“Pakistan’s involvement in the Afghan war also strengthened the notion that Pakistan should be made the citadel of Islam and that it is the duty of Pakistanis to actively support Muslim resistance movements all over the world. The Soviet humiliation in Afghanistan also made the jihadis believe that they can defeat an adversary however strong. Hence, the jihadis made their way into India, China, Chechnya and elsewhere. In turn, Pakistan received militants from different parts of the world. The jihadis’ infiltration into China was the main reason why Beijing stopped supporting Pakistan on the Kashmir issue,” Mr Naqvi explained.
“Where would you fit in ideology here,” Ali queried.
“The jihadis would also have us believe that Islam provides only for a monolithic society in which different cultures or sub-cultures cannot co-exist; rather they have to be merged with the so-called Islamic culture. If preaching cannot effect that merger, force can be, and must be, used. If such an interpretation of Islam were to be accepted, then the use of force to remove cultural diversity would become legitimate and freedom of conscience, which underlies all moral freedom, become meaningless. There would be only one creed and one moral code, not by choice but by force. Such an interpretation of Islam would not only divest society of all ethical freedom but also breed mayhem and chaos as jihadis would wade through blood if need be to purge society of what they consider to be un-Islamic beliefs and practices,” Mr Naqvi answered.
“What has been the role of the madaris?” Mrs Naqvi asked.
“In breeding and nurturing religious militancy,” Mr Naqvi said, “the madaris have played a lethal role. The pen is bloodier than the sword and this is perfectly applicable to our madaris. The madaris teach negation, and hence repudiation, of doctrines, rituals and moral standards different from theirs. Hence, those who profess a different creed or have a different moral standard are looked upon as evil. Women who do not put on veil or men who do not have a beard are considered impious. Men and women who mix with one another are regarded as essentially wicked. Those who listen to music are deemed to commit a grave sin. All such wicked or impious people have to be reformed — by the use of force if need be.
“The education imparted in the madaris instead of inculcating in students a dispassionate quest for truth or at least enabling them to take to some socially useful profession, indoctrinates in them hatred for other creeds. The students are taught that only their creed is based on truth, whereas the rest are an incarnation of evil whose elimination is a most sacred duty of theirs. The reward of performing that duty, they are taught, is an everlasting life of pleasure in the paradise. Most of the students owing to their impressionable age come to believe this stuff. Hence, when they leave their institutions, their hearts are filled with the strong desire to carry out their sacred duty. The madaris also churn out sectarian propaganda in the form of inflammatory literature, which denounces followers of rival creeds as kafirs, who must either be coerced into conversion or exterminated.
“It is such an erroneous view of Islam that lies behind religious extremism in Pakistan, which has expressed itself in sectarian violence, suicide blasts, burning of schools and video shops. No doubt, growing injustices in society, poverty and illiteracy have also contributed to terrorism. But one needs to be mindful of the fact that terrorism also has an ideological basis and in case of Pakistan the ideological basis is provided by the monolithic-cum-militant view of Islam,” Mr Naqvi finished.
“What about Pakistan’s post 9-11 alliance with America?” Ali asked.
“Blaming America for the instability and violence in Pakistan would not solve the problem. Nor should we expect Washington to change its strategy for the sake of Pakistan. No country will do that. The US Afghan policy is dictated by what it perceives to be its national interest. At best, we can try and convince the Americans that their tactics, such as drone attacks, will weaken efforts to defeat militancy. But the basic responsibility for defeating militants remains our own,” Mr Naqvi explained.
“Then what’s the solution to the problem?” Ali queried.
“Well the solution lies with us,” Mr Naqvi answered. “The government will have to fight on many fronts. Strong action needs to be taken against the militants who do not surrender. There has to be a real fight against poverty and injustices, so that people do not become a tool in the hands of terrorist outfits out of desperation and frustration. The government should also fight religious extremism on ideological front. The view propagated by successive governments and even today by religious parties that Pakistan was meant to be a theocratic, monolithic state and a citadel of Islam and that it is our duty to practically support Muslim resistance movements all over the world needs to be corrected. It is largely because of such misleading views that Pakistan has become a fortress of terrorism, upon which religious extremists from all-over the world look as their refuge. This is how, my son, I look upon the terrorism problem in our society,” Mr Naqvi said.
Ali had fruitful discussion with his parents on terrorism and he considered himself fortunate that he had such enlightened and considerate parents with whom he could discuss anything. The account that his parents had given him was essentially political. But now the problem before him was how to go beyond politics to treat terrorism as a philosophical problem. Moreover, he felt that his father had shown him only one side of the picture.
“Can the problem of terrorism simply be attributed to Pakistan’s involvement in the American war against the USSR? Doesn’t the problem go deeper? Are the terrorists only villains?” he thought.
