Terrorized Silence

by Baber Sattar

If you are an “aashiq-e-Rasool” (devotee of the Prophet), should you be able to get away with murder? Can we, as a society, justify the cold-blooded murder of Salmaan Taseer by Mumtaz Qadri, merely because this killer believed he was discharging a divine duty? Can a citizen be allowed to execute another summarily in pursuit of a self-defined higher ideal of ‘justice’ not recognised by law, and can such logic be inducted as a valid justification for murder? Isn’t that the story of all psychopaths who pose a threat to society? Must we become apologists for vigilantism and crimes perpetrated in the name of religion, honour and tradition?

Notwithstanding what construct of justice and mode of reasoning one employs, the demand of the mullah brigade (and the anarchist band of lawyers who pelted flowers at a murderer and later ransacked the court that awarded him the death sentence) that Qadri must go scott-free is neither just nor reasonable. The argument against punishing Qadri is that in violating the law, he was actually meting out justice. Or in other words, meting out justice in the name of religion should be treated as justification (like self-defence) for an action that is otherwise a crime (i.e. killing a fellow citizen).

Law, most people agree, doesn’t have the moral authority it claims. But for any legal system to be credible and effective, the pursuit of morality in breach of law must attract penal consequences. What the law does is publicly declare certain rules that everyone is required to abide by. These rules might seem unjust at times, but they are binding. If you break a signal because you’re rushing to the airport to catch a flight, you are doing so with the knowledge that the challan or ticket that you might get as a consequence is an acceptable cost. But you cannot show up in court and justify your defiance of the law because a personal need or calling overrides traffic rules.

Those opposed to the law considered bad or unjust can either try and get it changed, or defy it. But when such defiance is with complete knowledge of the penal consequences that will follow, the punishment that results is not unfair.

Can we placate the frothing mullahs by adding an all-encompassing provision within Pakistan Penal Code holding that anyone whose religious beliefs are incensed by actions of another could legitimately inflict violence on such person? If the mullahs wish to make Qadri their hero for defying the law and killing a fellow human in pursuit of his belief-system, and hang his garlanded photo in their drawing rooms for their kids to emulate, there can be no accounting for such personal choice other than social censure.

But when they come out on the street and use violence to force our legal system and the society to accommodate violent crime and bigotry within the fold of rule of law, such coercive attempt to adulterate the legal system must be resisted forcefully.

There are many in Pakistan who believe that our blasphemy law is unjust, not because they support blasphemy, but because the law in its existing form is liable to abuse and has been abused continually.

The mullah brigade is not interested in a rational debate over the merits of the blasphemy law, as it exists and is applied in Pakistan. But its approach to scuttling debate has been considered and cunning. At step one is the argument that retaining the existing malfunctioning legal provisions related to blasphemy is essential to preempt impassioned ‘aashiq-e-Rasool’ from taking law into their own hands. In other words if law doesn’t allow persecution of those accused, the resulting vigilantism will be justified.

Step two is to condemn all critics of our blasphemy law as blasphemers themselves, who then become legitimate targets for the bigoted brigades. So if Salmaan Taseer is standing up for someone accused of blasphemy, he automatically transforms into a blasphemer and is liable to be killed.

And at step three is the assertion that when the killing of one human being by another is motivated by a higher ideal, such as executing the divinely ordained task of defending the honour of the Prophet, the law should make allowance for such self-assumed duty. As Mumtaz Qadri killed Salmaan Taseer in genuine pursuit of his religious ideals, the criminal justice system ought to treat intent behind such murder as benevolent.

The mullah brigade wishes that crimes of bigotry and hatred in the name of religion be declared as no crimes at all because the underlying intent cannot be deemed guilty. The reasoning being employed here, if accepted, would justify the genocide of non-Muslims and religious minorities in Pakistan. It would legitimise the targeted killing of Hazaras by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi in Balochistan and Shias across Pakistan, and it would condone the slaughter of innocent citizens by the Taliban. The logical outcome of such train of thought is thus ghastly. It would wipe out the possibility of discussion, debate or divergence within the realm of religion.

Such a move for homogeneity in the belief-system of Pakistanis while incapable of succeeding will certainly foster further anarchy and violence. If every Pakistani believes that he/she has a license from God to enforce his/her religious convictions on others, such mindset excludes the possibility of ours being a pluralistic society. If you legitimise violence inflicted on others in the name of religion or declare that the intent to harm others when driven by religious fervour is absolved of guilt, you are merely corrupting your system of justice from within by leaving no objective criteria to determine criminality.

And once you endorse that (i) any individual can assume agency and act as judge, jury and executioner in relation to another citizen if so commanded by his personal religious belief, and (ii) some actions/opinions against established religious dogma, or cultural/tribal values or entrenched concepts of honour are so wrong that any person associated with them doesn’t even deserve the protection of due process of law, you are sounding the death-knell of rule of law and constitutionalism.

