Pakistan: Extremism breeds terrorism

Babar Ayaz

The humanist social democrats cannot debate with Islamists freely without being charged for blasphemy. For much less Salmaan Taseer was killed

It is seldom that journalists from the print and electronic media take time out to reflect and introspect on the crucial issues they cover on a day-to-day basis in the line of duty. Once in a year, the South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) provides such an opportunity. Last week it invited over 100 journalists from all over the country to discuss the exploding issue of extremism and what media can do to promote tolerance in society. As the government has failed to provide an alternate to the extremist ideology, there is widespread confusion in society about what is the fascist agenda of extremism and its offshoot: terrorism. The apologists of these extremists compound the confusion when they try to justify it by declaring that terrorism is because Pakistan is supporting a US war. I wonder: if the US will not tell us to fight terrorist organisations, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will the state of Pakistan still allow the terrorists to impose their brand of sharia in the country and launch an insurgency against a neighbouring country?

To legitimise terrorism their apologists rely on the famous saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. That makes their credentials as democrats weak, as use of terrorist tactics to achieve legitimate or illegitimate objectives is negation of democratic norms. Then the question is raised both from the far left and also from the far right: what is the answer to state or imperialist violence or what is also called ‘state terrorism’? Another delicate question is: what is a national liberation war? When does it degenerate to fall in the category of terrorism?

However, first let us take to task the more immediate issue. In the case of religious terrorism we have to understand that the people who resort to terrorist tactics do so because they have a weak case and little public support. Actually ‘militant Islam’ is an offshoot of ‘political Islam’ as it has failed to capture power through democratic means. Militant Islam’s lineage can be traced to Shah Waliullah in this part of the world and to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt under the teachings of Hasan al Bana and Sayid Qutab. Olivier Roy, Farzana Sheikh and Ayesha Jalal, to name a few, have explained this phenomenon in their compelling books. These books should be on the ‘essential reading list’ for journalists in Pakistan.

The Pakistani establishment, which has India paranoia, started patronising terrorism since its inception, e.g. the creation of a tribal lashkar (militia) in 1948, and continues to sponsor non-state militant jihadis to this day. Even at present our establishment considers India specific terrorist groups and Afghan terrorist as its assets although they were and are liabilities. If in a country’s accounting books ‘liabilities’ are entered as ‘assets’, the state is bound to collapse. Another aspect of this religious terrorism is that it is based on a strong ideology of al Qaeda. It cannot be ignored that they are official and unofficial al Qaeda franchises. Military operations against them in the tribal areas are tactical moves. The fact is that the state does not have a comprehensive strategy for countering al Qaeda’s ideological thrust.

Crudely applying the principle of equity, some journalists, at the two-day SAFMA conference, talked about listening to the other side. Yes, that is a democratic value but is not this question frivolous when on the one hand the Islamists invoke democratic rights of free speech and the right to preach, but on the other hand they do not allow a rational dialogue? The humanist social democrats cannot debate with Islamists freely without being charged for blasphemy. For much less Salmaan Taseer was killed. If the other side had a rational scientific ideology they would not have resorted to terrorism. Perfidy apologists of terrorist outfits also ask why we support talks and a political solution for Balochistan’s chronic problems and demand that the state first establish its writ against the Taliban and then talk peace.

The issue is that Taliban demands are not for the rights of the tribal people — they want to impose their brand of sharia on the country through the barrel of a gun. If they win the elections and form the government with an large enough majority to write another constitution, they are more than welcome. But they should not try to turn the wheel of history back to Salafiism. Now the second question: what is the difference between a national liberation war and terrorism by ethnic parties? When a democratic movement is suppressed by state terrorism then the militant struggle in aid of a normal democratic independence movement is a national liberation war. However, history has shown that non-violent movements have been more successful. The litmus test is that independence should lead to economic, social and political development of the common man. If it is retrogressive in itself then it is anti-people, and hence it should not be given the respectability of a national liberation war. Only a rational and dispassionate strategy covering economic, political and social facets can bring peace and tolerance to our society.

My fear is that we are heading towards bloodier times. Once the government moves towards building a peace bridge with India, the Kashmir specific terrorists, who are mostly Punjab-based, will turn their guns towards the government. I hope I am proven wrong this time.