Haroon Gul, Research Analyst at CRSS, explores the aftermath of the militant insurgency in Swat Valley and recounts his own experiences while on the ground in the Peochar region. Peochar Valley was once a land of beauty and peace. It has vast greenery and fertile lands, nestled in mountainous terrain. The locals are a strong breed of people, and they mostly keep to themselves. While going up Peochar Valley towards the mountains, there are numerous fruit farms along the way, including pears, persimmons and green apples. There is a two hundred year old mosque with an  ablution area built underneath the structure. From the backside of the mosque, the locals' homes are visible in the distance. There is also another mosque further down the hill.[1] Swat in the Hands of Militants In 2009, the Swat insurgency turned this beautiful region almost into rubble. The TTP militants took over and established their main base in the valley. The commander involved in beheading police officers, Maulvi Fazlullah, operated out of this base as well. They slaughtered people who did not comply with their rules. On December 24, 2008, he visited local schools with a contingent of militants, and ordered that all government and private schools refuse teaching girls by January 15, 2009. [2] The families of the Taliban commanders were living in the Peochar Valley as well. The main base was at the top of Peochar Valley, close to the two-century old mosque, where the Taliban now offered prayers.The Taliban were trying to control Swat administratively, and the fighting continued in the main city of Mingora. The leaders of Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi or TNSM, a movement founded by Sufi Muhammad, were started branching out to adjoining regions, such as Malam Jabba.  Government Response The government launched the Rah-e-Rast military operation in May, 2009. The security forces fired artillery shells at suspected militant hideouts in Peochar Valley.[3] About 152 Taliban militants...

Good governance and indiscriminate enforcement of the rule of law alone can help bring an end to terrorism and extremism from the country in the long-run. The establishment of military courts would be in conflict with the fundamental structure of the constitution. This was said by speakers at a roundtable discussion at the Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) here on Wednesday. The participants also demanded formulation of short and long-term strategies to combat terrorism and cautioned against repercussions of military-led trial courts for civil-military relations. The speakers said it could be a partial short-term remedy but the real answer to crime and terror would come from a revamped legal justice system. Legal experts underlined that the ongoing debate on how to counter terrorism lacked clarity. They said that it should be clear as to whether the parliament wants to deal with the situation through the civil law or the law of war. They also demanded that madrassa reforms must be taken seriously. Participants emphasised that all proscribed organisations and their leaders be sternly dealt with in accordance with the law. They said that rather than introducing new laws, the government and other state institutions must try indiscriminately enforcing the existing laws. The forum also demanded the repeal of the Article 247 of Constitution (which vests all Fata-related powers in the office of the President) and the extension of fundamental rights to Fata, as demanded by the Peshawar High Court. Participants welcomed the announcements by the army and the government that the “distinction between good and bad Taliban” was not relevant any more. Some participants however pointed out that the same must apply to Kashmir-focused militant groups. Media representatives warned that the post-December 16 national consensus was vanishing because of the paradoxical positions taken by politicians. Murtaza Solangi (former DG Radio Pakistan), Ayaz Wazir (former...

Following the Peshawar tragedy, a lot of talk has centred on narratives. The civilian-military leadership’s response to the Peshawar tragedy radiates consensus, confidence and commitment to rid the country of forces of terrorism and obscurantism. A consultative frenzy led by two Sharifs on the way forward is visible too. But the real question facing them all is whether their recipes for the future are rooted in an accurate diagnosis of the crisis? Probably not. Why? Because if it were so, the civilian-military leadership would have first lunged for correcting whatever we have as the narrative right now before crafting the unavoidable, essential and much-needed narrative — something much more crucial than the physical war on terror in the long haul. Without a clear construct of this foundation — anchored in socio-cultural and historical contexts — and admission of the limitations that cultural diversity, complex socio-political make-up and difficult geopolitical surroundings impose on Pakistan, crafting a narrative will be pointless. What is it then that must flow from the two pivots of power — parliament and GHQ — to convincingly prepare all stakeholders for the testing months and years to come? The narrative is essentially the socio-political philosophy that guides the conduct of state institutions in an inclusive, holistic way — without discrimination of caste, creed or faith.  What should it sound like then? Perhaps this the way we should go. First, being a multi-faith, but predominantly Muslim society, Pakistan is aware of the need for the respect for and adherence to indiscriminate adherence to the rule of law. The government and the leaders’ resolve, will not distinguish between religious, political or social groups when required to establish its writ or enforce existing law. Second, the entire leadership is fully cognisant of the fact that only by placing fundamental rights at the core of its polices can Pakistan effectively pursue the ideals of the rule of...

Independent political and defense analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi explains that despite similar promises to root our terrorism in the past, why it is a different playing field this time around, in the wake of the sickening #PeshawarAttack Has Pakistan charted a new and comprehensive course of action for countering extremism and terrorism? The answer is a big ‘yes’ if we go by the speeches and statements of the political leaders, including the prime minister, in the two meetings held on December 17 and 24. The fury of the statements cannot guarantee the elimination of extremism and terrorism in Pakistan. Such statements were made in the past. However, there are two major differences this time. First, the army top brass is in the lead in persuading the civilian government to adopt a definite and comprehensive policy to control terrorism. The military, as a whole, and the army in particular have overcome the traditional ambiguity about the good and bad Taliban and their military action in North Waziristan demonstrated a non-discriminatory policy towards all kinds of Taliban and others groups based in the tribal areas. However, the civilian leadership, including the ruling PML-N, continued to be divided on how to deal with militancy. Now, after the Peshawar massacre, the army top command has built pressure on the civilian leadership to adopt a unified and tough policy for countering terrorism. Second, the Peshawar school incident has created a major public upsurge for dealing with the Taliban and other militant groups with firmness. The public reaction has also led political leaders to come out openly against the Taliban. Leaders like Imran Khan and others, who were opposed to military action, and repeatedly expressed sympathy for the Taliban, could not carry on with their old policy. Nobody would disagree with the 20-point plan of action announced by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif but the real issue is the capacity of the present civilian government to implement these agenda...

Columnist and lawyer Babar Sattar argues against the ad hoc nature of our national response to terrorism in the wake of the heinous Peshawar Army Public School attacks “WE cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them,” Einstein had argued. The latest multi-party conference that came up with the 20-point action plan against terror affirmed that the foremost problem afflicting Pakis­tan’s leadership is not its lack of will or courage, but its lack of capacity. We saw once again a flock of pygmies, devoid of an original thought, willing to be herded in whichever direction the army chief pointed his stick. Asmatullah Muawiya threatened Nawaz Sharif with attacks on his family if the GHQ attackers were executed. And our mighty leader extended the moratorium on the death penalty on the false basis that the EU would get mad if we didn’t. The new mantra of our khaki leadership (that has had exclusive control over our national security policy since Pakistan’s inception) is that terrorism is proliferating because our courts are soft on terror or because we aren’t hanging convicts. Fact: Pakistan has the world’s highest number of death row inmates ie 8,000. Fact: thousands are serving life sentences for heinous crimes. Fact: civilian and not military courts passed these sentences. Fact: these sentences weren’t enough to deter terror in Pakistan. Fact: terrorism didn’t emerge in Pakistan after September 2008 when the PPP first imposed a moratorium on executions. Fact: the link between death sentences and reduction of crime is heavily contested. Our proclivity for deluding ourselves and relying on ad hocism seems to be gathering strength. What is the latest magic solution to curbing terror? Military courts! Will punishments for suspects dry up the supply chain of terror? No one knows. But the popularity of the idea is proof of how militarised our thinking as a society has become. The bottom line is that we are angry and to soothe our hysteria we...