Banning groups is not enough

The US State Department has expressed concern, valid in this case, over the recent public appearances of Jamaatud Dawa chief, Hafiz Saeed, at public rallies organised by the Difaa-i-Pakistan Council. The State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland issued a statement on Thursday urging Pakistan to prevent him from moving freely, and to freeze the assets of the groups associated with him. Reminding Islamabad of its responsibilities, she said the "Lashkar-e-Taiba and its front group Jamaatud Dawa are internationally sanctioned because of their association with Al Qaeda.
We have continued to urge the Government of Pakistan to uphold its obligation in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1267/1989." Notably, the resolution calls on all countries to "freeze assets of sanctioned groups, prevent sanctioned individuals from entering or transiting their territories."
India has had even more serious issues with Pakistan over Hafiz Saeed. In addition to holding him responsible for the Laskhar-e-Taiba (LeT) activities in Kashmir, it accuses him of being the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks, and wants him arrested and tried for terrorism. Hafiz Saeed denies any link with the LeT, and says that a court of law has exonerated him of the charge (due to lack of evidence) of involvement in the Mumbai carnage. That though does not help. India has made a common cause with the US over LeT and Hafiz. While seeking restrictions on his activities, the US also asked Pakistan to stop allowing the LeT from acquiring weapons. It said that despite the fact that Pakistan had outlawed the LeT and frozen its assets in 2002, it however, re-emerged as a public welfare organisation under a new name: Jamaatud Dawa (JUD). In 2008, the US State Department added JUD too to its Specially Designated Global Terrorist list. Pakistan put JUD and its affiliate Al Rasheed Trust on its watch list. Yet their leaders were not restrained from acting in ways their adversaries see as provocative.
Common sense suggests outlawing groups and organisations is advantageous as long as people who run them are not free to engage in whatever activities they may fancy. As noted earlier, the policy has been to outlaw organisations and leave people to reinvent their identities. The policy is not peculiar to those accused of terrorism by the US or India; it is the same within the domestic context. Over the years, several sectarian outfits have been proscribed for engaging in violence against leaders and followers of rival sects, but allowed to resurface under new names. Consequently, sectarian terrorism has gone on unabated. It is about time that the powers that be realised that it is not enough to outlaw groups having violent agendas; it is equally, if not more, importantly necessary to restrain them from saying or doing things that led to the ban in the first place. This is needed not because the US or some other outsider says so, but for the sake of peace and security of this country and its people.