But the mullahs are not interested in debating any of this within the sphere of religious thought or on the temporal plain as exhibited by the fact that they killed both Mufti Sarfraz Naeemi and Salmaan Taseer.

The nature of radicalism and intolerance being advocated, practiced and defended by the mullah, if left unchallenged, will gravitate toward more violent extremism. As the mullah’s instrument of persuasion is violence, it works seamlessly when the state chooses to step aside as an indifferent bystander. The ordinary citizen is incapable of confronting the bigotry and coercion of the mullah because no level playing field exists. If you dare to confront the mullah you do so at the peril of being declared an apostate, infidel or heretic, and such a label instantly denudes you of your most fundamental entitlement: the right to life and liberty.

The violent mullah and his reign of terror are not natural products of evolution. They are byproducts of our state policies and priorities. Religious militias cannot sustain themselves unless condoned by the state and treated as part of the national security paraphernalia. Armed religious groups cannot operate freely across Pakistan intimidating people, perpetrating violence and radicalising the society, unless the state conceives such harm as acceptable loss in pursuit of strategic objectives. And religious extremists cannot continue to brainwash our youth, if the state regulates the curriculum of madrassahs and provides free education to all children as our constitution mandates.

Unless the state changes its policy and our civil, military and thought leaders exhibit the courage to stand up to self-proclaimed agents of God, the coercive consensus on issues related to religion will develop into a conformist consensus, leaving little hope for progressive change.

Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu

Source: http://thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=71401&Cat=9&dt=10%2F7%2F2011

India may rue the day it backed Afghan regime

NEW DELHI: India’s decision to underwrite and, in effect, guarantee Hamid Karzai’s feeble Afghan government is not wholly lacking in logic. In a strategic pact signed on Tuesday, the two countries pledged to co-operate on trade and counter-terrorism, and Delhi agreed to train and equip Afghan security forces. With US and Nato forces edging towards the exit in 2014, it follows that Delhi, the region’s military and economic heavyweight and an aspiring superpower, should take up the strategic slack. But that is not how Pakistan or the Taliban will see the newly announced bilateral security, political and commercial “partnership”. India may yet pay heavily for its presumption.

India’s role, or “meddling”, in Afghanistan is already viewed with enormous suspicion in Islamabad, which nurtures a visceral fear of encirclement arising from its bruising, losing wars with its neighbour.

“Pakistan has pursued a double game toward Afghanistan, and using terrorism as a means continues,” Karzai complained this week before travelling to India. Pakistan — or at least elements of its security services — has been accused by Kabul of
complicity in last month’s murder of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the former Afghan president and peace talks negotiator. India, meanwhile, has detected Pakistan’s hand in the bombing of its Kabul embassy in 2008 and 2009, as well as terrorist attacks on Indian soil. Pakistan denies all the allegations.

Demonstrating that he, too, can play both sides against the middle, Karzai offered reassurances on Wednesday that the partnership deal with India was not aimed at Islamabad. “Pakistan is a twin brother, India is a great friend. The agreement that we signed yesterday with our friend will not affect our brother … the signing of the strategic partnership with India is not directed against any country. It is not directed against any other entity,” he said.

Karzai’s sudden attack of tact is not born of bonhomie. It reflects the political reality that a lasting settlement in Afghanistan is impossible without Pakistan’s agreement, or at least acquiescence. Karzai’s attempt to sweeten the pill may also reflect his desire to keep open the possibility of a negotiated settlement with the many-headed Taliban despite the continuing insurgent violence. The Taliban will not have forgotten India’s backing of the non-Pashtun Northern Alliance in the 1990s, which eventually swept them from power in 2001 with US help. The idea of India playing an enhanced security role inside Afghanistan, as agreed in Delhi this week, is thus likely to be rejected by them as more unwelcome foreign interference. Karzai noted bitterly last week that if peace were ever to come to Afghanistan, his government needed to talk to Pakistan, not India or the US.

India has been expanding its involvement in Afghanistan since 2001, opening provincial consulates, embarking on road and infrastructure programmes, and donating about $2bn in bilateral aid. But this week’s agreement represents a substantial and risky increased commitment. Nobody in Delhi is talking about Indian troops or security forces on the ground in Afghanistan.

But the Afghan forces training role India has accepted marks it out as Nato’s successor, and potentially a target for insurgent wrath.

Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister, seemed to brush aside such concerns when he met Karzai. “India will stand by the people of Afghanistan as they prepare to assume responsibility for governance and security after the withdrawal of international forces in 2014,” Singh said. These are fateful words. They may come back to haunt the Indians.India’s leaders one day may come to rue their vainglorious generosity in picking up the hot potato that the US, Britain and the rest all gingerly dropped. It seems a high price to pay for outflanking Pakistan

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/07/india-may-rue-the-day-it-backed-afghan-regime.html

Ideology and intolerance: By Irfan Husain

MOHAMMAD Ali Jinnah visualised the state of Pakistan as “a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent”.

Sadly, he did not specify precisely which sect of Muslims he had in mind. Although a Shia himself, he did not have a sectarian bone in his body.

