By Amir Zia
Monday, May 6, 2013
The News
It is necessary to remove the cobwebs of confusion about the legitimacy of this conflict, which has been imposed upon us by the extremists.
What are the dividing ideological frontiers in the fight against religious extremism and terrorism in Pakistan? Have distinct battle lines been drawn between liberal secularists and Islamists? Is it only the former who oppose Al-Qaeda and its local allies, including the Taliban and their narrow interpretation of Islam and tactics of violence and terrorism? Is it a fact that all religious-minded people and various Islamic schools of thought support these militant non-state actors? Is the impression correct that all right-wing and religious elements want Pakistan’s armed forces to unilaterally end the operation against these militants?
Some right-wing politicians, opinion makers and analysts would certainly like us to buy this paradigm. Similarly, there are those liberals and secularists who want to simplify this protracted conflict on these so-called ideological lines. These two subjective interpretations distort the reality but, unfortunately, they dominate the narrative on the national media.
This debate has acquired a fresh intensity in the run-up to the May 11 elections against the backdrop of a surge in violence, and especially after Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s recent speech in which he focused on the internal security challenges, calling for a united national consensus against those who defy the constitution and attempt to impose their narrow world view under the garb of Islam.
However, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, the Jamaat-e-Islami and those analysts who tend to agree with these parties have been quick to shoot down General Kayani’s remarks, saying that the war against militants who are responsible for attacks on key military installations – including the GHQ – and the killing of thousands of security personnel and civilians in suicide bombings and other terrorists attacks remains an ‘American War’. An impression has been given that General Kayani’s speech must have made Pakistani secularists and liberals jump with joy.
Ironically, on the other side of this great divide, the Pakistan People’s Party, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and the Awami National Party and their cheerleaders are also portraying this conflict as liberals or secularists against militants and their right-wing supporters. Yes, these three parties have suffered colossal losses at the hands of terrorists who escalated attacks on their leaders and workers ahead of the elections. It is also a fact that these parties remain unable to carry out their election campaigns openly – unlike their rivals, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. But this ‘us-versus-them mentality’ remains an oversimplification of a rather complex issue.
The first fallacy that has been created by extremists and their allies is that it is the Pakistani state and its institutions that triggered the conflict with ‘God-fearing, good Muslims’ at the behest of the US. But the facts are very different. The Pakistani state, even under the former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, only wanted to stop the misuse of its territory as a safe haven for militants from across the world and for orchestrating terrorism aimed at other countries as well as within Pakistan. The actual American War remains on the other side of the Durand Line in Afghanistan – and not in Pakistan. Islamabad stands justified in its efforts to establish the writ of the state on Pakistani territory and get the country out of the self-destructive path of being bracketed with militant non-state actors.
There have been several attempts and at least five peace accords with the Pakistani Taliban to abolish safe havens for foreign militants and terrorist groups, and stop the use of Pakistan’s territory as their resting, recruiting, training, planning and fund-raising facility. As a responsible member of the international community, Pakistan is obligated to do this. But the policy of negotiations and appeasement by the former military-led government did not achieve the desired goal.
The 2007 Lal Masjid episode proved a watershed event as armed and trained militants battled with the security forces for more than a week in the heart of the federal capital. The then government had no choice but to use force against these militants who challenged the writ of the state, tried to create a state within the state and resorted to street vigilantism. Any country – democratic or undemocratic – would have opted for a similar course of action to quell this kind of revolt.
In a nut-shell, it is these militants, who imposed conflict on Pakistan. The state had no choice but to respond for self-preservation.
The second major erroneous belief is that only Pakistani liberals and secularists support the war against terrorism. No, along with liberals and secularists, a vast majority of right-wing and religious-minded people also oppose the Taliban and their narrow interpretation of Islam. Religious scholars and clerics belonging to almost every Islamic school of thought including Barelvis, Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadis, the Sunnis and the Shias, have condemned the Taliban’s acts of violence, their defiance of Pakistan’s constitution and democracy, and brutal tactics of killings and mass murders.
Maulana Hasan Jan, a respected Deobandi cleric, who defeated Khan Abdul Wali Khan in his home constituency of Charsadda in the general elections, was killed by the Taliban because he condemned suicide bombings and declared them to be against the sacred principles of Islam. There have been many other such incidents in which religious scholars were silenced and even forced to leave the country for opposing the alarmingly narrow world view of militants, which is incompatible with modernity and progress.
