In 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri declared war on the US, outlining a philosophy of the clash of civilizations which legitimised attacks on the West - both soldiers and civilians. In the US, a group of politicians, who were to become known as the Neocons, believed they too had a moral duty to change the world. Both groups found their opportunity in the attacks of 9/11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. But both were to see their dreams perish with the increasing human cost of these wars and the reality that ideologies without popular support cannot change the world.
A review of the 10 years since the September 11, 2001, attacks for a country that has weathered more crises than most. by Asad Hashim. The last 10 years have been something less than kind to Pakistan.
Since it was famously told that it either stood with the United States in its "War on Terror" or faced being bombed "back to the Stone Age" in 2001, it has lost 35,000 citizens to "terror"-related attacks and violence, with 3,500 of those being security forces and military personnel who were either targeted by militant groups or were killed during military operations. To put that second number in context, it is 30 per cent higher than NATO military casualties in the war in Afghanistan in the same period.
It has endured countless attacks against both civilian targets (including mosques) and state personnel and infrastructure, peace deals with militant groups in its largely ungoverned tribal areas (invariably followed by the breakdown of said deals), the storming of a radical seminary in the capital by the army (the Lal Masjid episode of 2008), the emergence of a Pakistani-target centric militant network (the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan), al-Qaeda's designation of it as its primary enemy worldwide, the imposition of Sharia law in Swat, and a subsequent military operation in the valley (as well as similar operations in South Waziristan (multiple times), Orakzai, Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Kurram and Swat itself on an earlier occasion; elsewhere, the government used armed tribal "lashkars" to fight extremist groups). It has seen the killing of arguably the country's most nationally popular leader in a suicide-bombing-and-shooting attack at a political rally, more bombings against civilians, the assassinations of a provincial governor and a federal minister for opposing a controversial blasphemy law, the killing of a major Baloch separatist leader in a state military operation, an expanded US drone strike campaign since 2009 (killing an estimated at least 2,309 people, of whom at least 392 were civilians, and the killing of the world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, on the doorstep of the country's military academy in a covert strike by US special forces.
Economically, its Gross Domestic Product has grown by 22.5 per cent (in real terms) to $174.8m, with an accompanying rise in consumer inflation from 3.7 per cent to 13.7 per cent for the country's now 174 million citizens. It has had two major International Monetary Fund bailouts, seen annual economic growth of around seven per cent give way to economic stagnation due to an over-dependence on credit and foreign direct investment in the growth bubble, and a massive influx of US military and civilian aid, culminating in the Kerry Lugar Bill, under which Pakistan is to receive $7.5bn over five years in civilian-only aid.
Politically, the country has seen two parliamentary elections on either side of seven years of military rule, an unprecedented liberation of media freedoms, a popular mass movement for the reinstatement of its Supreme Court Chief Justice and the overthrow of said military ruler, the killing of the largest national party's leader and the subsequent ascendance of her widely unpopular husband to the country's presidency, a continuing movement for secession in the country's largest province (by area) and bitter political conflict, sometimes resulting in bouts of violence claiming hundreds of lives, as most recently seen in Karachi.
And all of this is before one gets to the natural disasters: two major earthquakes, a tropical cyclone and major flooding which, put together, killed more than 75,000 people (96 per cent of those in the 2005 Kashmir earthquake) and affected more than 20 million (the vast majority after the devastating floods in 2010).
The country lurches, then, from crisis to catastrophe and back again, stopping briefly at moments of opportunity.
Crises of duplicity
The armchair debate in Pakistan is often focused on how the country's support for the US-led "War on Terror" has led Pakistan into this delicate balance – realistically, however, when then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell told then-Pakistani President and General Pervez Musharraf that Pakistan was either an ally or a target, there was no real choice involved.
"I don't think Pakistan had a choice. In that climate, I don't think Pakistan could declare neutrality, and I don't think that anybody would have considered neutrality as credible for Pakistan," Dr Rasul Baksh Raees, a professor of political science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) and columnist, told Al Jazeera. "I don't think that Pakistan could really get through the crisis [if it had said no] ... Today, although it is wounded, it is still alive."
Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi, a political and defence analyst, agrees, pointing out that at the time, only Pakistan's Islamist political parties (the most prominent of whom, the Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, have historically fared poorly in national elections) publicly opposed Pakistani co-operation with the United States.
"Mainstream political parties were not opposed to the decision," he told Al Jazeera. "It is only at a later stage that this confusion about what Pakistan should do increased [amongst the political leadership]".
"What 9/11 did was that it made the military, through General Musharraf, come out of alignment with the mullahs [clerics] and the militants" [GALLO/GETTY]
As the years progressed, however, and the war in Afghanistan continued well beyond initial expectations, the Pakistani position, as articulated by Musharraf, of co-operating at the wrong end of a gun began to change, as did citizens' perceptions.
"The roots of the violence [in Pakistan] can be traced back to the pre-9/11 period. What happened after 9/11 was that the different militant Islamic groups gradually turned against the Pakistani state and they increased their mutual coordination, all aimed at the Pakistani state," Rizvi says.
The Pakistani state, and society at large, meanwhile "could not really make up their mind about how they should deal with all kinds of militant Islamic groups, including the Taliban", he continues. Raees argues that the result has been a country that is "socially and psychologically fractured", where citizens feel a sense of "anxiety and insecurity" at the lack of clear answers regarding their lives.
"What was lost in [the US support for Musharraf] was democracy and democratisation. Because Musharraf always said that Pakistan was fighting America's war … it gave the Pakistanis the very real belief that they were a rental army, and you see that anger. It really enabled Pakistanis to conclude that the war that they were fighting against the Taliban was not their war," argues Carol Christine Fair, an assistant professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and an expert on the region.
The ambivalence comes in no small part from the fact that the Pakistani state has historically fostered groups such as Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba to further its foreign policy objectives in the region (mainly with regards to the dispute over Kashmir with India). While its compact with the United States may have exacerbated the rate of the problem, however, there was always going to be a moment for Pakistan when the suicide bombers came home to roost.
"What 9/11 did was that it made the military, through General Musharraf, come out of alignment with the mullahs [clerics] and the militants," explains Fair. "And [in response to that], some of the militants, like Jaish-e-Muhammad, said 'Screw you'."
Missed opportunities
"[The post-9/11 scene] was an opportunity for Pakistan to really change its foreign policy away from supporting militancy. […] Initially, the world community would have supported Pakistan if it saw this as a way of abandoning its proxy wars and groups," she argues. "Pakistan kind of squandered that opportunity to reverse its decades old dangerous foreign policy and of course this Pakistani Taliban phenomenon: well, there would be no Pakistani Taliban if there were no militants that Pakistan had supported over a number of years. And Pakistanis have paid a heavy price for this [in lives]. […]
"I don't think 9/11 was pivotal about the identity questions [that Pakistanis face] … those questions were already there. The fact is that well before 9/11 you had groups slaughtering members of the Ahmadiyya and Shia communities."
Today, while the Pakistani government has repeatedly said that it "owns" the war against extremists on its soil, it continues to differentiate between targets, based on its understanding of the strategic calculus at play.
"The Pakistani position is really riddled with hypocrisy and duplicity," says Fair, when speaking of tacit Pakistani support for groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (or its more peaceable front, the Islamic charity Jamaat-ud-Dawa) or the Haqqani network, which is fighting NATO forces in Afghanistan out of bases in North Waziristan, but refrains from attacking Pakistani targets. She quickly adds, however, that the same could be said of the US position, given how it has treated a country which was "pulling their weight more than other ally" in the early years of the war.
"If you analyse this issue, you run deep into a cultural, intellectual and social crisis and the crisis borders on duplicity and a total lack of integrity: you don't want to say it is your war, although it is. And you don't want to say that you are an American ally, but you are"
Dr Rasul Baksh Raees
"The problem was that as Pakistan became more important in the 'War on Terror', it became increasingly difficult to make Pakistan abide by promises that were made [regarding support for proxy groups]," she says.
"If you socially analyse this issue, you run deep into a cultural, intellectual and social crisis and the crisis borders on duplicity and a total lack of integrity: you don't want to say it is your war, although it is. And you don't want to say that you are an American ally, but you are," rails Raees.
