Another wake-up call

Visibility was very poor when four terrorists attacked the campus of Bacha Khan University in Charsadda on Wednesday morning, making rescue operations difficult. An interpretation of how this happened and what it means in the context of the implementation of the National Action Plan is also enveloped in fog – in a figurative sense.

In the first place, though, one has to come to terms with this soul-destroying tragedy. It boggles the mind to imagine that someone would resort to this level of barbarity and seek to kill students in a random fashion. There are intimations here of that unbearable massacre of schoolchildren in the Army Public School of Peshawar on December 16, 2014.

That heartbreaking episode had traumatised the nation and its pain is still felt. It changed so many things. For once, all political parties and segments of society came together against terrorism and extremism. A comprehensive National Action Plan was born of this resolve. Operation Zarb-e-Azb was already in progress. During the past year, many notable victories were won against the militants though doubts were also expressed about the performance of civilian authorities in pursuing goals set in the National Action Plan.

Still, there was general appreciation of the campaign against the terrorist networks. We were assured that now there was no distinction between the good and the bad Taliban. It also seemed plausible that with their back to the wall, the terrorists would retaliate by choosing soft targets. However, Wednesday’s attack on the Bacha Khan University is exceptionally disconcerting, also because it was preceded by other acts of terrorism in this first month of the year.

One report said that there were 60 deaths in terrorist attacks in 20 days. A day before the Charsadda atrocity, 10 persons were killed in a suicide bombing in Jamrud. Besides, the attack on the Bacha Khan University had the potential of becoming a greater disaster. It was largely because of the brave resistance of the guards and a prompt intervention by security forces that casualties were not much higher.

Still, the choice of the target by the militants and the timing of the attack have raised questions about the capacity of the militants and the direction in which they intend to proceed. The Bacha Khan University, we know, is named after Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the apostle of non-violence and the inspiration of the Awami National Party. The ANP leaders were the main targets of the Taliban terrorists in the past.

A major distinction between the Army Public School and the Bacha Khan University is that while the former had unified the nation, the latter has provoked some discord with reference to the policies and performance of the federal and the provincial governments. ANP chief Asfandyar Wali Khan, grandson of Bacha Khan, reacted angrily and said that the attack was the failure of the present rulers. He insisted that the government was not serious in eliminating terrorism.

That the attack was not incidental and that it was properly planned is indicated by the fact that the university was observing the death anniversary of Bacha Khan on Wednesday and 600 guests were on the campus for a grand mushaira, along with 3000 students. This would be a representative gathering of the liberal and intellectual elite in the Pakhtun territory. It is frightening to imagine what could have happened.

It turns out that the militants were not wearing suicide jackets and had come with only hand grenades and AK-47 rifles, with the apparent intention of escaping from the scene after killing as many persons as they could. But their designs were defeated by the resistance they encountered, though 20 precious lives were lost in the encounter.

There is this report about a video released on Friday by Usman Mansoor, the Taliban commander who has claimed responsibility for Wednesday’s attack – and has vowed more such attacks in the future. He is quoted as saying that “now we will not kill the soldier in his cantonment, the lawyer in the court, or the politician in parliament but in the places where they are prepared, the schools, the universities, the colleges that lay their foundation”.

Irrespective of what credence may be given to this boastful claim, the battle lines are becoming more distinct. The progressive and liberal forces are under attack and the government seems indecisive about its intentions as to where its sympathies lie. On Friday, Senator Farhatullah Babar presented some documents in the Upper House against Maulana Abdul Aziz of the Lal Masjid, who is known to have declared allegiance to Daesh. Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani has sought a reply on this issue from Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, who had earlier declined to move against the cleric.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, while strongly condemning the Charsadda terrorist attack, has called for a critical reappraisal of the operations against terrorists and a more stringent implementation of the National Action Plan, especially the agenda for dealing with centres and organisations responsible for the training of and assistance to terrorist groups. The commission has expressed the apprehension that “Pakistan will invite greater perils if the lessons of the latest wave of terrorism are not heeded”.

As for the symbolism of attacking an institute named after Bacha Khan, I would want to refer, in passing, to the piece written by our Kamila Shamsie for The Guardian. She has noted that the Pakhtun anti-colonial leader was part of the triumvirate of heroes who Malala had mentioned in her speech to the United Nations alongside Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela. The point is that Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who was called the ‘Frontier Gandhi’ for his avowal of non-violence, has not received the recognition he deserves.

In our struggle against the forces of extremism and intolerance, some modifications in what may be described as the ruling ideas are becoming urgent. The Peshawar tragedy of just over a year ago was called a game changer. That should ideally have called for a careful reshuffle of the federal and provincial cabinets so that a new incentive, propelled by a progressive and modern outlook, could be invested in the campaign against militancy and its sources in the country. That, unfortunately, is not likely to happen.

The writer is a staff member.

Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail.com