Rising terror wave

GOING by the figures released by a think-tank on Friday, Pakistan is next to Iraq in terms of casualties of terrorism. In Afghanistan, the casualties may be higher, but those are mostly battlefield deaths, besides what is known as collateral damage. Also, suicide attacks in Afghanistan do not have the same frequency and level of devastation as in Pakistan. According to the report prepared for 2007 by the Pak Institute for Peace Studies, Pakistan witnessed 1,442 violent incidents, including border skirmishes, causing nearly 9,000 casualties — 3,448 of them fatal. This figure is 492 per cent higher than that for 2005. Sixty suicide attacks alone killed 770 people. Of the total killed, 58 per cent were civilians.

The high figure for 2007 shows the military-led government’s gross failure to stem, much less reverse, the tide of terrorism. Benazir Bhutto’s assassination has added to the people’s sense of insecurity. If a two-time prime minister and a national leader can be murdered, what chances does the common citizen have of leading a life without being haunted by the spectre of terrorism at every step? The Lal Masjid episode epitomises the key features that characterise the failure of the government’s strategy in the war against terror: inability to act in time to pre-empt militants from fortifying themselves and a display of weakness in engaging the militants who have set up a parallel government in areas under their control.

The redeeming feature of the entire situation is that so far the militants have failed to win the sympathy of the people, including many of the ulema. This is something on which the government should have built its strategy. Unfortunately, the train of events since March 9, when the Chief Justice was made ‘non-functional, seems to have paralysed the government and rendered it incapable of tackling terrorism with the people’s help. The most frightful aspect of the situation is that the Taliban have sympathisers within the military establishment. Moreover, the image of the intelligence agencies being the godfathers of the militants is a historical legacy that refuses to go away. All one can hope is that the elected government that is likely to be in place next month will adopt a new, aggressive and more realistic strategy to combat terrorism. One of the new government’s tasks will be to make the people believe in earnest that the war on terror is in Pakistan’s interest and that the rulers are pursuing it honestly. The Balochistan problem must also be seen in a national perspective and should be de-linked from the war on terror. Being an elected government it must consider itself answerable to parliament and devise policies based on democratic consensus.

Time to curb domestic abuse

THE Council of Islamic Ideology has gone against the tide by expressing its disapproval of the rising incidence of domestic violence in Pakistan. Its concern is valid because this problem has so far not been adequately addressed by the law. One hopes that action on this issue will not be long in coming. It is true that of late steps have been taken to enact pro-women laws and to correct lacunae in existing gender-related legislation. But these efforts have been rather limited in scope. Currently, the law recognises criminality against women — such as rape and honour killings — only in the public domain and has done little to tighten the noose around domestic violence. Conservative estimates show that more than 70 per cent of women in Pakistan suffer from some form of domestic abuse. Verbal and emotional abuse apart, many women are subjected to physical violence at the hands of their husbands and in-laws, while others are burnt and tortured to the point where many die or are disfigured for life. It testifies to the low status of women in our society that they are treated as commodities in the possession of men. Hence the conventional view is that the treatment meted out to women in the privacy of their home is not a matter of public concern. It is left to the families to devise methods of addressing the problem.

Unfortunately, we can assume that, as has been the case for most legislation pertaining to the welfare and protection of women, a law to curb domestic violence will meet much resistance. True, efforts have been initiated to introduce legislation, and both the PPP and the MQM have sought to introduce bills relating to the prevention of domestic violence in the assemblies. But unless our male-dominated legislatures do not recognise such abuse as a pressing issue, one can be sure that efforts to address it will be met with disinterest. For a law on domestic violence to be enacted and to prove effective, it is necessary that the legislators recognise the equal status of women and accept the principle that employing violence against them amounts to violating their human rights. Were lawmakers to sympathise with the plight of thousands of women across the country who continue to accept their fate in silence, the seeds of change could be sown. The state must take note of such abuse and implement strict measures to curb it. It also must be emphasised that besides legislation there is the need to create social awareness about the rights of women, especially their need for protection against violence. Otherwise, the public will continue to tolerate violence against women which is deeply ingrained in the mindset of Pakistan’s patriarchal society.

