To calm the north-west
Monday, July 26, 2010
Sher M Khan
Charles Lindholm, who is professor of anthropology at Boston University, did his original field research in Swat over thirty years ago, and has since been writing about the area. Dr Sher M Khan is a native of the Swat Valley. He is internationally renowned for his work in nuclear medicine and is in charge of relief efforts by the Red Crescent in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (formerly NWFP, or “the Frontier”
. The two began this exchange of questions and answers more than two years ago. The results were published in Urdu and English. Their conversation continued a year later. This third instalment was conducted on June 20. The following is its condensed version:
Sher M Khan: What should Pakistan’s government, law-enforcing authorities, military establishment and civil society do to improve the situation in the country’s troubled north-western region?
Charles Lindholm: In an ideal world, the answer is simple: (1) Provide security and prevent violence; (2) offer basic social services; (3) give the local people some reason for hope; (4) supply swift and fair justice. But in present circumstances the answer is far more difficult. This is partially because the various external authorities and parties involved in the Frontier all have their own agendas, histories, and values that orient their policies. These powerful forces, including the USA, India, Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani army, and its intelligence service (the ISI), do not necessarily operate in ways that foster peace in the Frontier. Rather, for their own reasons, they may even encourage conflict. It is hard to see how these various forces can be convinced that is not only in the interest of the local people, but also in their own interest, to promote conciliation. Nor is it likely that they can agree on what ought to be done.
For example, the rebels’ demand for Sharia law is an understandable response to the corruption and inefficiency of the Pakistani legal system in the Frontier. But simply calling for Sharia does not solve the problem. Who will the judges be? Will they be appointed by the government, elected by the people, or simply assume authority as leaders of the rebellion? What form will Sharia law take–will it be the rigid system promoted by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, or the more flexible approach favoured by most religious scholars? Will religious law take the place of the Pakistani legal system, or exist alongside it? Will it replace customary law (rewaj)? Each of these questions has complex political ramifications. To be successful, the answers must be openly negotiated and debated, not imposed by force.
SMK: The situation on the ground in Swat, Waziristan, the Borderlands and South-east Afghanistan is far from perfect. In my humble opinion the root causes are poverty, injustice, unemployment and poor government.
CL: I agree. Other related factors include overpopulation, ecological disaster, internal political fragmentation, endemic feuds, a warrior ethic, and a pervasive (and somewhat realistic) atmosphere of resentment and suspicion. Some of these factors appear to be purely economic and political–but they cannot be resolved without paying attention to other, more cultural elements. For example, what is the local definition of “good government”? Who has the right and the capacity to govern a society where the traditional bastions of authority (the khans and the elders) have lost so much of their legitimacy and their intimate connections to the populace? Certainly, the Pakistani government has not yet filled the role of legitimate authority. In that vacuum, charismatic preachers have gained authority. This is natural. When a society is in chaos people often turn to leaders who offer total transformation, not a return to status quo viewed as corrupt. Unfortunately, in the NWFP, these leaders have affiliated themselves with al Qaeda and the Taliban. The ambitions of these organisations are not pragmatic. Instead, they want to utterly overthrow the existing social/political system and replace it with a radical theocracy. This means that compromise is extremely difficult, since they portray their opponents as fundamentally evil–an attitude that is often reciprocated. Such an unyielding stance incites a dangerous cycle of violence, as the state and its allies respond to local resistance with increased force, further heightening hatred and fear. Jet and drone attacks are not the way to win people’s hearts and minds. At the same time, one cannot expect the establishment to stand still when their already precarious authority is directly challenged. In this situation, alleviating the fundamental problems you mention is difficult to achieve, but even more necessary. There is no magical solution; only the time and efforts of people willing to work for the sake of those who are voiceless.
SMK: What do you think should be done to ameliorate poverty and reduce or remove the injustices?
CL: A legitimate government has to demonstrate that it can indeed offer some degree of security and provide basic services. But beyond that, in this situation the Pakistani state must show a willingness to compromise and to understand the perspectives of its opponents. Extremism is generally a product of a long history of hopelessness and injustice. To overcome that heritage, people must be offered the opportunity to express what is most important to them, whether the authorities like what they have to say or not, and to negotiate meaningfully without fear of reprisal. Officials should remember that the government’s function is to serve the people, to listen to them, not to install policies from above. Patience, inclusion, tolerance, and, above all, an ethic of service are required.
But I want to stress that leaving everything to official action will not work. Individuals of goodwill in Pakistan must bring their own knowledge and resources to bear, demonstrating through practical action that there are other paths for the poor and disenfranchised besides extremism or acquiescence. In particular, education and health care can be privately subsidised. Also, it may be possible to offer revenue-producing work in the Frontier. When I was there–so many years ago–people kept asking me if I could build a factory…maybe one that would manufacture matches, making use of the forests that grew there.
SMK: There is the conspiracy theory. The players of “the game” are perceived to be international, national and vested interests.
CL: I believe that to certain degree this view is accurate, but far from complete. Attributing local troubles to conspiracies is a way to escape from responsibility. If problems are always the fault of others, then the only action possible is the futile act of blaming, which may be psychologically gratifying as a way to explain impotence, but is destructive. Pawns never become kings.
SMK: What can India, Pakistan and Afghanistan do to promote regional harmony and raise the standards of living of their peoples?
CL: When the citizens of the Indian Subcontinent and Central Asia become despondent about the possibilities of reconciliation and development, it is worth remembering European history, where religious bigotry, a love of glory, and a relentless pursuit of wealth produced generations of destructive warfare in the 16th and 17th centuries. In 1648, the Treaties of Westphalia brought a temporary end to that interminable battle by recognising the autonomy of the various competing states, affirming religious tolerance, and dropping barriers to trade. This treaty set a template for the future–one that India, Pakistan and Afghanistan (as well as other states in the region) would do well to follow. In particular, opening trade and allowing free movement between nations would help establish a massive economic bloc that could, in time, compete with China, the US, and the EU.
SMK: And what can the “super powers” do to help the region? Or do they have their own agenda: divide and rule.
CL: Like everything else, the ambitions and policies of the “super powers” are ambivalent. Certainly, there are some influential persons and groups who fear the growth of religious extremism and who would like to see the entire subcontinent preoccupied with internal squabbles. Yet, in my opinion, most thoughtful persons realise that the benefit of all would be best served by a regime of relative peace, stability, and justice in the region. The problem comes when peace, stability, and justice are enforced from above, not negotiated, where local people are not consulted, and where agencies pursuing their own goals and values lose sight of the necessity of living together in a world that is growing smaller every day.
Email:
sher@pes.comsats.net.pk