How can we negotiate with criminals and terrorists?
Mr
Khan, how do you think this process of dialogue with the Taliban must
commence with? What forum is the best for this purpose? Who are bad
Taliban and who are good Taliban, the terms you use to distinguish
between them? Where has this concept of good and bad terrorists
originated from? And how precisely will you be able to go for the good
Taliban?
Mr Khan, I have no qualms in agreeing with you that
brutality, state force and aggression must not be used to overcome the
forces of dark, at least illegally. But does that give justification to
all such evil forces to propagate their oppressive ideology? Does it
mean that Pakistani soldiers must be kidnapped and beheaded openly, the
brutal act captured on video only to be released to the media later on?
Does it mean that criminals may go unpunished? Does that mean they
should launch attacks on institutions, mosques, schools and other
government installations? Does it justify challenging writ of the state
through guns, explosives and mortar shells?
No, my dear Mr Khan, it does not.
Even
if someone belongs to a downtrodden stratum of the society, it still
does not give him the right to take up arms against the state. It does
not mean that he should be aggressive against his own people or he
should kill innocent kids going to schools. He must not have opened fire
on innocent Malala just for having a different viewpoint from their
barbaric interpretation of Islam.
Mr Khan, if someone does commit
such brutality, justice must take its course come what may. Every
possible force must be exploited to stop him from committing the
offence. No recognition, or amnesty, should be extended to him as he is a
terrorist and criminal. Neither law nor any political party has the
right to award pardon to all these criminals without paying for what
they have done. Khan sahib, this is exactly what our religion and law
say.
Negotiations with these elements would bring nothing but
recognition to such anti-state groups. Whether they are angry, deprived
of certain facilities or victim of state aggression, as you claim they
are, it still does not substantiate your argument of starting a dialogue
with them. The state must have the authority to hold them to account,
whatever the reason they claim to have to take up arms against the
state, its laws, its people or its institutes.
The factors behind
the crimes can put the immediate scenario in an appropriate
juxtaposition. Society and crime, Khan sahib, go hand in glove. A
society can neither be ideal nor can it be made so. Evil forces in human
beings have a built-in mechanism, so its outcome is natural and must
not be a new or a horrible phenomenon for anyone. To counter such acts,
laws are made. And laws are made to be obeyed, not to be violated. When
there is a question of law, morality must not be a hurdle in its way as
it carries sentiments and favours associated with it. And there is a
strong probability of being carried away by emotions instead of going
for legal provisions.
When crime is part and parcel of any
society, it must be checked through effective legislation and its strict
implementation by state agencies. Since, legislation and its
implementation is carried out by the state, all citizens living in its
territorial jurisdiction have a liability towards such laws. Flouting or
breaking such laws must have equal consequences for all.
Here,
Mr Khan, I have a question for you. If a certain group commits excesses
in settled areas like Lahore, or any other provincial capital, will you
hold negotiations with them or would you prefer to hand them over to the
law enforcement agencies for prosecution? Obviously, and I hope for
sanity’s sake, the second option would appeal to you more than the first
one.
Then why would you demand negotiations with the Taliban?
Are they not killers and terrorists? Are they not distorting the image
of Islam by telling people what our religion has never said or
propagated?
Khan sahib, they must be charged separately for each
distinct offence and if the state wants to do so, let it be done. Let
this state, badly suffering from the cancer of terrorism, be purged of
all such people doing irreparable and colossal damage to the country and
the nation. If the state has authority and is supreme, let no one take
up arms and rebel against it. Let it be an integrated and sovereign
state, having the full force of law and supremacy of the constitution.
Whatever the line of action any state determines, it must be binding on
its citizens. And Mr Khan, we must not support whosoever challenges the
writ of the state.
When a state exercises lawful authority, we
must not assume it is committing transgression or aggression.
Surrendering to state can help usher in the era of rule of law and
justice. If individual choices are allowed to override the writ of the
state and the constitution, the anti-state elements will bring us down,
the state included, and could become a threat for the country’s
integrity and solidarity.
But on the issue of drones, Mr Khan, I
agree with you totally since it is not an act of the state. It is naked
aggression, and I castigate it.
The writer is a staff member and can be reached at shoaib_lq@yahoo.com