Dealing with terrorism

EVEN though the government’s war on terror has been in progress since 9/11, its results have been uneven. It has scored some successes, but the failures, too, are many. The successes include the arrest of a number of leading Al Qaeda activists — including al-Libby, Osama bin Laden’s deputy — and the containment of the militants hiding in Wana, South Waziristan. The government’s claim that it has crippled Al Qaeda’s organizational structure may not be altogether exaggerated, but, as the London bombings show, Al Qaeda is still able to strike and choose its time and place of attack at will. That one of the London bombers visited Pakistan a month before 7/7 highlights our intelligence agencies’ shortcomings.

In his address to law enforcement officials on Friday, President Pervez Musharraf emphasized the need for redoubling efforts to crack down on extremists. Among the tasks he mentioned were a campaign against donations, the display of arms, the use of loudspeakers, and the distribution of hate material. These are complex issues, and their solution concerns the law enforcement agencies only partly; the greater part of the responsibility lies with the political authority. Hate material is printed not necessarily by banned outfits; even “normal” religious parties and institutions operating within the ambit of law circulate material that may be inflammatory in tone and content. As for donations, there cannot be a blanket ban, because there are many welfare organizations run by religious trusts which are rendering commendable humanitarian service. They cannot be denied donations simply because they are run by religious organizations. As for madressahs, most operate on a neighbourhood basis and are sustained locally, and they are not by any standards militant. The donation issue concerns big names in madressahs which get money in millions through clandestine channels. It is this type of funding that needs to be stopped.

The ban on the display of arms and loudspeakers has always been part of official pep talk for years, though without results. Terrorists do not use loudspeakers; they strike without an announcement. Loudspeakers are a nuisance, but many of those who use them consider themselves above the law. The police often hesitate to proceed against them because the government itself has shown a lack of will in dealing with them. It is the use to which these loudspeakers are put that should also be stopped: sectarian preaching and blood-curdling exhortations. This brings us to the political aspect of the issue. The religion column in passports and the mixed marathon may not be that important in themselves, but they have given the wrong signals to the law enforcers. In fact, since it came to power in October 1999, the government has made every attempt to sideline the two mainstream political parties, the PPP and the PML-N, and kowtowed to the religious right. The religious parties may not be encouraging terrorism, but there is no doubt that they disapprove of a crackdown on the extremists and certainly promote militancy. The government should therefore stop the policy of compromise based on political expediency.

The war on terror must be pursued in our own interests, because terrorism has done incalculable harm to our society and to this country’s image. The government must have the courage and will to stand up to the firebrand clerics whom it has unsuccessfully tried to befriend. It has a chance of success because the vast majority of the people disapprove of the politics of extremism and violence. The war on terror must be conducted in a democratic ambience because an open society provides a better chance of isolating extremist trends.

A time for introspection

TO say that this is a tough time for those of Pakistani origin living in the UK would be an understatement. The July 7 attacks in London have several links to Pakistan and this is obviously going to be some cause for concern for Britain’s large Pakistani community. Three of the suicide bombers, all UK nationals, are said to be of Pakistani origin. One, Shehzad Tanweer, is believed to have travelled to Pakistan before the attack. According to Pakistani intelligence officials, he visited madressahs in Faisalabad and Lahore which are said to have links with a banned extremist organization, the Jaish-i-Mohammad. There are also suggestions that the alleged mastermind of the attacks, who British police believe left the country a little before the bombings, might also have a Pakistani connection. All this points to a potentially hostile environment for many Muslim Britons, especially those from Pakistan.

While most Muslim groups and organizations have been quick to condemn the attacks, and while senior UK politicians and police officials have publicly said that the attacks were the work of a tiny group of extremists, Britain’s majority white community may see things differently. One Pakistani has already died in what police say could be a racially motivated attack while several mosques have received anonymous threats. More ominously, the attacks seem to have galvanized the right, especially extremist parties like the British National Party, into planning action against Muslims, their properties and places of worship. There must be many Muslim Britons who think that the attacks are the price to be paid for Britain’s involvement in Iraq. However, engaging in such reasoning does not serve any useful purpose, especially because retaliatory attacks on innocent people can never be justified on any count. British Muslims, especially those of Pakistani origin, have trying days ahead, but they could make it easier for themselves by guarding against intolerance and fanaticism in their ranks and by speedily assimilating into the mainstream. For its part, British society will have to be more accommodative of its Muslim component.

Poor maternal care

WHILE the NWFP information minister’s concern that women do not visit health centres for pre- and post-natal check-ups may be well-intentioned, might one ask what he and his colleagues in government are doing about it? As he himself admitted at the workshop on reproductive health held recently in Peshawar, most of the funds allocated for maternal and child health care remain unspent. This is unacceptable, especially as the fertility rate (5.1) in the NWFP is second only to that in Balochistan. While women in urban centres might have better access to health facilities, those in the rural areas continue to suffer on this score. According to one estimate, the figure for maternal mortality in the NWFP’s remote areas is as high 1,800 per 100,000 live births.

Things being as they are, it is unlikely that the NWFP’s women and children will get a better deal anytime soon. Already, women face delays in getting medical treatment and there have been tragic cases resulting from such regressive decisions as banning medical examinations of women by male doctors. It is time the NWFP government stopped wasting time on non-issues and addressed the genuine problems, including women’s health care.