Daily Times

In the last week or so, in both print and electronic media, many of those who have unfortunately become opinion makers in corporate media have been harping on about statistics to prove how terrorism has gotten worse after the ouster of General Musharraf from power. This strengthens my belief that mathematics and statistics should be compulsory for any white-collar professional or else they will wreak havoc on others; unfortunately, mathematics has been the weakest link in the education of most of our media persons. That is not all. When one looks at their line of reasoning one realises they lack the basics of even politics, sociology or rational thinking.

So, what is the argument? It goes something like this. According to them, statistics show that terrorism has gotten worse since 2008 (the year when democracy was restored in the country). From 2003 to 2007, on average, 870 people were killed in terrorist activities, both civilians and military men (stpa.org statistics), compared to an average of around 3,000 during 2008-2015. Democracy actually gave us terrorism is the argument and an argument that is devoid of any understanding of where the numbers came from. One wonders whether democracy is the only thing that made the difference. Was the General the bulwark against terrorism and the moment he fell, was all havoc? Well, no!

What changed in 2008 was not democracy or the ouster of the General. It was Lal Masjid. Terrorism in Pakistan can best be understood in terms of pre- and post-Lal Masjid. Lal Masjid’s was an operation that made Pakistan’s security apparatus openly engage with many factions of the Taliban that it was tolerant of before. Since 9/11, Musharraf had opted to cooperate with the US and allies in the war on terror but, in this dual faced policy, the action was mostly directed towards al Qaeda. He struck deals with various factions of the Taliban, allowing them sanctuaries in the tribal areas and even settled areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, like Swat. So, at the end of his reign, the state of Pakistan had no authority left over the entire tribal belt and in areas like Swat. The Taliban, undeterred by Musharraf, did not want to take on Musharraf and thus they did not engage in widespread terror activities across Pakistan. To understand this better, just see how little terrorism we had in the province of Punjab during 2008 to 2013 because the Chief Minister (CM) of Punjab openly called on the Taliban to spare Punjab, mentioning his and his party’s ideological alignment with them. So, the game is simple: leave them untouched and they will spare you.

However, for Musharraf, and for the country, it all changed with the Lal Masjid operation of July 2007. It marked the beginning of an operation by the Pakistani state against the Taliban and was met with a wave of terrorist activities across the country. So, just when the average of the Musharraf years is 830 terror casualties a year, the average for 2007 was 2,100. Ironically, almost all those casualties happened during the latter half of 2007 (July-December). Extrapolating this gives a comparable annual average of around 4,000, which is higher than any of the years during 2008-2015. So, the bulwark against terrorism was not Musharraf the de Gaulle but his policy of tolerance towards the Taliban and militants, a tolerance that bordered upon nurturing.

This policy of tolerance towards the Taliban actually contributed to the scale of destruction we have been seeing since 2007. It allowed the Taliban to have sanctuaries in the tribal areas, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Karachi and Punjab from where they have launched widespread terror attacks against civilians and the armed forces. That Musharraf ceded control of the tribal areas and Swat to terrorists forced the state to launch operations against them (post-2008), which led to wave after wave of terrorism, not to mention the countless casualties of our brave men and women in uniform. The armed forces are successfully clearing the mess that de Gaulle created but the cost to the nation and armed forces has been mammoth.

So, dear anchors, columnists, media persons and experts, before you lecture us on how great the de Gaulle was and that the nation needs another de Gaulle, at least attend a 101 in logical reasoning. Musharraf is responsible for the terror mess we are in almost as much as Ziaul Haq is. Zia did it because he was an ideologue. Musharraf did it because he thought he was smart enough to play both allies and the Taliban, in the end leading to the country being played by both (the latter more). As per a Punjabi saying, Musharraf was an over-smart crow that fell in dung and took the country with him. These so-called intellectuals, elitists, opinion-makers and media persons have to have another el-Sisi in Pakistan and this is dangerous but also unrealistic. The armed forces are clear about staying away from any political misadventure. The world around us is not conducive to any such misadventure and, above all, Pakistan with all its socio-political evolution and maturity is no Egypt, Syria or Saudi Arabia. In Pakistan, there is no room for the general or any other el-Sisi or sissy. The citizens and armed forces of Pakistan, collectively, will eventually succeed in clearing out the mess caused by two decades of the Zia/Musharraf rule. May the force be with us!

The author can be reached on twitter at @aalimalik