Always Among The Worst

By Amir Zia
Monday, Dec 30, 2013
The New 

For Pakistani babies born in 2013 and beyond, the state has only to offer an unwelcoming and brutalised society. Peace, prosperity, and happiness will remain elusive for our children as we have created a society where violence, extremism and lawlessness are rife
Last year, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a sister company of The Economist, carried out a research to measure which country will provide “the best opportunities for a healthy, safe and prosperous life in the years ahead.”
The report, titled ‘The lottery of life’, was carried in The Economist’s annual issue, ‘The World in 2013’, in which out of 80 countries, Pakistan ranked at a dismal 75th position – only ahead of Angola, Bangladesh, Ukraine, Kenya and Nigeria.
The five countries tipped best for a baby born in 2013 were Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The report was published in Urdu by the Jang Group in partnership with The Economist in ‘Kaiysa Hoga 2013?’, an annual publication available in the local market since 2010. 
The EIU report included parameters like quality-of-life linked to the results of subjective-life satisfactory surveys – “how happy people say they are – to objective determinants of the quality of life across countries.” The report said that being rich helps more than anything else, but at the same time crime rate, trust in institutions and the health of family life mattered too, along with demography, geography and many social and cultural characteristics.
The EIU forecasts to 2030 are aimed at finding where the luckiest babies would be born in 2013 and at identifying places that remain among the worst.
Pakistan’s was well below neighbouring India which got the 66th position, Sri Lanka at 63rd and Iran at 58th. Comparing ourselves with Europe, North America, Far East and Middle East of course makes no sense, as they remain far ahead of us in each and every number. For Pakistani babies, the future indications are indeed bleak. 
In its latest issue, ‘The World in 2014’, the EIU report focused on countries that remain ripe for rebellion and major upheavals. Here again, Pakistan was placed in the category of high risk countries – but luckily not among the “very high risk”. Still, Pakistan’s bracketing among high risk countries is a manifestation of its institutional and political weaknesses. Chances of social unrest and risk of instability makes it a risky place, which appears ripe for rebellion.
The EIU is only one among many international institutions that have come up with worrying indicators for the country. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, Unicef, the World Health Organisation and many more have only sad numbers to report and bad tidings to give about Pakistan’s present and the future.
Sixty-eight years after Independence, we have been unable to provide tap water to nearly 50 percent of our urban and 80 percent of the rural population. More than 43 million Pakistanis defecate in the open as access to toilets remains shamefully out of their reach, according to Unicef. 
Pakistan is all set to miss its Millennium Development Goal targets on health and education by 2015. The net enrolment rates in education have risen, but still remain the lowest in South Asia. The World Bank says that infant and under-five mortality rates showed a similar story, while the country remains plagued by gender disparities in education, health and all the economic sectors. 
Around 44 percent of children below the age of five are stunted because of lack of proper nutrition. And the resource allocation on education as a percentage of GDP places Pakistan among the lowest spenders on education and health in the region. (at around two percent of GDP).
We have been unable to eradicate the polio virus from the country because a small, militant religious section of the population considers polio vaccination to be against the tenants of Islam and a western conspiracy to make our future generations infertile. The result is that Pakistan is among the only three countries if the world where this deadly disease still exists. Our holy warriors attack and kill polio vaccinators and do not allow children to get polio drops in many areas – not just in the terrorist infested tribal areas, but even some parts of Karachi. 
The fast eroding writ of the state, growing lawlessness, crime and the twin challenges of religiously motivated extremism and terrorism makes Pakistan among the most dangerous countries of the world.
One can get killed in Pakistan simply for marrying against the wishes of one’s family or following a religious belief seen as heretical by some other sect. Terrorists are free to explode bombs, assassinate and carry out suicide attacks, but the best our rulers can do is to beg for talks with them rather than trying to establish rule of law and the writ of the state.
As if all the corruption and nepotism are not enough to mint money, many of our politicians now patronise organised crime and mafias. Karachi – Pakistan’s main financial and commercial hub – is a living example of how the unholy nexus between crime and politics wrecks the economic potential and prospects of a city that could play a lead role providing new jobs and triggering growth in the country.
Our persistent dilemma is that many of the life and death issues that confront the nation do not appear to be among the top priorities of our successive rulers. They do pay lip service to these causes, but when it comes to matching their words with action, they miserably fail.
The priorities of our ruling political elite appear all skewed. Their narrative is dominated by the false interpretation of national honour, misplaced notions of religion, giving centrality to US drone attacks on terrorists, and many non-issues which won’t be worthy of a footnote in history. 
Rather than addressing the causes of conflicts and contradictions within society, they are wrestling with symptoms. As a local saying goes: rather than removing the dead dog they are pulling out buckets of water from the well thinking that it would do the trick and clean up the mess. 
Amidst all this, life for a common Pakistani is a living ordeal. A vast number of Pakistanis remain denied of their fundamental rights starting from safety of life and property to those of education, health and employment. 
No wonder, for Pakistani babies born in 2013 and beyond, the state has only to offer an unwelcoming and brutalised society. Peace, prosperity, and happiness will remain elusive for our children as we have created a society where violence, extremism and lawlessness are rife.
It is understandable why Pakistan is branded among the high risk countries. It is teetering at the brink of chaos, anarchy and social and political unrest, because of the apathy of the ruling classes, their inability to make intellectually right choices and take tough decisions.
As another year nearly draws to an end, many Pakistanis prepare to brace the New Year without a song in their hearts or a sparkle in their souls. They face an uncertain future and testing times ahead on every front.
Will 2014 prove any better? Will Pakistan be able to rein in terrorists and extremists? Will extortionists, kidnappers, robbers and drug peddlers allow us to breathe easy? Will we be able to beat corruption and nepotism? Will Pakistan start its journey towards creating a more just and humane society that ensures that every child goes to school and does not have to toil in the labour market? Will our rulers be able to provide clean water, better healthcare and sanitation to the masses?
These are only questions. Who has the answers?
The new year again provides an opportunity to make a fresh resolve and set the direction for change – a change for the better – and pull the country out from the list that ranks us as among the worst.

Living On Controversies

By Amir Zia
Friday, December 28, 2013
The News

With friends like Chaudhry Nisar and Ishaq Dar, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan do not need any enemies. The bitter and angry duo has mastered the art of damaging Pakistan’s interest through their recklessness.