Pakistan refuses to confront the Haqqani network and other Afghan Taliban leaders based on strategic calculations regarding their likelihood to figure in any post-war Afghanistan as a counterweight to the perception of a Northern Alliance-based government that is dominated by Indian influence, most analysts agree.
That still leaves its support for groups such as Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, historically used by the state against India. Rizvi argues that such groups have by now "established strong roots in Pakistani society because of the tolerance shown by the Pakistani security forces. By now, a strict action against LeT or Jamaat ud Dawa or Jaish-e-Muhammad would mean fighting a war in the cities, which the Pakistan army would avoid. In other words, the military has lost the option of controlling them because of its own policies in the past".
He points to the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (both anti-Shia groups) as examples of groups that the state has no explicit use for externally, but which can nevertheless not be controlled domestically.
Rizvi says that going forward, Pakistan will likely continue to tolerate certain militant groups so that they can maintain influence with them, even if the Afghan Taliban would not necessarily be "directly amenable to Pakistani influence. They may listen to them, but they are not likely to act on their advice, because from their perspective Pakistan has betrayed them [by co-operating with the United States post-2001]".
Nevertheless, Pakistan does possess leverage over several Afghan groups, and over the Afghan economy in particular through its control of land trade routes into the country from the Arabian Sea, and Rizvi feels that Pakistan will operate those levers in order to ensure that it does not face unfriendly neighbours on both its eastern and western borders.
"I think that Pakistan has this mythical idea that when [the US withdraws], life will return to status quo. It's not going to happen. The whole region is going to be engulfed in further militancy and violence. Only part of it can be attributed to the US," says Fair, adding that the US has "put in a lot of structures that will make civil war [in Afghanistan] more likely", such as a police based on "local militias". She adds that Pakistan may have a particularly difficult time with the Afghan Taliban after the withdrawal, given that most of its commanders are now young men who grew up in refugee camps in Pakistan.
"These are kids who have become mid-level commanders who hate Pakistan and hate the ISI [Pakistan’s main intelligence agency]."
'Wounded, but still alive'
On the political front, meanwhile, wrangling continues between the democratic government and an activist judiciary, empowered by the mass movement to bring its chief justice back to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, the PPP-led coalition government, faced with crises on both the economic and security fronts, continues to totter, but not topple. Perhaps the only reason this government may well see out its term until 2013 (making it the only democratically elected and led government in Pakistan to do so in the country's 64 year history) is that no one else really wants to take the reins faced with such dire circumstances.
Ultimately, Pakistan's problems remain more deep-rooted than simply those of circumstance – or, in this case, a particular circumstance, which killed more than 3,000 people in cities on the other side of the globe. With space of political discourse ever narrowing, the challenges Pakistan faces are both existential and pragmatic: it needs to answer questions of identity whilst simultaneously paying its bills, feeding 174 million citizens and, in a both real and metaphorical sense, holding itself together.
A foreign policy that appears to be based on running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, however, indicates that when it comes to the international community, and particularly its immediate neighbours, it will likely continue to muddle through on the knife edge of stability.
As U.S.-Pakistani relations spiral downward, the specter of a showdown between the increasingly antagonistic allies is garnering more attention, including the worst-case scenario of the U.S. attempting to “snatch” Pakistan’s 100-plus nuclear weapons if it feared they were about to fall into the wrong hands....... Read full story ... http://t.co/UHYla8d
USA has killed over 2000 people in FATA, through droned attacks, [flown from Shamsi Air base], mostly civilians. Pak Taliban have killed over 30,000 innocent Muslims on pretext to avenge Drone attacks, they even attacked Naval Air Base at Karachi. Question arises that Why Taliban do not attack Shamsi Airbase in Pakistan? Its very simple, aim of Taliban is to kill Muslims and destabilise Pakistan, they are allegedly financed and aided by USA, India and other anti-Pak powers so; Why should they attack the base of their benefactors?
Quran:5:57 O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport whether among those who received the Scripture before you or among those who reject faith; but fear ye Allah if ye have Faith (indeed).
