The silence of the faujis

[blain2]

Your last 3 lines summed up all that i was saying. The tolerance level of the silent majority to such violence is much higher today than it was 3 decades ago. You tell me, is it something to do with the gradual extremism mixed in the population or not. Has or is the Pakistani population today far more - i dont know how else to put this so - tending more towards conservatism and fundamentalism(a difference of degree, not type) than 3 decades ago? A Simple Yes or No would tell me what you think of the situation.

No after so much bloodshed, people are just afraid to speak out against someone who answers by assassinating you and taking a few more innocents alongside.

Weaponization of the society as a result of the Afghan war has been a major reason that people think a hundred times before saying something about the extremists. 3 decades ago, people had differences too and they always will, but after some rock throwing or exchanging dundays, they used to go their ways. Nowadays, you get into such altercation with the extremists, only one person goes home.

By this I do not mean that everyday or everywhere such things happen, but as a bread earner for my family, why would I want to stick my neck out and challenge someone's extremists views when the cost of doing so is so high for me? Most of the Pakistanis stick to their business. If a movement comes along that has the right kind of support and challenges the extremist mindset, then there is hope that more people (silent majority) will get on board. Right now, this is a very slow journey. Like Swat, people will see the actions of the extremists up close and then decide that they do not want this and become more vociferous in their refusal.

I would suggest you draw a parallel to what Pakistan is going through with the random mass shootings in the United States by the fringe elements on the right. People in the US know that guns are being used to kill innocents. They know that there is a need to have tighter gun controls but the reality is that nothing of this sort has happened. The gun supporters find the law to be on their side and unless something significantly compelling happens, the Americans will remain in this state of paralysis. Such is the situation at home with Pakistanis too. Replace the gun lobby with our extremists and you essentially have the same problem. The difference in magnitude is only a matter of time.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

Why would the military support sectarian outfits? The sectarian militancy increased because of the Saudi/Iranian influence. The Saudis had the initial hook because they were footing a billion a year to support the Mujahideen groups. After the war, members from these groups went back to their localities such as the interior of Punjab etc. and pushed the ideology learned from the Saudis etc. In response, Iranians started funding the shia elements and they too had significant presence in Pakistan due to the ongoing Iran-Iraq war. The Army did not have a direct hand in this so I am not sure if I agree with your theory about this being a military shenanigan.
.

The Army certainly turned a blind eye to this anti-shia dynamic in the 90s for the 'greater good' of the Kashmir and Afghan jihad. That said, Zia (Army Chief as well as President) was directly involved, and used state machinery to aggressively encourage anti shia outfits such as SSP and related madrassa networks. His goal was to replace the widely practiced sunni version of islam with the wahabized version, which is why he jumped into bed with the Saudis. As you rightly point out, the Saudis had a natural interest in promoting their ideology and thus kept funding such groups. But in the 90s, as the Saudis continued to bankroll them, these sectarian outfits were allowed by the military to cross-pollinate with other ****** outfits to boost the intensity levels of the jihad project in Kashmir.

Consider the following:

It is widely believed that the SSP has received considerable financial and logistical assistance from Saudi intelligence. The Pakistani authorities were well aware of these connections but turn a blind eye to them, not least because the Pakistani state maintains historical and financial ties with the House of Saud. A report in the mid 1990's disclosed that the Saudi government had consistently backed the Deobandi school of thought in Pakistan (which has many similarities to the Wahhabi version of Islam), especially after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979.

The SSP exercises considerable influence on various political parties, in particular the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) which in turn is also on the payroll of the Saudis. And we know that the JI has been a part of the military's jihad project since the 90s.

Moreover the SSP is believed to have strong operational ties with other Deobandi/Wahhabi organizations in Pakistan and also with some international outfits.

In 1996 there was an apparent split in the ranks of the SSP, leading to the emergence of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ – "Jhangvi's Army"). The LeJ is led by Riaz Basra (former senior cadre of the SSP), and is widely believed to be the armed wing of the SSP. The LeJ was also outlawed by President Musharraf on August 14, 2001. Despite the manufactured split, the SSP retained its half-disguised moderate political profile and denied engaging in terrorist activities.