Initially, the barrage of statements fired almost on a daily basis by the two main pillars of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s cabinet used to appear shocking, but now one finds them more and more farcical. While Sharif – in his third stint as prime minister – has learned to speak with restraint and in a measured tone at least in public, two of his top guns – Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar – are running amok.
The duo is creating controversies where ideally there should be none. They are bombastic and verbose where economy of words is required. They are emotional and melodramatic where level-headedness and self-control remain the need of the hour. They tend to defy logic and common sense for their love of exaggeration and thunderous posturing.
In a nutshell, their common dilemma, like many other Pakistani politicians, remains that they speak too much and love to play to the gallery. In opposition, perhaps a politician can get away with irresponsible statements, but when in power, words matter and they have consequences and repercussions for the country. A fact that hardly seems to matter for the two ministers who have a penchant for shooting emotionally-loaded and ill-timed statements. The lure of microphones and the spotlight of the 24/7 television cameras keep them going.
If Dar had the cheek to tip the currency dealers that the dollar would slide in the local market, therefore they should sell their greenback stocks to prevent losses without taking into account the meagre foreign exchange reserves held by the State Bank of Pakistan, the interior minister remains fond of giving long sermons to Washington and speaking freely on issues from Pakistan-US relations to Bangladesh’s recent hanging to death of a Jamaat-e-Islami leader on war crime charges – matters which should be better left for the foreign ministry to deal with.
One day we find the finance minister vowing to get every cent out of the Washington’s pocket due under the coalition support fund (CSF), the other Nisar Ali Khan castigating the Obama administration for what he believes as sabotaging the ‘peace talks’ with the Al Qaeda-inspired local militants responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent civilians and security personnel in terrorist attacks and suicide bombings across Pakistan.
“Time to choose dollar or honour”, Nisar Ali Khan said in one of his many passionate statements. But ironically his display of bravado appears hollow.
In the world of politics and game of power theatrics are often self-defeating and a reflection of immaturity of personality and of untutored minds. The power of silence is as important as the eloquence of speech that calls for action, mobilises the people and raises the spirit of nations to perform magnificent feats. Yes, great minds and astute politicians weigh their words before they speak – even in public oratory.
However, discretion and caution don’t appear to be a forte of Chaudhry Nisar. On the floor of parliament, he went all out to slam Bangladesh over the hanging of Abdul Quader Mollah, calling it his sacred duty as a Muslim to do so. Earlier, the Foreign Office rightly declared it an internal matter of Bangladesh, but then who can stop our interior minister from speaking on an issue where he had to keep his mouth shut. He had to swank his bravado and holier than thou mentality in parliament. Perhaps Chaudhry Nisar should be a satisfied Muslim now as his reckless speech contributed in triggering anti-Pakistan riots in Bangladesh. Should one congratulate him over this feat?
And this is not the first time that the interior minister intruded in the domain of the Foreign Office and tried to set the tone of diplomacy. Who can forget Chaudhry Sahib’s emotional performance both at the press conference and in parliament when he mourned the killing of the outlawed Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan chief Hakeemullah Mehsud in a US drone attack last month.
If Chaudhry Nisar is to be believed, Pakistan lost its best bet for peace in the country, conveniently ignoring that in November 2009 Pakistani authorities offered a reward of Rs50 million for any information leading to the arrest or killing of Hakeemullah Mehsud who was responsible for a string of bombings and suicide attacks across Pakistan. Perhaps Washington should ask the Sharif government to pay the bounty money as promised or deduct that amount from its assistance to Pakistan.
Nisar’s anti-US posture provided the stage where Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf managed to go a step forward and block Nato supplies going through Pakistan to Afghanistan. It is yet another matter that the mighty Khan placed himself in a hole by resorting to the blockade, which threatens the much-needed US aid and payments for the coalition support fund to Pakistan and testing its ties with the 28-nation bloc of Nato nations.
As if this was not enough, the interior minister ridiculed his own government’s Foreign Affairs Advisor Sartaj Aziz when another US drone attack killed six people including three militants belonging to the Haqqani network in Hangu; the minister accused Washington of sabotaging the dream peace talks with the militants.
With the hard-line cleric Mullah Fazlullah now in command of the TTP, militants have responded to the government’s mantra of talks by action. A truck loaded with explosives rammed into a military check post in Mir Ali, North Waziristan killing five soldiers and wounding more than 40 earlier this month. Foreign and local militants fought pitched battles with the security forces following this incident in which the death toll has crossed well over 50 in just two days. Yet our interior minister fails to see the writing on the wall.
With the country’s foreign exchange reserves barely enough to meet its three weeks of import bill and the economy at the brink of a balance of payment crisis, Pakistan certainly does not need the American dollars going by interior minister’s statement. Pakistan can survive and live happily ever after on Chaudhry Nisar’s highly misplaced notion of national honour, the Mullah Fazlullah-led TTP, vast stretch of its territory under the control of foreign and local terrorists, exploding bombs and killing civilians and security personnel when they want.
With friends like Chaudhry Nisar and Ishaq Dar, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan do not need any enemies. The bitter and angry duo has mastered the art of damaging Pakistan’s interest through their recklessness. Many of the controversies triggered by the two ministers can easily be avoided if saner minds and moderate personalities are holding such important portfolios.
If Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif wants to realise his vision of turning around the country’s economy, building trust and friendship with neighbours and world powers including the United States and establish rule of law and writ of the state, he has first to pick the right individuals for these jobs; those who can control the demons of their emotions, impotent rage and resist temptations of speaking too much and too loud.
Is Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) that barren that it can’t come up with better substitutes?

Delusion Versus Reality

By Amir Zia

Monday, December 9, 2013

The News 
The lull in killings that followed the start of the Karachi operation is part of the old pattern in which after every spike in violence there comes a similar period of relative calm. 

Despite the three-month long continuing operation against criminals and terrorists, Karachi remains as dangerous and lawless as ever. Refuse to accept what many of our top government officials want us to believe – that the operation has brought the crime rate down and managed to rein in killers, extortionists, drug peddlers and robbers.

Our rulers live in a make-believe world. They wear rose-tinted glasses and feel safe in their bubble. The high walls of official residences, siren-hooting motorcades and empty roads – where no trespassing is allowed when the lords and masters of today’s Pakistan move from one place to another – make everything around them appear hunky-dory.

But the rough and tough real world of Karachi’s ordinary citizens is unsafe and treacherous. In this world, killing and being killed by a bullet is far easier than getting an appointment from a doctor at a government health facility or enrollment of your child in school. Whatever the government statistics may claim, here killers strike at will. Assassins come, shoot and simply walk away. The business of killing has become as simple as that.

The first six days of December are enough to put a big hole in the grand delusion that the Karachi operation is heading in the right direction. These six days saw more than three dozen people shot to death in various parts of the city. December 3 proved the worst, a day on which more than a dozen people were killed. The list of victims included Sunni and Shia clerics, seminary students, policemen, political activists and several ordinary citizens. 