Quran;3:28. Let not the believers make unbelievers their protectors rather than the believers; anyone who does so will have nothing to hope for from Allah - except if you do so as a precaution to guard yourselves against their tyranny. Anyhow, Allah warns you to fear Him: because with Allah is your final refuge. However normal friendly relations with peaceful Non Muslims are not forbidden : “Allah only forbids you to make friendship with those who fought you on account of your faith and drove you out of your homes and backed up others in your expulsion. Those who will take them for friends are indeed the wrongdoers”. (Qur’an;60:9).
THE announcement of Defence Minister Chaudhary Ahmad Mukhtar that the United States has been asked to vacate the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan has widely been hailed by people of Pakistan, who consider it belated but still timely move as part of the efforts to restore national honour and dignity. According to him, Americans have started moving equipment and materials from the base, which had been leased to the UAE but was being used by the United States for logistic support for its forces in Afghanistan and carrying out highly provocative drone attacks in tribal areas of Pakistan. The decision is in line with unanimous resolution of the parliament that requires of the government to review its policy if the United States persists with its drone attacks. In contemptuous disregard to the demand contained in the resolution, which symbolised voice of the nation, Americans are not only continuing their drone attacks but also we have seen accentuation in the process. As Pakistan cannot, for obvious reasons, confront drones and shoot them down, the least it can do is to ask the United States to vacate the base that was being used as a nerve centre for drone attacks. In the first place, it is devoid of higher moral values and principles to have allowed a country use of our soil to facilitate attacks on the neighbouring country.
But the case of Shamsi is all the more striking as it was used to plan and execute drone attacks against Pakistan’s own people. What a tragedy that we have all along been lodging protests to the United States over drone attacks but behind-the-curtain allowed use of our own base for the purpose. Shamsi had become subject of a heated national debate and disgust with people considering it as a stigma for the country and therefore, the move of the Government to get it vacated is a welcome development. This is a futuristic decision aimed at safeguarding national interests and restoring national honour, which began with the arrest of killer Raymond Davis. But the entire process must be based on principles and should not convey the impression of a tit-for-tat approach i.e. in reaction to reduction and stoppage of aid by the United States as per its past practice of leaving Pakistan in the lurch.
The disused Bhandari airstrip 200 miles south of Quetta in Balochistan was gifted to Sheikh Zahid Al-Nahyan the ruler of Abu Dhabi by the government of Pakistan in the 1990’s. The airstrip called Shamsi was developed by Emirates Sheiks into a jet capable airfield , and was used for falcon hunting of rare Bustards in Balochistan. It was leased out to US Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 by UAE with President Musharraf’s approval, and was developed by the United States Air Force as a military air base in great secrecy for bombing of Afghanistan. CIA occupation of the base clearly had his approval. General Pervez Musharraf as President should have comprehended the long time strategic implications of handing over Shamsi air base to Washington! Development of Shamsi for clandestine operations was kept a highly guarded secret, and Chief Minister Magsi and even Corps Commander were not allowed to visit it, when it was being developed for Drone operations and construction of the required infrastructure for this purpose was taking place. There is no evidence on record that the UAE government handed over Shamsi to the CIA for Drone operations. It was General Musharraf who handed over Shamsi and allowed US Air Force operations against Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants from some other PAF bases including the Shahbaz Air Base. The PPP led government continued Musharraf’s policies till recently, and allowed CIA to launch Predator drones from Shamsi Air Base for the destruction of terrorist hideouts in FATA. Islamabad’s denials that the government was unaware of CIA drone operations from Shamsi till very recently, may be justified by being kept in the dark, by ally America, which has refused to share anti-terrorist intelligence with Pakistan.
The United States spent billions of dollars on the development of Shamsi air base. The USAF developed Bandari airstrip into a jet capable airfield with long runways for handling bombers and heavy transport aircraft. Shamsi has taxiways, tarmacs and refueling facilities for sustained bomber, fighter and drone operations. By 2006 Predator drones began to be launched against Taliban hideouts and selected targets in the tribal belt. Shamsi has remained a busy base for anti-terrorist operations in FATA. Few weeks back Washington Post reported that three months ago the US had stopped air and drone strikes from Shamsi base. This was soon after the Raymond Davis dispute exploded into a full-fledged fiasco. The Post reported that US-CIA personnel and the Predator drones remain at Shamsi Air Base till further decision. Recently Google Earth showed three predator drones parked on the Shamsi tarmac, next to a hangar.
