EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

Drone timing

FRIDAY night’s drone attack brings to mind another one from March 2011. Raymond Davis had barely left Pakistan when a strike killed 40 men at a jirga in North Waziristan. Like the Nato supplies stand-off, the Davis incident had fuelled anti-Americanism in Pakistan, become a bone of contention in the US-Pakistan relationship and was only solved after prolonged wrangling. Now the resolution of another crisis in ties — except this one lasted seven months, and had more significant consequences — has also been marked by a drone attack, this one killing 20 people. Although they are more likely to have been militants this time, the message was obvious: America intends to get back to business immediately, and will not let Pakistani concerns get in the way of its counterterrorism goals. But the sheer insensitivity — and imprudence — of the timing demonstrates that, after a rocky year and a half with Pakistan, the US still hasn’t realised how carefully certain aspects of the relationship need to be handled.

Friday’s strike will play right into the hands of opposition parties and right-wing elements that are inciting public opinion against the reopening of Nato supply routes; a lack of resolution on the drone programme was precisely one of the points they have been bringing up. It also has the potential to increase the security risk to truckers and the communities they pass through. And the attack has exposed the fact that, despite parliament having taken a strong stand against unilateral drone strikes and despite the public rhetoric of Pakistani officials, a new approach was not developed behind the scenes as the two countries tried to revive the relationship. Which also suggests that the US views this moment not as a new chapter in ties, but as a continuation of the old story now that one inconvenient road block has been removed.

Pakistan need not deny that the drone strikes have done this country good too, taking out senior figures in the Pakistani Taliban. Despite their civilian casualties, they are more precise than conventional Pakistani air strikes can ever be. And this country has not played its cards right either, supporting the programme in private conversations with American officials — at least historically — while railing against it in public. Ultimately, though, these are now unilateral strikes carried out by a foreign country on Pakistani soil, and they anger citizens across the ideological spectrum. A joint mechanism to run the drone programme needs to be developed and made public. And until then, it would be wise to ensure that the biggest strikes do not take place at the worst possible times.

Turbat killings

THE cycle of violence in Balochistan continues unabated. This time it was the insurgents, killing 18 Punjabis in Turbat who were en route to Iran and then presumably onwards to being smuggled into Europe. Suspicion has fallen on Dr Allah Nazar and the Baloch Liberation Front, known to be active in the area. The only, though grim, difference in the latest attack by the Baloch separatists is the number of people killed in the incident. Attacks on Punjabis trying to make their way to Europe illegally have occurred before, particularly in the Mand area closer to the border with Iran. In fact, the human smugglers operating through Balochistan are believed to have changed their routes after clients trying to escape to a better future baulked at the risks along the original smuggling path. But the BLF and Allah Nazar appear to have caught up with them, instilling more fear in Punjabis daring to cross through remote Baloch-dominated territories.

Whether a tactic born of hatred or desperation, the killing of ‘outsiders’ in Baloch areas only ends up diminishing support for the Baloch cause. The state has engaged in its own violence against the Baloch — military operations, missing persons, kill-and-dump operations — and that is certainly a big factor in the violence that the Baloch separatists engage in. But it is a self-defeating tactic. Lose the sympathy and support of reasonable and right-thinking people across Pakistan and the Baloch will be more than ever at the mercy of a security establishment that views them with suspicion at the best of times. The solution is, of course, well known by now: the governments, both provincial and federal, must push for an end to state violence while at the same time meaningfully reaching out to the disaffected Baloch who have an ingrained suspicion of how the bigger provinces treat the geographically vast but sparsely populated province. Allah Nazar’s armed separatists are still not believed to number more than a few hundred. But seven years into the latest Balochistan insurgency more Baloch may be tempted to join him and others of his ilk if they don’t see any change in the state’s approach.

Doctors’ strike

THE young doctors’ firebrand trade unionism for an improved service structure entered a new, crucial phase on Saturday. The Lahore High Court asked them to reopen all departments at public hospitals on Monday, suspending all actions of the Punjab government against the strikers. A day earlier the LHC had ordered opening of the emergency wards, a step the young doctors had conditioned on the release of their colleagues. Particularly contentious is the booking of four doctors charged with murder following the death of a child under treatment at Mayo Hospital in Lahore. The parents need justice but the doctors argue the murder clause cannot be legally invoked against them. While this is for the court to decide, efforts for an end to the excruciating protest in Punjab’s hospitals will be dogged by this case as well as by other factors that have been allowed to be at play for far too long.

The affair has been badly mishandled. The government is guilty of underestimating the realities that spawned the protest and acting as an ignorant but tough taskmaster. The doctors suffered gravely because their organisation lacked the discipline seen in unions. These oft-cited factors remain relevant as the strikers sit down to plan their future course in the light of the LHC’s orders. There are not just two sets of demands that are at variance here; there are also altogether contrasting manuals for the running of hospitals. When such a clash takes place, a new rule book must emerge. That will be the ultimate result of this doctors’ drive, one which will only begin to take shape after the current hostilities give way to a clear-headed, dispassionate discussion. The two positions have been overstated. There is little sense in prolonging the matter at the cost of patients who have already paid a heavy price for the stand-off.