Let the top police and rangers officials bask in the glory of ‘successful raids’ by their men, which led to the arrests of over 10,000 suspects and seizure of a huge number of weapons. The chest-thumping done by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his talented Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and bigwigs of the provincial government fails to alter the ground reality where the non-state actors have greater control over violence, which should ideally be the prerogative of the state.

Despite the operation, assassins have effectively managed to underline the bitter fact that the police and the Rangers are not the masters of the situation in this teeming port city.

The lull in killings that followed the start of the Karachi operation is part of the old pattern in which after every spike in violence there comes a similar period of relative calm. Haven’t Karachi-ites seen this before?

The players and faces of executioners change and new brutal forces join in the game of death, pushing lawlessness to the next higher level. But what doesn’t changes is the state’s inability and unwillingness to deal with the challenge. As a result Karachi – with its myriad ethnic, sectarian, social, economic and political conflicts and contradictions – now seems to be resting on a gunpowder keg which can ignite and explode anytime.

The state institutions are on the back foot. After every fresh bout of violence, they either get into a fire-fighting mode or prefer to take a backseat and let the conflict temporarily subside on its own. In both these cases, the root causes of the strife remain unaddressed. 

Take for example the issue of sectarian killings. The security forces do arrest notorious militants, but they are seldom brought to justice because of weak investigations, poor prosecution and a highly flawed judicial system. These convicted operate terror networks from prisons against the backdrop of an ill-judged moratorium on hanging placed by the previous government in 2008. 

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government continued with the cessation in hanging in the larger interest of convicts. In today’s Pakistan, convicted murderers have human rights, but those they kill – and their families – have none. They are just forgotten to appease the European Union, the rights groups and the outlawed terror organisations.

This is only one aspect of the problem. The state and its institutions also fail to act against those nurseries which produce the extremist mindset. Pulpits and seminaries continue to operate unregulated. The current government has gone an extra mile to appease extremists by its desperation to hold talks with the Al-Qaeda-inspired local Taliban. No wonder, our security forces do not know whether to treat these forces as friends or foes. The security apparatus stands paralysed thanks to the confusion brought about by the mantra of talks by the right-wing religious opposition and even the government’s stalwarts – foremost among them being our interior minister.

When the man in charge of the country’s internal security fails to recognise threat and give direction, it would be unjust to blame the security agencies at his command to do the needful. The same is the case with militants affiliated with political and mainstream religious parties. They also benefit from the shortcomings of the prosecution and the judicial system.

Political considerations prevent security officials from going for a decisive action. The so-called operations and crackdowns are carried out in fits and starts. Policing gets further compromised when sitting provincial ministers patronise ring leaders of extortionist and criminal mafias. 

Let’s not forget the banned Peoples’ Amn Committee of Lyari and its ties with some of the stalwarts of the Pakistan People’s Party. No wonder the committee’s top-gun Uzair Baloch escapes abroad so easily. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement, despite its emphatic lip-service on breaking ties with militancy, continues to harbour militants under its wings. 

There are a few things that never change. The Awami National Party, the Sunni Tehreek, the Jamaat-e-Islami and several others including Sindhi nationalist parties all have armed gangs at their disposal and many of them directly involved in crime and terrorism.

To add to this problem is the fact that authorities are seen as unfair players in Karachi’s cauldron. The PPP now represents the interests of the rural ruling class. Most of its actions – including continuously framing and changing laws to make the local bodies as ineffective as possible; supporting one gang of outlaws to counter the muscle power of the MQM; and heavily biased structure of provincial taxation – are seen to be against the interest of the urban population.

Unfortunately the PPP leadership is perceived as too self-serving and corrupt to manage the affairs of Karachi fairly. The police and other agencies at the provincial government’s disposal get tainted and their actions become controversial because of the trust gap between the rulers and the ruled. Disconnect between the government and aspirations of the people remains a major stumbling block in dealing with crime and terrorism in the city. 

The multitude of social problems and vast economic disparities only makes the Karachi challenge more complex and grave. They provide readymade ingredients, which allow crime mafias and terrorist networks to thrive and expand. 

The crisis in Karachi can still be managed, but it requires difficult decisions. The police force needs to be free from political pressures. It should be seen as a neutral player, working for the supremacy and rule of law rather than the whims of ministers and for advancing their political goals.
Along with a crackdown on criminals and terrorists, there is a need to clean the grounds that breed them. This requires investment in education and economic and social uplift. The government needs to do away with the dichotomy in law by lifting the moratorium on the death penalty. This will help in establishing the writ of the state and prevent private vendetta. Judicial reforms for quick dispensation of justice also remain long overdue. They should be high on the priority list.

The most important step is the introduction of an effective and powerful local governance system, which our major political parties love to hate since it erodes their power and clout. But for a pro-people democratic order, powerful local bodies are a must. Are the elected representatives in the mood to do the needful? So far all indications are negative. They appear content to live in their delusionary world as Karachi suffers and remains caught in the vortex of lawlessness and disorder.

Battle Of Narratives

By Amir Zia
Monday, November 18, 2013
The News

Today, the choice for the Jamaat-e-Islami and all the other mainstream religious parties is either to stick to their old paradigm of constitutional politics or tread the path on which the more radicalised, pan-Islamist militant groups are trying to pull the overall movement for Islamic renaissance and revival. 

