Threat to the state

MANY in Pakistan are shocked at the bomb blast outside the Marriott hotel in Islamabad which killed more than 50 people and wounded scores. It has made people nervous about further acts of violence, making life unsafe in the capital.

The question for many is that if law and order agencies are unable to protect important people in high-security areas, then what can be the fate of ordinary people?

This, indeed, is an imperfect question considering that both society and state remain silent for the most part on other occasions when innocent people are murdered. The reference here is to the brutal murder of two Ahmadis in Sindh by those presumably incited by the views of a self-professed religious scholar who instructed his television viewers twice this month to kill Ahmadis for being non-Muslims and flouting the fundamentals of Islam. This is what one would call incitement to murder.

Pakistan’s Ahmadi community was declared non-Muslim by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, which, technically speaking, settled the matter of dealing with this group of people by the state itself. Without getting into whether the decision was right or wrong, the fact is that the existing laws can challenge any member of the Ahmadi community who claims to be a Muslim. So, the alim did not have to take the law into his own hands. The two people who died were not challenging the state’s decision, but were threatened because of their faith. In any case, the two individuals were Pakistani citizens, who, like other minorities, have a right to be protected by the state. The problem didn’t end here but spread to other parts of the country. For instance, when the principal of the Quaid-i-Azam Medical College issued a notice to students to refrain from engaging in sectarian or religious conflicts, there was a protest in Bahawalpur asking for the lynching of the gent.

Unfortunately, civil society on the whole including our media has been silent on these murders. The Ahmadis have been declared non-Muslim by the state but they are still citizens of Pakistan and the murder of innocent people cannot be allowed. Luckily, the MQM had the sense to throw out the alim in question from the party but where are the voices that had cried in the past for defence of media freedom? Does freedom not include the security of ordinary people? It is sad to see that the television channel in question did not have the moral gumption to sack the ‘scholar’ or the producer of the programme. It is most unfortunate that the media, which considers itself the harbinger of freedom and democracy, has remained silent on this heinous crime.

While the MQM, which is considered problematic due to its policies and attitude, had the sense to sack the former minister, media gurus have remained silent. What is worse is that the US government, which otherwise raises all kinds of issues, has remained silent and kept its partnership with the channel in question.

This is not just about the murder of two people following a different set of religious beliefs, it also depicts the level of intolerance in society, its attitude towards whoever is considered as the ‘other’, and the perception of national security. Anyone who is not considered as part of the larger group or majority is considered a threat to the state. The same attitude is reflected in the perception of the larger issue of terrorism as well.

It is rather sad that the newly elected government is unable to convince the population that the war on terror is Pakistan’s issue rather than America’s agenda. Unfortunately, the government’s inability to convince the general public is because of the growing credibility gap.

The fact that the president did not think about cancelling his foreign visit and making himself available for his people after the blast has created the impression that he is more concerned about his American patron than ordinary Pakistanis. People understand that the main source of power of the new government is not the prime minister but the president who should have spent some extra time at home before flying away. Just imagine if George Bush had left the country within hours of 9/11.

Moreover, the lack of credibility increases due to statements issued by interior advisor, Rehman Malik who tried to convince the world that the attack was aimed at the leadership when it is now known that the Marriott was not the intended venue for the VIP dinner party. The guests were invited to the Prime Minister’s House where the party was eventually held at the time of the blast.

The credibility factor is important otherwise people will continue to think that the Taliban will save the country from an external threat posed by the US. Opinion right now is divided on how to interpret the internal terrorist attacks. Most of the people who died in the Marriott attack, those who were killed earlier and those that will fall prey to the Taliban onslaught in the future constitute ordinary Pakistanis. The regime should be able to convince the people that the Taliban or other militants are as bad for the country as is US intervention. Since two wrongs don’t make a right; Pakistan must select its own options to overcome the crisis rather than aligning itself with either party. The option is to engage other states like Russia, Iran, China, India and numerous European Union states, who do not sympathise with the American intervention, in a dialogue. At the same time, a consensus must be built within the country to examine our past linkages with the militants and to review our policy. We need to eliminate terrorism for our own advantage rather than anyone else’s.

The recent terror attack has challenged the writ of the newly elected government more than any other force. Today, the Pakistani government is divided into two: the political government and an invisible one. The latter is bound to build its credibility on the ashes of the political government, especially if it appears incapable to defend the nation.

In addition, the PPP must change its individual-dominated decision-making practices. While this has been the party’s tradition, it could work in the past because of the greater credibility of leaders such as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto. The same formula might not work now. Under the circumstances, people will feel greater unease in accepting the party’s policies.

