Our inner demons
WINSTON Churchill is reported to have said: “An appeaser is a man who feeds a crocodile in the hope that it will eat him last.”
If that’s our security establishment’s strategy against the extremists, it’s not working too well: as of last count, over 5,000 soldiers and policemen had been killed by terrorists. In addition, of course, is the far longer list of civilian casualties, including some illustrious names: Benazir Bhutto, Salmaan Taseer, Shahbaz Bhatti and Bashir Bilour.
Against all those killed by jihadis, very few of the murderers have been arrested, much less tried, convicted and sentenced. In the wake of each high-profile killing, the cry goes up for the army to launch an operation in North Waziristan.
We also frequently demand that our judiciary retreat from its grandstanding, and return to its primary duty of trying criminals.
Above all, there is the recurring appeal for the state to do something, anything, to stop the Taliban and their ilk from continuing their deadly attacks.
These are all legitimate demands: no nation should have to suffer the escalating violence Pakistanis have been subjected to for some two decades. And yet there is no silver bullet, no panacea, to suddenly rid us of the horrors of extremism.
From the government, there is the constant refrain about forging a consensus before firm action is taken. This, of course, is rubbish and serves only as a feeble excuse for inaction: when criminals attack citizens, the state needs nobody’s approval to put a stop to their activities by whatever means it takes. Tomorrow, if Pakistan is attacked by India, would the army need a consensus to defend the country?
However, the truth is that an army operation will not only cause an instant and deadly backlash, but will also disperse the terrorists to other parts of the tribal areas. While this is no pretext for standing by, we must face the fact that after years of inaction and confusion over tactics, the Taliban have grown stronger, and they now have the initiative. Our police and army only react to their attacks, and very feebly at that.
Politicians like Imran Khan argue that we must enter into negotiations with our foes. But talk about what? The terms of surrender? Again and again, the Taliban have broken agreements, using the time they have gained to regroup. Meanwhile, our troops become demoralised at being regularly attacked without being able to use the full force at their command to hit back.
Suppose for an instant that by some miracle, our politicians, generals and judges suddenly started doing what they are paid to do. Courts sentenced all those found guilty of terrorism; our intelligence agencies stopped supporting favoured groups of terrorists; and the army moved against nests of killers currently holding villages in Fata hostage.
What then? The hard reality is that there are many ignorant, brainwashed foot soldiers of the jihad waiting to be sent into battle.
For a few thousand rupees and the promise of a sensual paradise, they will happily blow themselves up, taking their designated targets with them.
No, until the mad, violent ideology that sustains the jihad comes to an end, this swamp won’t be drained of its poison. This is a far harder battle to fight: tacit support for these killers is in evidence everywhere in Pakistan today. From the traders who donate to ‘Islamic causes’, to what passes for debate on our TV chat shows, we can see a clear link to the takfiri mindset of the Taliban.
While condemning the worst excesses of the jihadis, we can hear a lingering ‘but’ at the end of the sentence. Usually, this caveat refers to the American drone attacks: recently, in a BBC interview, the Jamaat-i-Islami spokesman said while he was against the attacks that killed nine (mostly women) polio vaccinators, why wasn’t the world equally concerned about the deaths of children killed in American drone attacks?
This cold-blooded attempt to look for moral equivalence between two entirely different acts reveals not only the widespread desire on the religious right not to annoy the Taliban, but also reflects the confusion so prevalent today.
How can the accidental killing of children by foreigners possibly justify the deliberate killing of unarmed volunteers that also condemns millions of children to the possibility of a life blighted by an avoidable and terrible disease like polio?
Unspoken support for the Taliban ideology is also evident in the rising popularity of right-wing politicians like Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri. The former’s extreme anti-Americanism brings him close to the Taliban who demand an end to the drone campaign because it is the only tactic that’s hurting them. And the latter’s appeal lies in his anti-democracy stance that’s also in line with the Taliban’s position.
One hard truth we constantly shy away from examining is that when a state is created in the name of an ideology, then that body of ideas is bound to dominate the public discourse. Today, if you speak to a student or a cleric about Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan, he simply won’t believe that the founder of Pakistan was a deeply secular person.
When I explained this to a student many years ago, he asked me: “If Mr Jinnah wanted a secular state, why did he partition India?” You can argue all you like about the distinction between “a homeland for the Muslims of the Subcontinent” and an Islamic state. Chances are that your point of view will be dismissed as meaningless sophistry.
So if the vast majority of Pakistanis are convinced that Pakistan is an Islamic state, an opinion confirmed by the constitution, then a number of things flow from this conclusion. Firstly, it is hard to argue against the demand that the Sharia should be the law of the land, together with all the consequences for women and the minorities.
What the rising tide of dogma has done is to strip our society of tolerance, an attribute essential for democracy. Tolerance is also what can hold a diverse society like Pakistan together. Without it, we get sucked into a bitterly divisive conflict over which school of Islam will dominate.
Ultimately then, we must confront and expel our inner demons. No army action will save us from ourselves.
The writer is the author of Fatal Faultlines: Pakistan, Islam and the West.
Few days after the cold blooded murder of the former Punjab governor, there was a massive rally in Karachi in support of the murderer. Is there any more proof required on how brainwashed people are?.