 
When Syed Munawar Hasan, the Jamaat-e-Islami ameer, declared one of Pakistan’s most wanted terrorist kingpin a martyr and raised doubts about the sacrifices of our soldiers fighting such elements, he articulated what many radical Islamists had wanted to hear from a mainstream religious party leader for a long, long time.
The statement should be seen in the context of the centuries-old debate among Islamic scholars on whether fighting seemingly unjust and tyrannical Muslim rulers is justified. These theological differences are confined not just between Sunni-Shia scholars, but also among various Sunni schools of thought.
The bitter division over this issue, indeed, defines today’s conflict within many Muslim societies. In fact, these differences have become more explosive in Pakistan due to its proximity with war-ravaged Afghanistan, and the state’s past policy of arming and patronising various shades of Islamic militants as its proxies in the region. This policy backfired as many militants began to follow the Al-Qaeda-inspired pan-Islamist agenda and turned the guns on their former handlers when the state tried to set a new policy direction following the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the United States. 
Pakistan’s efforts to stop the use of its territory for fomenting terrorism around the world resulted in a civil-war like situation, which has consumed thousands of lives since early 2002 and transformed this nuclear-armed Muslim nation as one of the most dangerous and unstable countries of the world. 
With successive governments giving confused signals in this conflict – sometimes trying to wage a selective fight and at others to strike deals with militants – it should not come as a surprise that the extremists and militants have acquired an upper hand in dictating the narrative and setting the rules of engagement.
There are passionate arguments based on Islamic theology to justify jihad (holy war) by individuals or groups of individuals (read non-state actors) if rulers fail to act when Muslim territories or population get attacked by ‘infidel forces’. The entire narrative of Al-Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups is based on this hypothesis. 
The proponents of this stance believe that those Muslim rulers – in our case they allege it’s the Pakistani state – who facilitate the invading forces remain a just target. 
This narrative also calls for fighting those Muslim rulers who do not adhere to Islamic teachings, and justifies the use of force for enforcement of Shariah. The other set of Islamic scholars advocate moderation and oppose any action that brings anarchy and civil war in a Muslim state. They advocate tolerating even a tyrannical ruler to prevent discord among Muslims and aim to Islamise society through painstaking preaching and reforms. They consider it the government’s prerogative to declare holy war in a Muslim state like Pakistan. These scholars forbid attacking Pakistani security forces and killing civilians – be they Muslim or non-Muslim. They also consider acts of terrorism, including suicide bombings, against the spirit of jihad.
Against this backdrop, it is no wonder that the Jamaat-e-Islami ameer’s statement triggered such a heated debate and sharpened polarisation on the issue of religiously-motivated militancy in the country. And it is not just liberal parties, the government and the country’s mighty military establishment that have slammed the Jamaat leader. Many major religious groups also see Hasan’s statement, supporting the Al-Qaeda-linked militants, as highly offensive and against Islamic teachings.
But Hasan has many supporters as well. Foremost among them are the outlawed Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and similar militant and hard-line groups, which appear more effective in dictating narrative because of their single-minded efforts and uncompromising attitude. The Jamaat-e-Islami also appears to stand solidly behind its leader, underlining the fact that the ameer’s statement should neither be considered a slip of tongue nor mere rhetoric. It is a well thought-out position, though made public in such a blunt manner for the first time only now. 
However, the Jamaat-e-Islami and its rank and file have been practically committed to this stance since Pakistan officially abandoned support to the Afghan Taliban in late 2001 and joined the US-led war against terrorism. 
If the Jamaat-e-Islami leaders consistently opposed Pakistani security forces’ efforts against Al-Qaeda and its inspired local militants all these years, many members of this religio-political party sheltered foreign militants in their individual capacity. Several disgruntled former members of the Jamaat-e-Islami and its affiliate students’ wing, Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba, even indulged in high-profile terrorist attacks.
From the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – one of the masterminds of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the US – at the house of a leading Jamaat-e-Islami’s women-wing member in March 2003 in Rawalpindi to those Al-Qaeda members apprehended in Karachi hiding at the residences of two other women members of this party, there is a long list of senior JI workers who facilitated and protected foreign militants across Pakistan.
Similarly, several former Jamaat-e-Islami members joined various extremist groups or formed their own for terrorism. One of the most prominent among them was Jandullah, which attacked the motorcade of Corps Commander Karachi in 2004. Its founder Atta-ur Rehman was a former member of the Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba, while two other prominent members – Dr Arshad Wahed and Dr Akmal Waheed – were leading figures of the Jamaat-e-Islami’s affiliated doctors’ association. 
On acquittal in this case, Arshad shifted to Wana where he was killed in a US drone attack in March 2008. His brother Akmal, who also was acquitted, was rearrested, but this time in Abu Dhabi for his alleged Al-Qaeda connections.
All these cases and many others like them have been widely reported in the press and documented in several books focusing on Al-Qaeda-linked militancy in Pakistan.
The radicalisation of many of its young members and their drift towards unbridled militancy pose a big ideological challenge for the Jamaat-e-Islami leadership, which despite opposing successive governments on the issue of their support to the US-led war on terror, has worked within the framework of the Pakistan constitution and by-and-large opted for a democratic course to advance its political agenda.
However, for a party that remained the ideological bulwark of Islamic forces in the region and served as a fighting arm of the military establishment for decades – be it in the former East Pakistan, Indian-occupied Kashmir or Afghanistan – keeping such internal strains, contradictions and ideological questions in check is easier said than done. 
The Jamaat-e-Islami’s continued history of poor performance in electoral politics and the emergence of more radicalised, aggressive and militant Islamic groups on the scene have created an internal dilemma for the party, which considers itself the original face of modern-day political Islam and jihad. 
Today, the choice for the Jamaat-e-Islami and all the other mainstream religious parties is either to stick to their old paradigm of constitutional politics or tread the path on which the more radicalised, pan-Islamist militant groups are trying to pull the overall movement for Islamic renaissance and revival. 
This internal contradiction is a fundamental one within Islamists. How will the leadership of the mainstream religious parties, including the Jamaat, handle this question? Will the main body of constitutionalist Islamists drift toward militancy or succeed in pacifying the hothead radicals by finding a middle path? Will they be able to keep themselves relevant in the coming days if they continue to stick to the legal and constitutional methods of politics or become irrelevant, with hard-liners taking the charge of the movement?
These are grave and make-or-break choices for the Jamaat leadership. Syed Munawar Hasan has succeeded in igniting an intense debate, but will he be able to take it to his desired end?
It is also a moment of reckoning for the Pakistani establishment. How will it deal with its former allies and estranged friends? How will it resolve the internal contradictions of the state and restore normality and rule of law in a country caught in the vortex of lawlessness and religiously-motivated violence and terrorism. At the moment, all the major players appear devoid of solutions to these mega challenges.

