Ah, but in Pakistan, the rulers always pretend that it is business as usual, even if the heavens fall. It is accepted wisdom that in a time of crisis, you do not conduct your business as usual and attend urgently to the resolution of the crisis. We are surrounded by crises, generating a tidal wave of insecurity and fear at the popular level. Yet the high functionaries of the government seem unaffected by a situation that is deemed catastrophic by most observers.
On the face of it, they are content with the trappings of power and are generally having a nice time. A lot of attention is devoted to expedient political manoeuvres. The prime minister, for example, presents a good example of how comfortable a politician could be in his position of authority, with all his sartorial elegance. His conduct would never betray a person who is in a frightful hurry to sort things out.
Even when some initiative is taken to control the damage in a crisis situation, it is almost always a delayed reaction. Examples abound. Karachi this week has again been afflicted with violent disorder. But just look at how long it has taken for the authorities to try to resolve the dispute between the KESC management and its protesting employees’ union. For about three months, this confrontation has been playing havoc with the daily lives of the citizens.
But when an issue festers for a long time, it becomes so much more difficult to resolve. This is what is happening with the ‘power’ situation in Karachi. After the intervention of the refurbished governor, a meeting between the KESC management and the government officials was expected on Friday. It could not take place and the KESC alleged that the protesting workers were not allowing the opening of the offices and were obstructing field operations.
Meanwhile, killings in Karachi have continued – another manifestation of a business as usual syndrome. Every time there is a new spell of disturbances, Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik makes his appearance to offer his sound bites. A new front was opened in the city on Friday and 15 persons were killed in gun battles fought in Malir and Landhi areas. A striking feature of this round of political violence was that the activists of the MQM had clashed with the supporters of its breakaway Haqiqi faction.
Alongside this story, there was this headline in this newspaper on Saturday: “Karachi violence won’t be tolerated: PM”. What would the prime minister do when he refuses to tolerate something? We are also told that “Zardari takes serious notice”. A high official taking “notice” of something can be breaking news on our news channels. And there is always some distance between taking notice and taking action.
It is this delay in taking action, with an ingrained disposition to conduct business as usual, that has pushed the country in desperate straits. We love to play the waiting game. Instead of pre-empting problems and taking preventive measures, we allow the wounds to bleed for some time before ‘rushing’ to the scene – as the police are proverbially reported to be doing.
Now, the army operation in Swat to defeat the Taliban militants is recognised as a success story. I was in Mingora early this month to attend some sessions of the ‘National Seminar on De-radicalisation’, sponsored by Pakistan Army. It is really encouraging to see that the military authorities are now anxious to reflect on these matters and willing to interact with social scientists and political analysts. Considering the state of our society, the task of de-radicalising Pakistan is not an easy one. But why was Pakistan allowed to be radicalised to this extent in the first place?
For instance, bombing girls’ schools was a priority of the militants. Later, they were out to destroy all schools. The media was left to count the numbers. So, was there a limit set by the decision makers before they would intervene? Were they waiting for the score of 200 or 250 or 300 destroyed schools to launch their attack?
If you know the story of Swat, you would have some very disturbing questions to ask. I had an occasion to meet some prominent citizens and officials of the area and the stories they narrated were truly horrifying. Many of these stories, depicting the barbarism of the Taliban, are widely known. What is not easily explainable is that it took a long time before the local population was rescued from the heartless militants. Of course, some accounts of what had happened left me confused about the strategies and intentions of the main players. It is the same in Karachi.
If there is a game plan to ‘de-radicalise’ Karachi, why has it not been put into action? After all, Karachi can hold the entire country to ransom. It is sometimes argued that expedient compromises – and political surrenders – are necessary for maintaining peace and order in Karachi. Or is there, at last, a new line of attack that has yielded some very confused and curious confrontations and collusions in the battlefields of Karachi? As always, you get your dose of conspiracy theories in off-the-record conversations.
On Thursday, Rehman Malik made some cryptic observations in the Senate, while winding up a debate on the law and order situation in Karachi. He said that as many as 297 people were killed in recent incidents of violence in Karachi. Yes, the toll mounted on Friday. He also said that 154 target killers were arrested. “Each of the target killers has admitted to killing at least 10 people”, he added. Take this as the evidence that targeted killings are business as usual in Karachi – and the narrative of violent disorder in the city is spread across more than three decades.
Still, the question is: where have these killers come from and to which parties or groups or gangs do they belong? In the Senate, Rehman Malik was reluctant to name any party or group. However, he called for the formation of a fact-finding mission – as if all our intelligence and law enforcement agencies are ignorant about the factual position on ground. Incidentally, he was willing to present some target killers before a committee in, yes, “an in-camera sitting”.
Does this not mean that the truth about what is happening to us is too dangerous to be told in public? Conversely, what is the real worth of this avalanche of frenzied utterances in the supposedly free and powerful media?
0 comments:
Post a Comment