Happy hours

CONTRARY to popular modern belief, happiness is not the stuff of a pill that pharmaceutical companies promise. And where therapy may be the answer to internal conflict, it’s hardly a fast track to true bliss. Modern living seems to survive on short cuts that whip up temporary glee, only until it is time for the next session. Neither is happiness neatly cushioned in self-help books. Their usual 10 prescribed steps to joy can hardly resonate in all minds and hearts as each has its own unique language. A simpler idea, not as instant but certainly more enduring, is to let the pheromones and neurons flow to your heart’s content and keep the menace of stress from blocking them. Today, this is the road less travelled. Contentment is the mainstay of happiness, and its secret lies in the belief that harmony and great expectations are not necessarily directly related. One glaring example is the myth called ‘the American Dream’ where the pursuit of the material overtook the importance of fulfillment and only contributed to the queues for the couch at the shrink’s. Also, harried modern-day lifestyles have led to the disintegration of interpersonal relationships, making room for loneliness at conscious levels for some and subconsciously for others.

The key to undoing this modern state of isolation is still found in the old world truths of communication, the greatest sadness buster that beats any pill hands down, and realistic expectations of both one’s own self and of others. International research proves that happiness breeds healthy hearts as case studies of elated moods showed lowered levels of cortisol, which is a stress hormone. When chronically elevated, it brings about high blood pressure, obesity, a weak immune system to name a few. Therefore, begin the journey towards self-reliant happiness by engaging the mind. The creative arts have long served as a good escape. However, nothing compares with the belief that living light is the key to living long.

Democratic and political spaces

THOSE of us who were hoping that political parties would take a principled stand and boycott a sham structure and system which merely legitimises and endorses President Musharraf’s political arrangement were called naïve, or worse, once the main political parties decided to participate in the 2008 elections.

Questions were raised about issues relating to individual and public or political morality, where a number of people argued that while it was acceptable as individuals to take certain principled positions privately, in politics the game is not so much about such individual dilemmas but about opportunities. The arguments stated that political actors are in the game to achieve political power, and their morality or principles should not be constrained by that goal. Hence, when they have the opportunity to acquire power, their principles could be set aside.In any other language such behaviour would be called the crassest form of opportunism, but in the language of politics it is known as tactics. The argument goes that rather than hold on to some principled stand and sit on the sidelines and watch the political process unfold, political actors are better off if they protest, yet accept and play by the rules of the game, for they would otherwise be completely marginalised in the process which they are hoping to influence. If the opportunity to influence the larger political process arises, whether through collaboration, collusion or compromise, political actors are required to be political rather than moralists.

This politics of opportunism based on collaboration, or these so-called political tactics, deserves far greater scrutiny in our public discourse than it has received. If politics is to be devoid of principles and determined merely by the possibility of opportunity, then the political stand of some actors against military intervention, or in defence of a persecuted judiciary or a hounded media, must be quickly dismissed as mere adventurism. However, even political parties sitting on the fence waiting for their collaborative opportunity would have a problem in dismissing such principled political activism as naïve, for perhaps the same political parties are the greatest beneficiaries of such principled activism.

Let us set aside this complicated problem of the relationship between individual morality and political praxis for a moment, and proceed with a discussion on the difference between the praxis of politics and the practice of democratic politics. This might sound like a trivial difference, but the arguments of morality and the real-life politics of much of the last twelve months allow us to make a marked distinction between the two. Importantly, one must emphasise the point that while political actors and democratic actors are two different entities, which often overlap, they are mutually dependent on each other, linked and influencing one another.The military in Pakistan is the most important political actor in Pakistan, and is obviously an undemocratic one. No problem distinguishing between politics and democracy here. Because of the power of the barrel of many guns, it has been the most dominant institution in the country for some decades now, and since 1999 has been judge, jury, arbitrator and prosecutor in Pakistan’s mainstream political process. Individuals from the military have determined and set the rules of all the games related to politics, and whatever politics that has been played in Pakistan has taken place under those rules.

By accepting the political rules of the military, one can no longer call the process, nor those who collaborate with the military, democratic. Political, certainly, but not democratic. Yet, importantly, one must also add that the circumstances, even of a praetorian system in which some representation and participation takes place, expand both political and democratic spaces.

Political parties and other actors who claim some democratic licence, lose that license and their credibility when they collaborate with a military regime, whatever justification they conjure up, even though their collaborationist action unintentionally creates democratic spaces. In fact, and ironically, while individual decisions (morality?) of collaboration lead to the compromise of their democratic principles, the unintended consequences do create democratic spaces.

