Civil Society
under Threat
By Shireen M Mazari
The threat to
civil society from violent extremists is not something
we in the urban areas of the country can view as
an occurrence in the remote tribal areas of the
country. We in civil society have watched with trepidation
and sorrow the extremists using violence in the
NWFP to prevent barbers from shaving, to destroy
video stores and enforce closure of schools, with
the state being ineffectual to enforce its writ
in the face of these violent challenges. But we
have remained mere silent spectators as we went
about our own lives.
And so the threat has come to haunt us in the capital
Islamabad itself -- thanks to the conciliatory approach
of the state in dealing with lawbreakers who happen
to be armed zealots. When the Jamia Hafsa students
first challenged the law and law enforcement agencies
as they occupied the Children's Library, some of
us had suggested a strong response to send a message
to civil society that breaking of the law will not
be tolerated. Instead, there was an air of appeasement
with dialogues going on with the lawbreakers and
even accommodation in terms of some of their demands.
Sensing the state's self-created vulnerability,
the Jamia Hafsa brigade stood their ground and continued
the occupation of the library.
Seeing no effort by the state to challenge them
and dislodge them from their occupation -- in fact
seeing some politicians actually supporting them
-- over the period of weeks and months since the
occupation began in January 2007, they moved a step
further in their violence and went on a rampage
threatening video store owners and even women in
private homes -- with accusations of immorality.
The sanctity of home and hearth fell by the wayside
in this extremist agenda. Even more audacious, they
managed to kidnap members of the law enforcement
agencies also! And when the police fought back and
arrested some of their co-conspirators, political
pressure was put on them to immediately release
these captives! So once again the Jamia Hafsa ladies
(or so we assume since no one can tell who is beneath
the covering) and their male supporters from the
Lal Masjid madressah seemed to have won the challenge
to the law of the land and the law enforcement agencies.
It is no wonder the average citizen, especially
women, are feeling a direct threat to their existence.
After all, it would appear that the state has tacitly
given these perpetrators of violence a free run
of the capital instead of dealing with them according
to the law. But then, already we were seeing the
police turn into a threat rather than a source of
protection when we saw them launch their assault
on the non-functional Chief Justice and Geo Television.
So far no high up heads have rolled on this count
either. So it seems if you have the force, you can
implement your extremist agendas with no fear. As
for those politicians, who have insisted on the
state tolerating this violent extremism, they are
deliberately undermining not only the government's
standing amongst the electorate at large -- because
the extremists are a minority in terms of electoral
power -- but also the state and nation as a whole.
After all, it hardly does Pakistan's image any good
to be seen as a state which cannot enforce its writ
right in its heartland -- and it does no good to
have the nation as a whole living in a state of
fear from extremist violence with a perception that
the enforcers of the law will do nothing to protect
the average citizen.
So what are our options? First and foremost the
state must move in an uncompromising manner to deal
with the lawbreakers. No citizen can be seen to
have the right to challenge the law and get away
with it through the use of violence. No citizen
should be able to hold a citizenry to ransom through
the threat of violence. There can be no room for
private vigilantes and self-appointed assertors
of a bizarre and extremist "morality".
All agendas must find their expression through the
law of the land and electoral politics.
Equally important, how long will the silent majority,
professionals such as doctors, teachers, lawyers,
bankers as well as housewives and the many others,
who want to simply be allowed to lead their lives
safely, will go on living under this threat? It
is time for all these sane voices to be heard --
especially within the capital where these voices
are now directly under threat from the stick-wielding
minority. If the Jamia Hafsa group can use violence
to flaunt their limited support within civil society,
the rest of us must show our larger electoral support
through a public but peaceful display of the same.
And let the law and the state protect us in a proactive
fashion, before we come to regard ourselves as living
in a state of anarchy with no rule of law. So far,
this is the growing perception and no society can
develop in such a fear-filled environment. As for
all claims of enlightenment and moderation, for
those of us who are actually committed to these
principles even when they had not acquired official
patronage there is a growing sense that they are
gradually being confined to declaratory claims but
little is being done to enforce these principles
in the face of retrogressive challenges.
In the context of political realism, it is false
to assume that in an election year the forces of
violent extremism need to be accommodated. While
dialogue with all political factions is to be welcomed
and religious parties must be part of the political
mainstream, no one should be given the sense that
somehow they are above the law -- and certainly
those who are determined to enforce their writ through
violence should not be given an iota of accommodation.
Otherwise the message being sent to the rest of
civil society is be armed or be harmed.
That is indeed what seems to be happening today
as a recent incident in PIMS shows. While the story
has come out in the papers, what has not come out
is what reflects the malaise prevailing within the
domestic polity today. An SHO abuses a nurse and
doctor, then calls his thana people while the doctor
calls Rescue 15 and fisticuffs follow with the cop
bringing out his gun. When the Director Emergency
tries to sort things out, he gets slapped by the
police and a brawl follows between all the doctors
present and the cops. This is what the police now
do regularly with unarmed civilians even as they
kowtow before danda-wielding lawbreakers.
Equally important the incident also reflects the
inner rage and frustration amongst civil society
against a police force that is seen more as a threat
rather than a source of protection. There is something
inherently absurd with this state of affairs, where
the rage of frustration within the silent majority
is surfacing fast as it gets caught between threats
from the police on the one hand and armed vigilantes
on the other. In this shameful state of affairs,
how long will it be before all of civil society
descends into a state of armed anarchy a la Jamia
Hafsa style?
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
