The Truth of this Conflict
Part II
http://www.mosharrafzaidi.com/
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=209046
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
by Mosharraf Zaidi
Extreme views are present everywhere. In most cases, extreme groups tend to invoke the kind of disgust that any despicable set of ideas and their proponents deserve. However, no matter how deeply extremists upset the mainstream of a society, no country is immune from the scourge of extremism. That is why, in the United States, the same 11-12 percent of Americans that believed President Barack Obama was a Muslim before he was elected, continue to believe that lie, well after. Not surprisingly, among white evangelical Christians, that lie is twice as popular, with nearly one in five believing that the US president is a Muslim. In India’s Maharashtra state, the Shiv Sena and BJP coalition (whose extremism may be contested) won 91 seats in the recent elections there. But even Raj Thackeray and his MNS (whose linguistic extremism is an uncontested fact) continue to capture enough of the imagination of Maharashtrans to win 13 legislative assembly seats.
The distinction between extremism in other places and in Pakistan is that a large number of citizens have been killed by terrorists in Pakistan (since 2003, more than 7,300). The overwhelming number of these deaths has been claimed by terrorists that are extremist Muslims. They claim to derive their inspiration from Islam for the death and murder they spread.
Extremists in other places either don’t have the urge, or the motivation, or the wherewithal to kill people they disagree with. In Pakistan, extremists have all three. But Pakistan’s extremists don’t just have a fetish for Pakistani blood. Indeed, if anything, their fetish for foreign blood is much greater. So the defining question that needs to be asked is not, as so many conspiracy theorists pose, who is paying for these attacks to be carried out. Nor is the defining question, as was posed by The New York Times’ recent video, whether Ali Azmat has the same counter-terrorism pedigree as Andrew Exum, or David Kilcullen. Nor is the defining question, as so many Pakistanis and Americans keep asking, who started pushing money into extremist mullahs’ bank accounts in the 1970s to win the Cold War. Those are all fine questions, but the defining question for Pakistan in this time of conflict they are not.
The defining question is much more mundane. Simply put, what is the difference between the environment in which terrorists operate in Pakistan (where they meet with stunning regularity of success), and the environments they aspire to operate in everywhere else (where they tend to meet with consistent and stunning regularity of failure)?
Or, to put more context to the question, what is the difference between Pakistan, which now features almost weekly, if not daily, terrorist strikes, and the US or the UK or India, where the strikes are so infrequent that we can remember their dates, 9/11, 7/7 and 26/11? That is the defining question.
The simple answer is that Pakistan represents an uncontested space for terrorists. With impunity terrorists can indoctrinate, recruit and train future terrorists. With impunity terrorists can procure weapons–guns, armour, bullets, explosives and detonators. With impunity terrorists can stake out targets, identify soft spots, and execute their plans. No such impunity for terrorists exists in any other country in the world.
The impunity they enjoy before an attack is matched only by the impunity terrorists enjoy after an attack. Victims are rarely questioned, forensics are rarely recorded, investigations are rarely held. Political commentators lament the lack of accountability of elected and military leaders in continually allowing Pakistan to be struck by terrorists. But such accountability is a ridiculous notion. How can a country’s leaders be held to account for terrorist events when terrorists themselves operate with such impunity?
That is the truth of this conflict–Pakistanis are dying with alarming regularity because of the incompetence of Pakistan’s state organisations and institutions and the operational space they offer to terrorists, based on that incompetence. What’s more, this truth is value-neutral. Neither zero-constituency polemicists, nor mass-constituency conspiracy theorists can argue this point. In part, because it is a historically independent fact. It does not, as so much of the foreign discourse does, implicate a wilful evil design that motivates the incompetence of Pakistani state agencies–whether civilian, military or intelligence.
Most of all, this fact does not demonise Pakistan–either as an idea, or as a people. As a matter of fact, it simply states the sterile truth about what we’ve seen from the Pakistani state, consistently over the course of several years.
Why is it pertinent to not demonise the idea of Pakistan, or the Pakistani people? Quite simply put, Pakistanis are already besieged with bombs and sniffer machines. When push comes to shove, people’s ideological orientations in Pakistan will have little bearing on which “side” they choose. Pakistanis will, unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly and emphatically choose Pakistan. Demonising the very existence of the country, which is how a lot of the criticism and denial of Muslim nationalism in South Asia is taken, or vilifying the Pakistani military wholesale, which, despite their reservations about it, is the only one the Pakistani people have–are utterly stupid ways of engaging Pakistanis.
