fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
ANALYSIS: Can Pakistan cope with terrorism? Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
An orthodox Islamic leader declared that the people who took part in the burial ceremony of any Ahmedi killed in the attack must renew their pledge of loyalty to Islam with a need to repeat the Islamic ritual of nikah for the continued Islamic legitimacy of their marriage
The terrorist attacks in Lahore on May 28 brought out the best and the worst in society. These attacks were condemned widely and the police was able to control the situation within three hours, although the death toll was high. The electronic and print media was fully supportive of the efforts to free the hostages. They covered the incident extensively. One TV reporter was killed by a stray bullet.
However, as the hostage situation ended, different political and religious leaders returned to their partisan grooves and began to interpret the situation from their narrow perspectives. All agree that terrorism is bad but the opinion in official and non-official circles gets divided with reference to a specific terrorist incident. The commonly expressed differences pertain to the motivation of an attack, who has carried out an attack, what is the target and how the terrorists should be dealt with. In a number of cases, Islamic-denominational orientation plays an important role in shaping the disposition towards Islamic militancy, including terrorist attacks.
The absence of unity of mind in political and societal circles on terrorism is caused mainly by the inability and unwillingness of civilian political leaders to take a categorical stand against those engaging in suicide attacks, bombings and hostage taking. Leaving aside Islamic political parties that support the Taliban and Islamic militancy, several political parties and groups maintain an ambiguous stance towards Islamic militancy and terrorist attacks.
The only major political parties that are categorically opposed to the Taliban and other militant groups and their violent activities are the PPP, the MQM and the ANP. Their views are shared by some smaller parties. The major problem is in the province of Punjab because the ruling PML-N maintains an ambiguous position on Islamic militancy and the Taliban. Its leadership condemns terrorist attacks but avoids criticising any specific militant group, including the Taliban and al Qaeda. The PML-N has several leaders in its senior cadre that share the Jamaat-e-Islami perspective on terrorism. However, it also has leaders that publicly criticise Islamic hardline groups. This absence of unity of mind in the PML-N provides enough space for militancy to sustain itself in the province.
Nawaz Sharif has avoided giving a straight line on terrorism in order to accommodate differences of opinion in the party and to sustain its electoral support among the Islamists and the political right, making the PML-N announce some compensation for the victims of the incident only belatedly and seemingly reluctantly.
The Punjab government does not appear to be convinced that many Islamic hardline groups and their breakaway factions based in Punjab have developed strong linkages with the Taliban based in the tribal areas. These groups are involved in four types of activities: working with some Taliban-type groups in the tribal areas against Pakistans security authorities deployed there, receiving training only to return to mainland Pakistan, undertaking their own violent attacks to pursue their ideological-political agendas, and serving as local handlers or hosts for suicide bombers or other militants visiting their city on an attack mission or for any other purpose.
The political discourse focused on the rights of non-Muslims in an Islamic state or the guarantees offered by Islam to religious minorities. The discussions spoke of we, the Muslims versus they, the non-Muslims, as if the Ahmedis were lesser human beings. Only a small number of people discussed the problem in the context of a nation-state and its citizens. Unlike the orthodox religious hierarchy, they argued that it is the states basic responsibility to protect all citizens, irrespective of their religion, sect, caste and region.
The orthodox Islamic clergy was perturbed by the medias sympathy for the Ahmedi victims of the terrorist attack. They quickly returned to their anti-Ahmediyya community tirade to remind the people of their anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam disposition. Some attributed the attack to what they described as an intra-Ahmediyya conflict and that the Taliban could not be involved because no Muslim could ever launch such an action against a religious minority as Islam does not allow that.
An orthodox Islamic leader in a village near Lahore declared that the people who took part in the burial ceremony of any Ahmedi killed in the attack must renew their pledge of loyalty to Islam with a need to repeat the Islamic ritual of nikah for the continued Islamic legitimacy of their marriage. An Urdu columnist declared that he was a true Muslim and believed in the finality of the Prophet (PBUH) before condemning the attacks. He argued, like many others, that Islam enjoins Muslims to protect life, property and honour as well as places of worship.
The situation was further complicated by the statement of the Commissioner of Lahore who said that Indias intelligence agency, RAW, could have been involved in the incident. This theme was repeated by others in the PML-N and outside. The interior minister also hinted about the role of foreign adversaries. A good number of writers and religious leaders argued that some foreign enemies had launched this attack in order to divert the attention of Muslims from the caricature issue.
The divided mindset of the leadership and sympathy for Islamic hardline groups at a societal level gives the militants enough space to sustain themselves and flourish. Ordinary people do not join them in their violent activities but they remain soft towards them and avoid reporting their activities to the security authorities. This is partly because of fear of retribution by militant groups and partly because they are not convinced that violent attacks are committed by these groups, including the Taliban.
The confusion and ambiguity about militant groups and their terrorist activities can be reduced if the leaders of major political parties, especially the PML-N, decide to launch a campaign against those engaging in terrorism, irrespective of their nomenclature and place of origin. A shared stand by political and societal leaders will also discourage a number of retired military and intelligence officers, parliamentarians and people in the lower and middle echelons of the government from condoning militancy for one reason or another. If these parties, groups and people prefer partisan political considerations or narrow religious agendas, the menace of extremism and terrorism cannot be controlled only by the military and police action. Civilian political and societal leadership must fully own counter-terrorism efforts.
