Idolising the Taliban (Published in Newsline October, 2008)

 

Babar Ayaz laments the fact that media celebrities are glorifying the country’s retrogressive forces as heroic warriors fighting an anti-imperialist war.

 

The country was witness to yet another devastating suicide attack, this time at Islamabad’s Marriott Hotel, in which 53 people were killed and nearly 260 injured. And, once again, several electronic and Urdu media journalists were, directly or indirectly, justifying the act instead of condemning it. It’s unfortunate that many politicians, columnists, TV hosts and self-styled analysts have become apologists for the terrorists. All in the name of anti-Americanism – and to protest an ‘imaginary war’ and a ‘conspiracy’ that is being hatched against Islam.

Precisely what is the role of the media in any society? The simplistic answer given by many is that its role is to inform the people about the facts objectively. If only it were as simple as that. You can invite 10 reactionaries and just one voice of sanity and profess to have covered both views objectively.

The media, especially the electronic media, in today’s world has evolved as the biggest opinion-making vehicle. It has taken the lead by initiating a debate on the burning issue of terrorism. But the choice of guests leaves a lot to be desired. The regulars, Imran Khan, Hamid Gul, Javed Hashmi, Jamaat-e-Islami and JUI leaders represent the lobby which has been dismissing the ‘war against terrorism’ as an American war. The result of this disbalanced choice of people is that the public is being misled and various jihadi groups are being glorified as anti-imperialist warriors.

Simplistic solutions are being presented by some popular talk show hosts and a number of politicians. An easy and populist line is to simply blame the government for conducting the American ‘war on terror.’ But one cannot walk away from the issue simply by blaming the US and its allies.

The trouble is that our media anchors and politicians are looking at this issue without any historical and ideological perspective. It has to be studied against the backdrop of the social, political and economic environment of our society and our geo-strategic conditions. Unless we understand this phenomenon in its domestic and international perspectives, the issue cannot be resolved.

Most politicians who appear on the television channels view this war as a reaction to Musharraf and the US actions. Moreover, most TV anchors and their preferred guests are of the view that we should hold talks with the terrorists. Mushtaq Minhas of Bolta Pakistan at Aaj TV, Javed Chaudhry of Aaj Tak at Express News and Hamid Mir of Capital Talk at GEO, all have one stance – that these Pakistani Taliban are our own people, who are fighting against the American intrusion in Afghanistan. They have a right to their views, but they should also invite those analysts who are bold enough to articulate the other point of view. Only a few TV comperes such as Nusrat Javed and Anjum Rashid are giving us a realistic picture.

Why are our journalists not informing the public that the Taliban want to work against Pakistan’s declared foreign policy, which is in conformity with UN resolutions? International law states that no country should harbour terrorists and allow its land to be used as a sanctuary for armed interference in a neighbouring country. Why are the apologists for the Taliban ignoring the fact that the latter have virtually declared independence?

Look at the list of their demands. They want that the government should not stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a hinterland for their war against the Afghan government and its western allies, that it should not stop its people from joining jihadi groups, getting trained and participating in the jihad declared by Al-Qaeda and its associates against all such governments, which fall in the category of Jahiliyya. (See Sayyid Qutb’s Signpost and Zawahiri’s speeches).  Also, they want that Pakistan should support all Muslim militant groups such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (now operating freely under different names) who fight in India and that it should let the local Taliban enforce their version of Salafist Islam in the country.

I am amazed at the short-term memory of our journalists and politicians who blame the government for breaking the accord in Waziristan under US pressure. No doubt US pressure existed. But one should not forget that after the accord, a local Taliban force emerged and started forcing people in FATA and the settled areas to change their way of life. Further, they did not honour their agreement to deny a safe haven to local and foreign Taliban in Waziristan.

