Afghan Refugee Deportation Policy

From Opinion: Violence on borderlands

Here is the condensed version of today’s opinion section in Dawn’s e-paper of Violence on Borderlands. Explore the complexities of the Afghan Refugee Deportation Policy in our latest blog. Uncover the nuances of balancing security and hospitality as we shed light on the key aspects and real-world implications of this significant policy.This is the provided link:

https://www.dawn.com/news/1791129/violence-on-borderlands

Map showing the flow of Afghan refugees following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979

The Policy of Deporting Afghan Refugees: Balancing Security and Hospitality

The recurring deportation of Afghan refugees from Pakistan has sparked a divisive debate, revealing the complexities of hospitality, security concerns, and diplomatic relations. While advocating for the ‘great push westwards,’ it’s crucial to recognize the historical context and the nuanced aspects embedded in this policy. Pakistan, a country entrenched in the practice of ‘othering,’ tends to overlook understanding outsiders like Afghan refugees despite their decades-long presence.

Supporting Policy Yet Acknowledging Historical Recurrence

Despite avoiding detailed scrutiny of the recent decision and its execution, Pakistan’s historical record indicates a pattern of retracting hospitality. Past instances during Gen Qamar Bajwa’s tenure and after the APS attack echo similar deportations, showcasing a penchant for recycling policies. This tendency isn’t confined to politics; it pervades economic sectors like textiles, often burdened with unmet expectations for miraculous export-led economic growth.

Security Concerns as the Primary Driver

The rationale behind the deportation policy consistently revolves around security apprehensions. Recent instances, notably triggered by an increase in terrorist activities, led to pointed references to Afghan nationals’ involvement in these attacks. Simultaneously, some perceive this as a tactical maneuver to exert pressure on Kabul’s government, illustrating the multidimensional motivations behind this decision.

Debating Effectiveness Amidst Diplomatic Ramifications

Questions arise concerning the efficacy of this stringent deportation approach in ameliorating the security landscape. Skepticism looms over whether forcibly repatriating individuals will tangibly enhance security or if it risks escalating tensions with Kabul. Moreover, critics ponder the retrospective fallacy of Pakistan’s assumptions post the Taliban’s assumption of power. Despite this, the questioning often stalls post-regime change in Kabul, failing to provoke deeper discourse or introspection.

The cyclical nature of refugee deportation reflects a delicate balance between security imperatives and humanitarian responsibilities. Pakistan’s recurrent resort to this policy underscores its struggle to reconcile these conflicting priorities. While security remains paramount, overlooking the humanitarian aspect might strain diplomatic relations and trigger ethical considerations. Engaging in a discourse that delves deeper into the historical context and broader implications of these actions could foster a more holistic approach to addressing the refugee issue.

Reevaluating Counter-Terrorism Strategies: Beyond Military Solutions

The intricacies of military strategies and their ramifications on conflicts often elude those not versed in security matters. The perplexing outcome of our extensive efforts against the TTP in the northwest, seemingly leading to their relocation to Afghanistan post the regime change, challenges the proclaimed victory and prompts introspection. In hindsight, the resurfacing of the TTP in Afghanistan, post-elimination claims, raises valid skepticism about the effectiveness of our past declarations.

Revisiting the Misjudged ‘Defeat’ of TTP: Misconstrued Success?

The notion of TTP’s apparent defeat within Pakistan now appears fallacious, given their resurgence in Afghanistan and subsequent security deterioration within Pakistan. This retrospective assessment questions the accuracy of our earlier proclamations. The assumption of ‘mission accomplished’ doesn’t withstand scrutiny in light of the TTP’s regrouping across the border.

Complexity Beyond Military Solutions: Sri Lankan Parallel and Porous Borders

A Sri Lankan acquaintance’s foresight regarding the complexity of Pakistan’s security landscape, as compared to their own situation, gains relevance. The island nation’s success in curbing insurgency contrasted with Pakistan’s porous borders and intricate geopolitical dynamics. The porousness of our borders exacerbates the challenge of managing militant outfits, as evident from the TTP’s relocation to Afghanistan.

Introspection Beyond Military Paradigms: The Unfulfilled Potential of NAP

The failure to grasp the multifaceted nature of the issue beyond a military lens stands out. The National Action Plan (NAP), a comprehensive strategy addressing terrorism and extremism, remains a lofty discourse but lacks substantive implementation. Despite transitioning through different governance models, the political will to execute the NAP seems feeble, indicating a broader reluctance to adopt non-military strategies. The prevailing societal consensus favoring force-based eradication reflects the collective mindset, undermining alternative approaches.

Pakistan’s failure to contain extremist outfits like the TTP indicates the inadequacy of a solely military-centric approach. The complexity of this issue necessitates a multifaceted strategy encompassing diplomatic, socio-economic, and political dimensions. The absence of a holistic approach, coupled with the neglect of softer approaches, underscores the need for introspection and reevaluation of our counter-terrorism strategies.

The Roots of Extremism: Beyond Militaristic Solutions

The genesis of extremist groups in Pakistan warrants a critical examination, acknowledging the state’s historical complicity in fostering radicalization and exercising control over regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) through localized power brokers. The cost-effective approach of managing these areas through non-state actors, rather than integrating them within the state structure, prevailed, creating fertile ground for subsequent challenges. The convenient recourse to force to address deviations from state patronage perpetuated the dichotomy of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban, deeply entrenched in the state’s reliance on local alliances.

Failure in Addressing Systemic Issues and Illicit Economies

The state’s response to rogue elements centered predominantly on force, neglecting the larger illicit economic networks operating hand-in-glove with certain state administrative arms. The absence of efforts to extend a conventional state apparatus involving law enforcement and a robust judicial system in these marginalized regions perpetuated the persistence of outdated economic practices. Despite military interventions, the fundamental economic structure remained largely untouched, perpetuating the status quo.

Consequences of Repetitive Crackdowns and Lack of Comprehensive Solutions

The recurring reaction of crackdowns post-attacks inadvertently affects the livelihoods of individuals dependent on cross-border economic activities. However, this reaction fails to address the crux of the issue: the existence of an entire socio-economic ecosystem fostering extremism. The predominant narrative from the mainland, simplifying the problem to violence by terrorists, neglects the systemic underpinnings of the ‘war economy’ prevalent in these regions.

The reluctance to confront the core issue facilitates turning these regions into restricted zones, limiting information flow and allowing a façade of normalcy on the mainland. Yet, the actual predicament lies within the ‘war economy’ perpetuating extremism. A shift in focus from merely targeting militants to dismantling the economic structures sustaining them is imperative. Acknowledging and addressing the root cause—the ‘war economy’—is pivotal in advancing meaningful solutions.

Difficult words:

Retrospective fallacy – A mistaken belief that events were predictable or inevitable after they have occurred, but were not necessarily so at the time.

Fallacious – Based on a mistaken belief or unsound reasoning.

Façade – An outward appearance concealing the true nature of something.

Dichotomy – Division into two contrasting parts or opinions.

Credit:Farhan khan