Pakistan and Counter-Terrorism: Inability or Unwillingness?

Pakistan’s recent military offensive against the Taliban has earned the country some international support for its counter-terrorism efforts. There is hope that the democratic government will be willing and committed to fighting terrorism. However the events of the past week have raised a disturbing concern in my mind. Pakistan has, beyond doubt begun combating terrorist elements operating on its soil; but at the same time Pakistan’s counter-terrorism strategy is selective and self-serving. In a matter of few days the Government of Pakistan has re-arrested Sufi Muhammad and released Hafiz Saeed. To me this is not a simple case of supporting terrorism against India but has deeper implications. It’s about Pakistan’s reluctance and not inability to combat terrorism. The Sufi-Saeed case points to three trends in Pakistan’s ‘counter-terrorism efforts’: no person-specific operations, inconsequential arrests on mild charges and treating terrorism as legal problem. 

Political leaders and military generals have for long galvanized the people of Pakistan through appeals to Islamic identity. Whether it was Pakistan’s interactions with India and the U.S. or the strivings for the nuclear bomb; whether it’s the experiments in democracy or economic successes, Pakistan has wrapped its achievements and challenges as that of a ‘Muslim Country.’ Islam has and continues to remain a dominant aspect of Pakistan’s socio-political existence. Nevertheless Sufi Muhammad is viewed as a threat for propagating the Islamic way of life in Pakistan. Why? Is it simply because he is professing a creed of Islam which is considered traditional and anti-democratic? No. It is primarily because Islam has been the ‘herding’ instrument of the Federal Government in Pakistan since its emergence. The Government of Pakistan will under no circumstances delegate or share the use of this instrument with any other individual or organization. Thus the action against TSNM and Sufi Muhammad has more to do with maintaining monopoly of the use of Islam as a public instrument rather than combating the global menace of terrorism.  

Sufi Muhammad has been arrested on charges of treason against the state. He is expected to be charged under MPO 16 (Maintenance of Public Order); there have been several instances when political leaders, University professors and students have been charged under MPO for protesting against specific government decisions. Anyone suspected of involvement in terrorist activities is not convicted under such mild charges by national governments. The Zardari-Gilani combo is acting against opposition by camouflaging it as a fight against terrorism. Simply stated, Sufi Muhammad has been arrested for misusing his freedom of speech; that would be a novel way of charging ‘terrorists’. 

If one observes closely Sufi Muhammad has not explicitly engaged in any terrorist activities since his release last year. He may have given provocative speeches but personally not been responsible for the death of army personnel or civilian population. According to a report in the Dawn, Sufi was arrested for maintaining peace in the Malakand division as he had started reorganizing his group and convened meetings of shoora in Peshawar which was unacceptable for the government. The actual deadly force behind the TSNM’s violent activities is Sufi’s son-in-law Maulana Fazlullah, also referred to as the ‘radio mullah’. There have been conflicting reports that Maulana Fazlullah was killed during the Swat offensive but the TSNM claims that he is still alive. The Pakistani government has attempted to prove its willingness to combat terrorism by arresting Sufi Muhammad while Maulana Fazlullah is still free. The greatest surprise is not that Maulana Fazlullah is free but he is back on air. Either the Government’s writ has not been fully restored in Swat or the Government is not interested in arresting Maulana Fazlullah. If the Government of Pakistan has not been able to arrest Maulana Fazlullah after conducting such a massive military operation and displacing millions of people, there is little possibility that Fazlullah will ever be arrested.
On the other hand Hafiz Saeed, former leader of LeT and current head of JuD (both groups have been proscribed by the U.N. and the U.S.) was released for the lack of evidence proving his involvement in the Mumbai terror attacks last year. US intelligence officials are dismayed at Saeed’s release and say the move shows that Pakistan has a long way to go to defeat terror groups operating on its soil. “Forget what you are seeing in Swat,” an intelligence official closely watching Pakistan told The Long War Journal. “More than six months after Mumbai, there has yet to be a single conviction or even a trial of anyone involved in the attack. Pakistan does not have the capacity to try and convict known terrorists.” “Saeed is untouchable, and don’t think the courts and the police don’t know this,” another official said, warning that the continuous policy of releasing of leaders like Saeed, Red Mosque leader Maulana Abdullah Aziz, and others is sending a terrible message to those on the front lines against the terror groups.
Saeed’s release was not a surprise, but the perception that the non-conviction was based on Pakistan long-standing hostility to India is erroneous. Saeed was released not because he was involved in India-specific terrorist activity but because Pakistan’s legal system does not readily facilitate conviction of anyone suspected of terrorism. Sufi Muhammad’s case would be the most pertinent example. Pakistani authorities are yet to register criminal case against Sufi and a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) is verifying his role in insurgency in Swat and Malakand Divisions. Is there really any need for investigating the role of people like Sufi and Fazlullah and Saeed in terrorist activities? Are not the activities of these individuals self-evident? Hafiz Saeed is released for the lack of evidence, Maulana Fazlullah is not arrested and Sufi Muhammad is charged with disrupting public order. Does anyone really consider Pakistan a frontline state in combating global terrorism?
Pakistan may be given the benefit of doubt when the authorities express their helplessness in locating the terrorists; this is an aspect of inability. The non-conviction of individuals involved in terrorist activities reflects unwillingness on the part of Pakistan. Simply stated, Pakistan is not ill-equipped but ill-intended to combat terrorism.