Taliban apologists conveniently ignore the fact that the militant Islamists have a strong hold on the madrassas, where young minds are influenced and prepared for suicide-bombings. If these politicians and anchormen honestly don’t understand the gravity of the challenge, they should read an excellent book, The A-Z of Jihadi Organisations in Pakistan, written by Mohammad Amir Rana in 2004 on this subject, and Khaled Ahmed’s paper published by SAPNA to understand what we are faced with.

There is no doubt that many innocent people are dying in the crossfire, but talk show hosts are not asking the tough questions – perhaps deliberately. Why don’t we ask supporters of the Taliban why terrorist training camps were being allowed in Afghanistan? Why was the Al-Qaeda given a license to create havoc in Nairobi, Saudi Arabia, Spain, London and New York? Why don’t the Taliban join the democratic process and prepare to contest the 2009 elections to remove Karzai? Why are the Taliban giving shelter to the Sipah-e-Sahaba and promoting sectarian violence in Pakistan? Why have the local Taliban killed over 150 Maliks and elders, who have differed with them, in the last two years?

The apologists for the militants, who blame the government for the military operation, also need to ask why the Pakistani forces had to go into FATA in the first place, disturbing the age-old system? Was it not because the area had been taken over by the Taliban through brute force? You talk to ordinary Pathans from the tribal areas working in Karachi and they will tell you how moneyed and well-armed the Taliban are. They admit that anybody who speaks against the Taliban is killed the following day. In this intolerant atmosphere, our leading TV hosts go and interview people on the streets of FATA and ask them whether they like the Taliban rule or not. The obvious answer they get is, ‘the Taliban are great.’ Nobody wants to be killed for telling the truth about the Taliban’s ruthlessness.

These Taliban supporters believe that if NATO forces are withdrawn, peace would return to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now this is a wild dream as the situation is far more complex. The fall of the Karzai government and the withdrawal of the NATO forces would push Afghanistan into another civil war, and we will see a repeat of what happened when the Soviet forces were pulled out.

As for Pakistan, if Obama were to win the elections, he is likely to divert his attention from Iraq to Afghanistan, as stated by him many times. Once he is firmly in the saddle, he would start pushing Pakistan to seal the borders and shut down all Taliban safe havens.

So both ways we are in trouble. In order to manage such a tricky situation, Pakistan needs to build a consensus between the politicians on foreign policy. The decisions should now be taken by the political government, as the failure of the army-led foreign policy on India and Afghanistan is evident.

The media has to build public opinion against interference in Afghanistan’s politics and to isolate the local jihadi forces and the Taliban. If a policy of non-interference is not adopted, then Pakistan is in for trouble from the Americans, from the Indians and most certainly, from the Afghan government. We cannot hoodwink them by declaring that we are not interfering and then quietly encourage local or Afghan Taliban.

Overzealous media celebrities must realise that retrogressive forces cannot be idolised as great nationalists, who are fighting an anti-imperialist war. At the end of the day, the Taliban philosophy of life will hurt the poor people of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and impose social and political suppression. Our journalists have to choose between the religious fascism of the Taliban and democracy.

We cannot jeopardise the whole nation’s future just because we do not like American policies. The media and politicians must understand that they are the opinion-makers and not reactionary preachers.

The Parliament resolves to tackle the National Security mess (24-10-08)

 

Good news is few and far in between in this God forsaken country. The unanimous 14-point resolution covering tricky national security issues passed by the parliament indeed augurs well.

 

First, it was a good step to take the discussion on national security to the parliament, which was hitherto a sacred domain of the GHQ, and pass a unanimous resolution.

 

Second, all the political parties showed their maturity and were able to draw a consensus resolution.

 

Third, the ruling party did not try to steam-roll its resolution, which was appreciated by the opposition members also.

 

Fourth, it gives a comprehensive set of guidelines covering all the major national security issues faced by the country.

 

Fifth, a proposed parliamentary committee would be appointed to oversee that actions taken by the government are in line with the guidelines set by the resolution. One has to be cautious here. The committee that will have representation of the parties of all stripes is not expected to keep the consensus on all implementation issues. The media would obviously jump on this opportunity as controversies are more juicy and interesting than consensus. But even if it moves slow and can meet the objectives of the resolution half way it would be major paradigm shift as an attempt is being made to shift the national security policy-making center to the political government from the Khakis.