Conspiracy theories are about displacing blame for the hard-to-comprehend, from oneself to “the other.” Displacing blame for the evil that extinguishes Pakistani lives with such cold efficiency as the terrorists have been doing, problematic as such displacement is, should not be impossible to understand. But it is hard to understand Pakistan’s conspiracy-theory disease when attempts to do so are made without even a small measure of empathy for Pakistanis. Pakistanis are enduring a wretched time, trying to comprehend, and then operate normally, in a very unsafe environment that they did not choose to create.
The rabid conspiracy theorising about the insecurity and conflict that is consuming Pakistan is not rooted in extremism. It is rooted in Pakistani nationalism. The more extreme versions of this nationalism, or hyper-nationalism, represent borderline criminal negligence, in terms of burden of proof. It endangers people’s lives, and it desperately damages Pakistan’s prospects for having a normal relationship with its immediate neighbours–India, Afghanistan and Iran–to say nothing of the distant shores of the United States, or Europe. We saw exactly how this hyper-nationalism manifests itself, with the fiasco that led to The Wall Street Journal’s Matthew Rosenberg having to move out of the country for fear of his safety.
Not everybody that buys into conspiracy theories, however, is a dangerous hyper-nationalist. In fact, among Pakistan’s urban middle class, where the conspiracy-theory problem is possibly deepest, just a few short months ago, millions stood up and spoke for rule of law, and against military rule. Those are not extremist values. Those same millions consume Indian and American culture like chocolate. These are not the enemies of India’s growing status as a global power, nor are they inimical to President Obama’s appeals to the Muslim world. Indeed, they may represent the most potent and sustainable allies to the rest of the world that Pakistan offers.
Holier-than-thou condemnations of Pakistan’s rock stars because they aren’t as vociferous in their condemnation of the Taliban as The New York Times or out-of-touch zero-constituency polemicists would like them to be is a poor way to engage middle Pakistan. It further cements the polarisation that feeds conspiracy theorists with raw material in the first place.
The uni-dimensional rhetoric about extremism on the one hand, and an irrational, and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory blather on the other, simply serve to crowd out the real challenges Pakistan faces. The Pakistani elite don’t want to answer the fundamental questions that today’s Pakistan raises. Why do these attacks keep occurring? How will the challenges of federalism, and its manifestations in local government, police, and the civil services, be resolved? How will Pakistan fix education, maternal and neonatal health, and primary healthcare? What will Pakistan do to respond to climate change and energy shortages?
Pakistan’s elite are too self-indulgent to want to answer those questions, and Pakistan’s terrorist enemies too evil. But there is no possible conspiracy that prevents middle Pakistan from having that discourse. That discourse is where solutions to Pakistan’s real problems lie. The faux umbrage of Pakistan’s polar extremes must not become an ally of the terrorists that are trying to suffocate Pakistan. That is the truth of this conflict.
(Concluded)
Although Bulleh Shah continues to define Pakistaniat for a large part of the country, the ideological challenge to a largely sycnretic culture has been going on for the last twenty or so years and that is a fact that cannot be denied. However, sir, being a fan of most of your work, i would have to disagree with the theory of space allocation that is given to the terrorists in this country. The question of providing space can be subverted and can be posed so as to ask whether the existence of this space is an intentional act. Does it continue to legitmize the overarching existence of our security paradigm and the security apparatus? and more over does it continue to legitimize US interest in the region. Another point that i find quite problematic is that the amount of airtime being given to conspiracy theorists such as a certain red capped gentleman, is inducing an ostrich effect (hiding their heads in the sand during times of trouble) for which there was no bigger ostrich on display than Ali Azmat in the recent NYT video. In an effort to debunk such conspiracy theories it is imperative that we first accept that the people who are falling prey to such reactionary sentiments belong to our country. They might lie on the proverbial margin in the Gramscian/Foucaldian sense, with their actions being an effort of resistance but then the onus falls on the state and on the enlightened media to find answers regarding their marginalization. For me personally, it highlights a conscious failure of the state in its Westphalian task of proper indoctrination and forging a coherent polity.
Posted by Umair Javed | 18. Nov, 2009, 5:43 amQ.Simply put, what is the difference between the environment in which terrorists operate in Pakistan (where they meet with stunning regularity of success), and the environments they aspire to operate in everywhere else (where they tend to meet with consistent and stunning regularity of failure)?
A. Because,
(i)Its only in Pakistan(iyat Studies) that toddlers are taught that it was all darkness before Mohammad Bin Qasim arrived on horseback twirling a sword , eliminating the Kaffir.
