RSS
Home
For Pakistan, troubles worsen with rise in Taliban attacks
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Pakistan has been in a spot of trouble these past few months. The Islamic fundamentalists (most of whom are either affiliated with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda) are mounting a strong resurgence. In both Afghanistan and Pakistan, attacks are on the rise. But why?
Earlier this year, Pakistan passed legislature entitled the "Nizam-e-Adl Regulation" ("Nizam-e-Adl" translates into "Order of Justice"). This regulation, passed on April 13, 2009, aimed to placate the fundamentalists operating on the fringes of Pakistan (the Northwest Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas). These regions, known as NWFP and FATA, respectively, are notorious for Islamic fundamentalism: much of the Taliban fled to these areas from Afghanistan, and it is widely believed that Osama bin Laden, if he is still alive, is living somewhere in this area.
So what did the Nizam-e-Adl regulation do? The agreement basically asks for the fundamentalists to lay down their arms and in return, the government will allow them to enforce Sharia law. This would be done by allowing the Islamic courts to supersede the authority of provincial courts. The regulation also stipulates that this agreement is only for the district of Malakand, located within the NWFP.
Critics of the bill allege that the Nizam-e-Adl is tantamount to capitulation, and will only embolden the fundamentalists. Doesn't this just prove that a militant organization, if it fights long enough, can get what it wants?
Supporters of the bill say otherwise. They believe that the regulation truly will end the bloodshed in Pakistan. They pointed out that the current military strategy, which Pakistan had been utilizing against the militants for a number of years, was costly (in both human lives and money) and ineffective.
During the lead-up to the Nizam-e-Adl regulation's vote, a small camp of Pakistani politicians supported the regulation, but for another reason. Since the September 11 events, there has been a clear dichotomy in addressing the issue of Islamic fundamentalism: one side firmly believes that the only "language" the fundamentalists speak is the language of blood and steel; the other side maintains that negotiations and compromises are the key, that issues and problems can be discussed. Some of the supporters believe that the regulation can be used as an experiment: to see if negotiations really do work.
So give them what they want: Shariah law? Check. Islamic courts? Check. The military gone? Check. As Pakistan's Ambassador Husain Haqqani said, "I will negotiate with them only to prove that you can't negotiate with them, because they will break the deal."
After only a few months of peace, fighting has again broken out. This time, the militants are attacking all over Pakistan, even in the heart of Islamabad, the capital city. For the fundamentalists, the truce was just a time to regroup, rearm, and plan more attacks.
The fighting in the NWFP has risen to an unprecedented scale; both sides in this conflict are going to extreme lengths to conclude the fighting,and it doesn't involve talking. Fundamentalists have carried out well-coordinated, elaborate attacks on government buildings (infiltrating the military headquarters even) and the Pakistani military has been widely accused of carrying out extra-judicial killings. Missile strikes on locations purported to be housing militant leaders have killed scores of innocent civilians.
As each side raises the bar on brutality, neither side is backing down. For the people of Pakistan, normalcy seems a distant prospect.