 

Sixth, the resolution would give leeway to the government to deal with undue pressure of the US administration. Usually, Washington gives lip service to democracy but prefers to deal with dictators in such cases. President Bush had made it obvious when he confessed that he likes dealing with one powerful person in Pakistan, instead of the democratic government of India.

 

Clause 4 of the resolution says: “That Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity shall be safeguarded. The nation stands united against any incursions and invasions of the homeland, and call upon the government to deal with it effectively.” Now, it is clear that the success of this clause is directly co-related to what has been laid in Clause 5 of the resolution: “That Pakistan’s territory shall not be used for any kind of attacks on other countries and all foreign fighters, if found, shall be expelled from its soil.” (Hope this includes Afghan Taliban also). We can only safeguard our sovereignty if we respect the sovereignty of other countries.

 

Seventh, it must have sent a clear message to the terrorist and sectarian organisations that the nation would not tolerate extremism in Pakistan. Clause 3 of the resolution clearly says; “The nation stands united to combat this growing menace, with a strong public message condemning all forms and manifestations of terrorism, including spread of sectarian hatred and violence, with a firm resolve to combat it and address its root causes.”

 

This is the biggest challenge that the government is facing and is trying to combat. But the problem is every time the conflict becomes violent many political parties blame the army and the government for high-handedness. Now the government should let the supporters of the Taliban and Jihadists negotiate with them without compromising the spirit of the resolution. If they fail, as they did in the case of Lal Masjid, then the writ of the government should be established through other means. The opposition then should not support the extremists who want to conquer FATA and Afghanistan.

 

Implementation of the resolution is not possible overnight. The politicians have to be patient. PML (N) hawk Chaudhry Nisar, who gifted Musharraf to Mian Nawaz Sharif, is fond of giving deadlines. He has demanded constitution of the implementation committee within 48 hours. I don’t think they have learnt any lesson from their recent politics. It is not advisable to do cul-de-sac politics and get trapped. If the committee is not constituted by the time this column is printed the media would love to ask him, now what? And I am sure he will oblige them with another tough statement damaging the spirit of reconciliation.

 

Former information Minister Tariq Azim aptly said that the parliamentarians have passed a written test, and the practical test is yet to be passed. No doubt the present government will find it extremely difficult to implement this mandate of the parliament. Most difficult task would be to convince the Taliban not to interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan and the umpteen Jihadi organisations that they should not cross the Eastern border anymore. Clause 12 says: “That Pakistan’s strategic interests be protected by developing stakes in regional peace and trade, both on Western and Eastern borders.”  This will be a major departure from the decades’ old policy, if the powers that be permit. Strategic interests would no more be dictated by fear and building unaffordable war machines, but they can only be protected through ‘regional peace and trade.”

 

Skeptics may be right that not much will change and I should not pin much hope on this resolution. But standing only a couple of months away from turning sixty, hope is the only balm to numb my pain and that of the poor people of Pakistan. (ayazbabar@gmail.com Blog:  http://babarayaz.wordpress.com )

 

 

 

 

Are we ready to meet the economic challenges? (12-10-2008)

 

  

As if our own economic woes were not enough, the world economy has been hit by the financial crisis like never before. In today’s globalised world once the worlds leading economies start melting down, nobody is safe. The worst hit is the economy like ours, which was in trouble even before the simmering economic crisis erupted in the United States of America.

 

Of course the epicenter of the financial Tsunami was US, where leading financial institutions tumbled. Once again, after Enron and other major companies crashed, it was evident that the US and some of the western countries regulators were caught napping. Many European banks and markets have declared red alert. This has pushed all the Western governments to forget about the so-called free market economy principles and launch multi-billion dollar rescue packages. Market economy fundamentalists have been proven wrong. But then all kind of fundamentalism whether it is political, economic or religious proves to be damaging for any society.