During the last six years Predator drones launched from Shamsi Air Base killed hundreds of militants and in collateral damage greater number of civilian men women and children have been killed and injured. It is shocking that Pakistani soil is being used for launching American missiles for bombing Pakistani villages and homes in FATA and killing Pakistani citizens along with foreign militants. The drones cannot distinguish Pakistani citizens from Al-Qaeda terrorists. Thus drone attacks kill peaceful citizens along with the terrorists. According to some defence specialists the collateral damage in Pakistan is minimal as compared to Afghanistan. The Tehrik-Taliban- Pakistan and its godfather Al-Qaeda are engaged in suicide attacks across Pakistan including FATA and in Afghanistan. They bomb mosques, hotels, bazars, police stations, schools, military, Rangers, FC, CID and Navy installations. They kidnap and murder people and have killed 36000 Pakistani’s including 5000 military personnel. They are enemy number one of the Pakistani nation. Across the border in Afghanistan the terrorists target NATO, and Afghan National Army installations, hotels and shopping centers. It is unfortunate that thousands of Pakistani nationals have become terrorists and are sheltering foreign and local criminals in the tribal Agencies and elsewhere, with the motive to spread mayhem, death and destruction in their own country. Washington considers Predator attacks on their Hujras and villages justified with drone missiles to end the terrorist menace. Pakistani protests to pressure America to stop drone attacks to wipe out terrorism have a humanistic face, but are difficult to justify, considering terrorist massacres and destruction, and adverse effect on national morale. Hillary Rodham Clinton the US Secretary of State, Robert Gates the Defense Secretary and Director CIA Leon Panetta, who is the new US Defense Secretary have categorically rejected Pakistani pleas to stop drone attacks, asserting that the Pakistani establishment in the past had approved such attacks, which were being launched from Shamsi Air Base. The nation needs to be told the truth.
The nation must be told the truth about the gifting, leasing out or renting of the Shamsi Air Base to the UAE, the CIA and the United States Air Force. The terms and conditions must be known to remove the impression that the United States has forcibly usurped the Shamsi Base, and has plans for perpetual occupation of the strategically important Air Base.
A PAF officer who declined to be identified said, “ We have told them to vacate the Base. We are unable to provide security to their people”. In a tough response on June 30, US authorities responded, “ United States is rejecting demands from Pakistani officials that American personnel abandon the Shamsi Military Base used by the CIA to stage drone strikes against suspected militants. US Personnel have not left the remote military installation , and there is no plan for them to do so. The Base is neither vacated, nor being vacated. This blunt rejection of the Pakistani demand was confirmed by another senior US official. Having spent billions on the Base infrastructure, and being fully resolved to eradicate terrorist safe heavens in FATA, US drone operations from the Shamsi Air Base are likely to continue unabated. This will add fuel to the fire of the acrimonious Pak-US relationship over the intensified drone bombings and violation of Pakistani sovereignty by the Obama Administration.
Undeterred by blunt US response Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar claimed that, “ Shamsi Air Base is being shuttered, and drone operations from it had stopped.” This claim was rejected by the US disclaimer from Washington. But Ahmed Mukhtar told Reuters, “ When the US forces will not operate from there, no drone attacks will be carried.” This expectation was rudely rejected by US officials. But a crafty CIA official remarked that no American military personnel had ever been stationed at Shamsi Air Base. The drone program from in Pakistan (from the Shamsi Air Base) is run by the CIA.” CIA Director Leon Panetta, who has been promoted as US Defense Secretary, during his last visit to Islamabad was urged by President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani to bring an end to the drone attacks and devastation in FATA. Panetta bluntly rejected to halt drone attacks, and refused to assure the top Pakistani leaders that drone attacks could be halted.
