The Quetta questions

The latest example of how the talk of unity in our ranks can quickly turn out to be a pipedream came on Wednesday when the interior minister’s comments on the opposition that followed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s speech in the National Assembly led to opposition members walking out of the NA session. The situation was saved by the unprecedented act by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of personally persuading the opposition to return to the benches. Any attack on the scale of the one that targeted Quetta, which many in the media and civil society have said amounts to decimating the best and brightest of an entire community, was inevitably going to lead to strong and emotional reactions from the various segments of our politicians. But, still, more could have been done to avoid giving a picture of confusion, resentment and disunity that afflict us even as we find ourselves engaged in a war of many dimensions.

Too soon after the Quetta attack, the highest officials of the state and government related the incident to the CPEC project without any ifs and buts. This possibility cannot be dismissed in view of the particular situation we are engaged in – in a region where an absence of foreign involvement would only surprise us. But the problem with this kind of response is that it is nothing more than a general statement which can conveniently follow any such incident and, by its very nature, does not have to correspond to the particular facts of any one incident. It could not be otherwise, coming in no time – as if instinctively – after the attack in Quetta. At best it looks defensive, no matter how aggressively put, against an instance of failure. At worst it appears insensitive towards the victims in an alienated province when their plight can instantly remind the state of projects of strategic importance. More importantly, such hurried yet definitive reactions may also have the effect of obstructing the possibility of discussion on any problems, faults and flaws in the state’s counterterrorism effort. So if some commentators see a problem with such statements they cannot be dismissed outright either.

Some politicians criticised the ‘establishment’ and the agencies rather too strongly, pointing to what they see as problems of intelligence, and flaws in the counterterrorism effort for which no one is held accountable. The demand obviously was for heads to roll. Here again we saw hard facts – and realities – being trumped by emotions that conveniently follow such incidents. Questions have been raised in the wake of these statements about what role these politicians have played on the floor of the house and elsewhere to shape the contours of our counterterrorism policy and the role of the different organs of the state in it. These questions are extremely pertinent and the answer to them is not going to be very pretty. All we have seen happening since our effort against terrorism began is our politicians gleefully yielding legal and political ground that should naturally belong to them. A political stance needs consistency and character – not the convenience offered by a tragic incident to let loose your anger. The most shameful spectacle, though, was presented by those who took it upon themselves to label others as traitors and foreign agents. Decades-old unsavory characters of our politics parade as ultra-patriots and engage in name-calling because they think it might earn them scores and benefits. But they only end up helping those in the region who delight in us being shown as bitterly divided.

Amidst all this, what should not be lost sight of are the problems around intelligence. PM Nawaz Sharif reportedly tried to tackle some of these questions at a meeting on Wednesday to discuss the implementation of the National Action Plan where he called for intelligence to be better shared between the federation and the provinces. What should also be added is that at the federal level we need the more than 30 different intelligence agencies to work together; and the impression that they are often too busy fighting turf battles must end. As vital as it is that NAP be fully implemented, there is always a worry that such meetings are held for public consumption after devastating militant attacks and there is little change on the ground. The scale of the tragedy in Quetta should ensure that this time is the exception.

The first thing the government needs to do is fully investigate the Quetta attack. Three days later we cannot with any confidence name the perpetrators except repeating as the PM did in the NA – that the CPEC is an eyesore to our enemies. A broader and consistent look at our intelligence and counterterrorism capabilities is needed. The National Counter Terrorism Authority was supposed to act as a central conduit for all intelligence but it is barely operational and funded. Obviously, our funding has been hurt by the US refusal to release money owed to us under the Coalition Support Fund but national security is important enough for us to find the funds from elsewhere. Also, what is needed now is not to litigate the past but to prepare for the future in the hope of a safer tomorrow. This war is an existential one and we the people have a right to demand a say in how it is prosecuted rather than being kept in the dark. To change tack, debate must be allowed – and from as broad a range of society as possible. We should have learned that lesson long before and now we must relearn it after Quetta, a haunted city that bears all the tragedy of long being dictated to rather than consulted, of being made to feel like it doesn’t belong.