 

This made people nervous and susceptible to the rumours that the financial Tsunami which has hit the leading world economies is now going to hit us hard. Another reason which made people nervous is that till a few days back it was felt that the PPP-led government is not giving due attention to the economy. Naveed Qamar was appointed as an ad hoc Finance Minister because Ishaq Dar resigned. Members of the Economic Advisory Committee (EAC), which was formed by the government, confessed privately that their recommendations are not taken up seriously. One member said that “it was waste of time.”

 

The new government which was sworn in February inherited a number of problems. Most of them had originated more from turbulent 2007. Almost the whole year was lost because of political instability and postponing of important economic decisions. The previous government had to its credit some economic achievements, which now many opportunists fail to acknowledge, but it squandered them in 2007 by avoiding taking the right decisions because of political expediency. Major mistake was not to absorb the impact of global inflation, when oil prices soared by over 90% and food prices swelled by over 40%. Indeed the decision to pass on these shocks would have been very unpopular, still postponing these tough measures did not win them the elections.

 

All this was done by taking short term measures. The worst was excessive borrowing from the banking system, which sapped the liquidity of the banks. And when the State Bank started tightening the monetary expansion, the crunch was felt all around.

 

The new government lost considerable time in squabbling over political issues and not concentrating on the immediate economic challenges. Even a proper economic team was not put together. Ideally political parties should have a shadow government and think-tanks who should be preparing plans even when they are not in power. But in Pakistan political parties leaders are mostly in jail or in self-exile when they are not in power, in such a political culture their growth is retarded.

 

In the absence of any short-term and long-term economic plan of the government to meet the economic challenges and reports that major global banks and stocks markets are in trouble, it was not surprising that rumours about some Pakistani banks going bankrupt were readily believed. The rumours were that the government is going to freeze the foreign currency accounts, break open people lockers at the banks and is going to go bankrupt were circulated in the last few days at the speed of sms transmissions.

 

Many questions were raised by the media on the following day, when these rumours had already caused substantial damage to the financial sector. One question which was asked by most TV talk shows anchors was who started this rumours and why? Now it’s very difficult to investigate that what is the source of rumours. I rang up a few bankers and leading financial market players the next day to find out who was the major beneficiary of these rumours and where did the mischief start from. Nobody could actually point a finger to a single person. But most of them agreed that it all started with the market rumours that some leasing companies which are facing serious default from their lessees are at the verge of defaulting. This created concern in the financial sector about the banks that were major lenders to these companies or belonged to the same group. From there it was like a forest fire, which spread with all kind of wild speculations. According to unconfirmed reports this led to the withdrawal of deposits from the banks to the tune of Rs200 billion.  Most of the money it is said went to the currency market which increased the demand of the dollar in the market.  Some savings were also transferred by wary depositors to the National Savings Schemes.  This created a serious liquidity crunch in the market, which may now ease up a little bit because of SBP measures announced on Friday.  The other beneficiaries of these rumours, all agree were the usual speculators who are astute in this game.  They have now shifted their attention from the frozen stock market to the currency market.

 

Now the government is desperately trying to control the damage. First move was to induct Shaukat Tarin as Advisor to the Prime Minister on Finance & Economic Affairs. According to some PPP insiders Shaukat was President Zardari’s first choice when his party took over the government. Then one of his ministers benevolently offered the finance ministry to PML (N) during negotiations which the party regretted later. Again after Ishaq Dar the ministry was offered to Shaukat Tarin but he was reluctant to accept the offer. However, when Mr. Zardari became President, it was difficult for Shaukat Tarin to decline the offer. Many critics feel that taking a Citibank professional again as finance minister is a mistake. But PPP leaders maintain that he would be assisted by EAC and the economists committee formed by the Planning Commission, which has brilliant economists like Dr. Hafeez Pasha, Dr. Navied Hamid and Dr. Akmal Hussain.