Many right-wing parties, including the PML-N, also support efforts to curb terrorism, extremism and violence in the society, though during their election campaigns they have kept a meaningful silence in public over this issue.
Then we have various brands of nationalists in Sindh, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and parts of southern Punjab who also oppose the Taliban and the likes of Al-Qaeda.
Last but not the least is the institution of the Pakistani armed forces, which in no way can be branded as secular or liberal. It represents all the diverse shades of Pakistan and is a vanguard of Pakistan’s struggle against extremism and militancy. Confusing the war against militants as that of liberals and secularists versus Islamists or religious-minded people is a deliberate distortion of facts, and it is dangerous for the country’s cohesion and unity.
General Kayani hit the bull’s eye when he said that “there is no room for doubts when it comes to dealing with rebellion against the state.”
“We as a nation need to forge consensus towards evolving a clear policy through mutual consultations. Considering this war against terrorism as the war of the armed forces alone can lead to chaos and disarray that we cannot afford,” he said in his speech on April 30 (Youm-e-Shuhada).
It is necessary to remove the cobwebs of confusion about the legitimacy of this conflict, which has been imposed upon us by the extremists. The handful of religious parties and their affiliate analysts should raise themselves above short-term political interests and back the armed forces in this war against terrorism.
The first step for them should be to condemn all those forces that resort to violence, terrorism, suicide attacks targeting civilians, political rivals and security personnel in the name of Islam. There should also be a consensus that any force or group raising weapons against the state, challenging its writ or openly defying the country’s constitution should be dealt with the proverbial ‘iron hand’.
But do the Jamaat-e-Islami, the JUI-F and the PTI have the courage and the intellectual honesty to act this way? Pakistan wants an answer. These forces should not disappoint the people again by siding with those responsible for brutalising our society and killing more than 50,000 people. They must act in the national interest. . A small, organised minority cannot be allowed to take this nation of more than 180 million people hostage.
Monday, May 6, 2013
The News
It is necessary to remove the cobwebs of confusion about the legitimacy of this conflict, which has been imposed upon us by the extremists.
What are the dividing ideological frontiers in the fight against religious extremism and terrorism in Pakistan? Have distinct battle lines been drawn between liberal secularists and Islamists? Is it only the former who oppose Al-Qaeda and its local allies, including the Taliban and their narrow interpretation of Islam and tactics of violence and terrorism? Is it a fact that all religious-minded people and various Islamic schools of thought support these militant non-state actors? Is the impression correct that all right-wing and religious elements want Pakistan’s armed forces to unilaterally end the operation against these militants?
Some right-wing politicians, opinion makers and analysts would certainly like us to buy this paradigm. Similarly, there are those liberals and secularists who want to simplify this protracted conflict on these so-called ideological lines. These two subjective interpretations distort the reality but, unfortunately, they dominate the narrative on the national media.
This debate has acquired a fresh intensity in the run-up to the May 11 elections against the backdrop of a surge in violence, and especially after Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s recent speech in which he focused on the internal security challenges, calling for a united national consensus against those who defy the constitution and attempt to impose their narrow world view under the garb of Islam.
However, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, the Jamaat-e-Islami and those analysts who tend to agree with these parties have been quick to shoot down General Kayani’s remarks, saying that the war against militants who are responsible for attacks on key military installations – including the GHQ – and the killing of thousands of security personnel and civilians in suicide bombings and other terrorists attacks remains an ‘American War’. An impression has been given that General Kayani’s speech must have made Pakistani secularists and liberals jump with joy.
Ironically, on the other side of this great divide, the Pakistan People’s Party, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and the Awami National Party and their cheerleaders are also portraying this conflict as liberals or secularists against militants and their right-wing supporters. Yes, these three parties have suffered colossal losses at the hands of terrorists who escalated attacks on their leaders and workers ahead of the elections. It is also a fact that these parties remain unable to carry out their election campaigns openly – unlike their rivals, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. But this ‘us-versus-them mentality’ remains an oversimplification of a rather complex issue.