As we all know, the Afghan Taliban propped up and suppported by our Army, are also anti-Shia in terms of ideological training. The Taliban regime was known to harbor LeJ fugitives which at times led to public condemnation by frustrated pakistani police officials during the 90s. Clearly, the Taliban's antics and sectarian bias did'nt seem to bother our military brass enough to warrant punitive action.

Apart from its armed wing, the SSP also has strong connections with the Kashmir-focused ****** outfit, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) led by Maulana Masood Azhar. In October 2000, the JeM chief reportedly said "now we go hand-in-hand, and Sipah-e-Sahaba stands shoulder to shoulder with Jaish-e-Muhammad in Jihad."

SSP militants were known to have undergone military training in Afghanistan while fighting alongside the Taliban. On December 20, 2004 Lahore Police arrested suspected SSP cadre Malik Tahseen (alias Abdul Jabbar Alvi) for his involvement in securing Afghan bases and connections for the organization. Tahseen was detained alongside five associates of Libyan al-Qaeda operative Abu Al-Faraj, wanted for masterminding two assassination attempts on President Musharraf.

 

[Contrarian]

No after so much bloodshed, people are just afraid to speak out against someone who answers by assassinating you and taking a few more innocents alongside.

Weaponization of the society as a result of the Afghan war has been a major reason that people think a hundred times before saying something about the extremists. 3 decades ago, people had differences too and they always will, but after some rock throwing or exchanging dundays, they used to go their ways. Nowadays, you get into such altercation with the extremists, only one person goes home.

By this I do not mean that everyday or everywhere such things happen, but as a bread earner for my family, why would I want to stick my neck out and challenge someone's extremists views when the cost of doing so is so high for me? Most of the Pakistanis stick to their business. If a movement comes along that has the right kind of support and challenges the extremist mindset, then there is hope that more people (silent majority) will get on board. Right now, this is a very slow journey. Like Swat, people will see the actions of the extremists up close and then decide that they do not want this and become more vociferous in their refusal.

I would suggest you draw a parallel to what Pakistan is going through with the random mass shootings in the United States by the fringe elements on the right. People in the US know that guns are being used to kill innocents. They know that there is a need to have tighter gun controls but the reality is that nothing of this sort has happened. The gun supporters find the law to be on their side and unless something significantly compelling happens, the Americans will remain in this state of paralysis. Such is the situation at home with Pakistanis too. Replace the gun lobby with our extremists and you essentially have the same problem. The difference in magnitude is only a matter of time.

While i respect your views and find them right to an extent. I almost completely agree with Taliban Swatters view.

I think your putting the cart before the horse. I can give examples of less tolerance of diversity in Pakistan today than 3 decades ago. By less tolerance, i do not mean threat of violence, but disagreement of (any percentage of) general public to a concept/action/notion.

3 decades ago, Pakistan was a much more liberal society. While i do agree, that the (massive?)spread of gun culture has resulted in stifling of opposing voices to actions of extremists, i think it stems from Zia promoting one kind of Islam, promoting Jehad. The reason that the extremists today have this kind of capability is because in their initial days after the afghan war even, the establishment did not stop them. By the establishment, i mean the Army mostly. At that time they were considered useful and so were promoted or at the very least not interfered with.

Ofcourse it started against other countries, and has now turned inwards. But the driving force is a return to puritanical and (heretical?) Islam which gives false legitimacy by a good but not majority size of the population to these extremists. And the reason why this significant number of population grudgingly accept the righteousness of these extremists is because they have been brought up on a diet of steady and false Islam - which again was promoted knowingly and willfully by the establishment even though it was funded by the Saudis.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

what a silly article......one meant just to create more feeling of depression and doom


so much for free and dynamic ******* media


assholes

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Actually the writer of the article hit the nail right on the head----. we have been ruled by the military for eons---. We need to be slowly weaned away from it---not instantly----. That causes death and destruction---chaos and anarchy---. It is the law of nature---you set the slave free---what do they do---a few of them might make it---but the majority will come back to the roost because they don't know what to do.

