An All Parties Conference (APC) called by Awami National Party (ANP) to evolve a national consensus on the issue of terrorism and devise a collective strategy for dialogue with militants was held in Islamabad on February 15, 2013. A total of 27 political parties and lawyer organisations took part in the conference, including the mainstream parties like the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), Jamiatul Ulema-e-Islam-Fazal (JUI-F) and Awami National Party (ANP). However, two other parties, namely Jamaat Islami (JI) and Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek Insaf (PTI), declined to participate. Although the parties attending the conference endorsed the proposal for dialogue with militants and declared militancy and violence as a national problem, it is unlikely that the conference would lead to any significant headway towards an immediate commencement of dialogue with militants for ending violence and terrorism for three reasons.
Firstly, the refusal of the JI and PTI to go along with other political parties on the need to confront militants and persuade them to enter into negotiations with government without any pre-conditions would encourage militants to hold on to their ground. The JI’s negative response was particularly damaging for the prospects for any talks with militants, as the right-wing fundamentalist party has a history of links with militancy in Pakistan’s tribal areas and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-88), the JI, with the open support of General Ziaul Haq, had established close links with the Afghan Mujahedeen, especially with Gulbadin’s Hilmatyar’s Hizbe Islami, and the members of its youth wing not only received training in the use of fire arms in Afghanistan but also practically took part in what it called jihad against the Russians. The JI continued to maintain its links with Taliban, who were fighting the forces of the Northern Alliance for hegemony in Afghanistan; and it continues to maintain them with militants using FATA as a sanctuary for attacks on NATO and American forces in Afghanistan. The JI’s stand on militancy in Pakistan is a continuation of its policy formulated during the Zia era — a policy at total variance with that of the ANP. The flat and somewhat scornful refusal by the JI to attend the ANP’s APC was, therefore, no surprise.
Secondly, the ANP advocated the idea of talking with the Taliban for peace because it was left with no other option after the failure of the PPP-led federal government in providing it necessary resources to fight militants. The Taliban had singled out ANP’s activists and leaders with sustained lethal attacks, including suicide attacks. In October 2008, the party president Asfandyar Wali Khan narrowly escaped a suicide attack outside his hujra in Charsada. A senior leader of the party and the Information Minister of KP government, Mian Iftikhar Husain, lost his only son in an armed attack by unidentified gunmen in July 2010. Last year in July the TTP asked the ANP workers to quit the party in Sindh and threatened them with dire consequences in case they failed to do so. According to ANP sources, more than 500 of its members, including some lawmakers have been killed in terrorist attacks linked to the Taliban. No other party has suffered so much loss in terms of human casualties at the hands of terrorists. Despite that the ANP refused to bow down and reiterated its determination to confront terrorists. However, the assassination of its senior leader Bashir Ahmad Bilour on December 26, 2012 shook the party; and its leadership desperately sought the cooperation from other parties and the federal government. Mian Iftikhar Husain, the provincial information minister even went to the extent of calling for joint Pakistan, Afghanistan and United States move to eliminate militants from the areas on both sides of the Durand Line. Disappointed by the poor response from the federal government, the ANP decided to mobilise other political parties into formulating a united stand against terrorists by calling an APC.
Thirdly, the joint statement issued at the end of the APC made it clear that talks with militants would be held only within the ambit of constitution, law, security and sovereignty of the country. The statement in fact forecloses any chance for talks between government and the Taliban, as the latter have openly rejected the current politico-legal system of Pakistan with a demand to replace the existing democratic order with their version of Shariah. The Taliban have also failed to positively respond to ceasefire proposal put forward by another senior leader of the ANP, Haji Adeel, in order to pave the way for the commencement of dialogue. On the contrary, they have mounted a series of deadly terrorist attacks on civilian and security installations in the province, including the one on a check post in the Peshawar Frontier Region on December 29 in which they killed two and kidnapped 21 Levies. The kidnapped Levies were found murdered a day later in a deserted place.
If the objective of ANP’s APC was to create an incentive for the Taliban to shun violence and enter into dialogue with government by declaring allegiance to the constitution and law, the conference has visibly failed, as there has been no positive response from the side of the Taliban. But it cannot be dismissed as a total failure. The conference provided an opportunity to all mainstream political parties to assemble on one platform to jointly express their serious concern on the escalating violence and terrorism in the country. As compared to the previous conferences on the issue of terrorism, this one was able to come out with a clearer and more specific formulation of an approach to deal with the problem of militancy in Pakistan. By declaring that the talks would be held with only those militants who accept the writ of the state; and that a sustainable democratic political process will help in dealing with the problem in the long run, the participating parties have sent a powerful message to militants that there would be no compromise on democracy, rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution while negotiating peace with them.
The writer is a professor of International Relations at Sargodha University. He can be reached at [email protected]