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.