Policies to prevent extremism

The latest policy introduced by the government to counter extremism appears to be another addition to the long list of previously proposed strategies, many of which remain unimplemented. The National Prevention of Violent Extremism Policy (NPVE), formulated by Nacta, is built around the five Rs: revisit, reach out, reduce risk, reinforce, and reintegrate. However, its content largely mirrors previous policies, including the National Action Plan (2021), the National Security Policy, and other counter-extremism initiatives. A major flaw in such policy-making is the repeated emphasis on establishing new institutions instead of reforming existing ones. The policy touches upon crucial areas such as media regulation, repatriation of Afghan refugees, and countering terrorism financing under FATF obligations. However, critical aspects like the Balochistan reconciliation process, judicial reforms, and law enforcement coordination remain largely overlooked. Despite the activation of the Joint Intelligence Directorate, its effectiveness is questionable, as terrorism persists and militant groups continue expanding their influence.

The NPVE document prioritizes policing methods for ideological and social issues, which traditionally fall outside law enforcement’s domain. The policy includes curriculum reforms promoting peace and tolerance, but skepticism remains regarding its implementation, especially in religious institutions resistant to change due to their sectarian leanings. Trust-building efforts with religious scholars are also questionable, as past attempts under the Paigham-i-Pakistan initiative have had limited impact. Another controversial aspect is the establishment of multiple research and monitoring centers despite the presence of institutions already engaged in such efforts. The policy also proposes campus surveillance, raising concerns over privacy and selective targeting of public institutions. Furthermore, media sensitization measures risk tightening state control over press freedom, reinforcing existing narratives that align with political interests. A particularly flawed suggestion is forming a national commission for reconciling warring communities, despite parliament already being a constitutional reconciliatory body. The recurring cycle of drafting new policies without addressing fundamental institutional reforms highlights the government’s failure to implement lasting solutions for countering extremism.

Overview:

The NPVE policy is yet another ambitious attempt at addressing extremism but lacks practical implementation strategies. Instead of reforming existing institutions, the government focuses on creating new ones, leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies. The policy includes educational reforms and trust-building initiatives with religious scholars, yet these efforts have historically seen limited success. Media regulation, surveillance mechanisms, and vague policy commitments raise concerns about state overreach and ineffective counter-extremism strategies.

NOTES:

The article critically analyzes the flaws in Pakistan’s counter-extremism policies, particularly the NPVE. It highlights bureaucratic inefficiencies, the redundancy of policy measures, and the lack of implementation. The discussion on law enforcement, judicial reforms, and the role of religious institutions provides insight into governance challenges and security policies. Candidates preparing for security and governance-related topics should focus on policy failures, the importance of institutional reforms, and the balance between security measures and civil liberties.

Relevant CSS Syllabus Topics:

• Pakistan Affairs (Internal security challenges, counter-extremism policies)
• Governance and Public Policy (Institutional inefficiencies, policy formulation)
• International Relations (FATF obligations, global counterterrorism measures)
• Current Affairs (Religious extremism, media regulation, and national security)

Notes for Beginners:

The article discusses how Pakistan’s new anti-extremism policy repeats past mistakes by focusing on new institutions rather than improving existing ones. For example, while the government aims to regulate religious institutions and media, similar past efforts have failed due to a lack of enforcement. Trust-building with religious scholars is a key feature, but unless these scholars actively promote peace, the initiative will be ineffective. A similar issue was seen in the Paigham-i-Pakistan initiative, where religious leaders did not fully embrace state-led narratives. A significant concern is media control, as excessive state regulation may lead to censorship rather than genuine extremism prevention.

Facts and Figures:

• National Prevention of Violent Extremism Policy (NPVE): Introduced by Nacta as part of the National Action Plan (2021) to counter extremism.
• The Five Rs: The policy focuses on five key principles: ‘revisit’, ‘reach out’, ‘reduce risk’, ‘reinforce’, and ‘reintegrate.’
• Implementation Timeline: The policy’s implementation is divided into short term (6 months), medium term (1-3 years), and long term (5 years).
• National Action Plan (2021): The revised action plan which the NPVE aligns with.
• Phases of Policy Implementation: The implementation spans 6 months to 5 years, with different components for short-term, medium-term, and long-term.
• Religious Affairs Ministry’s Role: Involvement of partners like the National Curriculum Council and the Higher Education Commission for curriculum reforms in educational institutions to promote tolerance and peace.
• Creation of New Institutions: New centres will be established for research on countering extremism, media monitoring, and spreading the National Narrative.

To sum up, The NPVE policy is a classic case of bureaucratic redundancy, filled with ambitious yet impractical goals. Without meaningful institutional reforms and genuine enforcement mechanisms, it is unlikely to succeed where past policies have failed. The government must prioritize practical implementation over drafting repetitive policy documents that do little beyond rhetorical commitments.

Difficult Words and Meanings:

• Repatriate – To send someone back to their country of origin (Syn: Deport, Ant: Retain)
• Reconciliation – The process of restoring friendly relations (Syn: Settlement, Ant: Conflict)
• Supremacist – A person who believes in the superiority of a particular group (Syn: Chauvinist, Ant: Egalitarian)
• Bureaucratic – Relating to an overly complex administrative system (Syn: Red tape, Ant: Efficient)
• Sensitize – To make someone aware of an issue (Syn: Inform, Ant: Ignore)