The Dawn, Pakistan July 22, 2005
Once again, alas, the usual suspects
By Ayaz Amir
HOW many crackdowns constitute a crackdown? Every time the finger of suspicion or blame points at Pakistan for some act of terrorism, General Musharraf orders a crackdown on "extremist elements". The police respond by rounding up the usual suspects.
Mosques and seminaries are raided, maulvis and madressah students are arrested and strong statements denouncing religious extremism are issued. Taken in by this sound and fury, many people are led to believe that the crackdown this time is for real.
Soon the fever subsides and it is back to business as usual, until the next alarm sounds and the government of Pakistan again bends to the necessity of rounding up the usual suspects. It has happened before; after the London bombings it has happened again: same response, same statements, same grim looks, and similar arrests. The difference this time is that given the embarrassment of a Pakistani-origin connection to the London bombings, the authorities here seem determined to round up double the number of the usual suspects.
In the order of battle devised for Islamabad, it has become almost standard practice to raid the Lal Masjid and the instructional seminary attached to it in Aabpara whenever the authorities feel constrained to launch another campaign against religious extremism. This is what happened some months ago, it has happened again, male and female students being roughed up during the latest police action.
Question is: if Lal Masjid and its seminary are such a hotbed of extremism, why should it take the London bombings for the authorities to move against them? Lal Masjid, mind you, is in the heart of Islamabad, less than half a mile from that holy of holies, ISI headquarters. Do such actions convince anyone?
True, responding to the absurdity of the police raid on Lal Masjid, the authorities have belatedly woken up. Heads have rolled, the entire police lineup in the capital — inspector-general, superintendent, etc. being transferred. Far from impressing anyone, this just goes to highlight the collective sum of national efficiency.
If incompetence of this magnitude can be allowed full scope in the capital itself, right under the nose of the federal government, imagine the state of play, the state of law and order, and the efficiency of the police in the rest of the country. This after six years of Musharraf rule: not a very flattering reflection on the present order. It bears remembering that Gen Musharraf declared war on religious extremism way back in January 2002, some three and a half years ago. Hot on the heels of that declaration, came another one in June the same year. Extremist organizations were banned once, then twice.
Since then the Pakistan Army has fought pitched battles against suspected extremist elements along the Pakistan-Afghan border, suffering heavy casualties in the process. The Americans have been allowed to install sophisticated surveillance equipment at our major airports to keep a tab on outgoing and incoming passengers. The jamming devices in the Mercedes cars used by our high-ups have come as gifts from America. Gen Musharraf has escaped two attempts on his life, Shaukat Aziz one.
All this shows that if in the past Pakistan was an exporter of religious extremism, it no longer is, having learned the hard way the consequences of creating a (Frankenstein) monster. There is nothing fake, therefore, about our conversion although it must be admitted in the same breath that the quickness of our conversion had a great deal to do with American persuasion. Left to its own devices, the military establishment might have been tempted to keep mouthing the old platitudes about holy war in Afghanistan and Kashmir. For this small mercy at least we must be grateful.
But the point remains that if our conversion is genuine, and there is nothing to suggest it is not, why should Pakistan be put on the defensive when a Pakistani connection, strong or remote, is uncovered in any terrorist act across the globe? Why the need to play these games? If we are following a steady course and there is no dichotomy in our thinking, then there should not be any need for us to stage sound-and-light shows to impress outside opinion.
A Pakistani connection to the London bombings is sad but at the same time understandable. After all, under military sponsorship and guidance, Pakistan took pride in being a laboratory of jihad for well over 20 years, there being no madness in Afghanistan in which we were not involved. With a legacy this long it takes time for all its manifestations to be eliminated.
As for the Iraq angle to terrorism today, thankfully we have nothing to do with it. Just as we earned our terrorism spurs in Afghanistan, the United States and United Kingdom are earning theirs in Iraq. Even as George Bush and Tony Blair inveigh against terrorism, their misguided venture in Iraq is doing more than Osama bin Laden ever could to strengthen it.
But it is for America and Britain to clean up their mess. We have to clean up ours and in the litany of national problems fanaticism gone berserk figures somewhere at the top. But how do we lick it? Not by parading the usual suspects when expediency so dictates but — and if this is not asking for too much — by recasting national policy to ensure the retreat of militarism and the primacy of democracy. If Musharraf and his generals are serious about ridding Pakistan of religious extremism this is the choice they have to make.
Indeed, this is the only real answer to religious extremism. Remember, the madressah phenomenon, far from developing in a vacuum, or having a life of its own, was an outgrowth of the military establishment's commitment to the politics of jihad. Just as western money today has contributed to the phenomenal growth of the NGO sector, back then Saudi and Iranian money, Sunni and Shia Islam competing with each other and turning Pakistan into a battlefield, went into madressahs. The only thing that can reverse this trend on an enduring basis is democracy.
To recapitulate a tired argument, of course our democrats are no angels and when in power they did foolish and reprehensible things. But that is not the point. You get the wrong sort of people in every democracy. American politicians can do foolish things, ask Clinton. India had its Bofors scandal and Narasimha Rao faced corruption charges. But you don't bring the entire edifice of democracy down as a consequence as we, or rather the military, tend to do in Pakistan.
Mistakes are made, even folly committed, but elections are held, new governments are elected and life goes on. If we are serious about getting out of the woods we have to learn this lesson somehow.
If Pakistan instead has honed the talent of sliding backwards, it is not because there is anything wrong with its people, or because they are unfit for anything better, but simply because the military won't allow other institutions to develop. Look where this tendency has led us. Far from weakening the mullahs, Musharraf inadvertently, or perhaps consciously, has strengthened them.
He has played the mullahs against the democratic parties and ensured that these parties remain weak and divided. This has worked to the benefit of the mullahs. Never much of a political power to reckon with, now, thanks to Musharraf, they are. So what are we to make of his actions? Even as he preaches "enlightened moderation", he presides over a dispensation which is neither of these things. And he shows not the slightest sign of learning anything from the history of Pakistan or indeed from the history of the last six years.
We'll get more speeches about doing the right thing, no doubt about that. But where's the action and where the willingness to sacrifice personal gain for the larger good of the country?