(ii)The anti colonial struggle is reduced to the Qaed’s heroic struggle against the ‘wily Hanood bania Gandhi’ who wanted to keep Muslims as slaves (Murder of History in Short).
(iii)Text Books tell students that their religion is the best and anyone not in agreement is ‘wazibul qatl’.
(iv)The media including official media keeps on telling the populace how the yahood-hanood-nasra combine is out to get them (ever seen Dr Shirin Mazari on PTV hosting Current Affairs).
(v)Judges exhort murder of those accused of blasphemy, while refusing to hear cases against 26/11 accused (contrast this with the trials of Bader- Meinhoff gang or thge Mafia, yes judges lost their lives but the did not run away).
All this put together means the extremist in other countries is the anti-state exception, in Pakistan he is the State sponsored norm.
Posted by vikas ranjan | 18. Nov, 2009, 1:36 pmYes, Pakistan’s problems with a radical violent minority and the conspiracy theories crowd out the real issues and discussion on how we should resolve them. Qumran and the first millennium effort required threefold inclusion- to eliminate the “666/ Beast” factor.Firstly- Representational Voice given to the Status Quo Heritage Establishment factor- managed by the two enlightenment factors Messiah/Messenger- to- come Ethics/Principles at the head of that! Secondly- The Representational Voice of the Younger Male Challenger- Radicals… to incorporate their energy usefully for reforms and work within the societal body thus warding OFF their potential for rebellious subversion and violent actions against the system/authority.Thirdly the Representational Voice of the Women- Feminine/Protective of the Future/ Younger generation and so-called weak/vulnerable ” Yin” elements… This was a first millennium attempt… wiped out by Imperial State Chauvinism! Pakistan is Out of Balance with a society that pays deference to Male/Female roles by means of a skewed Sexual Segregation minus deference to proper Feminine/Yin attributes and vital concerns Voice, Representational Influence, Activities. An unharnessed minority of Male Challengers- Radical Groups- Hate the Heritage/Feudal/Monied Power Holders with an excluded vengeance unrestrained by any other consideration! They fight them on the same terms of politics, economics and military might… since no other way has been brought forward!
Why are they given more significance today than at the time of the first millennium mission attempt to ” bring in ” Lost sheep” Take The Word out to the Gentiles- and bring many diverse groups of violent alienated radicals and criminals into The Light, establish a New Just Order?
This Time has additional ” Wrong” cumulative factors/disorders, Issues are more urgent given the high population- especially of the subjugated/deprived- and we have the more serious mass disaster outfall of the advanced Science and technology and communications factors.
Surely, Islam is foolish to take a Caliphate based on destructive violence and nihilism seriously- when the way put forward by Islam is in plain sight.
Today our Governance must not only recognize and encourage Civil Society’s vital contribution for Inclusion and Holistic solutions but needs the monitoring interactive assistance of ” the other side of the coin”..A Systemic Order with Civil Society a fully organized, coherent partner…” working in ranks”. Headed by Science- cutting edge/radical reforms, Conscience- including the” weak, minority, feminine/Yin factors.. and Faith created by the Outcomes of this enhanced Input from a rightly- balanced, transparently monitored system.
Surely we must try to create a more advanced and inclusive system better fitted, equipped and harnessed to recognize,interactively concern itself with, meet and deal with our present inadequacies… and disallow the “space” that allows nihilist havoc and rebellion to get away with murder… in these advanced, fast-moving times.
Posted by Lynley R Butt | 18. Nov, 2009, 1:58 pmOk, great diagnosis by all. Can we please put our heads together for some solutions? This transformation in Pakistan has resulted due to lies spoken consistently over a long period of time coupled with systemic changes in education and support provided to certain groups and ideologies. Those people genuinly believe they are right. Oops, more diagnosis… Solutions, anyone?
Posted by Saad Paracha | 19. Nov, 2009, 8:12 amWell, when thinking about extremism in Pakistan one has to think about the environments in which it’s been fostered. There are two broad categories and your explanation explains one of them but does not precisely account for the other. The first category is politically and economically deprived areas like FATA and Southern Punjab. Especially in FATA, an absence of political rights has resulted in an alternative system of empowerment (via the madarsah and ulema). Similarly in Southern Punjab, the Arain Sunni lower class has taken to extremism as a way to empower itself against the Shia landowning class. In both places, this dynamic has been encouraged by the Pakistani state and security establishment for its own purposes.
