The Quetta report

The one-man Supreme Court inquiry into the August twin attacks on a lawyer and hospital in Quetta provides a vital glimpse into the cycle of stasis and incompetence that thwarts all investigations into militant attacks, and indeed the war on militancy as a whole. The report goes into great detail about the specifics of the Quetta attacks and all the clues that were missed by the government but its most important work may be in showing the flaws undermining the larger war. We always suspected that the implementation of the National Action Plan was lacking and now this report provides confirmation. In particular, our alphabet soup of security agencies and ministries are unable to coordinate and are unclear about their roles. Nacta rarely meets and action is seldom taken against banned organisations, which just re-emerge under a different name. All this criticism had been made before but will now be given greater legitimacy. The hope now is that the government will act on the recommendations of the report. The tendency to lash out at critics should be avoided. Immediately after the Quetta attacks, when some tried to question state policy rather than buy into the state narratives on the attacks had been orchestrated by outside forces, they were quickly shouted down. The report itself says that the government (we add ‘the state’) was hurt when definite statements were made about who was behind the attacks, without an investigation having proceeded.

What we need now is introspection – not a repeat of the usual point-scoring. The report raises specific questions about the performance of ministries and intelligence agencies for not banning known militant outfits and not regulating madressahs. All government departments are faulted for not giving enough information to the public and, when morsels are handed out, they are only in English. Intelligence agencies are blamed for not being publicly reachable, unlike their counterparts around the world, leaving the public with no place to direct information and inquiries.     Militant organisations are outlawed but no reason is given for their banning. And there is rarely any follow through on the bans as militant organisations just re-emerge under new names. The problem, ultimately, is one of institutional imbalance. Various civilian and military authorities fight for turf with the consequence that no one is sure what authority belongs to them. This stifles our intelligence and investigative efforts, with little information being shared. And once an attack has taken place it allows the agencies and departments to pass the buck since there is no delineation of authority. If we are to be successful in the war against militancy this will have to end and any institutional encroachment rebuffed so that everyone knows who is in charge and who is to be held responsible.         Political parties, too, have the responsibility to not treat the report as a political rallying cry against their opponents. They should instead soberly digest its contents and play a more constructive role in this fight against militancy.