Talks with PTM
srh-hashmi last edited by
Comment by S.R.H. Hashmi
While I do admit that talks are about the best means to resolve disputes but then for this to be so, both sides have to be honest about seeking a peaceful solution. And having heard PTM leaders, I am afraid I do not get that impression. In PTM leader, I see a Nehal Hashmi, only much worse, and determined.
There are other factor as well. After very costly Iraq invasion, the US and its gang developed an economy model, which they successfully applied in LIbya and Syria. This model involves creating dissensions within the country and then developing them to a full-scale war, with selective input from the sponsors.
And we know that after devastating Iraq, Libya and Syria, the gang is now after Pakistan, Iran and Turkey, with Pakistan being the highly prized trophy because of being a nuclear power as well as an ally of China, which both India and the US see as a bitter rival. And of course India has enough influence in Afghanistan which it has been using to destabilize Pakistan.
The peculiar timing of the rise of PTM movement, as well as its ferocity, also raise grave doubts about its real objectives. And the announcement by the PTM to hold on May 12 a rally in Karachi, which hosts a substantial Pakhtoon population, only confirms such suspicions.
And while Pakhtoon have suffered, so has the rest of the country at the hands of Taliban who are predominantly Pakhtoon. So while Pakhtoons have some just grievances, there are also equally strong claims against them, though going further back, even the responsibility for creating Taliban rests with Gen. Ziaul Haq who needlessly jumped into US revenge war with USSR in order to consolidate and prolong his mis-rule over the country.
So, you see, the matter is not a simple one and has many dimensions, including some very ominous ones.
The fact is that the whole nation has suffered because of the past folly of its leaders. And the suffering of the entire nation - including of Pakhtoons - should be regarded as a penalty payable by the nation for not being careful in electing, selecting, tolerating and condoning the sort of leaders it had in the past.
And we should remember that a lesser evil, even though not ideal, is still preferable to a situation a thousand times worse.
Put simply, it is still preferable to accept the injustices of the past as a relatively small price to pay for a better future instead of different sections of the population starting a free-for-all - with input from sponsors - and ending up very much like Libyans or Syrians.