Despite the announcement of a 20 day-ceasefire on Friday by one of the terrorist groups in North Waziristan, Pakistan Army personnel continue to be under attack in the district. As if cocking a snook at the announcement, five security personnel were martyred soon after the proclamation when their vehicle was attacked in North Waziristan. On Wednesday another soldier lost his life when terrorists attacked a checkpost manned by security forces in another part of the tribal district. This raises questions about the soundness of the decision to give an amnesty. The Prime Minister has heartlessly referred to recent killings as “just a spate of attacks”. Interestingly, Interior Minister Sh Rashid, who is supposed to play a key role in talks of the sort, has expressed ignorance of any dialogue with the TTP. According to him decisions on such matters were being taken “at the highest level” by the prime minister.
Since its appearance in 2007, the TTP has on its hands the blood of thousands of innocent Pakistanis. It has attacked mosques, mausoleums, imambargahs, courts, schools and bazars. It has killed children, old men and women. It has shot lawyers, politicians, soldiers and high ranking military officers. It would be an injustice to the martyrs if a handful of people were to decide on their own to offer amnesty to a gang of killers. It is ironical to do this in the presence of the National Action Plan, the National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA), anti-terrorism laws and anti-terrorist courts. What is more, it will send a message to violent groups with sectarian, linguistic or ethnic agendas that they too can get amnesty by holding the state hostage. The offer of amnesty is an admission that the militants are now in a position of strength, forcing the state to enter into talks with them. This will also encourage extremist networks that want to impose their narrow and arbitrary interpretation of religion on the majority of Pakistanis who follow a moderate interpretation of Islam.
The least one expects from the government is to take the issue for debate in Parliament instead of formulating a policy on a highly sensitive issue rife with serious implications behind closed doors.