The world is intently watching and judging the new government’s ability to fight the threat. The president must not appear as someone who cannot deliver on his promises. We need a strong leadership at this time to direct the state and society. It is only a capable leadership that can talk society out of the intolerance that eventually breeds greater violence.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

War on terror & India’s stake

THE burning of Islamabad’s Marriott hotel that Indian channels showed at length is still etched in the memory of horrified people. They are worried about Pakistan. Even the hawks do not conceal their anxiety.

The intelligentsia’s concern is that the nascent democratic government in Islamabad might not be able to cope with the likes of the Al Qaeda and Taliban and might have to depend on the military which would want its price.

People do not know how far the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine has penetrated Pakistan. But the belief is that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) and, to a large extent, the NWFP province, is under the control of the Taliban. Were they to ‘capture’ more territory, what would be its effect on India is the greatest worry. President Asif Ali Zardari’s remark that “the Taliban have an upper hand” is all the more unnerving. America agrees with him.

A Pakistani television commentator has challenged Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to travel from Kohat to Bannu. The commentator’s contention is that the Pakistan government had already “withdrawn” from this area. If this is true, there is some truth in the repeated allegation that former President Pervez Musharraf, even while in uniform, was never serious about curbing Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He found it an effective way to milch America. That he connived at the intervention of the US troops on Pakistani soil is an open secret.

In contrast, Zardari’s statement or that of army chief Gen Kayani that Pakistan’s sovereignty would not be allowed to be trifled with has come as a welcome surprise. Islamabad is defending its territory and there are signs of it when its guns drove away American helicopters the other day. Pakistan is careful not to engage the superpower but whatever Islamabad is doing to keep its dignity intact needs to be commended.

I do not think that the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine is seeking territory in Pakistan. They want the northern areas which would help them to recapture Afghanistan which was under their rule until they were pushed out by nationalist Afghan forces with the help of America.

In fact, the US is responsible for the birth of the Taliban. During the Cold War when Washington wanted to bleed Moscow to death, America trained and armed fundamentalists to oust the irreligious Soviet Union from Afghanistan. America won the Cold War when the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of what happened to it in Afghanistan. Those fundamentalists are today’s Taliban and they have the weapons which were liberally provided by America.

Indian civil society does realise that Al Qaeda’s progress in Pakistan is a danger. Already the presence of Al Qaeda has been reported in Kerala, India’s southern-most state, and in Kashmir, the northern-most part. An intelligence agency has linked the recent bomb blasts in the country to the outfit.

What is not probably appreciated amply is that Pakistan’s war against the Taliban is India’s war too. If ever Pakistan goes under, India’s first line of defence would collapse. The Taliban would have secured the launching pad to attack India’s values of democracy and liberalism which do not fit into their scheme of things. These are the same Taliban who destroyed the Buddha statues at Bamiyan despite the appeal of the entire civilised world.

Terrorism is the means, and a ‘Talibanistan’ is the end. New Delhi and Islamabad should jointly fight against the menace. The two had decided at one time to set up a joint mechanism to fight terror. There is still nothing on the ground. Some joint action should have been visible after the blasts in Delhi and Islamabad. Mutual suspicions are so strong that they cannot override them even when the enemy is at work from within. One hopes that the New York meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Zardari will change the scenario as both are keen on normalising relations.

Making peace with the militants or having a ceasefire, as proposed by certain influential quarters in Pakistan, may stall the Taliban but not defeat them. Terrorism is a cancer as Zardari has diagnosed correctly, and it must be eliminated. The villain of the piece is Musharraf who said he was fighting against the Taliban when he was conniving at their penetration. He should be put on the mat for having aggravated the situation. His plan to have them in Afghanistan to gain ‘strategic depth’ for Pakistan started the whole thing.

There is a lesson for New Delhi which is a sad picture of inaction and ineptness when assessed in terms of action taken against communal forces. Law and order has always been a state subject. Still the centre’s response has been lukewarm. It sent to Orissa, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala a piece of advice on the lines of Article 355 which enjoins upon the Union to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance. Had New Delhi’s order gone under Article 355 itself, the Bajrang Dal, a SIMI among Hindus, would not have openly butchered Christians and burnt churches. Surprisingly, there is no ban on the Bajrang Dal. New Delhi has done well to reject the demand of the Bharatiya Janata Party for bringing back the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act which authorised the state to detain people for months without trial. It was used against the Naxalites and Muslims mercilessly. In this atmosphere, the Muslims would have been the target.

Terrorism, no doubt, leaves death and destruction in its wake. But the most fearsome fallout is that the confidence of the people is shaken. Governments can see, after every event, the gaps in their intelligence and other apparatus and promise to do better. But the impact of the incidents may well be irreparable because certain communities feel alienated.