“Being a student of philosophy, I need to go beyond popular views to arrive at a profounder appreciation of the problem. This alone will make terrorism a philosophical problem.” Accordingly, Ali decided to seek the guidance of his professors and the foremost name that came to his mind was Dr Junaid.
Chapter 24
Dr Junaid acceded to Ali’s request and asked him to come to his residence in the evening.
Dr Junaid’s spacious house was situated in the centre of the city, not very far from Ali’s. The professor was a confirmed bachelor and his only companion in the house was an old family servant. The latter received Ali at the entrance and took him to a compound on the back of the house, where Dr Junaid was reading a newspaper. He warmly received Ali and ordered tea for both.
“You said you wanted to discuss the terrorism issue with me.”
“Yes sir. I have to make a presentation before Prof Rameez and the rest of the class next week; so I thought it would be of tremendous help to me if I seek your guidance,” Ali replied politely.
“Ok. I’m glad you’re coming out of your shell and will help you whatever I can.”
“Sir there is a split on the causes of terrorism in our society. One view is that it’s the gift of Pakistan’s post 9/11 alliance with the USA. The other view is that it is the fruit of our role in America’s proxy war against the former USSR in Afghanistan. Where does the truth lie?” Ali enquired.
“The complete truth lies in neither view, though I must say there’s an element of truth in both,” Dr Junaid began. “Actually we as a nation have the incorrigible habit of ascribing our sins and shortcomings, failures and faults to others. We are wont to believing that America or India or Israel is out to ruin us and fail to see and accept our own faults. Pakistan is not the only ally of America but why is Pakistan facing terrorism in a way no other American ally is doing? Can you answer this question?”
Without waiting for an answer from Ali, Dr Junaid continued: “Whatever your answer, it’s clear that if American alliance per se — post Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or post 9/11 — was the cause of terrorism, then every American ally would face the same effect, as similar causes tend to produce similar effects. But this is hardly the case. Look at the countries in the Middle East. They are Muslims as well as staunch American allies but they are not facing terrorism, at least not on the scale we are facing. So we’ll have to look for the causes elsewhere. Remember the definition of ‘cause’— the set of ne
cessary and sufficient conditions to produce an effect. So apply this definition and I’m sure you’ll arrive at the answer.”
“So it means we may rule out the causal link between terrorism on one hand and being an American ally or being a Muslim state or both on the other,” Ali observed.
“Now you are on the right track my dear student,” Dr Junaid remarked. “Once you have eliminated the wrong links, you can find the right ones.”
“But sir what about being a neighbour of Afghanistan?” Ali asked.
“Iran is also Afghanistan’s neighbour as well as a Muslim state and it doesn’t have these problems,” Dr Junaid replied.
“But sir, with due respect, Iran is not an American ally.”
“Before the Islamic revolution, Iran was the staunchest of US allies,” Dr Junaid returned calmly. “You see, you have assumed for no good reason that the roots of terrorism consist in Pakistan’s foreign policy, in particular its alliance with the US. This is preventing you from looking for the indigenous factors.”
Meanwhile, Dr Junaid’s servant came back with tea and having put the tray on the table went back quietly.
“And what are those indigenous factors?” Ali asked.
“This you’ll have to find out yourself. I’m against spoon feeding. However, I can show you the direction,” Dr Junaid told Ali and then asked, “Have you studied the Pakistan movement?”
“Yes sir, but I’m afraid only in textbooks.”
“Ok. Why do you think Pakistan was created?”
“Sir because the Hindus were deadly against Muslims and Islam and after the British had left India, they would have crushed Muslims politically, economically and culturally. So in order to protect Muslim identity and rights, Pakistan was created.” Ali presented a widely accepted view.
“Let’s admit for the sake of argument that Pakistan was created for the reasons that you have enumerated. However, one thing is clear — that India was bifurcated on the basis of religion. There was no other basis, otherwise East and West Pakistan wouldn’t have merged. Now when you create a state on the basis of religion — in this case Islam whom its adherents claim to be a universal religion which transcends geographic and ethnic boundaries — and get tremendous popular support for that cause, you are promising a definite shape that the state would take in future. Name a single other Muslim state which was created on the basis of religion.”
“I can’t recall.”
“You can never, because Pakistan is the only Muslim state created on the basis of religion. Now when you establish a state in the name of religion, you make it an ideological entity and in such an entity, the ideology should reign supreme. Now what is Islamic ideology? That Muslims all over the world constitute one nation — the milat as it is called — and that the political and economic system of the state would be based on Islamic ideals. Pakistan thus was to be an Islamic state, which should serve as the centre of Muslim unity,” Dr Junaid opined.