In an incisive article Brig Farooq Hameed Khan comments about the strategic advantages that the United States drives from the occupation of Shamsi Air Base. “This airfield provides a launch pad 200 miles south of Quetta, where the US believes hides the Afghan Taliban Shura led by Mullah Omar. CIA believes that Mullah Omar is hiding in Quetta, much like Osama bin Laden lived undetected in Abbottabad. Shamsi Base is one hundred miles east of the Iranian border, and is ideally located for spying on Iran. It enables the United States to conduct spying and covert intelligence missions into and around Iran. Washington considers Tehran as its foremost foe, and will use Shamsi Base to gather vital intelligence information about Iran. And importantly it is not too far from Chagai-Pakistan’s nuclear test site. Being close to the Balochistan coast it enables the US to spy over Gwadar, and keep an eye on Pak-China collaboration for the development of this important sea port, and an important trading center in the future. Shamsi will enable CIA to gather data about Pakistan’s coastal areas, with several vital Pakistan Navy installations there. In the adjoining Arabian Sea the massive presence of US Navy’s aircraft carriers, missile firing cruisers, destroyers, submarines and landing craft provide evidence of massive sea power, menacing deployed posing a very serious threat to Pakistan’s security and sovereignty.
As a first step, Pakistan could urge the US by diplomatic means, to share the Shamsi Air Base with Pakistan Air Force, for joint operations against terrorists. ISI may offer to cooperate with the CIA for sharing intelligence information about Taliban and Al-Qaeda fugitives. This is a difficult exercise, but we cannot and should not allow permanent occupation of a strategic Air Base by a foreign power. Shamsi Air Base is being used for launching drone attacks by the CIA. While Pakistan's sovereignty has been trampled underfoot, The collateral damage has killed hundreds of innocent civilians. This must stop.
Supplies to Nato forces in Afghanistan were blocked in protests over drone strikes blocked a key road in Pakistan for three days. The protests was called by Tehrik-e- Insaf, the party of cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan, ...
A new report from the Conflict Monitoring Centre (CMC) has reported that 2043 Pakistanis have been slain in CIA drone strikes in the past 5 years, with the vast majority of them innocent civilians. ... Drone Attacks in FATA: Why Taliban don't Attack Shamsi Air Base... http://t.co/BSmpW2r
THE arrest of Brig Ali Khan, among others, from the army HQ for suspicion of his affiliation to my old Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) are necessarily about far more than merely ‘fighting militancy’ in Pakistani society or within the army.
Army spokesman Maj-Gen Athar Abbas has stated that the army follows a ‘zero tolerance’ policy towards such recruitment.
Despite the many grave errors the army has made of late, here they deserve praise for having done the right thing. However, these arrests must be seen as indicative of a wider intellectual malaise in Pakistani society surrounding the civilisational direction the nation should take.
When a nation suffers from such intellectual paralysis, the solution involves the painstakingly slow process of creating an intellectual consensus that can form the fabric of society — like a social contract, redefining the nation’s image at home and abroad, and reclaiming Islam from the extremists who seek to monopolise its interpretation. Just as it took years for us to get into this mess, it will take years to get out. As far back as 2003, journalist Ahmed Rashid reported on another purge of such elements by Musharraf. Regrettably, I had helped to recruit some of these officers while they were studying at the famous Sandhurst military academy in the UK.
Indeed, the particular problem of HT infiltration inside the Pakistan Army was exported to Pakistan from Britain. HT advocates violent overthrow of democratic states through illegal military coups in order to enforce a single interpretation of Islam. I call this ideology ‘Islamism’, and they have hijacked the term ‘caliphate’ for their utopia.
Recruiting from the world’s Muslim-majority armies is a fundamental tenet of their call. And though groups like HT are not terrorists, this only makes them even more able to recruit from the Pakistani elite for their paralysing call.
So whilst the media focuses on the high drama of terrorist attacks carried out by groups such as Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and others of their ilk, there is another non-terrorist but equally dangerous war raging in Pakistan. Enter the intellectual warfare of ideas and narratives. Winning this struggle is far more crucial in the long term. The ideology that fuels this struggle portrays Muslims and the West — both perceived simplistically as monolithic entities — as eternal enemies and competitors for world domination in a zero-sum game.