Clarity Versus Confusion

By Amir Zia
Monday, November 11, 2013
The News

Ironically, the local Taliban perception about Pakistan is closer to the Americans, who also view our civil and military authorities with great suspicion and accuse them of duplicity and double cross.
Let’s give the local Taliban militants their due. Let’s admit and muster courage to applaud their clarity of mind, singleness of purpose and strength of conviction. The manner in which they swiftly selected the new leadership and restated their agenda in unequivocal and unambiguous terms should serve as a lesson to our fickle-minded and wavering civil and military leaders, who are pleading and begging for talks with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and its allies. 
The US drones did get Hakeemullah Mehsud, but so what? There are plenty of others to offer their heads in his place. During conflicts and wars, neither is there any room for doubt nor any time to mourn and groan for long over the bodies of fallen comrades. The doers see the world in black and white. The grey areas are for good-for-nothing armchair pseudo-intellectuals and chatterers.
The depressing, long-winded speeches – such as the ones delivered by Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in which he discussed Mehsud’s killing with great grief and sense of loss – are often seen as self-defeating. This kind of melodrama hardly serves any purpose. While the interior minister lamented over Mehsud’s death and cursed and blamed the US for obliterating the man he portrayed as Pakistan’s only hope for peace (eureka!), the militants took the slaying of their leader as an opportunity to expand their message and beat the drums of war louder.
Less than a week after Mehsud’s killing, the TTP selected the hard-line cleric Mullah Fazlullah, aka Mullah Radio of Swat, as its new ameer and named a little known militant commander from Swabi, Sheikh Khalid Haqqani, as his deputy. The duo is known for uncompromising and rigid views, radicalism and penchant for merciless actions.
The TTP also took no time to reject peace talks with the government and vowed to avenge the death of its leader by taking the battle to the plains of Punjab and the ruling Pakistan Muslim League high-command which has so far enjoyed immunity from the dreaded terror assaults. The TTP also reiterated that the mainstream liberal parties – the PPP, the ANP and the MQM – will continue to remain high on the hit list of its militants and suicide bombers. The Pakistani security forces are already the declared enemy of the TTP, Al-Qaeda and their allies which see them as an ally of the US and the west.
In a nutshell, there is no double-talk. No indecisiveness. No confusion – but only steely resolve and determination. The militants want to remodel Pakistan in line with their interpretation of Islam and they are ready to pay and extract the price for it. Democracy and Pakistan’s constitution have no place in their world order. They openly say so. They are determined to take on the US and its either perceived or real local allies. They never hide this fact. They want to continue using Pakistani territory to foment terrorism around the world. They do it without apology. Killing or being killed is necessary to achieve their goal. They are not afraid of it. Actions define their words and words supplement their actions.
This is an adversary that blows up schools without remorse. It carries out suicide bombings at mosques, imambargahs, churches, markets and other public places without guilt. And it attacks security forces and sensitive defence installations with pride. If forcibly stalling the polio vaccination is seen as a sacred duty by the TTP and its allies, making an assassination bid on teenage education activist Malala Yousafzai is also considered a just cause.
A glimpse of what Mullah Fazlullah is capable of doing was reflected during his reign of terror in Swat not very long ago. It was the army that had to reclaim this territory, which Pakistan had lost to the militants. He is also the man whose group took the responsibility of the killing of Pakistan Army’s Major General Sanaullah Niazi in a roadside bombing in Upper Dir this September.
According to the 19th century Russian revolutionary, Mikhail Bakunin – considered the father of anarchist theory –“the urge for destruction is also a creative urge.” In that sense the Taliban can be called creative (with apology to Comrade Bakunin) as they are committed to destruction even if they fail to produce a better society.
With Fazlullah on the steering wheel of the TTP – the juggernaut that is a loose amalgamation of more than three dozen big and small militant groups across the country – ordinary Pakistanis should get ready for tougher times ahead.
Now compare the clarity of purpose and resoluteness of action of the TTP and its allies with the confusion and virtual state of inaction within the ranks of Pakistan’s elected government, mainstream opposition and the civil and military establishment. The government, and many of the opposition politicians, continue to repeat the mantra of holding negotiations with militants as the one and only option despite the TTP’s firm ‘no’ to talks following the appointment of its new chief.
But perhaps the vision of our leaders is too clouded and blurred. They fail to see the reality or grasp the gravity of situation. No wonder, Nawaz Sharif, our third-time elected prime minister and a most experienced hand, remained stuck to the old script in Karachi while expressing his desire to hold peace talks without taking into account that the TTP has already removed whatever mirage of talks there was on the table.
The TTP is definitely in no mood to oblige. It sees the Pakistani government and the army as American stooges. It distrusts the government’s words and actions. Ironically, the local Taliban perception about Pakistan is closer to the Americans, who also view our civil and military authorities with great suspicion and accuse them of duplicity and double cross. This speaks volumes about the wisdom and political acumen of our strategists and policymakers. 
If the militants are able to build pressure by resorting to acts of terror and drilling their narrative at every level through the well-oiled propaganda machinery, their apologists and backers in the mainstream political parties – from Imran Khan to Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Munawar Hasan – confuse the issue of extremism and terrorism by focusing on the symptom rather than the real cause of turmoil.
They have the audacity to trigger debate on whether Hakeemullah Mehsud was a martyr or those Pakistan Army soldiers who are killed in the line of duty. If – to believe Munawar Hasan of the Jamaat-e-Islami – Pakistani soldiers are fighting the American war, they therefore do not deserve the title of martyrs. End of the line.
Most civilian leaders – by design or default – see American drone assaults as the central cause of conflict in Pakistan rather than the result of the presence of Al-Qaeda and its allied foreign and locals militants on our soil. Pakistan’s failure to establish the writ of the state on its territory triggered these drone assaults. If Pakistan wants to put an end to them, it will have to ensure that its territory is not being used to provide shelter to terrorists from around the globe or launch attacks on other countries.
But the Sharif government, bowing to the pressure of the Taliban and their friends, is focusing more on taking up the issue of drone strikes both at internationally and domestically rather than addressing the real causes of extremism and terrorism.
In this context, the mantra of peace talks appears more bizarre as the government has so far failed to define rules of engagements with these extremist groups. And now after the TTP’s clear ‘no’ to the talks, all debate on this issue is useless. The sooner our rulers realise this and pull themselves out of their state of self-denial, the better for the country.
We as a nation are right in the middle of this protracted conflict. We have either to prevail or perish. There is no third choice. It is time for the leadership to show courage, conviction and clarity of mind to overcome the challenge. Confusion, inaction and efforts to appease extremists will serve no purpose. The delay in action will only go against Pakistan.

Banned Books & Butchered Bodies

By Amir Zia
The News
October 29, 2013

The key to many of the thorny issues is not with Dr Abdul Malik and his National Party. He will have to perform a high-wire balancing act to snatch a fair deal for Balochistan and its people from the hawks within the establishment and the separatist Baloch nationalists.
Jinnah Road - Quetta’s main commercial hub - and its nearby areas boast nearly half-a-dozen bookstores, but not one has put Malala Yousafzai’s biography on sale. The reason: warnings – direct and indirect – from shadowy Taliban militants, who see this teenage activist as a potent challenge to their political and religious narrative and mindset. “Even the police officially advised us not to sell her book for our own safety”, said a veteran bookseller with a wary smile on his face.

The cautious approach of booksellers in Quetta is understandable. It often proves a deadly bargain to defy the local or Afghan Taliban and their allied groups in Balochistan’s capital where suicide bombings, target killings and kidnapping for ransom cases remain a routine. Religious extremists belonging to various groups make their ever-lurking presence felt in more than one ways in the political and social fabric of this garrison city.

From the large-scale sectarian killings – mainly of the ethnic Shia Hazaras in recent times – to the bitter opposition to the vaccination drive against polio, the extremists are challenging and defying the state at every level.

