Daily Times

Professor Mohammad Ibrahim of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a member of the Taliban-appointed negotiating committee, has said a list of 300 women, children and the elderly detained by the government has been handed over to Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali for their release. The professor also says a general amnesty for the Taliban is desirable and the withdrawal of the army from at least Laddah and Makeen tehsils (sub-districts) of South Waziristan if a total withdrawal is not acceptable would boost confidence on both sides going into direct talks with the government. He clarified that these are proposals rather than demands. He also revealed that the release of Vice Chancellor Mohammad Ajmal Khan of Islamic College University, Peshawar, slain Governor Salmaan Taseer’s son Shahbaz Taseer and former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani’s son Ali Haider Gillani, all held by the Taliban, were to be discussed with the Taliban shura (leadership council). Professor Ibrahim informed his party’s leadership that three venues were under consideration for the direct talks, but refrained from revealing the sites. Another idea floated by Maulana Samiul Haq, the head of the Taliban-appointed negotiation committee, is for a ‘free peace zone’ for meetings between the two sides. This is necessary, the Maulana said, because the Taliban leadership is underground and fears arrest of it surfaces without adequate guarantees of safety. He pointed out that the FC and other law enforcement agencies have set up many check posts, which restrict the free movement of the Taliban. In answer to a question, Maulana Samiul Haq said he was not aware of the whereabouts of Mullah Fazlullah, the chief of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Government sources however dismiss any danger to the Taliban leadership while negotiations are underway. The TTP spokesman Shahidullah Shahid poured scorn on Defence Minister Khwaja Asif’s statement the other day that no women or children are under detention, echoing the army’s rejection of the claim, by saying the minister was neither aware of the hundreds of detention centres set up by the security forces in FATA, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, nor of the number of detainees held in such centres. He accused the government of promulgating the Pakistan Protection Ordinance to legitimise these secret detentions. Reportedly, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar has promised to look into the list of 300 detainees he has received.

Once the venue and composition of the Taliban leadership team for negotiations are sorted out, talks are expected to begin soon. The proposals floated for a general amnesty, partial withdrawal of the army from South Waziristan and the release of detained non-combatants in return for non-combatants held by the Taliban may all be considered confidence building measures sought by the Taliban side. How much or how many of these proposals would prove acceptable to the government or security forces remains a matter of conjecture. At the very least, the non-combatants of both sides deserve their freedom. The government has indicated it will take action against all Taliban groups that oppose the peace negotiations process. It may be recalled that splinter groups of the TTP such as Ahrarul Hind have come out openly against the peace talks and carried out deadly attacks even as the government and TTP are inching their way towards their first face-to-face talks. While the procedure, etc, of the talks may be more amenable of solution, it is the content of the talks that remains a worry. The Taliban’s maximalist demands are the complete withdrawal of the army from FATA (to give them free run of the area once again) and the imposition of their narrow and reactionary version of sharia. If they trot these out again at the negotiating table, it is difficult to see how the dialogue can proceed. And the government’s demands in turn, including a permanent ceasefire and the acceptance by the Taliban of the constitution and democratic system cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered easy to achieve. Where, then, is the middle ground between the two sides that may give hope for a compromise? And if the compromise includes unprincipled concessions by the government, how long would such an agreement last? Many questions, very few clear answers so far. *