“Today, if you speak to a student or a cleric about Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan, he simply won’t believe that the founder of Pakistan was a deeply secular person.” (Irfan Husain)
In fact Jinnah left Congress partly because Gandhi was too religious for Jinnah’s taste for a secular political party.
I thought the article was excellent until the last three paragraphs. It is possible for Pakistanis to organize a just and tolerant society and goverment whether it is secular or islamic. The need of the hour is to act against criminals- no excuses.
I 100% agree with Irfan Hussain. His is one of those lone and saner voices in Pakistan which desrve to be appreciated.
only sane and rational person left in pakistan
Written with a deep insight for a people who cannot read & understand or will read & ignore .Sad state of affair .Will definitely lead to collapse of the state in the near future.
Perhaps the smart thing to do is to accept that Jinnah made a mistake by asking for a separate state but Pakistan needs to make the best of a bad decision and carry on from there. There is no shame in this. You will find millions of Indians that believe that Gandhi, Nehru and others from that era also made bad decisions. Jinnah was as human as they were.
Extremely well written, I hope people in power read this article and develop a coherent strategy to tackle terrorism in Pakistan.
Extremely well written, I hope our people in power read this article and try a coherent strategy against these terrorists
“If Mr Jinnah wanted a secular state, why did he partition India?”
That university student had a valid question. And the answer you gave may not necessarily be true.
Perhaps the time has come to re assess Jinnah’s decisions. Some points to ponder are:
In his day to day life, he might appear all western and secular. But was he really so? How is that different from so many western educated boys in Toronto and London who look all secular but just a bit of probing reveals rather conservative outlook against women, Christians, and western social mores.
Is it possible that he was wrong in concluding that undivided India will not be a safe place for Muslims? Certainly, in spite of the Modis and Thakerays, far fewer Muslims are killed in India than in Pakistan.
Is it possible that he was an oppurtunist? The notion of secular Pakistan was just to make the idea palatable to his British interlocutors. He realised that a theocratic state will not be acceptable to the powers that be. That explains his frequent dichotomy in addresses given to international fora and domestic audience.
Why does everyone find it so easy to criticise Yahya,Bhutto and Zia ul Haq but doesnt want to touch the Holy Cow who started it all?
Very rare saner voice in Pakistan,but nobody will listen it in Pak.But writer should be congratulated for
atleast trying something good.
I wish my country men are wise enough to pay heed to Mr Hussain
Pakistan’s eighty percent (80%) population believe in the same ideology as the Talibans do, that’s the shariah of the khulfa-e-Rashideen. In this case, instead lingering in a dilemma whereby the majority agree with the Shariah of the Khulfa-e-Rashideen, yet not have the Taliban ruling them, they should bring them into the mainstream, and have this Sharia implemented, This should finish all the chaos and confusion once for all. If some of the liberal type women here will resist the kind of hijab or purdah that is prescribed by the said Shariah, they can be gradually persuaded to observe the same. Democracy in Pakistan simply translates into corruption. It will never work in this country. Just implement the Shariah of the Khulfa-e-Rashideen, and live peacefully and happily ever after.
Ashraf
If we do not wake up to this reality, we will go back to the stone ages. Simple!
like somalia or afghanistan you mean
Your knowledge of Afghanistan seems to be flawed. Comparing today’s Afghanistan with Somalia is misleading. Afghanistan is a full-fledged state with its institutions (political, security, educational, economic, etc) getting stronger by every passing day. Afghanistan has a strong central authority, while Somalia, on the other hand, is a lawless territory with not a single functional state institution.
Indeed, Mr. Dotani has a valid point here. Afghanistan cannot be compared with Somalia in any context.
Why is it Irfan Hussain so pessimistic? There must be something solid and good in Pakistan! So be cheerful and don’t around saying, ” Sky is falling, sky is falling and dooms day is here..”
With Taliban around you… I think some portions of Pakistani’s are already living in stone age.. Don’t intend to offend ordinary Pakistani’s but unfortunately that is bitter truth…
Indeed, Ganesh you are pretty much right
Jinnah was secular but he agreed to create a coutry in the name of religion, Liaqat ali was jinnah’s close but he put objective resolution in place, butto was secular but he agreed to declare a sect as non muslim !!! either these all leaders were mullahs without beard or they were too week to do the right. the democrats and liberals of this coutry have always surrendered agaist the extremists.
The truth is that majority of people in Pakistan, embittered by a succession of inefficient and corrupt governments for over 60 years, supports the idea of a Caliphate – an Islamist empire based on sharia law – beginning with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The age of Caliphates is long gone. Apart from the Rashidun Caliphates, all others were uneasy and rickety political alliances involving colonising other lands. The rosy idea that caliphates were somehow an era of plenty and of milk and honey is simply not true.
Who should serve as Caliph? Do you have any name?
I am a non-religious Indian. I hope against hope that Pakistan will be able to rid itself of the menace of Islamist extremism eventually.
On a separate note, I can empathize with the author’s confused student. I have never understood the (Pakistani liberal?) lament that a country founded expressly for the followers of one religion and in the the name of that religion (it was not Direct Action in the name of secular humanism you know?!) turned away from secular principles. Why did anyone ever expect they could eat their cake and have it too? Why did the Quaid-e-azzam?
In my opinion, an excellent and courageous article. Thank you Mr. Husain.
Tahirul. Tahirul, he’s our man,
If he can’t save us no one can.