already, a heated public discussion has begun on what was said and we know that nobody’s hands here are entirely clean. In the consequent squabbles ghosts from the not-so-distant past are certain to emerge, with our history of liaisons with specific militant groups. This can only blur our vision and resolve to fight terror. It would have been wiser to maintain a more dignified silence and discuss matters within the mechanism set for working out differences and problems. Any such rifts, accusations and counter-accusations lead to problems that are interpreted as a danger to the system, with the civilians always seen as risking the wrath of the military if they voice their opinions and differences in public.
We do need more effort to tackle the issue of funding for terrorist organisations and madressahs as well as a sterner crackdown on proscribed organisations of every kind. But from the point of view of any government, it is also true that these are not simple measures. There are many complexities involved, including the question of where the funds are coming in from. We were unable to prevent our Arab friends from shooting down Houbara bustards. Is it then likely that we will be able to stop them from funding madressahs in the country? General Raheel Sharif had brought up this matter with King Salman bin Abdul Aziz during his visit to Saudi Arabia, but the outcome of this discussion is far from certain. We do not know if the military had any more success than the politicians. With the civil-military balance in the country once again coming into question, the proposal to report progress on NAP implementation to the National Assembly and bring the legislature into confidence is one that the government must take seriously. Rooting out all the causes of terrorism from our soil was always going to be a much more difficult job than waging a war on terrorists. The government and the army need to be on one page for us to win it.