Taliban massacre of children: how Pakistan must now change

The Taliban massacre of school children, meant to avenge a military offensive, has stirred political leaders to unite. Perhaps this will lead to firm civilian control of the military and put an end to leniency toward all types of armed groups outside state authority.

AP Photo
Pakistanis in Islamabad hold a vigil for victims of a school attacked by the Taliban in Peshawar Dec. 16.

On Tuesday, Taliban militants in Pakistan killed 141 people – 132 of whom were children – at a school, not only shocking the conscience of the world but perhaps setting in motion a reaction that the jihadist group did not intend. Just like the United States after 9/11, Pakistan may never be the same after this galvanizing assault.

The attack by seven terrorists in the city of Peshawar was designed to avenge recent operations by the military against the group known as Tehrik-e-Taliban. The school is run by the military, but most of the students killed were not children of soldiers. The attack was the worst since 2007, when 150 people were killed in a suicide bombing in Karachi.

What is remarkable about the Pakistani reaction is that the heads of all national political parties met with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to consider joint action against the Taliban challenge. In symbolic terms alone, this is progress. In a recent ranking of the world’s most “fragile states” by the Fund for Peace, Pakistan came out 10th. It is a weak democracy, awash in armed groups such as religious militias, separatist rebels, private guards, and criminal gangs. 

“We are deeply fragmented today as a nation,” said Minister for Defense Khawaja Muhammad Asif after the attack. But he added, “We must have one message for the enemy. We shall overcome [with the will of Allah] and rid our land of this scourge.”

The Pakistani military also has a long history of lording it over civilian leaders. Its intelligence arm has even backed groups such as the Taliban in Afghanistan. Any society needs civilian leaders who not only reflect the consent of the governed but are given sole authority over the use of violence to keep order. For Pakistan, civilian supremacy is still a work in progress although it has improved as more Pakistanis realize they must confront the violence of jihadists and their ideology of abolishing democracy. 

For decades, Pakistan’s military tolerated or backed militant groups for religious reasons or for strategic purposes against India and Afghanistan. But a naive belief that there are good and bad jihadists may be coming to an end. Perhaps the top brass also recognizes that elected civilian leaders, no matter how flawed, best reflect the national purpose.

Armed groups like the Taliban only fill a vacuum when a country’s democratic institutions fail to provide basic services such as security, justice, and jobs. Those secular responsibilities cannot be fulfilled by sectarian groups. Pakistan needs to cement its identity as a democratic nation, rooted in elected leaders and rule of law, not rule by groups with guns or suicide belts. Only then can its children be safe.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Taliban massacre of children: how Pakistan must now change
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today