http://thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=242541 or http://www.mosharrafzaidi.com/
Still no counterterrorism strategy
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
by Mosharraf Zaidi
One of my closest friends has never once, in more than fifteen years, ever responded to my salaam with a salaam. I have never held it against him. If he did, and a budding Mullah Chinioti heard him say it, he could be imprisoned for three years. I don’t blame my friend for never wanting to take the risk. Being risk-averse is not a choice made when you reach adulthood for Pakistani Ahmedis. It is a way of life. Every murdered Ahmedi in Pakistan helps reinforce the fear and the stoicism of this patriotic community of Pakistanis. And every murdered Ahmedi is a stain on Pakistan’s rich canvas of disgrace and guilt.
The press in Pakistan is awash in self-conscious hand-wringing about the massacre of Ahmedis by the TTP in Lahore. No such trepidation or nerves were on display at any previous point in this bloody and unending war between the TTP and the Pakistani people. Pakistanis that aspire for a “liberal” social and political space are incandescent with rage about the blasphemy law, about Zulfi Bhutto’s kneeling before the “mullahs” and about Zia’s escalation of state-sponsored, legal and constitutional hostility towards Ahmedis. Most Pakistanis, however, far and widely disconnected from what has come to represent “liberal” in Pakistan, would rather stay silent. There is surely a degree of shame and guilt for living in a country that has, even if it is by some degrees of separation, essentially participated in ghettoising an entire community. For most Pakistanis, however, there’s something more important than this shame. There is a fierce commitment to Islam.
This narrative of overarching religious devotion needs to be understood for what it is. Most Pakistanis are not particularly religious, but are very, very particularly devoted to the symbols of their religion. There is scarcely a symbol more central to Pakistani Muslims than the life, times and person of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. The flat and comprehensive finality of the Holy Prophet is non-negotiable.
Of course, that commitment does not, under any moral, legal or political framework, justify the way that Ahmedis are treated in Pakistan. In fact, the real outrage may be that Pakistani Muslims allow themselves to live in a country where religious fanatics posing as vigilantes see it fit to distribute their twisted version of justice on the lives of the innocent minorities of Pakistan.
The religious issue of the status of the Ahmedi faith in Pakistan is further complicated because it is also a legal issue. If Pakistanis, whether they call themselves liberal or not, are interested in beating the fanatics, and making Pakistan a safe place to live for all Pakistanis, then remembering certain facts is central to the project of fixing Pakistan.
The religious identity of Pakistan’s Constitution was the product of a democratic discourse. It is easy to demonise Zia, particularly given his government’s slavish pandering to a tiny sliver of mullahs. But frankly, reality also requires us to remember that Bhutto’s own rhetoric and most of the mainstream discourse preceding Bhutto (notwithstanding Ayub’s colonised vision for Pakistan) was not uncomfortable with Muslim identity. To the contrary, it had a healthy mix of political Muslimness, without any of the political Islamism that infected Pakistan under Zia.
That middle-of-the-road approach to Islam in the public space has not turned out very well. Arguably, it has bequeathed to Pakistan the TTP and its various components, and affiliates, including the increasingly brazen Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. But the emergence of Pakistani soil as the birthing place of so many terrorists is not solely a product of the Pakistani political conversation, and Islam’s place in it. It is also a product of the Pakistani military elite’s insatiable appetite for shiny new weapons.
The success or failure of the PPP- and Muslim League-dominated mainstream politics of Pakistan — which has always absorbed “Muslimness” into the discourse — can be argued about. There is no argument, however, about one fact. Since well before Bhutto, one bankable reality in Pakistani politics is that so-called Pakistani liberalism will always score high with the west and fail spectacularly at home. The righteous indignation of Pakistan’s “progressive” and “liberal” elite — whenever Pakistani extremism or fanaticism rears its ugly head — has very little bearing on what takes place in this country. Of the most important issues to any sincerely progressive person in Pakistan — such as how women are treated, how the powerful are unaccountable and how minorities are treated — it is the Pakistani fanatic that has won every single argument since 1947.
As children of Jinnah’s Pakistan, perhaps aspiring liberals and progressives need to start to ask questions about the nature of our citizenship, the nature of our engagement, and the nature of our politics within the broader canvas of realpolitik in Pakistan. The most important paint on this canvas is the green-coloured traditional South Asian Muslim sentiment of the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis. Pakistan’s central conversation is not a Sufi rock concert. It is a race for the next rupee, whilst carefully stepping over a cocktail of Barelvi, Deobandi, Wahhabbi, post-modern, Salafi and Shiite veritable “landmines”. Pakistani Muslim orthopraxis is diverse and contested — but it is central to defining the lowest common denominator in Pakistan’s issue-politics.
