The Black Rainbow

by Hussain Zaidi

  “Is it so?” a surprised professor Rameez asked Ali.

  “Terrorism,” Ali spoke spontaneously much to his own surprise. “Terrorism is a uniquely contemporary issue, which is especially relevant to our society. So I’ll go for that.”

  “Arguably, the most interesting topic,” Prof Rameez noted. “So we have our list complete. I appreciate that you need to be given some time at least to prepare yourself. What I’ll do is to deliver couple of lectures on the contemporary world — a sort of overview — and then we’ll start discussing the issues you have identified. We have two classes every week so you’ll have sufficient time to get yourself prepared. Each one of you will make an oral presentation on his or her topic followed by questions and answers from the peers and I’ll wrap up the discussion. This will be a graded activity and marks will be given on the basis of how original your views are and how logically you defend the same. There will be complete freedom of expression in the class and you can come up with any views as long as you know what you are saying and as long as you can defend them. Now the difficult decision: who will be the first to make their presentation? Of course, the later you speak, the more time you’ll have to get yourself prepared. But the earlier you speak, the more original will be your presentation. So any volunteers?”

  There wasn’t any volunteer, which disappointed the professor a bit.

  “Sir why don’t you decide yourself,” Naila suggested. Others endorsed her.

  “Well, What I do in such situations is to decide the order in which students will speak on the basis of some criterion. And the criterion that comes to my mind today is your first name. So the order of presentations will be alphabetical.”

  “This means Ali will be the first to speak,” Naila remarked with a smile.

  “Sir can’t you reverse the alphabetical order. I’m prepared to make the first presentation.” Sara tried to help Ali out.

  “No sir. Since you have made the decision, we should abide by it,” Riaz insisted.

  “Ok I’m prepared to be the first speaker,” Ali settled the problem before anyone else could speak.

  “So that’s it. We meet day after tomorrow. It’s 1st today and Ali’s turn will come on 15th followed by others in alphabetical order.” Prof Rameez concluded.

  Chapter 22

  It was seven in the evening. In the conference room of the prime minister’s secretariat was present the top civil and military leadership of the country including Malik Naseem himself. The meeting was supposed to start at 6.45 but they were waiting for one person. The prime minister anxiously glanced at the big clock in front of him and then looked enquiringly at his military secretary.

  “Sir I have just talked to his chief of staff; he’ll be here in few minutes,” the latter assured him.

  At half past 7, the conference room’s door opened and appeared the imposing figure of Gen. Obaid — the all-powerful chief of the armed forces. All those present stood up to receive him. Those in uniform saluted him. The general answered their greetings with a nod of the head and then took his seat next to the premier.

  “Sorry gentlemen for having kept you waiting. Some urgent business crept up,” he gave a brief explanation for his late arrival.”

  “Never mind sir. We understand you’re on the trot,” the prime minister politely stated. “With your permission we may start.”

  “Yes of course.”

  “In fact this meeting is being held at the behest of the honorable army chief to consider a potentially explosive situation. As we all remember, some time back some diplomats were kidnapped from a fitness centre in the capital by the zealous, self-righteous students of the White Mosque seminary. We eventually secured their release but we had to set several notorious militants free in return. We thought the matter settled. But we were mistaken, let me admit, as it was just the beginning. Emboldened by their success, the militants started using the White Mosque premises as their base camp in the capital and we have intelligence reports that they have accumulated heavy arms and ammunition there. Not only that, some of the most wanted militants are hiding on the premises and planning their clandestine activities right there. What is their ultimate plan we don’t know with certainty. But the very fact that there is a militants’ safe heaven right in the heart of the capital is a cause for grave concern for us and something needs to be done urgently and thoroughly,” the prime minister read the introductory remarks from a script probably given to him by the army, and then looked at Gen. Obaid.

  The general took a deep puff from his Cuban cigar and then began: “There is really an explosive situation in the making and that’s why I had impressed upon the prime minister the need to think through it and then come up with a solution. We certainly can’t let the militants strengthen themselves right under our nose, especially when my men are offering tremendous sacrifices in tribal areas. Yesterday the American ambassador called on me and expressed his concern at the developments and requested me for a decisive action to stem the rot. If I’m not wrong, the man behind the militants is Maulvi Zia, who happens to be a coalition partner of the present government and a personal friend of the prime minister, and who facilitated his presence at the helm. So my first question is whether the government has the political will to act against him.”

  “Certainly we have,” the prime minister replied putting his hand on the chest. Maulvi Zia did help me reach where I’m but it doesn’t mean he can dictate to me.”

  “But Mr Prime Minister you can’t deny that you had promised Maulvi Zia to bring the military operation against the militants to a halt and give unconditional amnesty to the militants,” Lt. Gen. Rehan, the head of military intelligence, who was known even in the army for his bluntness, remarked.