And in this overall scheme of things, booksellers’ inability to keep the Taliban-banned book, ‘I am Malala’, on their shelves is just another small, but glaring, sign of the weakening writ of the state and its institutions. All the pickets, iron-spikes, barbed wires and alert soldiers and policemen on the roads of Quetta underline the abnormality of the times and the gravity of the situation rather than inspiring confidence.

These heavy fortifications and snap-checking of vehicles and citizens alike hardly stop militants from kidnapping their targets and getting out of the city to the safe-havens of Afghanistan from where they demand and negotiate millions of rupees in ransom with victims’ families, the authorities or their employers. The list of kidnapped victims includes politicians, tribal elders, aid workers, doctors, businesspeople etc.

Similarly, the death squads of militants also manage to carry out assassinations and terrorist attacks at will, though the provincial authorities say that such cases have been on the decline since the coalition government of the moderate Baloch nationalist leader Dr Abdul Malik came into power in June this year. But a period of barely five months, which witnessed a number of bombings, killings and kidnappings, is not enough to underscore a trend in the mid- to long-term.

However, in the overall scheme of things, it is the religious extremists who are on the offensive all over the country, including Quetta, while the state and its institutions appear as mere sitting ducks – in their defensive posture. Guarding every important building and employing a wait-and-see approach is certainly not a winning strategy.

Just like Peshawar’s proximity to the Afghan border makes it more prone to lawlessness and terrorism in the north-western part of the country, Quetta’s closeness to the Afghan city of Kandahar – the birthplace of the Taliban movement in the mid-1990s – contributes to the serious, but particular, law-and-order challenge in south-western Pakistan. But then who can fight the dictates of geography – especially when the federal government’s chosen path for now remains appeasement of these non-state actors rather than establishing the writ of the state?

Whatever the spin doctors of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the security establishment would like us to believe, the existence of the Quetta council (shura) of the Afghan Taliban is not a fantasy made up by imaginative minds. The Afghan Taliban remain embedded in the vast network of Islamic seminaries and mosques of this volatile region and often it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the local from the foreign element.

For many of the local militants, the Afghan Taliban and Al-Qaeda remain the main motivating force. They both support and supplement one another. The common wisdom on the streets of Quetta is that our security establishment wants to run with its ‘favourite’ hare and hunt with the hounds – a tactic that is only making the situation more complex.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government’s keenness and desperation to hold talks with the Taliban have emboldened the militants and put the state institutions further on the back foot.

Although all the major Pakistani cities have borne the brunt of terrorism and extremism during the last one decade or so, Quetta’s case is distinctive. Here along with foreign and local religious militants, the small, but heavily-armed and financed active cells of the Baloch separatists are also putting in their bit to keep the kettle on the boil. And compared to the challenge of religious extremism, the security establishment apparently appears more focused on taking them on.

The tortured bodies and the long list of missing persons underline this raging conflict which is hardly showing any signs of abatement. Balochistan Chief Minister Malik does not seem to have control over this issue, though he says that the incidents of ‘extrajudicial’ killings have declined considerably. But it is the fate of the missing persons that has become a test case for Dr Malik’s government.

Will he be able to persuade the federal government and, more importantly, the security establishment to play by the book on this issue? Will Dr Malik be able to bring the disgruntled Baloch separatist leaders onto the negotiation table and pave the way for their return to mainstream politics? This is easier said than done.

The key to many of the thorny issues is not with Dr Malik and his National Party. He will have to perform a high-wire balancing act to snatch a fair deal for Balochistan and its people from the hawks within the establishment and the separatist Baloch nationalists.

With many foreign players – from India to Afghanistan and even some of our friends in western democracies – having a direct and indirect share in the problem of Balochistan, the stakes in this game could never have been higher given the fact that many of the moderate Baloch nationalist leaders, who wanted to work within the framework of Pakistan’s constitution, have systematically been killed by the separatists. The list includes some of the veterans of the Baloch nationalist movement – from Raziq Bugti to Habib Jalib Baloch – who were murdered for defying the small, but hard-line separatist element.

While the Sharif government may opt for the policy of appeasement of the local and Afghan Taliban and other Islamic hard-liners, it is showing a slightly changed attitude towards Balochistan – which should give hope to Dr Malik and all his moderate nationalist friends.

Attempts to bring separatists on to the negotiating table sometime in 2014 and halting extrajudicial executions and other high-handed actions against activists by the security forces could be the first necessary steps on the way to achieving the goal of lasting peace in Balochistan. The bigger challenge, though, would be to ensure the economic and political rights of the people of the province.

Dr Malik has a long, long way to go to do the undoable for his people – not just by snatching peace from the Islamic and nationalist militants, but by creating an environment where booksellers can keep book titles that are available in the rest of the country. Is that too much to ask for?

Book Review: What’s Wrong With Pakistan?

By Amir Zia

October 2013

Monthly Newsline 

What’s Wrong With Pakistan? is a bold, candid and sincere effort to identify the festering ills of today’s Pakistan and suggests some urgent solutions to prevent the country from what Ayaz calls “sinking inch by inch, day by day” in a quagmire.

Attempting to find the ‘genetic defect’ of Pakistan – the world’s lone nuclear-armed, Muslim nation – is bound to trigger controversy and ruffle many sacred feathers, especially at a time when the country seems to be imploding under religiously-motivated terrorism, the expanding tentacles of Islamic extremism and the ever-decreasing writ of the state. Pakistan’s sure and fast slide into anarchy and chaos, and the inability of state institutions to deal with the crisis, raises some fundamental questions: Why has Pakistani soil become so conducive for religious extremists? Why has political Islam become such a divisive force? Why are the worst forms of atrocities and injustices being committed in the name of Islam? Why is the ‘mighty’ state unable to confront the existentialist threat to its unity? Why are the concepts of an inclusive democracy, pluralism and modernity viewed with such hostility and suspicion? What are the factors that prevent the country from building a consensus on key issues such as the role of religion in society, democracy and the constitution?

Veteran journalist and media person Babar Ayaz has tried to find answers to these questions and many more in his first book titled: What’s Wrong with Pakistan? One may agree or disagree with his thesis, but he has boldly challenged the popular historical narrative about the origin of Pakistan and painstakingly pointed out the internal contradictions of the freedom movement, that are responsible for pushing the country into the vortex of Islamic extremism, violence and terrorism. The author argues that the way successive rulers – be they civilian or military – ran the affairs of the country after Independence, supported a string of fundamentalist causes and non-state actors and used religion to achieve short-term domestic and regional goals, has only added to the woes of the country.

The author has backed his case with meticulous research as well as personally conducted interviews and anecdotes that make the book highly engaging, readable, provocative and, at times, shocking. It offers a different perspective, which one does not find in official history and academic books taught at our educational institutions as Pakistan Studies.