Asking questions about how to improve the rate of success of liberal causes in Pakistan requires us to take a break from mullah-bashing, and introspect. It is a political minefield if you’re a reformer interested in stripping Pakistan’s Constitution of its Muslim identity. It is an orchard ripe with fruit if you’re interested in exploiting existing religious stereotypes and biases in Pakistani society. Where can we reasonably expect every politician to eventually land every single time?
A transformed political landscape is a long-term project. Without substantially more grounded and active participation of Pakistani liberals in mainstream politics, it has no chance of fruition. In the meantime, Pakistanis, like the ones at Ghari Shahu and Model Town, are dying. I’m not interested in the guilty pleasures of trying to figure out if they were Muslim or not. I’m interested in catching the murderous criminals that did this, and making sure they don’t do it again. We can have all the uncomfortable religious conversations we like once we’re all secure from these bombs and bullets.
Let’s not forget that Benazir Bhutto is among the thirty thousand victims of terrorism in Pakistan since 2001. Since the TTP came together in December 2007, they have killed indiscriminately at mosques, at schools, at universities and in markets. Every law — both written and unwritten — in Pakistan is used to protect its VIPs, and yet the TTP got to Shaheed Mohtarma, and killed her.
We are too self-conscious as a nation. Too beholden to mullahs on the one hand, and too dislocated from our own culture and context on the other. The terrorist attacks in Lahore were more of what has become a standard part of life in Pakistan since 2007. The TTP may be ceding ground to the Pakistani Army and the friendly skies that US drones explore on a daily basis. But they are winning the war. The longer we remain stuck in a useless ideological conversation, the more ground the TTP will gain.
The most important tribute we can pay to those that were slaughtered by the TTP in Lahore is to formulate and execute a transparent and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Anything less would be a continuation of the failed politics of Pakistani liberals, and the unchallenged run of success enjoyed by Pakistani fanatics. Of course, many of us have been advocating a CT strategy now for the better part of three years. I am not hopeful.
In the meantime, I will continue to be ashamed every time I meet my Ahmedi friends. Whatever religious disagreements we may have, Pakistani Muslims should have been protectors of the weak, not spectators to their torment. The TTP’s bloodlust does not abdicate us from that responsibility.
I foresee some hand-wringing over this post.
Very well written indeed. Interestingly, the debate on how important religion actually is in our society keeps bobbing around because it would help settle the argument between Islamism and Muslimism in strictly majoritarian terms. In debating aesthetics, its morally satisfying that your particular side represents the true picture of what the country actually wants and what the actions of the polity indicate.
Pakistani society is now different from when Saghir Ahmed wrote Class and Power in a Punjabi village where the Mullah and Maulvi were respected but largely irrelevant figures. Urbanization has seen more of Islamism and less of Muslimism because religion becomes an instrument of claim-making and mobilization as well. Liberals would do well to recognize that politics, politicians and the state are largely moral objects in the minds of the public. In Muslimism, their morality is premised on the ability to deliver material goods and the ability to safeguard symbolism. In Islamism the morality is premised on the ability to transform the state into a religion regulating, sharia-nafizing entity.
Why do we see more of the latter? Quite simple, really. It’s because we co-exist in the same space. If our entire liberal population were to migrate to some random village in Sahiwal, the threat of the Mullah would probably seem less relevant. Everyone knows that legislation, policy-making and decision making happens to have an urban bias. Politicians quiver at the thought of urban unrest.
The fundamental problem with our dislocated liberals is that they have a desire to confront Islam and then chuck it out. That, unfortunately, is incompatible with both Muslimism and to a much larger extent with Islamism.
However my pessimism at any real change taking place in the increasingly Islamisitic discourse of our country stems from the fact that urban engagement is extremely difficult for any informed progressive/liberal cause. The Islamists control education and the media. (LUMS and Dawn don’t count). Where does one start this process of engagement without suffering immediate persecution?
Posted by Umair | 02. Jun, 2010, 7:26 amWe as a nation are ashamed over this act of violence carried out by TTP; these militants although against the whole state are ideologically very similar to the religious hardliners that declare Ahmadis as kafirs; but the religious groups or militants are not the only ones, who are against the Ahmadis but a lot of ordinary Pakistanis also hate this religious minority; this need to stop, otherwise our country will fail all the standards of a civilized nation.
Posted by Zainab Ali | 02. Jun, 2010, 3:14 pmThe binary between the Pakistani liberal and the Pakistani fanatic isn’t so neat. Your writing necessarily privileges the former over the latter. I agree that liberal politics has failed in Pakistan and I hope to God this isn’t taken to mean that more (and louder) liberalism is the order of the day.