But how does your explanation explain the phenomenon of Sunni extremism in urban Karachi, for example? Or among the shopkeeper class of Lahore who’ve supported the SSP’s activities in Punjab? I think you are missing the fact that this ideology appeals to many people not simply because of economic or political deprivation but because it’s an extremely appealing ideology for a number of reasons and that there is unfortunately a significant overlap with Pakistani nationalism which manifests itself in the form of these ridiculous conspiracy theories. Anyway, these theories are the sign of a worldview being challenged, which is a good thing.
Posted by Rabia | 19. Nov, 2009, 3:53 pmFirst of all I agree with you on the basic point of this being a failure on the part of the law enforcement agencies. But I believe that you have missed the historical role of the state in nurturing these forces for thirty plus years. Plus you haven’t taken any real names. Qari Hussain Ahmed. This is the man/monster responsible for training the child suicide squads of the TTP, and if you will have noticed Peshawar on three sides juts into TRIBAL AREAS. In these areas there is NO POLICE. And the problem with mentioning no names, is that aside from three hits in Punjab (all undoubtedly very big) all the attacks have been taking place in Peshawar which is next door to a Lashkar-e-Islam insurgency.
Second, If somebody calls out Pakistan’s pop stars for being scared, or intellectual lightweights then I think that’s a pretty fair argument, considering the reach or verbal power that these guys have. Just Shehzad Roy’s one video “Qismat Apney Haath Mein” made so many waves. If our pop starshad any guts [well they wouldn't be involved in pop any more
] but they really could push a positive message out.
And lastly at the weird little Indian on this blog (who apparently has no ” J” sounds where he comes from, its Wajibul Qatl, and nobody believes or teaches that shite) nobody believes the bullcrap in the old history textbooks, its being cleaned up and if it has any role, it’s as 0.1 % of the entire problem.
The real problem is non-existence of a police force on a day to day basis, especially in the tribal areas, but their weakness in the settled areas.
Posted by YS_1 | 19. Nov, 2009, 7:48 pmAn interesting and bold article
http://blog.dawn.com/2009/11/14/the-convenient-curtain-of-myth/
Posted by Saad Paracha | 20. Nov, 2009, 9:14 amYS_1
‘Little’ or not but an Indian ,yes.So far as 0.1% of the population believing some thing is concerned just visit http://pewreasearch.org/pubs/1312/pakistani-public-opinion and see for yourself that 78 % voted death for any one leaving Islam. Please do not start ranting against the opinion poll as Mr Zaidi himself starts the article with findings of the same research.
About textbooks have you recently gone through the Pakistaniyat Studies books for school children. Happy reading.
Posted by vikas ranjan | 20. Nov, 2009, 1:05 pmYS_1 Just go to
http://www.enlightenedpakistan.org/final.pdf
You will find a report on ‘Reformed Textbooks’. Read printed pages 77 to 101. Enjoy.
Posted by vikas ranjan | 20. Nov, 2009, 5:02 pmYS_1 I trust you have been to the sites recommended and are a little more educated. Now complete your education and go to http://www.ipcs.org/article_details.php?articleNo=2391
and learn that the police population ratio in Pakistan is better than that of India.India has 1 policeman for 726 people, Pakistan 1:625 and Japan 1:563.
Please also go to http://www.dawn.com/2008/11/24/local1.htm
and learn that Lahore has 1 police man for every 287 citizens whereas Mumbai has 1 for every 357. Apparently the poor policing theory falls flat.
Incidentally,are you among those who ‘believe that shit’ or those who do not believe that shit. If you consider yurself to be among the latter, can you explain why you find it difficult to address a Hindu and an Indian, without first adding pejoratives like ‘weird’ and ‘little’. I rest my case.
Posted by vikas ranjan | 21. Nov, 2009, 4:32 pmAhhhm…. I recently read the article on Dawn forum “A Debate Derailed” (http://blog.dawn.com/2009/11/20/a-debate-derailed/) and did not really understand what was the full context was, but reading the above I get the picture, as we are all set to take this topic off the rails and into the parking lot for a fist fight…
Honestly, these ones aren’t fun to read and are not even worth their internet cost per kb. Leads one to believe that online dialogue/blog-a-logue has not evolved to the extent of allowing a meaningful and constructive discussion on serious issues…And if it has, it certainly past us lot over.
Posted by Suhaib Kiani | 23. Nov, 2009, 6:54 pmThanks to everyone for their comments.
I can’t condone any of the offense that one reader causes to another, but I am interested in seeing how people interact with each other–in a rational and reasonable way.
The responses to this article were very useful in that regard.
Posted by admin | 25. Nov, 2009, 7:14 pm