The same is the case with pakistan and the pakistanis---both a clueless as to how to manage, maintain and progress at the same time when there is no military rule or influence---.

Even without the military rule in the past---there were certain checks and balances in place. Pakistanis are basically a herd of sheep and the military is the shhep dog herding them in the right direction----.

Now the military has stopped giving them directions and the sheep are jumping in the well. The problem here is that the well is extremely deep.

Once the fear of God goes away from the heart of man---he becomes ruthless---once the fear of the justice systems goes away from the mind of man---he becomes a criminal of the highest order---in case of pakistan when the fear of military goes away from the mind of the civilian govt---the nation state is in a condition of doom.

Pakistanis need to learn that they need to have the military in a COMPLIMENTARY position to keep the political parties moving in the right direction---.

It is just like the crankshaft in the engine---you cannot let the bearings burn down right to the end---it would jam the engine and in worst case scenario---it will break the crank shaft---. Nations don't carry spare crankshafts on the deck---when one breaks down---they don't have another to replace---.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Why look at milllitary to solve civilian problems. Isn't democracy and political system being representative of masses supposed to address these issues? This is exactly what th epoliticians have always blamed on millitary to cause secteranisiom in the society?

A shitty article written to blame the army for civilian problems. shame on the writer. Every junk piece of yellow journalism is not suppposed to be posted on this site.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

3 decades ago, Pakistan was a much more liberal society. While i do agree, that the (massive?)spread of gun culture has resulted in stifling of opposing voices to actions of extremists, i think it stems from Zia promoting one kind of Islam, promoting Jehad. The reason that the extremists today have this kind of capability is because in their initial days after the afghan war even, the establishment did not stop them. By the establishment, i mean the Army mostly. At that time they were considered useful and so were promoted or at the very least not interfered with.

Ofcourse it started against other countries, and has now turned inwards. But the driving force is a return to puritanical and (heretical?) Islam which gives false legitimacy by a good but not majority size of the population to these extremists. And the reason why this significant number of population grudgingly accept the righteousness of these extremists is because they have been brought up on a diet of steady and false Islam - which again was promoted knowingly and willfully by the establishment even though it was funded by the Saudis.

You've hit the nail on the head. The Wahabi/Salafi ideology imported from Saudi in Zia's era, is indeed false Islam. A regressive tribal ideology spawned in the 1800s that continues to masquerade as religion.

The military struck a faustian bargain by allowing the infusion of this insidious ideology into the Kashmir jihad narrative. Over time, the ideological tenets of the Salafi doctrine have shaped and driven the agendas of the various militant groups ranging from LeT, JeM, LeJ to the latter day TTP, while the original intent of the state-led exercise has become a footnote.

Militants who were trained to fight for a pakistan-centric agenda set by the Army, now have no problem denouncing their former masters as infidels, and term the pakistani democratic system and values as incompatible with their beliefs. A pseudo-religious intolerant ideology with a pan regional agenda trumped alleigance to the nation state, and the rest is history.

 

[Contrarian]

The military struck a faustian bargain by allowing the infusion of this insidious ideology into the Kashmir jihad narrative.

Not to go off-topic. But i just have to point out.
All the methods that Pakistan attempted to wrest Kashmir backfired on Pakistan vis-a-vis Kashmir.

The wars like Kargil and all showed to the world that Pakistan is the paramount instigator of Kashmir insurgency and not a real Kashmiri problem.

The sending of Jehadis allowed India to put a show to the world, that it is not Indians(Kashmiri's) that are rebelling but foreign fighters and thus allowed a violent crackdown on Kashmir.

Ironically, the MOST effective form of protest for Kashmir would have been a non violent one. The outpouring a year back or so, which was completely non violent completely shattered many a myths in India about Kashmir being a 'sole' Pakistani instigated problem and lead to many writers - not the least Arundhati Roy to say that maybe its time India takes a re-look!

