Pakistan’s current political, economic and security crises are all tied into the ubiquitous military-intelligence apparatus’ paranoia and obsession with India that led to massive resources being allocated to security, not for growth or development, and the creation of several jihadi groups as proxies that targeted India. To prevent a strategic encirclement by India and a potential pro-India regime in Afghanistan, the Pakistani deep state supported the mujahideen and later the Taliban in Afghanistan. That policy is behind the rise of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) that has become the biggest threat to Pakistan’s security today.
Unfortunately, the military-intelligence apparatus whose policies led to the rise of groups like TTP is still unwilling to abandon its policy. Instead, as was seen by a recent speech by COAS Gen Asim Munir there is an attempt to claim that the TTP is not Pakistani. While it is good that the state views TTP as a threat, the army chief’s mixing of faith with militancy is problematic. Addressing the Azadi Parade at Pakistan Military Academy (PMA) Kakul on the eve of Independence Day celebrations, Gen Munir referring to TTP as “Fitna-al-Khawarij” and said that the state “does not consider them Pakistani because they do not accept the Sharia or the Constitution.”
As an editorial in Dawn notes, “it is encouraging to note that the security establishment is clearly taking the TTP threat very seriously. Experts have pointed out that the banned group has been able to regroup and marshal its resources because the Pakistani authorities not too long ago were still hoping to ‘rehabilitate’ its hard-core militants and ‘reintegrate’ them into society. Now, the Pakistani state is once again attempting to tackle the TTP threat in what it believes is a more ‘holistic’ way, which includes giving it a new name.”
However, Dawn warned “slapping on a new label on a hard-core terrorist outfit” and one “imbued with religious meaning” is exactly how this problem originally started. Instead what is needed is a “strong dissonance between past and present policies can only be resolved by adopting a single, clear stance.”