 

Some friends of Mr. Zardari say that he has many good ideas to attract foreign investment into Pakistan. One such idea is to open all investment fields to Chinese, oil-rich Arab countries and Indian investors. I have doubt that the establishment would let him open Pakistan for Indian investors although the whole world is being benefited by it.

 

At the face of it this looks like a good combination provided they work as team. But unfortunately I am not getting positive vibes from the economist group. At least one member said that traditionally reports of such groups are shelved. However, looking at the previous track record of Shuakat Tarin he is considered to be a team player and a doer. But this time he has taken a challenge where many factors are beyond the control of any finance minister. The good news is that oil prices have tumbled down by almost 50% and same is the case with edible oil rates. This might provide some relief in pressure on our balance of trade deficit.

 

Still the government has to raise around five to seven billion dollars to go through the mill this year. Not a tall order but time is of essence so it has to move fast and focus on the economy. (ayazbabar@gmail.com Blog: babarayaz.wordpress.com)

 

Review Chasing a mirage (13-09-08)

 

Many myths regarding existence of an Islamic State have been demolished brick by brick by Tarek Fatah in his well-researched book “Chasing a Mirage – The tragic illusion of an Islamic State.” His basic thesis is that there is no concept of an Islamic State in Islam — there is no Islamic State in the world and there never was.

 

The book has drawn considerable interest among the intellectual circles and has been reviewed by leading newspapers in the West. From the internet community Tarek got a mixed response — accolades and threats.  

 

Writing from a perspective of an open-minded Muslim at the very outset he explains: “In this book I attempt to draw a distinction between Islamists and Muslims. What Islamists seek and what Muslims seek are two separate objectives, sometimes over-lapping but clearly distinct. While the former seeks an ‘Islamic State,’ the latter merely desires a ‘state of Islam.’ One state requires theocracy, the other a state of spirituality.”

 

I have always been of the opinion that the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) should be renamed as Organisation of Muslim Countries, because they are basically countries with Muslim majority and their commonality ends there. Tarek touches this issue to set the course of research: “Most Muslims too believe that countries with majority Muslim populations are Islamic countries with a distinct character. However, this is not how the Islamists see the world. From the perspective of those who follow the doctrine of Wahabism or Salafi Islam or even the ruling ayatollahs of Iran, a country can be labeled an Islamic State only if it is governed by the laws of Shariah. Thus neither Turkey nor Indonesia is an Islamic State in the eyes of the Islamists.”

 

Tarek has devoted chapters on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which claim to be Islamic states, and has argued that there was nothing that proves the claim of these countries that they are Islamic states. Maintaining his blunt style he has broken the myth that these states have tried to build around themselves. He maintains that the institutions of Saudi Monarchy supported by Wahabi clergy and Iranian Velayat-e-faqhi (a religious institution which is supreme and above the elected parliament) have no place in Islam.

 

He rejects the two-nation theory which was considered as the basis of creation of Pakistan. To him: “The biggest losers in this great game of divide and rule were India’s Muslim. In the name of Islam, they were divided into three separate parts and cut off from each other.”

 

To support his argument that there was no concept of Islamic State in Islam, Tarek has quoted extensively a number of Muslim scholars, who were hounded by the Islamists through out the Muslim history. He quotes Ali Abdel Al-Razik an Egyptian scholar of 1920s, who was harassed by the extremists. Al Razik had concluded in his book ‘Islam and the fundamental of Authority’ that:

“(1) Government of political authority, as necessary as it might be seen to realize Islamic ideals and obligations, was not the essence of Islam and had nothing to do with primary principles of the faith; and (2) Islam left Muslims free to choose whatever form of government they felt could solve their day-to-day problems with civil society minus an official state religion being best able to offer such a solution.”  The book draws on a number of such scholars including Allama Mohammad Iqbal, who opposed the revival of Caliphate on the grounds that it was an obstacle to the modernization of the Muslim world.