 

[Solomon2]

No after so much bloodshed, people are just afraid to speak out against someone who answers by assassinating you and taking a few more innocents alongside.

Weaponization of the society as a result of the Afghan war has been a major reason that people think a hundred times before saying something about the extremists. 3 decades ago, people had differences too and they always will, but after some rock throwing or exchanging dundays, they used to go their ways. Nowadays, you get into such altercation with the extremists, only one person goes home.

By this I do not mean that everyday or everywhere such things happen, but as a bread earner for my family, why would I want to stick my neck out and challenge someone's extremists views when the cost of doing so is so high for me? Most of the Pakistanis stick to their business. If a movement comes along that has the right kind of support and challenges the extremist mindset, then there is hope that more people (silent majority) will get on board. Right now, this is a very slow journey. Like Swat, people will see the actions of the extremists up close and then decide that they do not want this and become more vociferous in their refusal.

I appreciate the self-searching honesty you've shared here. I will give it more thought - but I assure you your situation is not unique in history, and other nations have squirmed out of it.

I would suggest you draw a parallel to what Pakistan is going through with the random mass shootings in the United States by the fringe elements on the right. People in the US know that guns are being used to kill innocents. They know that there is a need to have tighter gun controls but the reality is that nothing of this sort has happened. The gun supporters find the law to be on their side and unless something significantly compelling happens, the Americans will remain in this state of paralysis.

That is hardly a fair representation. Most of the U.S. had stricter gun control laws from the 1970-2000 period. Criminals rejoiced because it was clear that in these areas only criminals would have guns, as long as police could be avoided. The pro-gun crowd is winning the argument that better gun education and firmer efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the sick-minded are the proper approaches; the knowledge that passers-by may be armed is a great deterrent to would-be criminals and sick-minded killers. Our mass media only rarely reports when a citizen armed with a conceal-carry weapon stops a criminal in his act.

 

[Solomon2]

Kiyani talks too much? That is news to me. What do you base this on? He is a person and that too a government official and as such has an opinion. Why would you want him to keep his mouth shut?

Because he's the guy who can send Unit 100 in to effect a coup at any moment, so what he says is influential beyond his declared sphere as a mere military officer.

On Yahya Khan, a great example of why the Army should not be involved in fixing societal issues.

Yahya tried to step out of the picture and allow Pakistani polity to freely develop. After the election Z.A. Bhutto goaded the Army into a military response in East Pakistan - or at least did nothing to stop it, as he could have done. He almost certainly foresaw the ultimate outcome - he was too clever and power-focused not to.

Had the Pakistani military under Yahya continue to do nothing Z.A.B. would have been compelled to accept the Six Points and Pakistan would have become a democratic confederation. The strains between Baluchistan and the rest of the country would not be an issue, its military might would have been undiminished, and of course Pakistan would never have walked the path of radicalization that began under Z.A.B. and continues today.

 

[Developereo]

While most Pakistanis agree that the military was responsible for radicalization in the past, it still doesn't justify its meddling today in civilian affairs to reverse it.

Perhaps an analogy will illustrate the point.

In the US, many people blame past (Republican) administrations for laying the groundwork for the GFC and other excesses of capitalism. Whether the charge is true or not, it does not absolve the current leaders from doing the right thing. In fact, given the split nature of Congress, Obama can justifiably shift some of the blame on partisanship, but the ball ultimately stops with him.

However, such an excuse won't wash in Pakistan by blaming the military, since the military has no involvement in domestic affairs. The civilian leadership has the responsibility and the authority to implement corrective policies. The military is not stopping them from implementing tax reforms to generate revenue to fund law enforcement, reform education, and to tackle corruption. It is not the military's job to implement legislative reforms to curb abuse and exploitation of lax laws (blasphemy).

In short, whatever happened in the past is over. The current government came into power promising to deliver governance. It has failed abjectly, and there is no point coming up with apologetic excuses for their incompetence and -- I would say -- downright treasonous inaction.