Some of the conclusions drawn by the author remain subject to debate and further discussion – such as the portrayal of the Pakistan Movement totally as a communal movement, discounting the role of Congress leaders in preventing any understanding with the All-India Muslim League. But, perhaps, that was not the ambit of this book. Ayaz remains more focused on trying to find the answer to how the use of Islam as a slogan for the creation of a state and the two-nation theory impacted the post-Independence politics and social order of this nascent state. The overt and covert religiosity of the Pakistan Movement, led by a secular leader like Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, according to the author, proved to be the fundamental flaw of the country, which he describes as a “genetic defect.”

“The religious extremism and terrorism that Pakistan suffers from are a logical outcome of the communal politics of the pre-independence movement,” says the author in the opening pages of the book.

“What most politicians, who usually have short-term gains in sight, do not understand is that the ‘end’ does not always justify the ‘means’; the same ‘means’ that are used to achieve an ‘end’ mostly tend to dictate the subsequent ‘end.’ Pakistan is today being consumed by the religiosity that was whipped as a ‘means’ to achieve a separate homeland,” he further writes.

The thesis might be seen as a direct assault on the country’s ideological foundations by most Islamists and conservative elements who are battling to convert Pakistan into a theocratic state through the imposition of their own, harsher brands of Islam. The author’s argument that the two-nation theory and the war-cry of Islam eventually allowed the conservative elements to dominate the popular narrative in Pakistani politics, rather than the liberal and educated Muslims, who initially served as the backbone of this movement that aimed to ensure the political and economic rights of the Muslim-majority provinces of United India. Ironically, as the author has rightly pointed out, the Pakistan Movement garnered its initial and most ardent foot soldiers from those provinces where Muslims were in a minority. That was only one among the many internal and inherent contradictions of the Pakistan Movement.

In retrospect, history is a discipline which is open to interpretation and reinterpretation. None of the arguments can be deemed as final as often, in hindsight, one may gain a fresh perspective as new facts come to light. But, more importantly, one can witness the outcome of those make or break decisions in a constantly, evolving and changing society.

Part II of the book delves into the post-Partition world of Pakistan in which the dream turned sour in the initial days of Independence. It is a sorry tale of the abuse and exploitation of East Bengal, the confrontation of the centre with Baloch and Pakhtun nationalists, and the benefit which Punjab’s ruling classes reaped in the first two decades of Independence.

“The total government expenditure in 20 years (1950-70) in Pakistan was US $30.95 billion, out of which West Pakistan extracted the lion’s share of US $21.49 billion meaning over 69 per cent, while East Pakistan, despite having 55 per cent population, was doled out only US $9.45 billion, which was just 30.45 per cent of the total,” writes Ayaz.

With his vast experience of economic journalism, spanning over four decades, Ayaz weaves political and economic aspects while narrating the story of Pakistan.

“East Pakistan was their undisputed market of over 50 million people. It was because of the loss of this colony that Pakistan had to devalue its currency by 135 per cent in 1972, and as a result its textile and consumer industry had a great fall,” he writes on page 63 of the book.

Balochistan – the country’s most mineral-rich but underdeveloped province – has also been transformed into a festering wound due to what the author describes as the colonial mindset of successive Pakistani governments – be they civilian or military.

Sindh and the North West Frontier Province, which finally got its new identity as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa under the Pakistan Peoples’ Party’s recent rule, also remained at loggerheads with the centre, which is dominated by the elite of Punjab with Urdu-speaking immigrants as their junior partners in the initial days of post-Independence Pakistan, Ayaz argues.

But after the dismemberment of East Pakistan, the real threat to Pakistan, according to the author, came more from political Islam rather than the challenges posed by the nationalists, who gradually lost the momentum or were absorbed in the power structure of the country.

Part III of the book deals with issues of exploitation of Islam for narrow political ends, especially under the dark days of General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law which witnessed an unbridled growth of mosques, madrassahs, fundamentalist organisations and extremists who were dubbed as “holy warriors,” that not only waged wars in Afghanistan and Indian-administered Kashmir, but also targeted Shia Muslims, Ahmedis and other religious minorities including Christians and Hindus. A whole chapter is devoted to the draconian laws, branded as “Islamic laws” under General Zia, underlining their strong anti-women bias – from the Hudood Ordinances to the Law of Evidence and the Islamic inheritance laws. The controversial Qisas and Diyat laws, which allow murderers to go scot free against compensation or forgiveness granted by the heirs of the victims, introduced a dichotomy in the country’s legal system.

While discussing the growth of seminaries, the author points out that “even if 50 per cent of the madrassah graduates adopt the above-mentioned profession, and the rest go back to join their parents’ farms or businesses, the system is producing one mullah for every 225 Pakistanis every year. It is in sharp contrast to one nurse for over 3,600 persons, and one doctor for some 3,400 persons.”

The equally important Part IV of the book discusses the dominance of the army in Pakistan’s politics and the pivotal role it has played in patronising and harbouring Islamic fundamentalists and extremists as its proxies for both domestic and international politics. This controversial policy has boomeraned as the Al-Qaeda-inspired local and foreign militants have taken on the very institution which nurtured them for decades.

“No civilised country breeds and nurtures militant groups within its own boundaries. Pakistan has been doing it as an extension of its national security policy. Once non-state militant groups are allowed to grow and used against any other country in the name of religion, these private armies are bound to dictate the policies of the state,” writes Ayaz.

The heavy price Pakistan is currently paying at the hands of these militants of different hues and shades because of this flawed and ill-conceived policy is an unpleasant, truth.

While Part V of the book analyses Pakistan’s foreign relations, arguing that they have been tailored to fit the national security fears, the final part of the book builds a case for a secular Pakistan as the only step forward for the country.

“Pakistan is not early twentieth-century Turkey, where a Kemal Ataturk could rise to abolish the ‘caliphate’, which was a symbol of a temporal and divine world. But it can take a break from its stated religious national narrative and move towards the secularisation of society based on reason and a scientific life stance – the process that has been started by Bangladesh,” Ayaz writes in one of the closing chapters.

However, the author has refrained from calling Pakistan a failed state, as many analysts would like us to believe. Instead, Ayaz says that it is a ‘borderline case’ and is not yet a failed state. The only recipe to treat its ills according to the author, “is to separate religion and politics” to prevent the impending catastrophe. For this to happen, the state has to reinvent itself and fight and defeat its many self-created demons – the topmost among them remains religious extremism. Are the ruling classes listening? This remains a key question as the country struggles to keep on track its fragile democracy, which offers a glimmer of hope, according to the author.