We need a counter-terrorism strategy based on human security and minority rights but how can we possibly dissociate that with national conversations on ideology given that the massacre of Ahmaddis last week was (at least in part) stemming from ideological dysfunction?
Posted by Rabayl | 02. Jun, 2010, 3:41 pmWhile waiting for a haircut, I would often chat with an elderly gentleman waiting for his turn as well. Uncle Saeed, I remember him as. He once said that while a college student volunteer during the Pakistan movement, he was assigned the task of looking after stationery for the Quaid-i-Azam. On one public rally, Nawab Mamdot sahib suggested that azan should be called as it was time for zuhr. The Quaid replied that if you do this, there will be more than one jamaat praying separately; my job is to unite the Muslims, not divide them. Uncle Saeed was shocked surprised at the time, but now he realizes how well the Quaid understood our people.
Posted by Amir | 02. Jun, 2010, 4:57 pmImpeccable piece, Musharraf. Especially the part that always escapes attention: ‘But the emergence of Pakistani
soil as the birthing place of so many terrorists is not solely a product of the Pakistani political conversation, and Islam’s place in it. It is also a product of the Pakistani military elite’s insatiable appetite for shiny new weapons’.
Posted by Saadia | 02. Jun, 2010, 8:04 pmI just eatched the crises cell program here in the UK. We need people like Mosharraf Zaidi in Pakistan and all over the world to represent us not like the idiot who participated in the same program. I have no idea what the hell Sajid Mir (please excuse me if I got his name wrong) was trying to say and who was he actually representing. I know one thing for sure, we need to put people like him where they belong….in a jail…for spreading hatred and intolerance….
Posted by Khalid | 03. Jun, 2010, 5:05 amThanks for a lot of really intelligent and useful comments. I was expecting Five Rupees to join the fray here, but there is now an entire post dedicated to taking apart this piece at http://fiverupees.blogspot.com/2010/06/blaming-victims-my-response-to.html.
I will respond to each comment here later today, but just wanted to acknowledge the feedback and the support.
Posted by admin | 03. Jun, 2010, 7:13 amMen doing these actions have no religion neither are they true Pakistanis. All citizens of Pakistan condemn this action and want to get rid of militancy from the country. Peace will only prevail once the Taliban are whitewashed.
Posted by ali hamdani | 03. Jun, 2010, 2:38 pmI really liked your article and you always say courageous things. I was introduced to the Ahmadis through filling out Passport forms back in senior year of High School. When I attempted to learn further from my parents and my friends, I learned of more things such as the 2nd Amendment and all the human rights violations.
What troubled me even more is that when I served as President of the Pakistan Student Association in our University, the stir and drama that was caused between the conservative Pakistanis and liberal Pakistanis on Ahmadis, on what was suppose to be a constitutional/legal issue turning in to a religious debate and drama.
But I must say one thing, we must continue to have hope. Asif Zardari may be President today, and the state of our institutions may be weak, but we must not give up, infact we must be more motivated to create the change we seek. This nation was founded by Father Jinnah and millions died during the partition for this nation, to honor them and to pay only a cent back of what they gave us, we must not give up.
The Taliban Movement has been able to challenge the Government of Pakistan and put them on their knees. Taliban has courage to challenge our government, something we lack. A political group with a minority following has the ability to hijack a nation of 170Million Plus people. Courage is a powerful word. My hope is that we try to be courageous and get the country out of the mess. Father Jinnah and All India Muslim League did not rise because of Justice, it was because of the injustices the Muslim Minority faced as a whole, which we all know.
But this internal domestic terrorism is nothing new, post 9/11 only fueled it to a crisis level. It started in the 1990′s, with sectarian killings. Now, we can put a face to it and have the opportunity to challenge and end it. We must work together and rise up to make it happen.
Thank you Mr. Zaidi for inspiring us and making us think of the issues we are facing today.
Posted by Munzir Naqvi | 04. Jun, 2010, 11:02 am@Umair: Many thanks for taking part in this discussion, which now, has extended far beyond the original points I was trying to make.
You say that, “The fundamental problem with our dislocated liberals is that they have a desire to confront Islam and then chuck it out. That, unfortunately, is incompatible with both Muslimism and to a much larger extent with Islamism.”
I would go further. Chucking out Muslim symbols is also incompatible with the real politic. Its inconsistent with the political economy. Its inconsistent with history.
Beating the fanatics is only possible by occupying the same space as them and actually beating them, crowding them out, and taking them down. But you can’t do that from the Internet. You should hear some of the stuff they say at Friday prayers!
I am sure you can see the irony of your innocent point about being persecuted. Salafists have been calling me names since I started the column (though never as publicly as Sajid Mir did). But the real persecution is how an appeal to engage and introspect was met with unmitigated and unsubstantiated outrage, not by ditzy KGS and LAS liberals, but by two serious academics, both from one of the finest institutions in the world.
