A NEWS item about the questioning of a Muslim family in Lancashire didn’t get proper attention in Pakistan because the news was overshadowed by the chilling Charsaddah massacre. Briefly, the British police questioned a Muslim family after a student misspelled the word ‘terraced’ as ‘terrorist’. He wrote that he was living in a ‘terrorist home’, the teacher reported to the police, who questioned the family, examined the computers, felt satisfied and the matter was closed.

One of the boy’s cousins said the teacher should have worried about the spelling rather than about reporting the boy to the police; he did not know that since July British teachers are legally bound to report to the police any suspicious behaviour. That a misspelling cannot be called suspicious behaviour is another matter; what matters for us to note is that British society has been given an anti-terrorism orientation, and this seems to work.

Also read: Muslim teenager arrested for taking home-made clock to school

It is not just high-tech cyber technology that enabled Britain to organise a terror-free Olympic in 2012 and thus become the first country in the world to hold three Olympiads; it is the way Britain and most European countries have organised their societies that must serve as an example for Pakistan.

For us to copy the strategy adopted by developed countries is problematic, though not impossible because of a fundamental difference between the two. A developed country like Britain, or say Japan, has universal literacy. This means it has a well-informed and responsible citizenry, which trusts the state and its law-enforcement agencies. This is not the case in Pakistan. High literacy also means that the security personnel, besides professionally trained, have a modern attitude to life and know how to operate in urban conditions.

In Pakistan, barring officers, our ‘men’ have a shockingly low level of education, and the majority comes from a rural background. This is crucial to an understanding of the bottlenecks in the war on terror, because most terror attacks occur in cities. Unfortunately most policemen in our cities and the ‘men’ among Rangers in Sindh come from a rural background and do not know how to operate in urban conditions, or how to react with the urbanites. The same holds good for security guards of private companies. They come mostly from villages and, most regrettably, are not battle oriented. In banks they are a sitting duck.

The truth is that without an organised society, the government will find it extremely challenging to destroy terrorism by relying solely on the state’s security apparatus. How to organise society is thus a major question. The religious lobby must be written off. It is boisterous and uncontrollable and looks at terrorism through a phoney religious angle. Friday sermons seldom dwell on terrorism, because the ulema feel embarrassed about the topic. Isolated NGOs and some cultural organisations are doing a commendable job in trying to involve the youth in cultural activities, but it is doubtful if organisations like the Arts Council or the National Academy of Performing Arts would take an openly anti-terrorism stance. Perhaps the teaching community could help. Unfortunately, the teachers too are divided on political lines and even if opposed to terrorism do not openly speak their minds. That leaves the state all alone. Which is a pity.

Perhaps the LEAs should try to improve the quality of their ‘men’, choose urban stuff for operating in the cities and try to remove the mistrust between the people and the LEAs. Mere phone intercepts cannot pre-empt a terrorist attack; it is society which can combat terrorism if mobilised.

Published in Dawn, January 22nd, 2016