 

Quoting from the Holy Quran and Prophet Mohammad’s’ (PBUH) sayings Tarek has maintained in his thought provoking book that if God or his Prophet had felt the need of setting up an Islamic State this issue would have been dealt in the Holy Scripture. Al-Razik had quoted the Holy Quran to prove his point: “Whoso obeyeth the Apostle, in doing so hath obeyed God, and who turneth away from thee: We have not sent thee to be their keeper (chapter 4. Sura al-Nisa verse 83). This message is repeated in other verses also where it has been said that God had not sent the Prophet as ‘custodian’ or ‘warden’ over people.

 

Drawing extensively from the Muslim history Tarek has boldly treaded on a dangerous path by narrating the events that followed the death of the Prophet and the struggle for Caliphate in the coming years. His view is that an Islamic State model did not exist even after the Prophet’s death. The very fact that it was decided to choose the Caliph on the tribal basis from among the Quraysh of Mecca was against the teachings of Islam that one should rise above tribalism and righteousness should be the criteria.

 

He is not challenging or showing any disrespect to the companions of the Prophet but making a point that unfortunately tribalism took over the Muslim society soon after the death of the Prophet. He has praised some of the actions of the companions of the Prophet and the Muslim intellectuals who followed in history where it was due. But he has not shied of challenging the contradictions and myths that have been promoted by ‘some all-is-good scholars.’

 

Tarek’s book establishes that the acceptance of one tribe’s superiority over others and their right to Caliphate is the basis of the Saudi Arab’s arrogance that is suffered by other Muslims of the world.

 

The book has challenged that there was any ‘Golden Islamic era’ in the last 1400 years which the Islamists are chasing today. The whole history, even when looked at from the Muslim historians’ perspective, Tarek argues is the history of various dynasties, which were most of the time intriguing and fighting with each other. He has drawn a vivid picture of palace intrigues, ruthlessness and intra-fighting among the Muslim rulers and asked what was Islamic about these empires? Then answers that there was nothing Islamic about them, these dynasties ruled like any other in the contemporary period. Most of the rulers had their own set of clerics who would find Islamic justification (or Fatwa) for the convenience of their respective. Those who did not were either killed or exiled on the orders of the rulers.

 

His contention is that the Shari’ah which today’s Islamist want to implement is man made and has evolved, but most of it is Arab customary law. He argues how come it has been given sacred status and any discussion or development is often considered blasphemous by the Islamists.

 

As Tarek Fatah is now a Canadian of Pakistani origin he has a fair knowledge of the prevailing hypocrisies among the Muslims who have migrated to the western countries. He is well known in Canada for taking radical stands against the demands of some Islamists. He has exposed them in detail in Chasing the Mirage. He is also equally critical of the leftist, who have become apologists of the Islamists and consider their struggle as anti-imperialist. The book is a must read for all such Pakistani intellectuals also because we don’t have dearth of people who justify or romanticize the Jihadis.

 

He has written this book when the violent movement inspired by Hasan al Banna, Syed Qutb and Abu Ala Maudoodi’s writings and led by Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar is in full swing. Qutb’s Signpost which can be called “Islamists (Jihadis) Manifesto has clearly stated that an Islamic state can only be established through ‘movement’ and not just by propaganda. This doctrine preaches that only revolutionary violence can bring an end to the rule ‘Jahiliyya.’ Chasing the Mirage by Tarek Fatah is a brave attempt to counter this doctrine and open the eyes of the Muslims to come out of the ‘tragic illusion of Islamic State.’

 

(As the book has challenged many myths and fables of Islamic history, it seems that book stores in Pakistan are shy to import it. But it is available on Amazon)

 

Chasing a Mirage – The tragic Illusion of the Islamic State

Written by: Tarek Fatah

Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Canada

Pages: 410   Price: US$ 28.95

 

(Tarek Fatah, a well-know leftist student leader of Karachi in the late sixties and early seventies who migrated to Canada via a few years stint in Saudi Arabia).