Besieged Internally
and Externally
By Shireen M. Mazari
As the country continues
to reel from the aftermath of the events of May
12 and the acts of violence and terror that have
followed, we in Islamabad continue to be confronted
with the growing power of the extremist law breakers
of the Jamia Hafsa-Lal Masjid combine. While for
the other urban centers of Pakistan, the extremist
terrorism still remains at a distance, for us in
Islamabad, the unreal nightmare continues as we
witness the black comedy being enacted by the law
enforcement personnel and decision makers in response
to the growing challenge thrown to the state by
these extremist terrorist forces.
We have seen the ridiculous scenario being repeated,
ad nauseam, of law enforcement personnel coming
in with what is assumed will be an operation to
end the siege of Aabpara by these law breaking extremists
and then we see the forces of the state backing
off with no action having been taken. Meanwhile,
the extremist terrorists are becoming ever more
emboldened and have directly begun challenging not
only the authority and laws of the state, but also
the law enforcement personnel themselves. So far,
they have managed to kidnap, at will, police personnel,
as bargaining tools and the state seems to be showing
a strange helplessness. The show of force it mobilizes
is dissipated as rapidly when the Jamia Hafsa-Lal
Masjid combine makes a tactical gesture of releasing
some of the police personnel. Meanwhile, the extremists,
very much in the fascist mode, are gaining media
access through interviews and columns in the English
language press obviously targeting an audience beyond
Pakistan.
The argument by the state that they cannot use force
because of the collateral damage and its fallout
is losing its credibility as the extremists widen
the area of their control and operations. The roads
around the Jamia Hafsa have been cordoned off by
these fascists and their supporters from the Jamia
Fareedia in E-7 have joined the terrorization of
state and society far beyond the Aabpara area. Tolerance
for these lawbreakers has given them an upper hand
in the standoff with the state. As for the collateral
damage so far, the civil society is reeling from
this because of the inability –- it surely
cannot be a deliberate unwillingness -– of
the state to deal with this law and order challenge
posed by the extremist terrorists.
So cowed down has the citizenry become that barring
a few words of protest by individuals, there was
no civil society protest at the attack by a religious
extremist against a woman professor of Quaid-i-Azam
University. In days gone by, the teachers association
would have held suitable protests and so would the
students -– supported by WAF and other societal
NGOs. But not so this time. Certainly there is a
feeling of frustrated resignation about the inability
of civil society to impact the state with its peaceful
protests. But, there is also a feeling of extreme
vulnerability because of the state's seeming acquiescence
of this extremist terrorism right in the heart of
the capital.
As for an anticipated civil society fallout following
civilian collateral damage from state action, surely
the civil society is far more distressed at the
way in which fascist forces can indulge in violence
as and when they please while innocent people are
left defenseless. In any event, action by the state
can also include options like jamming of communication
systems, turning off utilities and use of water
cannons and other non-lethal means of ending an
occupation. We may not have a highly educated and
prosperous populace, but we do have well-budgeted,
strong and well-equipped law enforcement organizations,
including paramilitary forces and, of course, one
of the most cohesive and strong national organizations
-- the military. When will they protect the nation
from the forces of fascism and extremist terrorists,
because we have to believe that no one in officialdom
can be suicidal enough to have any truck with these
forces of hate and destruction? So why is the mainstream
civil society being left to feel under siege with
no state protection?
It is this feeling of extreme vulnerability that
is also allowing our external detractors to attack
us at will. The Afghan government, still occupied
or at least inundated, by foreign forces, has had
the gall to challenge us at the international border
by amassing its "forces" -– and
we have kept a stoic silence. We have had the British
High Commissioner hold forth, viceregally, on our
internal political issues and by the time our Foreign
Office woke up to summon him he was gone. Incidentally,
we do need to take up the issue of British citizens
inciting hatred in Pakistan, especially since we
are about to initial a prisoner exchange treaty
which does not look after our interests in terms
of extradition of criminals to Pakistan, as much
as it does British interests. British hypocrisy
on the extradition treaty -– that the UK cannot
sign such a treaty with a country that has capital
punishment -– stands exposed because the UK
had an extradition treaty of 1972 with the US which
has now been replaced by the new extradition treaty
of 2003, which entered into force in April 2007.
The issue of capital punishment is dealt with under
Article 7.
In any event, all British nationals suspected of
inciting hatred and terrorism including overseas,
stand vulnerable under three British laws relating
to incitement of hatred and violence, either directly
or indirectly. There is the Public Order Act of
1986 (Part III), Article 58 of the Terrorism Act
of 2000 which includes prosecution for incitement
to commit an offence overseas, and the Terrorism
Act of 2006, Part One, Article I in which there
is, inter alia, a reference to "indirect encouragement"
of hatred and terrorism, in terms of statements
and so on.
As for our "ally" the US, its think tanks
like Stratfor are stating quite clearly that the
Lal Masjid standoff is merely a "government
ruse". Is this how badly they think of the
Pakistani state and an allied government -–
that it would play with the lives of its citizens
and abet extremist terrorists?
Worse still, there are increasing calls for the
US to either cut off its payments to Pakistan for
the counter-terror operations in the global war
on terror (GWOT) or link it to performance. What
"performance" do they want to see, given
that we have effectively undermined our own nation
and state to support the US in the GWOT -–
despite the latter's misguided and erroneous strategies
that have taken a heavy toll on Muslim states and
societies? The US may be paying $1 billion annually
but the cost to Pakistan, in terms of its polity,
is far beyond this monetary remuneration.
Clearly, as the state and nation seem besieged by
extremist terrorists and fascists from within, external
detractors will feel free to pressure and attack
us on any number of counts. This is a wonderful
country bestowed with natural resources and a beautiful
people. How long are we going to have to watch helplessly
and see it all being destroyed by stick wielding
extremist terrorists and gun-toting fascist mobs
with an abdication of responsibility by the law
enforcers -– and our gleeful detractors watching
like vultures?
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
