EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

`Banned` groups

IN Pakistan, supposedly `proscribed` organisations not only kill in cold blood and repeatedly get away with it, they also appear to be free to hold rallies and organise meetings — even in the country`s largest city — where their leaders can express their views. Two events that occurred on Friday amply back up this claim. The first was an early morning attack in Quetta in which some members of the Shia Hazara community were killed and a large number injured. A spokesman for the shadowy sectarian terror outfit Lashkar-i-Jhangvi claimed responsibility for the attack. The other event was a rally taken out in Karachi after Friday prayers. Organised to eulogise Osama bin Laden and to “show solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”, the rally made news when it was disrupted by gunfire. The gathering, organised by Jamaatud Dawa, considered a front for the banned Lashkar-i-Taiba, was attended by leaders and supporters of a number of sectarian and jihadi outfits, including the Ahl-i-Sunnat Wal Jamaat, the working title of Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan which is also blacklisted.

The above are among the most recent examples of the ease with which banned outfits can function in the country with their leaders operating freely. The problems religious militancy has caused in this country have been enumerated countless times. Yet the bans and the action taken by the state against these concerns have been cosmetic and ineffective. Action is taken by the authorities only when there is external or internal pressure, usually following a major act of terrorism. Despite the bans, which date back to the Musharraf regime, the organisations resurface with new names and carry on as usual; this exercise fools no one.

If the state — specifi-cally the security establishment — is interested in rooting out militancy, it must do several things. The camps where extre-mists are trained must be dismantled while the militants` sources of funding, whether foreign or local, must be identified so that their access to funds can be cut off. The government must also plug legal loopholes to bring militant leaders to justice; at present, cases are either not registered or the state shows little motivation in pursuing them. Though tracking down each and every member of a sectarian or jihadi outfit is not possible, we feel that successfully prosecuting militant leaders and ideologues may go a long way towards compromising their ability to spread havoc. The twin ogres of sectarianism and jihadi militancy have done enough harm to Pakistan. It is time the state took serious steps to put these violent concerns permanently out of business, instead of merely `banning` them on paper.

Brutality in Syria

REGIMES in the Middle East once considered unshakable are now fighting for survival. Amongst these is Syria, where anti-government protests are being crushed with an iron fist by Bashar Al Assad`s forces. Syria has seen several incidents in the past where the state has crushed opposition groups — 1982`s infamous Hama massacre springs to mind. But contrary to the past when the Assad family had managed to maintain their decades-old grip on power, matters may not go as smoothly this time. A Syrian rights group has cited a number of protes-ters being shot by security forces in different cities on Friday. On the other hand, the government has claimed that `armed gangs` have killed several policemen. Midnight raids, in which security personnel have picked up dozens of activists, have also been reported. Details of events in Syria are hard to verify independently; already a police state, the Baathist regime has been added to the unenviable list of state press `predators` by Reporters Without Borders, with Bahrain, Yemen and Libya also in the picture. All these Arab nations have been rocked by anti-government uprisings with the advent of the Arab Spring; their governments have cracked down with varying degrees of brutality. One thing is clear: change, when it comes, in Syria will not be without a significant number of casualties.

Some have described the Syrian set-up as a `tribal regime` dominated by the Assad clan. Observers say that if it attempts reforms, as demanded by protesters, the system will collapse. Hence the regime will fight hard to maintain the status quo. Though many western regimes have criticised the Syrian government for its alleged human rights abuses (while offering only muted criticism of Arab allies facing similar protests), the Arab world is eerily quiet, as regimes fear that unrest in Syria will have wide-ranging repercussions in the region. Turkey feels that if Syria`s Kurds make gains, its own Kurdish minority will be emboldened. In Lebanon, Hezbollah may lose a key benefactor while Iran will also lose what is probably its only major ally in the Arab world. Israel, which still occupies the Golan Heights, is also keeping an eye on Syria. The world will be watching developments in Syria very closely.

Ineffective defence

IN Pakistan, it is rare for anyone to even consider the possibility of their own culpability when faced with errors or slip-ups. This is especially true in sensitive cases. It was therefore a rather courageous step by the Pakistan Air Force to explain why it had failed to detect the US helicopters used in the operation against Osama bin Laden. Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman was reported as having said that the high-level radars along Pakistan’s western border had been inactive on the day in question, given that the country was not expecting any aerial threat from Afghanistan. A day later, PAF spokesman Air Commodore Tariq Yazdani said that the air surveillance system had neither been jammed nor had it been inactive. Given that he was unable to confirm whether the PAF had been aware of the helicopters’ incursion, we are left with even more questions.

Meanwhile, the list of Pakistan’s intelligence failures in terms of Bin Laden’s whereabouts constitutes a damning body of evidence. According to Bin Laden’s widow, he and his family left the tribal areas in 2003 to live in Chak Shah Mohammad, a settled area on the highway to Abbottabad, to which place they moved in 2005. This means that Pakistan’s security and intelligence forces somehow failed to take note of the presence of the world’s most wanted man in their backyard for over half a decade. Indeed, Afghanistan’s former intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, said on Thursday that Afghanistan’s intelligence service had suspected that Bin Laden had been hiding in Pakistan’s settled areas but that when the then president Musharraf was informed, he refused to entertain the idea.

All these revelations are not just embarrassing; they also raise serious doubts about a defence and security establishment that
prides itself on its effective professionalism. On Thursday, the army chief ordered an investigation into the intelligence failures that led to Bin Laden’s undetected presence, and why US personnel were able to enter Pakistani territory without the country’s security forces noticing. A step in the right direction though this may be, more is needed to assuage the doubts of Pakistanis. Their faith in the effectiveness of the security establishment has been badly shaken. Terrorists strike across the country with impunity; now, it seems that external forces can also enter undetected. An inquiry is needed not only into the recent intelligence failures but also the gaps in the defence and security system. It is hard, after all, to overlook the huge percentage of GDP that is swallowed up by the defence budget, and at a tremendous cost. Are Pakistanis getting what they’re paying for?