RSN Singh is a former R&AW officer and the author of Asian Strategic and Military Perspective and The Military Factor in Pakistan. He is Associate Editor, Indian Defence Review.
The deal signed between the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat Muhammadi (TNSM) leader Sufi Mohammed and the Pakistan authorities, whereby the latter have agreed to impose Shariah Rule in the Malakand region, which includes the Swat Valley, exposes the serious fissures and inadequacies that bedevil the Pakistani state.
Once again, it clearly reiterates that religion has miserably failed as a unifying force in Pakistan and in its attainment of nationhood. In effect, it is a triumph of fundamentalist forces over the moderates. It also amounts to a tacit admission that the security forces of Pakistan do not have the ability and confidence to force a solution to the insurgency and writ of the Taliban and its ilk.
Most importantly, the deal gives away Pakistan’s equivocation and duplicity with regard to its cooperation in dealing with the jihadi forces. The New York Times journalist David E Sanger, in his book, The Inheritance,’ says that the Director of National Intelligence of US, in May 2008, was privy to a telephone-tap transcript in which General Kiyani described the Taliban leader and the progenitor of suicide cult, Jalaluddin Haqqani, as ‘a strategic asset.’ Later, some calls originating from the Pakistan military units were intercepted, wherein Haqqani was advised to relocate with his cadres in view of the impending operations.
Also read: Use of Irregulars: Bane for the Pakistan Army
The deal between the TNSM and Pakistan authorities is significant in the backdrop of President Zardari’s recent statement on US's CBS TV that the Taliban was in control of large tracts of the country and was trying to takeover Pakistan. He also admitted that Pakistan was fighting for its survival.
There are many diplomatic facets to President Zardari’s statement. First, that he has tried to salvage Pakistan’s international position by implying that the country is a victim and not a perpetrator of terrorism. Second, the Taliban phenomenon impacts as much on Pakistan as on American interests in Afghanistan. Third, by saying that “it’s been happening over time and it’s happened out of denial”, he sought to deliver the message that Pakistan under his leadership was more sincere in the fight against terrorism, than his predecessors, who had been hoodwinking the international community particularly the US.
This was a clear move by President Zardari to placate the US administration under President Obama, which has adopted a tough posture with regard to Pakistan’s cooperation in the fight against international terror. Fourth, President Zardari has probably tried to earn political reprieve, as it is widely felt that without the US signal or tacit support, no regime change can take place in Pakistan, given the current acute economic and other vulnerabilities of the country.
Fifth, he may have tried to earn international goodwill and leverage over the other two centers of power in the country i.e., the Prime Minister and the military, with whom he has been lately extremely uncomfortable. Sixth, his statements may have been meant to act as antidote to the already decided move to enter into an agreement with the TNSM and impose Shariah Rule in the Malakand region. As it is, the anti-US Taliban and other fundamentalists in Pakistan’s tribal region have increasingly come to view President Zardari as an American stooge, who has surrendered Pakistan’s sovereignty.
Time to divide Pakistan?
In August 1998, Nawaz Sharif as the Prime Minister had moved the 15th Amendment Bill in the parliament to enforce the rule by Islamic Law. Lamenting on the provisions of the bill, a Sindhi parliamentarian Abdul Hamid Jatoi, during the proceedings in the lower house, said, “Mr Speaker, I feel like crying …… Ours is a beautiful country. For God’s sake don’t break it up.” However the bill was passed.
Owen Bennet Jones in his book, Pakistan: Eye of the Storm, maintains that he (Sharif) probably “never fully understood that the Shariah Bill would have fundamentally altered the nature of Pakistan state. As far as he was concerned, it would improve law and order in the country and remove irritating constraints on his power such as Parliament and Constitution.” Before the Senate (Upper House) could have passed the bill, Musharraf had removed Nawaz Sharif. Permitting the Shariat in the Malakand region is therefore a huge concession to radical Islam, and as such accentuates the bisecting line between the fundamentalist Islam and moderate Islam.