The first fallacy that has been created by extremists and their allies is that it is the Pakistani state and its institutions that triggered the conflict with ‘God-fearing, good Muslims’ at the behest of the US. But the facts are very different. The Pakistani state, even under the former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, only wanted to stop the misuse of its territory as a safe haven for militants from across the world and for orchestrating terrorism aimed at other countries as well as within Pakistan. The actual American War remains on the other side of the Durand Line in Afghanistan – and not in Pakistan. Islamabad stands justified in its efforts to establish the writ of the state on Pakistani territory and get the country out of the self-destructive path of being bracketed with militant non-state actors.
There have been several attempts and at least five peace accords with the Pakistani Taliban to abolish safe havens for foreign militants and terrorist groups, and stop the use of Pakistan’s territory as their resting, recruiting, training, planning and fund-raising facility. As a responsible member of the international community, Pakistan is obligated to do this. But the policy of negotiations and appeasement by the former military-led government did not achieve the desired goal.
The 2007 Lal Masjid episode proved a watershed event as armed and trained militants battled with the security forces for more than a week in the heart of the federal capital. The then government had no choice but to use force against these militants who challenged the writ of the state, tried to create a state within the state and resorted to street vigilantism. Any country – democratic or undemocratic – would have opted for a similar course of action to quell this kind of revolt.
In a nut-shell, it is these militants, who imposed conflict on Pakistan. The state had no choice but to respond for self-preservation.
The second major erroneous belief is that only Pakistani liberals and secularists support the war against terrorism. No, along with liberals and secularists, a vast majority of right-wing and religious-minded people also oppose the Taliban and their narrow interpretation of Islam. Religious scholars and clerics belonging to almost every Islamic school of thought including Barelvis, Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadis, the Sunnis and the Shias, have condemned the Taliban’s acts of violence, their defiance of Pakistan’s constitution and democracy, and brutal tactics of killings and mass murders.
Maulana Hasan Jan, a respected Deobandi cleric, who defeated Khan Abdul Wali Khan in his home constituency of Charsadda in the general elections, was killed by the Taliban because he condemned suicide bombings and declared them to be against the sacred principles of Islam. There have been many other such incidents in which religious scholars were silenced and even forced to leave the country for opposing the alarmingly narrow world view of militants, which is incompatible with modernity and progress.
Many right-wing parties, including the PML-N, also support efforts to curb terrorism, extremism and violence in the society, though during their election campaigns they have kept a meaningful silence in public over this issue.
Then we have various brands of nationalists in Sindh, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and parts of southern Punjab who also oppose the Taliban and the likes of Al-Qaeda.
Last but not the least is the institution of the Pakistani armed forces, which in no way can be branded as secular or liberal. It represents all the diverse shades of Pakistan and is a vanguard of Pakistan’s struggle against extremism and militancy. Confusing the war against militants as that of liberals and secularists versus Islamists or religious-minded people is a deliberate distortion of facts, and it is dangerous for the country’s cohesion and unity.
General Kayani hit the bull’s eye when he said that “there is no room for doubts when it comes to dealing with rebellion against the state.”
“We as a nation need to forge consensus towards evolving a clear policy through mutual consultations. Considering this war against terrorism as the war of the armed forces alone can lead to chaos and disarray that we cannot afford,” he said in his speech on April 30 (Youm-e-Shuhada).
It is necessary to remove the cobwebs of confusion about the legitimacy of this conflict, which has been imposed upon us by the extremists. The handful of religious parties and their affiliate analysts should raise themselves above short-term political interests and back the armed forces in this war against terrorism.
The first step for them should be to condemn all those forces that resort to violence, terrorism, suicide attacks targeting civilians, political rivals and security personnel in the name of Islam. There should also be a consensus that any force or group raising weapons against the state, challenging its writ or openly defying the country’s constitution should be dealt with the proverbial ‘iron hand’.
But do the Jamaat-e-Islami, the JUI-F and the PTI have the courage and the intellectual honesty to act this way? Pakistan wants an answer. These forces should not disappoint the people again by siding with those responsible for brutalising our society and killing more than 50,000 people. They must act in the national interest. . A small, organised minority cannot be allowed to take this nation of more than 180 million people hostage.
No comments:
Post a Comment