  Malik Naseem got uneasy at those remarks but tried to clarify his position. “You are right Rehan sahib I did make such commitment. But this is what politics is all about. I needed the support of Maulvi Zia to get into this office so I promised him whatever he insisted on. But in politics promises are not meant to be kept. And as I assured the chief before my appointment as prime minister, I’ll toe the line of the army. And if the top brass wants me to get tough on Maulvi Zia I’ll. In fact, general sahib will bear me out that I haven’t requested him even once for an end to the military operation. And I want to reiterate that I have no love lost for the militants or their mentors.”

  “So it’s decided that the government will act against Maulvi Zia and the militants. Now the question is how it should proceed,” Gen. Obaid pronounced. “Do the civilians have any plan?”

  Malik Naseem looked at his interior minister and trusted colleague Afaq Ahmad, and asked him to answer the question.

  “The interior ministry and civilian intelligence agencies are fully alive to the dangerous situation and we’ll act to defuse it even though politically it will be a difficult decision for us. The major problem that we face is that the flashpoint is the premises of a mosque, and a well-known mosque. You know our people — they can bear anything with mindless submission but when it is a question of religion they can be incited easily. So my point is that if we raid the White Mosque, it will be interpreted as a sacrilegious act and we may have to face tremendous popular resistance,” Minister Ahmad explained the government’s position, which the prime minister endorsed.

  “I’m sorry but you are simply shying away from your responsibility. Besides, we have just decided to get tough on the militants and your reply shows you civilians are having second thoughts. We want to hear your plans for action and not the pretexts for inaction,” Lt. Gen. Rehan stated with his usual bluntness.

  “Rehan is right. If you have any plans then share with us and if you don’t have any, then we’ll have to step in. But don’t mess up things. If you have nothing better to say then please shut up,” Gen. Obaid gave the interior minister a slap on the wrist, putting his weight behind his lieutenant.

  Before Afaq Ahmad could reply, Malik Naseem, fearing that his minister might say something that would offend
the generals, intervened: “We’ll appreciate if you can help us general sahib. We civilians have a lot to learn from the men in uniform.”

  “You politicians know how to reign but not how to rule,” Gen. Obaid remarked contemptuously. “Rehan can you share your contingency plans?”

  “Yes sir. “We understand that raiding the White Mosque shouldn’t be our first line of action and that there are softer ways in which we can achieve our objectives.” Lt. Gen. Rehan briefly explained those softer ways to which the prime minister gave his formal consent.

  Chapter 23

  Ali was taking his assignment rather seriously. He had never made a presentation before and wanted to give a good account of himself in his debut presentation. “I should first understand the phenomenon of terrorism and then see how the tools of philosophy can be applied to it,” he thought.

  Accordingly, he decided to seek guidance from his parents, especially his father, who had filed a number of stories and features on terrorism. So after dinner, he told his parents about his assignment and where he needed their help.

  “I can tell you about terrorism in a general sense and then your father will be in a better position to dilate upon its concrete expression in Pakistan,” Mrs Naqvi began. “Briefly, terrorism as I understand it is a weapon for achieving some political objective, a weapon which can be used both by the state and against the state. In fact, contrary to popular perception state terrorism has been more widespread than anti-state terrorism. Whenever the state’s authority is based on sheer force, we have state terrorism. Anarchists as well as Marxists are of the view that the state is essentially a child of force and so by implication an agency of terrorism.

  “Terrorism against the state is more often than not a form of political protest, a form gone violent because the avenues of peaceful expression of political discontent are not available,” Mrs Naqvi continued.

  “But mother can there be a justification for terrorism?” Ali questioned.

  “To me there can never be. But for terrorists whether acting against the state or for the state, there definitely is. Remember one thing: Terrorists working against the state are criminals in that they defy the law of the land, but to be sure they aren’t the ordinary criminals. They fight for a cause and they have a strong faith in their cause. However the state may label them, for themselves and their supporters, terrorists are freedom fighters and in our case the soldiers of Islam or mujahideen. Terrorism thus has an ideology and the best way to attack terrorism is either to attack that ideology or to alleviate the discontent of the people that underlies terrorism,” Mrs Naqvi answered.

  “Forgive me Fatima. But if, as you say, terrorists have a strong faith in their cause, wouldn’t attacking their ideology harden them and thus prove counterproductive?” Mr Naqvi joined the discussion.

  “It may some time,” Mrs Naqvi admitted. “But if terrorism is to succeed it must have a popular basis. However, if it can be shown to the people that the cause for which the terrorists are fighting is not a worthy one, terrorism can be attenuated. Popular support, I may say, is the ground under terrorists. If the ground gets slipped, their movement will fizzle out.”