This is what has happened after the encounter at Zakir Bagh in Delhi where two terrorists and one police inspector were killed. The debate over the veracity of the ‘encounter’ is still raging. The locality believes it was stage-managed. Why such a feeling arises is because of the credibility gap between the people and the authorities.

The matter is much more serious: Muslims and Christians have lost faith in the fairness of the state. This will be hard to restore if the secular forces do not assert themselves and retrieve Muslims, Christians and, more so, the Hindus from the bias and prejudice in which many are stuck.

Meanwhile, a survey conducted by a television network in four big cities — Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai — has shown that 67 per cent of the people feel insecure. They are haunted by the fear that they do not know what would happen to them if they were to step out of their homes. This is, indeed, a sad reflection on the central and state governments.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

Jihad revised

IMAGINE you are a radical Islamist leading a war against the infidels from the badlands bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. In front of you is the statement, “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that.”

You are Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second highest leader of Al Qaeda, and this thunderbolt comes from your comrade, a long time spiritual and intellectual leader of your group and a former fellow medical student in Cairo University.

Around 1977, the author of the statement, Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, joined Egypt’s Al Jihad terrorist group formed by Zawahiri. Sharif (Dr Fadl being his underground identity) and Zawahiri were two of the original members of Al Qaeda, the formation of which dates back to August 1988 when they met Osama bin Laden in Peshawar. Earlier, Dr Fadl escaped arrest when thousands of Islamists were rounded up after the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat by soldiers affiliated with Al Jihad. Zawahiri suffered torture in prison and was released after three years, thirsting for revenge. His reputation also came under serious doubt in prison as he divulged the names of his comrades under torture. Dr Fadl, during this time, moved to Peshawar to join the Afghan war and worked as a surgeon for injured combatants.

Jihadis needed guidance through a text on the real objective of fighting battles which was not just victory over the Soviets but martyrdom and eternal salvation. Fadl’s The Essential Guide for Preparation appeared late for the Afghan war but became one of the most important texts for jihadis’ training. Lawrence Wright, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, notes that the Guide begins with the premise that jihad is a natural state of Islam: Muslims must always be in conflict with non-believers. Fadl asks that peace is recommended only in moments of severe weakness. Otherwise every Muslim must seek divine reward through sacrificing his life for Islam and thereby bring about an Islamic state.

After 1989 Zawahiri and most of Al Jihad moved to Sudan. From there they watched the Islamic Group wage a vicious war against the Egyptian state. The Group launched a social revolution, ransacking video stores and cinemas, demanding hijabs for women and bombed churches of the Coptic minority. One of the founders was Karam Zuhdy, who ended up living in prison for two decades with about 20,000 Islamists. During the ’90s, the Group killed more than 1,200 in terror attacks.

In 1994, Fadl wrote the 1,000-page Compendium of Pursuit of Divine Knowledge. In it he declared war on the rulers of Arab states and considered them infidels who should be killed. The same punishment was to be meted out to those who served them and to others working for peaceful change. The Compendium gave Al Qaeda the mandate to murder all who opposed it. This is just the book that Zawahiri wanted, but it went a bit too far. Fadl was livid when he learnt that parts of the book had been removed and the title changed and published under Zawahiri’s name.

With so many years wasted in prison since 1981, the leaders of the Islamic Group began reading books and analysing their past, and realised that they had been manipulated into pursuing a violent path. Zuhdy, the Group’s founder, found that any such discussion led to strong opposition within and outside the prison.

Meanwhile, secret talks continued with the Egyptian government until they became known in 1997. Zawahiri was disappointed by the move away from violent jihad, which to him was the main galvanising force for his movement. Along with Islamic Group leaders outside Egypt, he arranged for the murder of 62 tourists near Luxor, hoping the move would derail rapprochement between the Group and the state.

The Group’s leaders countered by issuing a statement condemning the act, and followed up with writing a series of books and pamphlets collectively known as The Revision in which they explained their new thinking. Zuhdy publicly apologised to the Egyptian people for the Group’s violent deeds. The government responded by releasing over 20,000 Group members.

Meanwhile Fadl who had landed in a Yemen prison was smuggled onto a plane and taken to Cairo in 2005. It is from his cell that he wrote his latest book, Rationalising Jihad. To avoid the charge that he had been tortured or coaxed into writing it, a majority of the Al Jihad members in prison signed the manuscript. To exclude the possibility of coercion, an editor interviewed Fadl extensively.

Here’s a summary of some of the controversial points raised which clearly will not go down well with radical Islamists such as Zawahiri: (a) There is nothing more that invokes divine wrath than the unwarranted spilling of blood and wrecking of property; (b) the limitation placed on jihad restrict it to extremely rare circumstances; (c) it is forbidden to kill civilians — including Christians and Jews — unless they are actively attacking Muslims, (d) indiscriminate bombing such as blowing up hotels, buildings and public transportation is not permitted, (e) there is no legal reason for harming people in any way, (f) one cannot decide who is a Muslim or a non-believer, and (g) the end does not justify violent means.

