I listen to all the arguments of the pro-Nizam-e-Adl camp to why the agreement was good for all involved and how there was no other solution to the problem. So I ask you some questions based on the same logic that you defend the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation:

Would you also argue that the Palestinians should accept any peace deal that Israel puts on the table because it will bring them peace

And that the Kashmiris should accept any peace deal that India offers because it will bring them peace?

Would you have advised the Bosnians that peace at any cost is better than principled fights for independence and sustainable peace?

Would you ask the Iraqis to accept any peace agreement that the US/NATO forces put forward if it will bring them peace?

Should the Afghani people accept any terms that the ISAF demands just to have peace in their country?

And Russia should accept the terms that the Georgians are putting forward to gain peace?

Should Sri Lanka just accept the Tamil Rebel demands to insure peace for its nation?

And Tibet and the Dali Lama accept the demands of China to ensure peace?

Thus, and therefore, your decision to accept peace at any cost will bring immediate world peace with many masters.

Many of those who are arguing the virtues of the Nizam-e-Adl should accept these as viable solutions to long-standing problems because it will bring peace without concern for what is lost in the process.

Peace is only viable when there is freedom to live your life and enjoy it.

The “peace” that has been achieved in Swat provides neither freedom nor enjoyment, and therefore, not a sustainable peace.