 |
||
|
||
|
||
It is some comfort to note that President Pervez Musharraf has taken note of the existence of what he calls the "hawks." Then follows cold comfort. He advises the people to "ignore" them.
In plainer words, he is saying: do not take any notice of the "hawks." And, presumably, do not worry. Why not, pray? If the "hawks" are worthy of the president's notice, they certainly are worth the attention of the people. There should be no gulf between the perceptions of the president and the people.
To begin with, let us define our terms because there is much confusion here. It is more than clear that what the president is referring to merely as "hawks" are, in fact, the militant (militarist?) fundamentalist elements, claiming what are manifestly unproven religious credentials. For these elements the term "hawks" is a deceptive euphemism. Also a misnomer. It is going to land us into an enormously dangerous error of perception.
In the generally accepted parlance, "hawks" are political animals, quite as the moderates are. In the normal political life of democracies, the moderates and "hawks" coexist. Very often they rub shoulders within the same political party and very much within the same political system of the same country. Political "hawks" accept the system, normal laws and operate within these generally accepted and respected parameters. They, too, seek the popular support and canvas for the people's vote. They are past of the polity - not a threat to it.
When we are referring to militant fundamentalists with threatening religious overtones, we are talking of a breed essentially different from the political moderates as they are from political "hawks." Both are committed to the democratic process. The fundamentalists that we have around do not abide by the normal laws. They operate regardless of the law, often in deliberate disregard and defiance of it. They justify their existence and their militant conduct on the basis of what they claim to be super-laws, or the laws of supra-state power.
It is gratifying that President Musharraf is not unmindful of the existence of elements that are not at all desirable. That is why it is not correct on his part to "ignore" them and advise the nation to follow the same line of least resistance. What is not good, should not be ignored; it should be dealt with in an appropriate manner - by all devices available within the law. If we have "hawks" in our midst, we should argue them out of their rigid positions. Surely, not "ignore" them. With the political law-abiding hawks a dialogue can go on. But there is no arguing with the fundamentalists.
In one of his recent statements, President Musharraf was pleased to observe that the religious extremists (the militant fundamentalists) in the country were a small minority. No doubt they are a minority and a pretty minuscule one at that, when counted in proportion to the nation's total population. But taken together, the fundamentalists of different hues add up to a formidable force. They do not play their game with kid gloves. They are not amenable to reason. They do not consider themselves bound by the law. Instead, they use weapons that kill and do not hesitate to use them to kill.
The elements that the president refers as "hawks" presumably are the same whom his interior minister calls the jihadis. To be fair, one must concede that the jihadis are a fairly frank lot, if not downright audacious. They call themselves by names like Sipah (army), Lashkar (expeditionary force), Jaish (brigade), Harakat (movement wielding arms), and of course jihadis (holy warriors). Most of them have their recruiting outfits, their exclusive schools to teach their sectarian doctrine (gospel), and also to train their alumni in the use of lethal arms. There is nothing very secretive about them.
Our interior minister knows all about these jihadi organizations. The citizen should presume that, even if he chooses to ignore the jihadis, he is not ignorant about them and their ways. In rather casual observations, the minister has also taken note of the long string of madrassahs that these fundamentalists run. He has also noted the fact that these madrassahs are outside the purview of the laws and rules that regulate education in the country. There has been talk, mostly disjointed and incoherent, about bringing these madrassahs into the national educational mainstream. So far, only talk, no action.
The public is aware, admittedly in a vague sort of way, that these Madrassahs, run and managed by the fundamentalist organizations, represent different and mutually feuding sects. Among them subsists uncontainable hostility that sometimes erupts into open armed clashes - often resulting in killing and violence. For the common Pakistani it is a fearsome affair. No two fundamentalist outfits are willing to sit together. But all of them are together in their hostility to what President Musharraf describes as the "moderates."
On one pretext or another, the government continues to look the other way or retreat, yielding ground to the extremists. To that extent, the moderates seem to be on the defensive or are losing ground to the extremists. President Musharraf is appealing to moderates - ours as well as India's - to help the subcontinent return to sanity. Why is he unable to see that the moderates, too, need support of all sane elements, including the governments on both sides? If we have the jihadis, they have Dharm Judhis (holy warriors), to use the vocabulary of the RSS supremo Bal Thackeray.
It is dismaying, therefore, to see the interior minister talk glibly about these fundamentalist warriors, the jihadis as he calls them. One must point out that a proper definition of jihad is the very reverse of the construction the jihadis put on it. For over a year, the interior minister has been promising new legislation to deal with armed fundamentalists. Beyond some brave words, there is nothing to suggest he is willing, or feels confident, to do what so plainly needs to be done, urgently, effectively.
The whole country knows that, thanks to these elements, the government of Pakistan is facing enormous embarrassment internationally. It is seen as kowtowing to the fundamentalists, whom the outside world sees as terrorists. Thanks to this factor, Pakistan has all but disappeared from the calculation of international investors. Even the domestic investor is holding back because the government is putting up such a feeble front. The jihadis alone are a principal cause of the deep recession in our economy and the decline of the Pakistan rupee.
Pakistan's adversaries are making enormous capital out of this sad situation. By their militant and defiant ways, the so-called jihadis are keeping a sense of drift and uncertainty alive, with the future of civil society thrown into doubt. You cannot honestly deny that this is the ground reality in so many places in the Frontier province. The government would be justified in saying that such was the case when it took over. But this is at best an excuse, not a defence of its inability to take firm action, enforce the writ of the state and uphold the norms of civil society.
Deafening fanfare marked the launching of the 'deweaponization' campaign. It has been stalled at the doors of the very organizations - the jihadis - that have the largest number of weapons and also trained cadres to use them. Are we unaware how often and wantonly they use these against their rivals or other targets and, more often than not, get away with it? How many of the killings among the fundamentalist sectarian foes have so far been successfully investigated? The number is next to nil.
The point to stress is that any
talk of peace and stability in the country will sound like a cruel joke
so long as all these heavily armed and motivated jihadis, lashkars, sipahs
and militias exist in our midst, free to operate in defiance of the law
and practise and enforce their political or religious codes through violence
and intimidation. The policy of ignoring the "hawks" will not stand the
test of common sense, not to speak of law and morality. What is wrong must
be righted, regardless of the cost and efforts involved.
|
||
|
||
|
||