The Black Rainbow

by Hussain Zaidi

  “In my view,” said Ali, “there cannot be any justification for terrorism. No doubt terrorism is a means of achieving some political objective, which may be perfectly legitimate but means cannot be justified simply because they seek to attain a legitimate objective.”

  “Why do you condemn terrorism?” asked Dr Junaid.

  “Simply because terrorists kill innocent people,” replied Ali.

  “Well, if terrorists kill not the innocent people but the people who themselves are guilty of manslaughter, would then terrorism be an illegitimate act?” asked Dr Junaid.

  “Taking of human life,” replied Ali, “is always illegitimate. If someone is guilty of murder or some other heinous offence, let the law take its course and bring him to the book.”

  “But if the law is on the side of the guilty or the oppressor, what should the victims do?” asked Dr Junaid.

  “They should wage struggle but by peaceful, constitutional means only. Ends however worthy or noble hardly justify means,” Ali stuck to his position.

  “The purpose of my cross questioning,” said Dr Junaid looking at Ali, “was to elicit your views. Because you’re otherwise shy and withdrawn, I’m glad that you have candidly expressed your thoughts on the subject.”

  Then addressing the class he said,” Ali’s position as I gather is that political ends however noble or lofty never justify means that are ignoble and illegitimate. This view has some significant implications: one, people cannot be deprived of their liberties in the name of a greater social good, national security or political necessity. Two, violence cannot be regarded as an acceptable way of settling political disputes. Three, democracy is the best form of government as democracy has unshakable faith in individual freedom and peaceful resolution of political disagreement and conflict. Do you agree?” he looked at Ali.

  “Yes, I do,” Ali nodded.

  “Well,” said Dr Junaid addressing the rest of the class, “this is Ali’s position and you may not agree with him.”

  Sara joining the discussion said,” Hardly anyone would disagree with the thesis that political conflict needs to be resolved by peaceful, constitutional means and that civil liberties need to be respected. However, the argument cannot be pushed too far. Ali’s position may hold water in an ideal world but then in such a world political disputes would not arise at all and individual freedom and political authority would perfectly be reconciled. But I’m afraid the real world we live in is far removed from such an idyllic state.

  “In the real world, political conflict doesn’t always lend itself to peaceful resolution and force may be the only solution. The various wars that have been waged since the dawn of civilization are a refutation of Ali’s position. Moreover, if Ali’s thesis were valid, revolutions would never take place because they signify failure to reconcile liberty and authority, freedom and social control. Taking an example from our own society, resort to terrorism is an evidence of the failure of political and constitutional machinery to settle political disputes as well as of the attempts to reconcile liberty and authority,” Sara finished.

  “Probably Sara has got me wrong. I never said or implied that political disputes are always settled peacefully and that there can never be a conflict between liberty and authority. No one can make such a sweeping statement. I was talking about these concepts in a normative way, while Sara was speaking about them in a positive sense,” Ali defended himself.

  “I think Ali has made his position amply clear,” said Dr Junaid. Have you anything else to say Sara?”

  “Even in a normative sense it will be a sweeping generalization to decry the use of force in all circumstances,” Sara said. “When all doors to a political, constitutional change are closed, use of force may assume legitimacy. Again, with all my respect for democracy, I don’t believe that it’s the best form of govt. Democracy is based on the notion that the voice of the majority expressed through the ballot is always the voice of reason and sanity. This is as absurd a notion as the utilitarian view of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The greatest happiness of the greatest number or simply of the majority may consist in annihilation of the minority. Would we accept this as legitimate? In all fairness, the majority may be right in some situations but it may be on the wrong side of the truth in certain others. It all depends on circumstances and, like individuals, every set of circumstances is unique.”

  “So do you believe that in special circumstances violence may be justified?” asked Dr Junaid.

  “Yes I do,” replied Sara.

  “Does it apply to the menace of terrorism that we are facing?” Dr Junaid asked.

  Sara thought for a second and then said, “No sir, not in our case. The reason is that the change that the militants want to bring will be a change for the worse. They want to set up a totalitarian, monolithic, retrogressive, rigid and antiquarian political society without any program for economic emancipation of the people, social emancipation of women or political empowerment of the masses. We saw earlier that a similar political society was established by the Taliban in Afghanistan. That was a disaster. The use of force may be legitimate as a means but never as an end.”

