Us, them and terror

The Quetta attack was followed by a series of meetings and it was conceded by the government that more progress needs to be made in fighting the militant threat and implementing the National Action Plan. The government had also done its job of responding publicly to the objections raised due to the impression of intelligence failure. The high-level meetings that followed the Quetta carnage also included top military leaders and, we have to assume, they gave their input on what needs to be done. If that is so then the wisdom of following up with an army meeting where the army chief, for the most part, said the same thing needs to be questioned. The COAS’s statement on Friday appears to embarrass Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan who had asserted the same day that he would be the one to respond to criticism of security forces in parliament, and it cannot be denied that he had taken up the cudgel a bit too fervently. When such statements and press releases are critical of one side and are seen to be shifting the entire blame or responsibility to it, then an unfortunate atmosphere is created where the government may be on the defensive and may feel the need to respond. Such a development also leads to speculations and analysis in the media and in the political field about the possible motives behind the words and actions of individuals and institutions — be they military or civilian. This is one inescapable consequence of such public statements that the organs of the state have to take into account before they take any such step. The Quetta killings are a tragedy on a huge scale and have drawn national and international reaction. This was, as has been termed by many, the decimation of almost an entire community. Some comments by certain politicians, which could be put somewhat less severely, led to over-the-top accusations of treason from others. To then have the army jump into the fray too will be doubly unhelpful. There has perhaps been overreaction on all sides and understandably, the army, like everyone else in the country has been badly shaken by the attacks. It, like the rest of the world, will react with anger and sorrow. But the importance and significance of how that anger is articulated cannot be stressed enough.

While responding to the Quetta attacks, almost everyone has praised Operation Zarb-e-Azb and the army’s role in tackling the militant threat. But when an attack of this nature takes place, it is only natural to question how effective the counter-terror effort has been. That should not be seen an attack on an institution and should not lead to an us-versus-them debate. The civilian setup and the army should be on the same page because Zarb-e-Azb is an operation in which the civilian setup should be as invested as the military. Any questions about its efficacy are not meant to undermine any of its components but to constructively offer ways to ensure it is as effective as possible. These suggestions should be taken as constructively as they are made sincerely. Criticism in this case is not the product of a conspiracy. Debating the progress of military operations is needed to ensure their success. To point out that the operations have not been wholly successful is no different to criticising the government approach to counterterrorism.

Even while the government calls for implementing the National Action Plan and ensuring better intelligence-sharing, we find out that the National Counter Terrorism Authority has not held a meeting since its inception and the provinces have contributed little other than collecting statistics about how many they have supposedly killed and captured. As COAS Raheel Sharif pointed out, we have made a lot of progress in eliminating the militant scourge and the entire nation has been onboard with the army as it tries to do. But, unfortunately in the wake of the Quetta attacks, the overall impression we have been given is of a state that is at sea when it comes to destroying the militant threat. We cannot be told that we are winning the war against terrorism over and over again by both the military and the civilian government when that one terrorist incident makes it look like the state has no coherent strategy to deal with terrorism. One prerequisite for a way forward is for every organ of the state to be transparent and willing to listen to constructive criticism so it can deal with militancy in a more effective manner.