  “Can force be an answer to terrorism?” Ali asked.

  “Force has been used successfully to put down terrorism. Its most recent example is Sri Lanka, where the government crushed Tamil uprising after facing years of resistance. So yes force can be an answer,” Mrs Naqvi replied.

  “One last question before I turn to father: Is it possible to launch a popular resistance movement without in any manner resorting to the use of force?”

  “Theoretically it’s very much possible. People may use constitutional means to get their demands accepted. However, in practical terms, the use of only constitutional means is subject to several factors. For instance, is the use of constitutional means open to the people? Do the people see any tangible chances of success if they use such means? What kind of ideology is the basis of the movement? If the ideology itself is diabolical, then chances of a bloodless struggle are very much limited. What kind of leadership is at the helm? Movements led by the leaders who believe in passive resistance or are constitutionalist are more likely to eschew violence. The struggle for Indian independence was for instance largely peaceful partly because the two frontline leaders, I mean Gandhi and Jinnah, were pacifists,” Mrs Naqvi explained.

  “Now father it’s your turn,” Ali addressed Mr Naqvi. “How do you see the terrorism that we are facing?”

  Mr Naqvi took a deep breath and then began: “Much has been said and written about this menace. But briefly, this represents a classic case of political exploitation of religion. I can give you a brief account of the genesis of this menace.”

  “That will be nice. But there’s a counter point that the current spate of terrorism in Pakistan is the result of the country’s role of a frontline ally of the United States in the campaign against terrorism. Therefore, the only way to rid the country of this menace is to shun the alliance with the US. Is it really so?” Ali asked.

  “Well, Mr Naqvi answered, “I don’t dispute that suicide terrorism has struck Pakistan only in the wake of the country’s post 9/11 alliance with the US. Yet the roots of the malady lie much deeper. The terrorism that we are facing is largely an embodiment of religious extremism, which earlier expressed itself in sectarian killings. The bottles may be new but the wine is old.

  “To trace the roots of terrorism,” Mr Naqvi continued, “you need to go back to Pakistan’s involvement in the US led war against its prime antagonist, the USSR in Afghanistan. In 1979, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the US deemed it to be a move in the USSR global strategy — expansion of communism. The invasion of Afghanistan coincided with the advent of the revolution in Iran whereby the pro-American monarchy was abolished and an anti-US Islamic regime set up. The change in Iran struck at US influence in the region. Hence, when the USSR dispatched its troops to Afghanistan, the US reaction was prompt and tough.

  “The Americans wanted to secure the support of neighboring countries of Afghanistan, so that they could launch an effective anti-Russia campaign. The US could not get the support of India and Iran for different reasons: India was a staunch ally of the USSR, while Washington-Tehran relations were on the ebb. However, in Pakistan, the US found an ally, and it was through the former that the latter found its war against the USSR in Afghanistan.

  “The problem before the then government in Pakistan, which happened to be dictatorial, was how to justify its involvement in the Afghan war. And their answer was simple: let’s give the war religious meaning. Hence, the Afghan war became a jihad and the Afghanis on the US side mujahideen. The illegitimate Ziaul Haq regime, which itself was desperately looking for legitimacy as well as political and economic support, welcomed the Islamisation of the Afghan war. The people were made to believe that the communist USSR invasion of Afghanistan had endangered Islam and therefore it was the religious duty of the government and people of Pakistan to fight in the war on the side of America, which was fighting for Islam. You see America was portrayed as fighting the war of Islam!” Mr Naqvi said.

  “However, with the decline in the USSR’s superpower stature, before its eventual disintegration, and realization on the part of the Soviet leadership that their Afghan adventure had proved a misadventure, Moscow decided to pull out from Afghanistan. With that the US involvement in Afghanistan fizzled out. Hence, in 1989 when the Soviets left Afghanistan, the Americans also said good-bye to the Afghans. The US closed its embassy in Kabul because of what they called security concerns leaving the warring Afghans to themselves. The US departure showed that its interest in Afghanistan was purely strategic dictated by its national interest and not born of its concern for Islam or the Afghans.

  “However, for Pakistan the impact of the Afghan campaign was disastrous. The Afghan war resulted in massive supply of arms and money to Pakistan. But this money was spent not on the welfare of the people but on recruiting militants and rewar
ding generals. Since the Afghan crisis was portrayed as a conflict between Islam and kufr, activists of many religious outfits fought in the war, who were provided money and arms in a generous way. These militants knew only one way of living — living by the sword. They also needed an enemy. If the enemy was not a Russian, it could be a Muslim of the rival sect. Hence, the training and arms which the militants had received were later used against rival creeds resulting in enormous sectarian violence.