Posted by Mosharraf Zaidi | 04. Jun, 2010, 11:38 am@Zainab Ali and @Ali Hamdani:
Thanks. Rooting out this menace will take one generation at least. That is roughly 25 years. We must be patient, rational and open-minded about what instruments are best at which point. All of those decisions can only be made within the framework of some kind of negotiated agreement about our national counterterrorism strategy.
Posted by Mosharraf Zaidi | 04. Jun, 2010, 11:40 am@Rabayl: I agree. And of course the intent is not to suggest a clean and linear disconnect between the two, but really to advocate liberal introspection. No CT strategy can ignore the role of indoctrination, but I certainly think that the formulation of CT strategies don’t need to wait until we’ve sorted out the ideological mess. That’s kind of what I’m arguing.
Posted by Mosharraf Zaidi | 04. Jun, 2010, 11:46 am@Amir: That’s a great anecdote. Well worth framing.
@Saadia: Thanks. The manipulation of the discourse by the military elite is a huge problem. But maybe the way to counter it is to make better arguments that reach more people more frequently.
Posted by Mosharraf Zaidi | 04. Jun, 2010, 11:49 am@Khalid and @Munzir
Thank you profusely for the support and your kind words.
Posted by Mosharraf Zaidi | 04. Jun, 2010, 11:49 amToo much kneeling and not much understanding of Islamic ideology.
1. Zulfi Bhutto kneeling to mullahs.
2. Muslim elites kneeling to definers of terms “liberal” and “Islamism” neither being relevant to Islamic context.
3. South asian muslims kneeling at the graves of past muslim teachers and scholars, contrary to basic teaching of Islam.
To counter the fanatics and ignorant, those claiming to be muslims need to understand and contemplate Islam as Mohammad Asad (born Leopold Wiess) did, and has explained in “The Message Of Quran” A.M.
Posted by Abdul Majid | 06. Jun, 2010, 9:19 amMullahs will go on arguing they want an Islamic State. And the liberals will go on arguing for a secular one where Ahmedis are re-branded as Muslims and so on. 60 more years will pass. And nothing will change. More Ahmedis will die. More Christians will die. And more ordinary Muslims will bear the brunt of a society plagued by extremism and poverty. Which is why I agree with the approach you are arguing for. Fight for legislation that will safeguard the rights of minorities. Fight for a society which cherishes all citizens. No sane Muslim will argue with that. The ideological battle can come later. Thank you so much for this article. I hope I got the gist of what you said right.
Posted by hira | 08. Jun, 2010, 12:31 amIt is ironic and rather appalling that Pakistan still lacks a comprehensive national counterterrorism strategy. The approach in the war against terror has simply being reactionary where we would move to Swat when militants grew strong, or launch an operation in South Waziristan when it was unavoidable. We need a visionary insight that entails the rehabilitation and transformation of militants. The intelligence gathering can be improved by entrusting the locals and make them a partner in this war.
Posted by Sadia Hussain | 08. Jun, 2010, 1:03 pmMr Zaidi,
I really really like your article. For the first time I have seen a sane voice from the left-of-center intelligentsia. I consider myself right-of-center, but generally lament that I find an impassable chasm between the two sides. We need more people near the center to have any debate at all. Kudos.
Affan
Posted by Affan Syed | 12. Jun, 2010, 12:09 amBrilliantly written article but something that I found very strange was “One of my closest friends has never once, in more than fifteen years, ever responded to my salaam with a salaam. I have never held it against him”.
My paternal side of the family is Ahmadis and that too religiously very active and well known not only in the Ahmadi community but also in the city where we reside. Never in my 32 years have I heard of an incident where an Ahmadi did not reply to a salaam or did not say salaam to someone.
Yes, there have been prejudices against the Ahmadi community some mild and others extremely severe and harsh, that cannot be denied but the incident you mention that I for one find hard to believe.
Also why is it that we as a nation raise hue and cry over the unfairness and bias present in our society when some unfortunate event occurs? You and many of the readers who have commented on your article are non-Ahmadis, and they have known of the Ahmadis and the treatment meted out to them for long but did they do anything in their own capacity to put things right??? Are we just talking about this issue because we sincerely realize what wrong has been done and have decided put all these words into actions without the desire of getting any political and/or social gains out of it or are all these talks just furor?
Posted by tatzaz | 16. Jun, 2010, 4:40 pmwhen we are talking about counter terrorism, we should not forget problems that improvised explosive devices have created in our country. We should also make counter strategy towards this hideous weapon.
Posted by saba kamran | 26. Jan, 2012, 6:51 pm