Haqqani Network and Jamaat-ud-Dawa: Banned or not?

It is very rare that I read an editorial on a subject that I am deeply vested in and agree with every point made. Dawn, the Pakistani newspaper, hit the nail square on the head with an editorial, titled “Banned or not?”. The paper asks the hard questions about whether the Pakistani government has really banned the Haqqani Network and Jamaat-ud-Dawa. [For LWJ‘s analysis on this subject, see: Reported ban of Haqqani Network unlikely to end Pakistan’s support of group, and Pakistan falsely claims it takes ‘immediate action’ against terror groups listed by the UN.]

The editorial is reproduced in full, below. Keep in mind that asking tough questions about the Pakistani state’s duplicity with respect to terrorist groups requires quite a bit of courage in that country. The Long War Journal is banned in Pakistan to this day for noting Pakistan’s good-vs-bad Taliban problem, as well as exposing other issues. But that is a small price to pay. Brave and insightful journalists, such as Asia Times reporter Syed Saleem Shahzad, have been tortured and brutally murdered for questioning the Pakistani state and its links to the Taliban and other jihadist groups.

Kudos to Dawn for its cogent editorial.

IT ought to be a straightforward answer to a simple question: has the Pakistani state taken any measures in recent weeks against, among others, the Haqqani network and Jamaatud Dawa that impact on the legal and operational status of those groups on Pakistani soil?

Unhappily, even in this most straightforward of cases, the Pakistani state is being anything but direct and honest.

The Foreign Office tells the media to check with the Interior Ministry and Nacta; the otherwise voluble and media-attention-loving Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan goes silent; anonymous bureaucrats and unnamed officials give contradictory statements; parliament is given ambiguous answers to direct questions; and nowhere does anyone in any relevant public office show any inclination to inform the public of what is or is not being done in their name.

Meanwhile, the conspiracy theories are growing more feverish: an outright ban, frozen bank accounts, restrictions on foreign travel of JuD leaders — whatever new measures have been taken, it has all been done at the behest of the US to placate an angry India and assist the Afghan government.

Such conspiracy theories do more than confuse the public; they strike at the heart of the consensus this country needs, that the fight against militancy is Pakistan’s own and not imposed by the outside world on a hapless nation.

All the confusion can be cleared up by a simple, authoritative statement by the interior ministry, or — given the implications for national security policy — by the Prime Minister’s Office. But, in a way that echoes the old practice here of saying one thing (or saying nothing) and doing another, the government has chosen to remain silent — just as the state alternates between remaining silent about drone strikes and condemning them.

Just as once upon a time the army-led security establishment cut clandestine — sometimes, public — deals with militant groups while claiming it was opposed to religiously inspired militant groups existing on Pakistani soil. And just as the state banned Lashkar-e-Taiba, but allowed it to first morph into Jamaatud Dawa and now, to some extent, into the Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation.

A simple path towards clarity — at least in terms of designation and profiles — in the present instance was offered by the Supreme Court on Thursday: make public the names of proscribed groups and translate anti-terrorism laws into local languages to increase awareness.

As the Supreme Court observed, often the public is unaware that groups operating as social welfare networks or collecting charity are in fact designated by the state to be terrorist groups. That has the effect of allowing the groups to grow and even gain public affection by pretending to be something they most certainly are not.

Perhaps it will be easier to begin to believe that the era of good militants/bad militants is over if the state can bring itself to name and ban all militant groups.

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD's Long War Journal.

Are you a dedicated reader of FDD's Long War Journal? Has our research benefitted you or your team over the years? Support our independent reporting and analysis today by considering a one-time or monthly donation. Thanks for reading! You can make a tax-deductible donation here.

Tags: , , , , ,

1 Comment

  • mike merlo says:

    it should be noted that just about every columnist of consequence opining for Dawn does not reside in Pakistan nor do many others who hold key positions for the publication


Islamic state



Al shabaab

Boko Haram