  “I strongly disagree with Sara’s characterization of the militancy, interposed Riaz. “The Taliban simply want to establish an Islamic political society for which our country was made. Their means may be questionable but this is the only option they have been left with.”

  Before Sara could answer, Dr Junaid said, let’s move forward. “Do you think the state is an incarnation of good or is it a necessary evil?”

  Naila raised her hand and after receiving a nod from the professor said: “The state is neither an embodiment of evil nor an incarnation of good. The state can promote freedom and it may suppress freedom. The state safeguards citizens against terrorism but it can perpetuate terrorism itself — the state terrorism as it’s called. The state is a vital social institution, for only it can create conditions conducive to a higher life. Even in a free market economy, where the least government is regarded as the best government, the state performs many useful functions, such as enforcing contracts, ensuring competition, providing for public goods, and feeding the old and the needy. It is hard to think of modern society working without the state. True, the functions of the state can increase or decrease, its role can enlarge or shrink, its powers can widen or narrow, but as an institution it is difficult to maintain that it will outlive its utility and wither away.”

  “How many of you disagree with Naila?” asked Dr Junaid.

  “I don’t say,” said Javed, “that I disagree with Naila. However, I do believe that it’s possible to conceive that the state can wither away. Many of the functions that the state once performed have been taken over by voluntary organizations. If we analyze the functions of the state, then it would appear that the essential and the foremost function of the state is to protect the life and property of the people. Private property is an artificial institution and it can conveniently be abolished by transferring the ownership from the individual to the entire community. This leaves us with only one essential function of the state — protection of citizens’ life. The danger to a person’s life springs from his fellows. It’s not inconceivable that the people are brought up in such a manner that they respect the life and honor of their fellow citizens. Just as members of a family respect each others, not out of fear of law but voluntarily. Similarly, social pressure together with the realization that it’s in the interest of all to respect one another’s rights, as opposed to out of fear of the coercive authority of the state, can make people respect the life and honor of others.”

  “It’s hard to believe this in the age of terrorism,” dissented Naila. “Abolition of the state in any event is based on a too optimistic view of human nature.”

  “This is because of the misconception regarding the nature of the state,” said Javed. “The state, it is still widely believed, is a natural institution. In fact, it’s not. The basis of the state is a contract, n
ot necessarily a formal contract, between the governors and the governed and this contract, like any other contract can be terminated if some other institution can perform the functions for which the contract was made.”

  “Let me inform you,” interrupted Dr Junaid, “that we are approaching the end of this session. One question before we sign off: What do you think is the basis of state authority — consent or coercion?”

  “Well sir it depends on the form of government. In democracy, it’s consent, in despotism it’s coercion,” Sara replied.

  “As I expected. But suppose in a democracy one fine morning I wake up and declare that I’ll not pay taxes or obey other laws or regulations. What will the government do,” Dr Junaid asked.

  “You’ll be put behind the bars,” Sara replied almost spontaneously.

  “Precisely,” remarked Dr Junaid. “The authority of the state, regardless of the form of government, ultimately rests on its power to have its injunctions, laws, orders, regulations, whatever you call them, obeyed. If consent were the basis of political obedience, every one would be free to comply with or disregard the state commands. But this is neither possible nor desirable. So in the end coercion is the basis of political obedience. The difference between democracy and despotism is that in case of democracy there’s an illusion that consent is the basis of state authority, whereas in case of despotism no such illusion exists.”

  “So you met Maulvi Zia,” Ali said to Sara after the class.

  “Yes I had an hour long meeting with him.”

  “What do you think of him?” Ali asked.

  “It’s difficult to form an opinion about him in one meeting,” replied Sara. “The way he answered my questions seems he is quite learned and articulate a person. I’ll be meeting him again and may get some clue how my father is related to him.”

  “How do you plan to proceed now?” Ali asked.

  “I’ll meet Zia again in couple of days. But I need to be careful lest Dr Junaid should see me there,” Sara said. “I’m glad you took part in the discussion today.”

  “Thanks. I’m trying to come out of my shell,” said Ali. “Besides, the subject was very interesting. But I’m sorry we had difference of opinion.”

  “You don’t need to be apologetic about your views. I don’t take such things personally. By the way what else do you do?” Sara queried.

  “I have no friends. I don’t have any hobby as such. I don’t like to watch TV either. Books are my only passion and my only companion. Most of the time in the evening, I stay at home. But I like to spend time with my family. My parents are my best friends.”