Muslims are encouraged to unite and rise up in order to attack the West and impose a single interpretation of Islam on the entire world. But in order to do this they must first overthrow their existing governments, for which they have a very particular plan.
Groups such as HT do not seek to launch a mass movement; rather they specifically target the intellectual elite and the
military apparatus of the countries in which they operate. For years, leading journalists and the intellectual elite of Pakistan have been targeted by highly educated English-speaking Islamists. They have been seeking to convert prominent opinion shapers to their supremacist ideology. Once this sector is taken, a military coup can be staged by key officers sympathetic to the cause, who would in turn face minimal resistance from society.
As one of HT’s texts from Britain reads, this would “normally be done by the Party seeking to access the military in order to take the authority … After this the military would be capable of establishing the authority of Islam. Hence a coup d’état would be the manifestation of a political change….”
The work of groups like HT is being made easier by other Islamist groups, who have long planned to dominate civil society and government institutions in order to normalise their hate-filled ideology and narrative. It is also being made easier by current events in the region like the war in neighbouring Afghanistan and instability within Pakistan. But brave civil society figures and groups in Pakistan are staging a fight-back against extremist propaganda, although the battle ahead is long and hard.
Ultimately, peace and stability in Pakistan can only come about once democratic culture takes root in Pakistani society.
Democratic culture is not just about holding elections every few years but rather a sustained commitment to values such as the freedoms, equality, human rights, pluralism and respect for the rule of law.
Just as Islamist social movements have for years been preaching their ideology to the grass-roots in Pakistan, counter-narratives are needed to spread the values of democratic culture and reclaim Pakistan and Islam. Who are the leaders of democracy in Pakistan today? [Zardari, Nawaz Sharif, Altaf Hussain, Ch Shujat, with tainted and dubious past and present] What are the symbols of democracy? [Corruption, Nepotism, Misrule, Injustice, Cheating and exploitation of masses] Where are the social movements working hard to reverse the drift towards Islamism and to create ‘buy-in’ for democratic culture on the ground? [Only one man is visible- Imran Khan, resisted strongly by forces of corruption and plunder]
Islamist leaders, symbols and movements exist in abundance, but one struggles to think of more than a handful for genuine democratic activism. This much-needed change will not come about automatically or overnight. It requires a concerted campaign by individuals and organisations that are prepared to work together, promote each other (not drag each other down) and stand up to the forces of disorder and chaos.
The fight-back has begun but it will require a lot more energy and resources to rescue Pakistan from its current downward trajectory. Crucially, it will require courage.
By Maajid Nawaz , The writer, a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, is director of the UK-based think tank Quilliam.
Comments: Winning Minds: First, the extremist ideology must be countered effectively. They take shelter behind Islam, pretending to be only true Muslims, fighting the infidels and their supporters [who, according to them fall outside folds of Islam]. Very little is done at national and tactical levels to effectively counter this false ideology based upon misinterpretation of holy text. Resultantly society, even ranks and file in armed forces are divided.The extremists find sympathisers among intellectuals, politicians, media and other segments of society. Public support to a terrorist [gorilla] is important like water to fish for survival. To deprive extremists from this, there has to be a mass campaign to educate the people, create awareness about basis teachings of Islam for peace, moderation and tolerance. While the media experts can evolve the campaign, immediately while breaking the news of any terrorist act, media [TV] should display the verses from Qur'an an Hadith rejecting suicide, killing of innocents, creating anarchy and mischief on land [fasad-fil-ardh] with Urdu and Pashtu translations. Minimum visual coverage would discourage glorification and terrorisation of public. [Lessons from British media against IRA are worth consideration]. More details at “Don't be Deceived, Know enemies of peace”. Policies: Government policies should reflect the will of of people, not against it. First priority should be own national interest not interest of any other super or regional power. This can only be achieved through self reliance not dependence upon others. It its our war then we should conduct it according to our own plan and terms not on dictation from others. People can not be be-fooled for long time. The policy should be clear without any contradiction or dichotomies. Winning Hearts: Political, Social & Administrative Reforms: Politicsis the business of rich only, their first priority is to recover election expanses and expenses for next election. Too much power is concentrated with the parliamentarians, who have persistently proved to be unworthy of it: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", power to plunder is the norm. They pressurise to get undue favours for their support to keep people in power. The executive should be separated from legislative. Development of road, infrastructure is not the job of legislators, its the function of local government. The monopoly of parliamentarians should be restricted by taking away their power to elect Prime Minister, President, Senators, women and minority seats, by electing them with direct vote of people, parliamentarians would become law makers, then genuine people would come forward. US, French and German constitutions should be looked at, they are not non democratic. The British modelled parliamentary system suits the feudal political elite, they hold reign of power through this system, it is not divinely ordained , it could always be suitably modified to suit local environments. At times people with minority vote get elected, while majority gets no representation, if 100000 votes are divided among various candidates, candidate A getting 15000, B 25000, C 15000, D 20000, E 10000, F 15000 candidate B with 25000 votes is winner with 25% votes while he was rejected by majority 75%, who will remain unrepresented, this not fair democracy [Out of many take example of NA-3 , Mr.Noor Alam Khan with 30% of polled votes is winner while 70% people cast votes against him to other candidates, actually he got only 10% of total registered votes. if 45% bogus votes are excluded the figure fall down significantly. More at this weblink]. Hence the majority is not represented in parliament, how could it be called democracy? No one has ever even debated this aspect, resolving it is far fetched objective. Those not represented in parliament have to wait for next elections after 5 years or resort to protests and violence. Effort should be made to provide representation to maximum political groups, so that even small parties could get representation to project, put across their point of view in democratic way not through violence.
Issue of proper election could be resolved through 2nd round of vote or proportional representation system. The proportional representation systemis equitable and has been adopted in many countries like Germany, Sweden, Turkey and Malaysia, its advantages should be looked in to. Switzerland's refined proportional election system is even batter.
Elected local government institutions should be strengthened by giving them more autonomy. Free judiciary should be able to provide quick justice, along with free press will act as guardian of genuine democracy and accountability. Military has to support the constitution and judiciary not individuals. Good Governance: It is the basic function of government to create fair, secure peaceful environments with equal opportunities for all. Good administration and justice will satisfy the public to reject any one trying to lure them with the dreams of prosperous future and promises for freedom from oppression, corruption and exploitation. Pakistan constitution is based upon Islamic principles, why some should be allowed to exploit Islam? Government should implement constitutional provisions. As long the 'ruling elite' holding from last 60 years with cosmetic change of faces is not ousted peacefully there will be no PEACE, the EXTREMISM shall continue to flourish. This suits 'ruling elite' to remain in power indefinitely, Zardari regime is talking of 30-40 years war against terrorism! Poor masses are killed while rulers, their children and wealth is safe and well protected under guard here or in Switzerland, Europe and elsewhere.
Related Links:
Don't be Deceived, Know enemies of PEACE ...“Therefore, do not yield to the unbelievers, and make Jihad (strive) against them with this (Qur'an), a mighty Jihad (Jihad Kabira)” (Qur'an;25:52). “Permission to fight back (Qital) is hereby granted to the . ...
Why Criticise 1200 politicians ?: Why Criticise 1200 politicians ? While discussing corruption, some on pointed out that there are about 1200 politicians in the Pak assemblies, why corruption by these 1200 people is discussed?
USA - A Friend or Foe of Pakistan?: Instead, the US should reassure a thoroughly rattled and hostile Pakistani population, in part by cutting back on drone strikes. The danger is that a future US raid leads to a US-Pakistani fight, or a Pakistani mutiny. ...
The Biggest Victim of War on Terror ...: “Permission to fight back (Qital) is hereby granted to the ... So what will this mean for the US war in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Certainly Washington has less reason or justification to wage a war in Afghanistan now ...
A fake house of cards! | Pakistan | News | News: The ECP informed the Supreme Court that some 37,185,998 voters from the total of 81,213,741 in 2007 had been declared by Nadra to be dubious or unverified. The court has been told only 44,027,743 were verified voters in 2007.