What’s Wrong with Pakistan? is a bold, candid and sincere effort to identify the festering ills of today’s Pakistan and suggests some urgent solutions to prevent the country from what Ayaz calls “sinking inch by inch, day by day” in a quagmire.

The book is an important addition to the raging debate about the past, present and future of the country as it struggles against its own self-created nemesis – the Islamic extremists and militants.

No Child’s Play

By Amir Zia
Monday, October 21, 2013
The News
 
Those looking for a statesman-like speech from young Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari must adjust their great expectations with today’s reality of the Asif Ali Zardari-led PPP.... The civilian leadership has yet to offer a knight in shining armour, who can fight the case for a progressive, modern and stable Pakistan
 
The October 18 speech of Pakistan People’s Party Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari has raised a lot of eyebrows and brought frowns on many faces. The way the young Bhutto-Zardari scoffed at his party’s traditional and not-so-traditional political rivals has been seen to be in bad taste by many of the ardent critics of the PPP and its leadership. While the diehard PPP supporters looked for glimpses of their slain leader Benazir Bhutto’s charisma, traits and flair in Bilawal as he spoke at Karachi’s Karsaz traffic junction where the convoy of his mother was hit by twin bombings that killed 176 people the same day six years ago, the hair-splitters focused on the content, message and tone of the speech. And in a way, Bilawal provided fuel to the imaginations of both his critics and admirers.
The PPP chairman’s metaphors of hunting down the lion, freeing the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from the destructive hold of the tsunami and snapping the string of the kite hovering over Karachi skies by telephone from London could indeed sound provocative and a bit rash to the ruling Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz, Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, but they resonate in the hearts and minds of the core PPP supporters who stood loyal to the tricolour flag of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s party, particularly in rural Sindh, through thick and thin – regardless of how it performed when in power. 
Bilawal – as many other Pakistani politicians remains so fond of doing – not just dabbled in verbosity but deliberately tried to stoke up controversy in this first major speech after turning 25 last month; this makes him eligible to contest elections. In the game of politics, attempts to grab attention by being controversial remain a fair deal. Let’s think of a major name in Pakistani politics who has not committed this ‘sin’. So let’s shun ‘holier-than-thou’ approach.
Those looking for a statesman-like speech from this youngster must also adjust their great expectations with today’s reality of the Asif Ali Zardari-led PPP. The former ruling party has a long, long way to go if it wants to revive its deeply eroded political fortunes. The process involves an intellectually honest review and criticism of the party’s past five-year performance. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be on the agenda of its young or old leadership.
However, if one must grab and cling to some straws then Bilawal’s assertion of declaring jihad (holy war) against the “hijackers of the faith” and fighting the extremist forces should offer some hope to the PPP’s traditional liberal and secular vote bank. These were brave words from a youngster who lost his mother under tragic circumstances at the hands of these misguided hard-line Islamists with whom the entire civilian leadership, including the PPP which attended the government-sponsored APC of September 9, appeared willing and desperate to talk.
Should we now expect the PPP to take a clearer and bolder stand on confronting the challenge of extremism and terrorism that plagues the country and has claimed more than 50,000 lives since the US-led war on terror started in neighbouring Afghanistan in late 2001? Let’s hope that Bilawal, with the blessings and permission of his father Asif Ali Zardari, manages to bring clarity on this make-or-break issue for the country – a clarity that was found lacking during his party’s last stint in power.
Bilawal must ponder hard over why his party failed to provide a counter narrative to that of the Al-Qaeda-inspired and linked local extremists, who killed his mother and some top leaders of the party. Why did the PPP fail to lead and take ownership of the war on terror despite the army’s willingness to do so when it was in power? Many Pakistanis expected this from the PPP along with relatively clean and efficient governance. But the PPP failed on both these counts.
Will the PPP in opposition manage to put the challenge of extremism and terrorism in the right perspective and snatch the initiative from apologists of the local Taliban including Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan, Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Munawar Hasan? So far, the PPP has not been able to do so or come up with a counter narrative to that of hard-line Islamists and their backers.
If Bilawal manages to pursue his ‘holy war’ against those who, in his own words, ‘abuse Islam’ it could prove a watershed in Pakistani politics. This issue alone would define both the future of Pakistan and PPP’s politics. Since all the major centre and right-wing political parties – the PML-N, the PTI, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam and the Jamaat-e-Islami – are for the outright appeasement of terrorists and extremists, any firmer and bolder stance against these forces could prove to be a game-changer and fill the political void against the backdrop of the one-sided pro-talks and pro-Taliban narrative.
Imran Khan and his like appear hell-bent to undermine the state and its institutions when they beg and plead for talks with the local Taliban after every fresh incident of terrorism. They want the state institutions to allow these non-state actors to open offices as they urge these terrorists and murderers to stop bombings on humanitarian grounds. Yes, the PTI refuses to learn and correct itself despite the killing of its three lawmakers, including the latest assassination of provincial law minister Israrullah Gandapur in a suicide attack on the occasion of Eidul Azha.
The PPP can lead this fight on ideological grounds. It has all the right ingredients to do so and will find many allies in the vast civil society, anti-Taliban political parties and even the armed forces. The only thing the party lacks is leadership and vision. Should Bilawal, at the politically tender age of 25, be able to pull it off? Are we expecting and asking too much from him and a party that failed to do this when it was in power? There are reasons for us to be sceptical.
Even if the PPP leadership turns over a new leaf (can this miracle happen?), becomes slightly honest, and ready to address some of its past mistakes, throwing down a gauntlet to extremists and terrorists and their cheerleaders in the mainstream political parties won’t prove to be child’s play. This conflict is not for the faint-hearted. It requires courageous, upright, committed and visionary leadership – qualities which appear lacking in PPP’s current top- and first-tier leaders.
Bilawal has giant challenges and internal dilemmas weighing on his inexperienced and young shoulders. The hereditary democracy of South Asia – where the right to lead and rule is often passed from one generation to another, or from husband to widow or wife to husband – itself often proves the biggest obstacle for the political parties in providing competent, efficient and honest leadership. 
Yet, South Asia, including Pakistan, remains far from being out of the clutches of hereditary politics in which personalities overshadow most issues including ideology. Therefore, Bilawal appears all set to rule one of Pakistan’s major political parties and represent the most dynamic political dynasties. It would be largely up to him how he grows or diminishes in this job. The choices he makes and the roads he takes will not just define his own politics, but will also impact the country. Let’s keep our fingers crossed…Let’s hope that Bilawal makes a difference for the better for this wretched country that is in the throes of a make-or-break conflict with extremists. The only irony is that the civilian leadership has yet to offer a knight in shining armour who can fight the case for a progressive, modern and stable Pakistan that remains at peace with itself, its neighbours and the world.