Indeed, he was secular to the core, and this was the philosophy he bequeathed to the state he had created virtually single-handedly. This was a bequest we tore up even before he was laid to rest.

So as we witness the ongoing massacre of Hazara Shias in Balochistan, we need to take a hard look at the monsters Pakistan has spawned over the years. Management gurus teach us that before we can solve a problem, we must first analyse it to gain a full understanding of the underlying causes.

But given the deep state of denial we prefer to stay in, we shy away from making the logical connection between cause and effect. When elaborating on his ‘two-nation theory’, Mr Jinnah was of the view that Muslims could not live side by side with Hindus in a united India as we were a different nation in terms of values and cultural norms.

This notion led to the partition of India in 1947, and even though millions of Muslims did not — or could not — make their way to the new state, Pakistan was born in a cataclysm of blood and fire. Almost immediately, the hard-line vision of Islam, espoused by Maulana Maududi and his Jamaat-i-Islami, became the ideology of large numbers of right-wing intellectuals and clerics.

However, it wasn’t until Zia seized power in 1977 that this literal strand of Islam became the official ideology of the state.

Some of the hard-line Sunni groups like the Sipah-i-Sahaba came into being in Zia’s period, declaring Shias to be ‘wajib-ul qatal’, or deserving of death. Needless to say, these killers were permitted to thrive by Zia.

Step by step, the notion of separateness at the heart of Partition has fostered a feeling of ‘us against them’. Taken to its illogical extreme by hard-line ideologues and their brainwashed followers, this translates into the belief that those not following their particular school of Islamic thought become ‘wajib-ul qatal’.

Massacres and individual murders resulting from rabid intolerance bearing the spurious stamp of religious orthodoxy are too numerous to cite here. But the recent episodes of the cold-blooded slaughter of Hazara Shias in Balochistan should open the eyes of those wishing to negotiate with the terrorists responsible for these acts.

Another hard-line, anti-Shia group, the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, was quick to claim responsibility for these murders, and yet the state has done nothing to bring this organisation to book.

According to a Human Rights Watch press release, “In Balochistan, some Sunni extremist groups are widely viewed as allies of the Pakistani military, its intelligence agencies and the paramilitary Frontier Corps, which are responsible for security there.

Instead of perpetrating abuses in Balochistan against its political opponents, the military should be safeguarding the lives of members of vulnerable communities under attack from extremist groups”.

But it’s not just in Pakistan that Hazara Shias have been targeted: in Afghanistan, thousands have been killed by the Taliban.

Being a visible ethnic group, they are especially vulnerable to an increasingly vicious and violent Sunni majority. In a blog on this newspaper’s website, Murtaza Haider has cited a revealing doctoral thesis by Syed Ejaz Hussain. According to his research, 90 per cent of all those arrested for committing terrorist attacks in Pakistan between 1990 and 2009 were Sunni Deobandis.

And it’s not just Shias who are being targeted, or Christians, Hindus and Ahmedis: as we have seen time and again, suicide attacks against mosques and Sufi shrines have killed thousands of Sunnis as well. While there are a growing number of extremist groups, they are all united in their intolerance, and their contempt for democratic values and common decency.

Despite the evil these killers represent, there are growing voices in Pakistan demanding that the government negotiate with them. A spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban was quoted recently as saying his group would talk to the government provided it broke off its relationship with the United States and imposed Sharia law in the country.

For a criminal gang to make such demands is preposterous; but for sane, educated Pakistanis to advocate talks with such people is even worse. Instead of insisting that we lock up these terrorists and try them, we are being asked to treat them as a political entity with valid demands.

If we are to ever defeat the hydra-headed monster we have created, our defence establishment will have to acknowledge its huge error in thinking that it could use these killers to further its agenda in Afghanistan and Kashmir. This has provided them with legitimacy, support and impunity. Unless the Pakistani state repudiates all links with extremism in all its forms, outfits like the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi will continue to murder at will within Pakistan, while the Lashkar-e-Taiba creates mayhem in our neighbourhood.

Quite apart from the collapse of the writ of the state caused by the depredations of these groups, and the innocent lives sacrificed at the altar of misplaced expediency, Pakistan has become a pariah in the international community. Increasingly, the use of terrorism as an instrument of policy is making us a scary country with a powerful death wish.

But while we struggle to cope with the rising tide of extremism, we need to step back and examine how and why we arrived at this abyss.

Clearly, it did not happen overnight. Looking back, we can see that the demand for separate electorates for Muslims in British India over 100 years ago was a major historical fork in the road. By conceding to this demand from a group of Muslim aristocrats as part of their divide-and-rule policy, the British tried to ensure that the two major religious communities would not unite against them.

However, we do not have the luxury of blaming our predicament on past imperial policies. The British are long gone, and the barbarians are poised to capture the state. We still have a choice, but if we don’t act quickly, we risk joining the ranks of failed states like Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/08/ideology-and-intolerance.html