“But sir if that were the case, then how do you see Mr Jinnah’s historic address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, where he categorically stated that the state would not discriminate on the basis of religion?” Ali asked.
“Mr Jinnah’s statement corroborates rather than contradicts my position. The address in fact was a damage control measure. Mr Jinnah knew well that a state carved out on the basis of Islam should be an Islamic state and being a constitutional expert par excellence, he also knew well what an Islamic state should be. So he decided to give a new vision for the new state, which was at variance with the principles which underlay the Pakistan movement and which he himself had championed, Dr Junaid maintained.”
“Why did he do that?”
“Do I need to answer? Find an answer yourself. But let’s move ahead. The creation of Pakistan created a tension between those who maintained that it should be an Islamic state — we may call them Islamists — and those who were of the view that the state should have nothing to do with religion — likewise we may call them secularists of course for the sake of convenience. This tension persists to date. It is in this tension that you may search the roots of terrorism,” Dr Junaid advised Ali.
“I’ll do so definitely. But sir why has this tension gone violent? Why is Islam, which is essentially a religion of peace, is being projected as a militant religion, which sanctions, nay encourages bloodshed?”
Dr Junaid took a deep breath and then said: “It’s a very pertinent question and to me the key to solving the riddle. Your question warrants a detailed answer. However, to save our time and to encourage you to think for yourself, I’ll be brief. I know it’s customary to point the finger at the madaris, which allegedly glorify violence in the name of jihad. I’m no defender of madaris as an independent system of education. But those who hold the seminaries responsible for violence commit the familiar post hoc fallacy. You must be aware that Pakistan is not the only country where seminaries exist. So if madaris were the cause of terrorism, it would be a universal problem. In fact in countries like Iran, the impact of madaris is much stronger.
“Coming to the secularists-religionists tension, it’s not merely a religious issue, it has also strong political and economic dimensions. The establishment of an Islamic system will re-distribute political and economic power, which I’m afraid our elite class — the so-called modernist, liberal, enlightened people — is not willing to accept, because they have high stakes in the preservation of the status quo. Who has ruled us since we became independent? Not the clergy but a bunch of feudals and capitalists. So in a nutshell, religious tension is potentially violent, because religion is one thing people are prepared to die for. And when this religious tension has political and economic dimensions as well, violence is likely to erupt.”
“Sir last question: Is there a way out? Is making Pakistan an Islamic state the solution to the problem?”
”I doubt it. It’s too late to establish an Islamic state now. If an Islamic state is established here, it may be as reactionary as the one established by the Taliban in Afghanistan and will probably meet a similar fate. The solution lies in the real change — in political and economic transformation rather than mere transition. How this change can be effected? Well, think for yourself.”
Ali’s discussion with Dr Junaid had answered several of his questions but at the same time it raised several new ones. He credited Dr Junaid with showing him another side of terrorism, which traced its roots to as far back as the country’s conception. He had now enough material to prepare his presentation and all he had to do was to sift through the material and to come out with a coherent thesis, though he felt that sixty minutes were grossly insufficient to do justice to the topic. He also felt that the problem of terrorism had captured his interest and therefore decided to study it in depth. He also considered whether he should write his thesis on it but couldn’t decide and therefore shelved the decision until he was through with the presentation.
While leaving for the university on the day he was to make his presentation, Ali was very tense. He had never made a presentation before and the thought that everyone in the class would be looking at him for one and half an hour was enough to make him jittery. Besides, the topic on which he would be speaking was a controversial one and his classmates might not agree with him and grill him with their questions. But at the same time, he was confident that he had properly researched the problem and if everything went well he could handle that.
The hour came and after Prof Rameez’s introductory remarks, Ali was called to the rostrum. He began nervously and struggled to speak coherently and clearly. He looked at the faces of his classmates and saw lack of interest or disapproval in them. However, he noticed Sara looking at him keenly and sympathetically with a friendly smile, which reassured him and helped him partly get over his nervousness.
However, that wasn’t enough and after half an hour he realized that he was getting nowhere. The facts that he had memorized and the arguments that he had constructed seemed to have largely
slipped his memory. Clueless and directionless, Ali left the rostrum in grave dejection.
“All right it wasn’t a bad presentation considering that it was Ali’s first, though I must say it could have been far more focused, coherent and clear,” Prof Rameez tried to play down Ali’s disappointing performance. “Now Ali will take your questions and comments.”
Riaz was the first to raise his hand and after a nod from the professor said,” I’m sorry Ali but your presentation has made only one thing clear and that is that you are totally unclear about the problem of terrorism in our country both as to its genesis and its resolution. This was my observation and now my question is whether the real problem that we are facing is not insurgency but state terrorism?”
The Black Rainbow Page 23