  “This is much like myself, except that my father is too busy to spend time with me and my mother is not alive. If you don’t mind, may I meet your mother? You told me she is a lecturer.”

  “Yes of course. You can meet her at your convenience. She too will be glad to see you. Yes she teaches political science in the Lahore College,” Ali replied.

  “Ali,” said Sara in a low tone, “I have a personal question to ask you. You may not answer it if you don’t like.”

  “Yes, what is it?”

  “Is there a girl in your life? Anyone in the family?” Sara asked.

  Ali blushing replied, “No,” but then hastened to add, “I have a relation named Farzana, who is just engaged. She’s the only girl in my family I’m familiar with. But there wasn’t anything between us. Somehow I cannot get along with girls.”

  “But you are getting along fine with me,” Sara said with a smile.

  “I hope so,” Ali blushed again prompting Sara to laugh.

  “I like the way you blush. What are you plans for the future?” asked Sara

  “Honestly I haven’t thought over that. Maybe I appear in the civil service examination, teach or take to journalism like my father. At the moment it’s all fluid. Of course I’ll have to do something to make a living,” Ali replied with the candidness characteristic of him. “What about you?” he asked Sara.

  “Well, my father wants me to join his business. As my temperament is such that I cannot be an employee to anyone so I guess I’ll honor his desire. But like you, I’m not thinking about that at present,” Sara replied. Then looking at her mobile phone said, “Let’s go. Can I drop you home?”

  “No thanks,” Ali replied. “I’ll take the college bus. With this, both rose and went their separate ways.

  Chapter 12

  The office bearers of the traders’ association went to the White Mosque. They met Maulana Majeed and apprised him of the whole situation. “We request you to please stop your students from meddling into our business and in return we’ll be pleased to do anything for you,” they beseeched the maulana.

  Maulana Majeed patiently heard the traders and then replied, “We don’t mean any harm to you, rest assured. But we don’t want any harm to society either. Therefore, my advice to you is to mend your ways and shut down your filthy businesses. As for your offer, we don’t need anything from you. We look only to Allah Almighty for help and He has already blessed us with more than we deserve.”

  “But maulana two weeks are too short a time. Give us at least six months,” the leader of the delegation Haji Bashir implored.

  Maulana Majeed laughed and said, “If your intention is good, two weeks are a sufficient period. But if your intention is bad, even six years, what to talk of six months, are not sufficient. All I can concede to you is to give you another two weeks. So in all you have four weeks to mend your ways failing which I cannot guarantee the safety of your businesses. Forgive me it’s time for Asr prayers. Would you join us?”

  “Maulvi sahib,” warned Haji Bashir, “we’ll report the matter to the police.”

  “Go ahead. I know you grease the palm of the police. But we are not afraid of the police; even they will not be able to help you,” said Maulana Majeed and rose from the chair.

  “What should we do?” Haji Bashir consulted his colleagues as they came out of the premises of the White Mosque. “We should report the matter to the police,” opined one of the traders. “We should not pin any hope on the clergy.”

  “What I don’t understand is why the clergy have suddenly realized that running video or music shops is an evil. After all, we have been running our businesses for years and no one has objected to that,” remarked another trader.

  “I was of the view that the White Mosque administration wants to extort money from us. But the way Maulana Majeed has talked to us shows that it’s not an issue of money. Why are they doing this is not important for us. What’s important for us is how to safeguard ourselves against possible action from the White Mosque students. And for this we need to approach the police,” Haji Bashir summed up.

  His views were endorsed by other members and a complaint was lodged with the local police station. The in charge of the police station assured the traders of full protection in exchange, of course, for “little favor”.

  Sara got next appointment for interview with Maulvi Zia. But this time she was asked to come at his farm house in the evening. It was the same farm house where she had earlier seen his father go inside.

  “My name is Faiza and I have an appointment with Maulvi Zia sahib,” Sara told the guard on duty at the main gate. He was not the same guard whom she had earlier met.

  “Yes madam you can go inside,” the guard told him respectfully.

  Sara parked her car in the spacious compound and went towards the entrance. She was taken to Maulvi Zia’s office by an attendant. Zia was not in the office and she was asked to wait for him. In a few minutes, Zia entered the room.

  “Assalam-o-alaikum,” Zia addressed her.

  “Walaikim assalam,” Sara replied.

  “I appreciate your punctuality,” Zia said to her. “Did you find any difficulty in locating my residence?”

  “Not really sir,” Sara replied. “You happen to a well-known person.