The support for Chief Executive Musharraf in 1999 by civil society actors is one example when many champions of democracy, for personal and selfish reasons, gave up their democratic license to have perhaps their only opportunity to participate in a political process, although in this case their politics did not open the way for democracy.

On the other hand, political decisions, like the Nov 3 martial law and the earlier clampdown on the judiciary and continued pressure and arm-twisting of the media, have created far more space for democratic politics than could have been expected, despite the absence of political actors in this democratic space.

The main argument here is that political parties and actors are more concerned with access to, and preferably capturing, power than with the modalities of getting there. If deals can be struck and compromises made, one ought to be clear about the undemocratic nature of that politics.

One can certainly live with such collaboration, for this too pushes the political spaces forward and creates new spaces in which others, perhaps more inclined towards democratic ideals and hence not necessarily focused on acquiring power, can manoeuvre. Political spaces do expand democratic spaces and do feed off each other, but one needs to be able to distinguish between the two.

And it is the question of morality which perhaps helps in making that distinction possible. If individual morality, such as compromise with the military, leads to more democratic spaces for everyone, should one condemn the compromise? If, on the other hand, holding steadfast to principles causes a political party or other democratic forces to lose out on the political process, by boycotting an election for example, does one celebrate the morality and laugh at their ‘political’ naiveté? The answers are probably to be found in an understanding of recent political processes in the country.

In an unequal relationship, the former COAS determined the rules of all the games played in the country, as well as who would be allowed to play by those rules. Those who were allowed to participate in those political games accepted his terms. Because the relationship between representatives of the military and of political parties was so one-sided, the democratic space increased only slowly on account of this liaison. Political representatives were always subservient to the rules of the game. And in fact democratic spaces were opened up despite the presence of political actors.

The vast democratic space that has been opening up — where on earth does a military general impose martial law for six weeks, and two weeks after imposing it inform his adversaries that he will lift it on a specific date? — has been on account of those who have been taking individual and political moral stands, and who haven’t been playing by the rules. While political action and processes do lead to democratic spaces, they do so largely inadvertently. Agency, in expanding the broader democratic process, on the other hand comes from principled stands.

OTHER VOICES - Sri Lankan Press

Mines and mindless violence

THE first blast in the New Year has happened. One soldier and three civilians were killed in an LTTE claymore mine explosion at Slave Island. The attack came as no surprise. It was on Dec 31 night that many thought the LTTE would launch an attack somewhere. With a military onslaught in the Wanni staring it in its face, the LTTE is likely to step up such cowardly attacks in time to come.

Terrorists have to be lucky only once. No amount of checks and raids will be sufficient to bring terror strikes to a complete halt. All that they need to wreak havoc is a single bomb.

It is not so much the military might that is essential for battling terrorism effectively but the resilience of a nation. Unleashing unbridled terror at regular intervals is the biggest mistake that Prabhakaran has made in his struggle. He has been exploding bombs like cheenapataas and they have ceased to frighten the people into submission.

What Prabhakaran should realise at least at this late stage is that this country will never be cowed into giving in to his terrorism. Even if he were to explode all his bombs simultaneously in Colombo, he wouldn’t still be able to achieve his goal of Eelam. The only way for him to avoid further bloodshed is to eschew violence and seek a negotiated settlement of the dispute.

However difficult it may be for him, he ought to come to terms with the fact that his terror project is now well past the expiry date. — (Jan 3)

Benazir and bloody politics

AS 2007 drew to a close and the country remembered its tsunami dead, came the shattering news from a neighbouring country — the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, twice Prime Minister of Pakistan and a friend of Sri Lanka.

The charismatic Benazir was the first woman premier of an Islamic country, and also the first woman statesperson in the world to have been assassinated after Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was gunned down by her Sikh bodyguards in 1984.

Benazir, who returned to Pakistan so recently, probably banked on the thinking that fundamentalists or even those in the establishment who may have been targeting her, wanting her eliminated from the political canvas, would be forced to restrain themselves on the basis that they would “suffer in hell”, as it is said in certain Islamic writings, if they murdered a woman.

Pakistan is virtually shredded by divergent forces competing for control of that 60-year-old state born by a painful caesarean operation, and often ruled under conditions that are anathema to democratic rule. But fundamentally it is a battle between religious extremism and moderation.

International analysts argue that her death will only fuel further instability in a nation that is a nuclear power. But countries in South Asia also view the West’s presence in Pakistan’s internal affairs as the very antithesis of that stability. — (Dec 30)