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst
An orthodox Islamic leader declared that the people who took part in the burial ceremony of any Ahmedi killed in the attack must renew their pledge of loyalty to Islam with a need to repeat the Islamic ritual of nikah for the continued Islamic legitimacy of their marriage
The terrorist attacks in Lahore on May 28 brought out the best and the worst in society. These attacks were condemned widely and the police was able to control the situation within three hours, although the death toll was high. The electronic and print media was fully supportive of the efforts to free the hostages. They covered the incident extensively. One TV reporter was killed by a stray bullet.
However, as the hostage situation ended, different political and religious leaders returned to their partisan grooves and began to interpret the situation from their narrow perspectives. All agree that terrorism is bad but the opinion in official and non-official circles gets divided with reference to a specific terrorist incident. The commonly expressed differences pertain to the motivation of an attack, who has carried out an attack, what is the target and how the terrorists should be dealt with. In a number of cases, Islamic-denominational orientation plays an important role in shaping the disposition towards Islamic militancy, including terrorist attacks.
The absence of unity of mind in political and societal circles on terrorism is caused mainly by the inability and unwillingness of civilian political leaders to take a categorical stand against those engaging in suicide attacks, bombings and hostage taking. Leaving aside Islamic political parties that support the Taliban and Islamic militancy, several political parties and groups maintain an ambiguous stance towards Islamic militancy and terrorist attacks.
The only major political parties that are categorically opposed to the Taliban and other militant groups and their violent activities are the PPP, the MQM and the ANP. Their views are shared by some smaller parties. The major problem is in the province of Punjab because the ruling PML-N maintains an ambiguous position on Islamic militancy and the Taliban. Its leadership condemns terrorist attacks but avoids criticising any specific militant group, including the Taliban and al Qaeda. The PML-N has several leaders in its senior cadre that share the Jamaat-e-Islami perspective on terrorism. However, it also has leaders that publicly criticise Islamic hardline groups. This absence of unity of mind in the PML-N provides enough space for militancy to sustain itself in the province.
Nawaz Sharif has avoided giving a straight line on terrorism in order to accommodate differences of opinion in the party and to sustain its electoral support among the Islamists and the political right, making the PML-N announce some compensation for the victims of the incident only belatedly and seemingly reluctantly.
The Punjab government does not appear to be convinced that many Islamic hardline groups and their breakaway factions based in Punjab have developed strong linkages with the Taliban based in the tribal areas. These groups are involved in four types of activities: working with some Taliban-type groups in the tribal areas against Pakistans security authorities deployed there, receiving training only to return to mainland Pakistan, undertaking their own violent attacks to pursue their ideological-political agendas, and serving as local handlers or hosts for suicide bombers or other militants visiting their city on an attack mission or for any other purpose.
The political discourse focused on the rights of non-Muslims in an Islamic state or the guarantees offered by Islam to religious minorities. The discussions spoke of we, the Muslims versus they, the non-Muslims, as if the Ahmedis were lesser human beings. Only a small number of people discussed the problem in the context of a nation-state and its citizens. Unlike the orthodox religious hierarchy, they argued that it is the states basic responsibility to protect all citizens, irrespective of their religion, sect, caste and region.
The orthodox Islamic clergy was perturbed by the medias sympathy for the Ahmedi victims of the terrorist attack. They quickly returned to their anti-Ahmediyya community tirade to remind the people of their anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam disposition. Some attributed the attack to what they described as an intra-Ahmediyya conflict and that the Taliban could not be involved because no Muslim could ever launch such an action against a religious minority as Islam does not allow that.
An orthodox Islamic leader in a village near Lahore declared that the people who took part in the burial ceremony of any Ahmedi killed in the attack must renew their pledge of loyalty to Islam with a need to repeat the Islamic ritual of nikah for the continued Islamic legitimacy of their marriage. An Urdu columnist declared that he was a true Muslim and believed in the finality of the Prophet (PBUH) before condemning the attacks. He argued, like many others, that Islam enjoins Muslims to protect life, property and honour as well as places of worship.
The situation was further complicated by the statement of the Commissioner of Lahore who said that Indias intelligence agency, RAW, could have been involved in the incident. This theme was repeated by others in the PML-N and outside. The interior minister also hinted about the role of foreign adversaries. A good number of writers and religious leaders argued that some foreign enemies had launched this attack in order to divert the attention of Muslims from the caricature issue.
The divided mindset of the leadership and sympathy for Islamic hardline groups at a societal level gives the militants enough space to sustain themselves and flourish. Ordinary people do not join them in their violent activities but they remain soft towards them and avoid reporting their activities to the security authorities. This is partly because of fear of retribution by militant groups and partly because they are not convinced that violent attacks are committed by these groups, including the Taliban.
The confusion and ambiguity about militant groups and their terrorist activities can be reduced if the leaders of major political parties, especially the PML-N, decide to launch a campaign against those engaging in terrorism, irrespective of their nomenclature and place of origin. A shared stand by political and societal leaders will also discourage a number of retired military and intelligence officers, parliamentarians and people in the lower and middle echelons of the government from condoning militancy for one reason or another. If these parties, groups and people prefer partisan political considerations or narrow religious agendas, the menace of extremism and terrorism cannot be controlled only by the military and police action. Civilian political and societal leadership must fully own counter-terrorism efforts.
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst
