There is a famous line from the cult movie The Big Lebowski where, upon encountering a group of nasty Nordic nihilists in a parking lot face-off, one of the main characters, Walter Sobchak, a gruff pathologically anti-communist Vietnam veteran turns to his friends and says, “I mean, say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, dude, at least it’s an ethos.” This is, in some sense, similar to the situation Pakistan faces vis-à-vis negotiations with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The question being asked now is whether these negotiations will fail or succeed. Perhaps we need to ask another, more pressing question: what are we negotiating about? It seems self-evident that the entire notion of negotiations depends on the existence of grounds where demands can be reasonably discussed and changed in order to reach an agreement. What exactly are these demands? What are they asking for? Yes, yes, return of prisoners, withdrawal of troops, etc, but surely these are superficial issues or as some media anchors have solemnly dubbed them, ‘CBMs’. What do they really want? There seems to be no consensus on this key point. Let us examine the two main lines of thinking on this question.
First, this is about ‘sharia’. If we take the Taliban at their word, and accept that these demands are ‘Islamic’ or are demands for sharia, then we face a bigger problem. By accepting this we concede that the Pakistani state is not Islamic, ergo we are all kafirs (infidels). That is one hell of a moral high ground to forfeit. Even the mere act of entertaining this as a reasonable demand — something that can be talked about — ensnares the state in a participatory paradox, a self-defeating argument that will weaken it with every passing day. By acknowledging the TTP position as ‘Islamic’, we define the argument in terms of religion. Consider: if the debate is about Islam, how can the state argue for less Islam as opposed to more Islam? This is very dangerous ground that will be impossible to reclaim after it is lost. And herein lies the confusion for most Pakistanis.
But let us leave that aside for a minute and look at the other position a la Imran Khan that this is about the US war. We accept that the demands of the TTP are not Islamic in nature and they simply want us to get out of the US war, after which they will lay down their arms and go back to their day jobs. The problem with this view (other than the fact that it is patently untrue) is that we must accept that the Pakistani state is fighting militants in the tribal areas only at the behest of the US. This has long ceased to be the case. The Pakistani state is (periodically and reluctantly) fighting the TTP because the TTP has declared war against it and has slaughtered 50,000 of its citizens in the streets. Incidentally, the Pakistani state has no problem with those other enemies of the US, the Afghan Taliban, to whom it has provided aid and comfort for many years. And who should be angrier about the US occupation than them?
The war against the TTP (such as it is) is a defensive war. The mass killing of tens of thousands of Pakistani citizens must not be a moot point or a macabre footnote in this discussion either. It cannot be justified with any cause or any end. It is an end in itself: a vicious, all-encompassing end. It should not serve as a hyphen, a comma or a question mark; it is a point. A full stop. If the names of these 50,000 were laid end to end they would surpass the names inscribed on the 500 foot-long Vietnam War memorial wall in Washington DC, commemorating US military losses in one of the bloodiest wars in history. Even if this mass killing of innocents was in ‘retaliation’ as Imran Khan would have us believe, it is certainly worth fighting against now. So why are we negotiating? Is it because there is a liberal consensus to accommodate the genuine demands of an aggrieved population? If this were the case, why are we not negotiating with the Baloch militant groups fighting the state? The Baloch people have a long history of struggle against the state and legitimate demands of nationhood. As Walter Sobchak might say, “Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”
No. Let us be clear: we are negotiating under threat of brute force. Pakistan is being held hostage by thugs and criminals. And this is a negotiation over ransom. The TTP are defined by a reactionary ideology (in so far as it can be called an ideology) that seeks to impose a particular system at gunpoint. Equating this system with ‘Islam’ is a criminal disservice to millions of Pakistanis who profess a tolerant and inclusive faith. To imbue these murderous fascists with anything resembling a legitimate cause is not only grossly dishonest but verging on treason. In any sane universe they would have no place at the table. So what do they want? The answer to that question is — it is not worth bothering about.
The Nawaz-Imran consensus has effectively bartered away the sovereignty of the state. They have pumped oxygen to the enemies of Pakistan and have provided garments of legitimacy to the murderers of 50,000 Pakistanis. How did this come to be? They have done it for different reasons: a sick cocktail of fear, empathy and self-preservation. Imran because of a half-witted stubbornness based on circular logic from which he cannot now retreat and Nawaz, well, let us say it as it is: Nawaz has exchanged Pakistan for Punjab. Who would have thought that the politics of these two fierce adversaries would coalesce in such a toxic and Faustian bargain? It is now not even a matter of success or failure. Either way a Rubicon has been crossed. What is clear is that inevitably something of the old Pakistan is passing into history and something new, something terrible, lies ahead.
The writer is a freelance columnist