Zawahiri warned that Fadl’s revision of the jihad concept placed restrictions on action which, if implemented, would destroy the jihad completely. Zuhdy commented that this exchange between the Al Qaeda ideologues showed that the movement is disintegrating due to internal dissent.

Pakistan, which is being torn apart by jihadis from within and across its border, needs to make Fadl’s latest work widely available in translation, to be studied in madressahs and discussed in the media. Who knows what reformation this could bring about?

The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and environmentalist.

Elusive UN goals

BACK in September 2000 the UN held a special millennium summit. At a time of economic boom in the West, the international community pledged itself to do more for the less fortunate by setting eight goals for development to be met by 2015.

The millennium development goals, as they became known, were ambitious and specific. They included targets for halving the number of people living on less than a dollar a day, putting every child in primary school, cutting child mortality by two-thirds and reducing the number of women dying in childbirth by three-quarters. There was a target to halt and then reverse the spread of Aids, to ensure environmental sustainability and to promote gender equality.

More than halfway to the 2015 deadline, a fresh high level UN summit is being held in New York this month to address a stark reality: unless steps are taken immediately, the goals will be missed — many of them by a considerable distance. The drop in maternal mortality, for example, is only one-fifth of what is needed to hit the target. At the current rate of progress, it will be 2108, not 2015, before there is a halving of the number of people without adequate sanitation.

Some world leaders are aware of the problem. The British prime minister, Gordon Brown, calls it a development emergency. Ban Ki-moon has said he will use his job as UN secretary general to mobilise action. The World Bank says rich countries need to dig deep into their pockets to ensure that 100 million people do not fall into poverty as a result of rising global food prices.

Even before the twin blows of the year-long credit crunch and surging commodity prices, it was clear there was much to do. Rich countries had promised extra aid at the Gleneagles G8 summit in 2005 but had been slow to deliver it. Developing countries proved better at improving public services for the urban middle class than for the rural poor. The global financial crisis has, however, put extra pressure on governments in both north and south to make sure they meet the eighth and final goal — a global partnership for development.

Andrew Shepherd, of the Overseas Development Institute, Britain’s leading independent thinktank on international development and humanitarian issues, says the challenges remain formidable. “They include rising food and oil prices and accelerating climate change, as well as the continuing threats of chronic poverty, growing inequality, poor governance and the extreme problems facing the most fragile states, where the necessary leadership — and the basics of development — are often lacking.”

More progress has been made in achieving some goals than others. The rapid growth in China and India has made the first target — halving the number of people living on less than a dollar a day — achievable by 2015. In Asia, the proportion living in extreme poverty has fallen from 41 per cent to 29 per cent, but in Africa progress has been much slower, with the number living below the poverty line dropping from 47 per cent in 1990 to around 40 per cent today.

“The measure of the summit’s success will be not merely the words but the action,” Douglas Alexander, Britain’s international development secretary, told this reporter. “Success would be children having access to a teacher and a classroom, families vulnerable to hunger getting immediate humanitarian [aid], and people at risk of malaria able to sleep under a bed net.”

He says he wants rich donor countries to fund the education fast-track initiative — a global partnership of donor and developing countries designed to ensure that any developing country with a plan to achieve universal primary education receives the requisite funding. “We have made real progress on education but there are still 75 million [children] without a school or a classroom to go to.”

The minister adds that funding for the fast-track initiative is one of the practical measures Britain wants out of the New York summit to ensure that it is not dismissed as a talking shop. The others are to provide 125m bed nets for the fight against malaria, specific pledges to ensure there is enough food to tackle hunger, and money to ensure that poor countries could employ an extra four million health workers.

There are those in the development community who privately doubt whether achieving the goals is an adequate measure of development. Alexander says that Britain sees no point in abandoning the 2015 goals now.

“We have six-and-a-half years to meet the goals,” he says. “Of course, there should be discussions about what should happen after 2015 but, for now, it is a better use of our time to re-energise our efforts towards meeting the goals.” Kevin Watkins, of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco), says there is both good and bad news. The good news is the strong progress on poverty reduction in east Asia, parts of Latin America (especially Brazil) and, to a far more limited extent, south Asia. The bad news is that overall progress towards the goals has often been accompanied by rising inequalities, notably in areas such as child mortality. “Achieving the 2015 goals while leaving large sections of the poor behind is to comply with the letter of the millennium development goals while violating their spirit,” he says.

— The Guardian, London