Why is Pakistan Indo-centric?
Don Belt, in his article Struggle for the Soul of Pakistan in National Geographic magazine, has painted a very tellingly vivid picture of the exact scenario as it stands today: “If there is an address, an exact location for the rift tearing Pakistan apart, and possibly the world, it is a spot 17 miles (28 kilometers) west of Islamabad called the Margalla Pass.
Here, at a limestone cliff in the middle of Pakistan, the mountainous west meets the Indus River Valley and two ancient, and very different civilisations collide. To the southeast, unfurled to the horizon, lie the fertile lowlands of the Indian subcontinent, realm of peasant farmers on steamy plots of land, bright with colours and the splash of serendipitous gods. To the west and north stretch the harsh, windswept mountains of Central Asia, land of herders and raiders on horseback, where man fears one God and takes no prisoners.
This is also where two conflicting forms of Islam meet: the relatively relaxed and tolerant Islam of India, versus the rigid fundamentalism of the Afghan frontier. Beneath the surface of Pakistan, these opposing forces grind against each other like two vast geologic plates, rattling teacups from Lahore to London, Karachi to New York. The clash between moderates and extremists in Pakistan today reflects this rift, and can be seen as a microcosm for a larger struggle among Muslims everywhere. So when the earth trembles in Pakistan, the world pays attention.”
The future of the people of the Malakand region, who had voted for secular parties i.e., the Awami National Party and Pakistan Peoples Party, has been mortgaged to the fundamentalist forces. The leader of the TNSM, Sufi Mohammad, and his son-in-law Maulana Fazlullah, also known as Maulana FM; have terrorized the docile people of the region by criminal enforcement of their brand of Islamic code. Music and all forms of entertainment have been banned. Women are their special targets. Girls have been forbidden from attending schools and colleges, and are punished for not observing the prescribed dress code. Men not supporting beard are also meted out harsh punishment.
The imposition of Shariat, in fact, amounts to two parallel justice systems in Pakistan, one extremely harsh and the other based on informed jurisprudence. While, the prevalence of medieval Islamic laws has been a feature in FATA and other tribal areas of Pakistan, its extension and Talibanization to the Swat Valley, which till sometime ago was the most favoured tourist destination in Pakistan, is a grim indication of the increasing influence and clout of the Taliban.
Pervez Hoodbhoy, a professor of Physics in the Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, avers: “The common belief in Pakistan is that Islamic radicalism is a problem only in FATA, and that madrassas are the only institutions serving as jihad factories. This is a serious misconception. Extremism is breeding at a ferocious rate in public and private schools within Pakistan’s towns and cities. Left unchallenged, this education will produce a generation incapable of co-existing with anyone except strictly their own kind. The mindset it creates may eventually lead to Pakistan’s demise as a nation state.”
External link: Pervez Hoodbhoy on the Saudi-isation of Pakistan
The Pakistan-Afghanistan region today stands at a defining moment. Since it has emerged the epicenter of global terrorism, the course this region takes, will determine the security of not only of India, but the entire world. It will also impact on the religious discourse of the Islamic countries. The fight against terrorism by the NATO forces will not yield enduring results unless the religious and psychological causes are addressed. To address these, the rudimentary imperative is the rollback of Islamic fundamentalism.
Images: Pak to arm village militias to fight terror
And this rollback has to begin from the Pashtun belt straddling Pakistan and Afghanistan. The world cannot afford to lose this war against terror, as it will amount to ushering of medieval forces in the world arena with all its pernicious concomitants. It is rather essential for survival of Pakistan itself.
Therefore, any internal policy of the Pakistan dispensation that militates against this ongoing war against terror should not be permitted by the international community. If Pakistan security forces are incapable of tackling the terrorists and the radical elements, then direct intervention by other countries in the interest of their own security and global peace is justified.
The views expressed in the column are the author’s and not of Sify.com
Courtesy: Indian Defence Review
| Slide Shows | Columns | Calendar
Share | 
Print | Rate 
