This is a guest post by ALI USMAN QASMI

Stark indifference of various religious organizations and scholars over suicide bombings and the recurrent target killing in Pakistan during the last few years is appalling. Woefully the mainstream print and electronic media deems it enough to issue the obligatory bland statements signifying absolutely nothing in condemnation of killings of innocent civilians. The act of terrorism in itself is relentlessly condoned, although the lost lives of civilians evoke some reaction which too is quite guarded to say the least. Even while expressing sympathy over the death of civilians,  the ‘atrocities’ of the Western powers in general and USA in particular are invariably referred to as the catalyst resulting in all the mess that the Pakistani people find themselves in, at the moment. Thus, unequivocal condemnation of those responsible for all the mayhem in the country is conspicuously missing, which amounts to a tacit approval of these terrorist acts. Far more tormenting than the devil may care attitude of religious parties and their leadership, is the role played by writers of the right wing persuasion, particularly in the Urdu media. While the mass appeal of the religious parties is considerably thin, nevertheless, right-wing ideology is widely shared and adhered to.

The ‘right-wing’, in the context of Pakistan, is an ideological catchphrase which envisages Pakistan’s definitive nay central role in the Muslim Ummah. They nurse the unflinching desire to see religion at the heart of public policy formulation in Pakistan. This right-wing ideology has certain other well defined features as well. First and foremost, it regards Pakistan as the culmination of the struggle of Indian Muslims for independence from the yoke of Hindu domination and exploitation (British imperialism is mostly alluded to as a footnote in the national discourse of Pakistan). Pakistan was, according to the right-wing, conceived as an Islamic state where Muslims will be able to live their lives in accordance with the dictates of Islam. They have, therefore, been supportive of demands for Shariat laws to be promulgated in Pakistan in true letter and spirit.

This rightwing ideology is institutionally identified with the Pakistani Establishment – a loosely defined term which refers to a coterie of unrepresentative power-holders of which the most important is the Pakistan military. At the political level, rightwing ideology is upheld and professed by various factions of the Pakistan Muslim League and a number of religious political parties as well. An important part is played by the Urdu press in disseminating this ideology at a mass level. Due to a large readership of Urdu press, it is used as the main vehicle for not only promoting the image of the military as a highly professional and disciplined organization, guarding both the ideological and geographical frontiers of Pakistan, but also to build public support for the Muslim League so as to enable it to counter the liberal, progressive and anti-Establishment forces in society. In this way, the military, Muslim League and Urdu press form an effective triumvirate which not only complement each other but also foster and foment the discursive hegemony of the rightwing in Pakistan.

Reaction of the Rightwing to War against Terrorism

The terrorist attacks on the world trade centre on September 11, 2001 forced Pakistan to bring about radical shift in its Afghan policy. For decades, Pakistani Establishment had been trying to install a friendly regime in Afghanistan. It would have helped them restrict hostile propaganda in favour of irredentist claims for greater Pakhtunistan and also to acquire strategic depth vis-a-vis India. In the 1980s, when Pakistan was in the forefront of fighting Charlie Wilson’s Jihad against the Soviets, another policy objective was advanced: the pursuit of a pan-Islamic policy. Amidst the medley of warring Afghan warlords after the withdrawal of Soviet troops, Pakistan master-minded the rise of the Taliban who had formerly been seminary students at various madrassas in Pakistan. The establishment of the Taliban regime marked the water shed in the Pakistani Establishment’s effort to install a friendly regime in Afghanistan amenable to its dictates – or so it thought. It also tallied with their understanding of an idyllically romanticized Islamic caliphate. The speedy but brutal justice system of Taliban based on a specific interpretation of the Shariat and the austere mode of living that the amir-ul-momineen Mullah Umar had assumed were widely reported in the Urdu press in superlative terms. Many thought it as a true representation of pristine Islam as practised during the days of pious caliphs.

It was, hence, not easy for the Establishment to cope with the changes brought in the wake of 9-11. The cherished ideals of the Establishment were at stake. In the first few months following 9-11, mounting pressure from America hardly left any space for Pakistani Establishment to manoeuvre as the US had made it explicit about the fall out if Pakistan failed to do its bidding. Pro Taliban Urdu press was also non-pulsed in such attenuating circumstances. It could be a misadventure of enormous proportion if it opts to incite public fury against the Pakistani government for deserting the Taliban regime. However, soon after the military strikes against Afghanistan got under way, the Urdu press started reporting stories of inhumane killings of Afghan civilians and carpet bombings carried out by US jet fighters. US mishandling of the war and the conspiracy theories about the US provided an opportunity to the rightwing groups to feed the public opinion against further cooperation with the US. The Muslim League factions also played up such sentiments among the public primarily for political gain. These tactics were gainfully employed by the rightist parties because of the approaching elections in 2002. The conglomeration of religious parties Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal’s (MMA) gain was optimal in the prevailing circumstance. MMA managed to secure enough seats in the elections to form their ministry in NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) in 2002.

The sheer barbarity in the American conduct of war in Afghanistan has been the main focus of the Urdu press. Besides, it has also concocted various conspiracy theories and circulated them with impunity. Thus it is working assiduously to bring home to the Pakistani public the malignant intentions of USA.   Various Urdu columnists and news reporters even described the 9-11 attacks as a complete hoax. The ‘fact’ that thousands of Jews were absent from work at the world trade centre on the day of  the attack, was initially cited as evidence in the support of that assertion. Later on when more sophisticated arguments became available from the findings of various US architects, it became possible to argue that the twin towers of the world trade centre did not collapse because of the aeroplane strikes but because of the bombs which had been planted in the towers. But by the time such theories gained wide circulation, US had already dug in its heels in Afghanistan and was closing in on Iraq. While the occupation of Afghanistan could not be undone, the conspiracy theory about the US complicity in 9-11 could be used to argue that the US is using the war against terror as a pretext for promoting its own agenda of a new world order, especially in the Muslim world. In this regard, Samuel Huntington virtually became a household name for all and sundry including readers of Urdu press. In the light of the theory of clash of civilizations, propounded by Samuel Huntington, the American policy makers were accused by the rightwing Urdu press of planning an assault on the Muslim world which they regarded as the last ideological bastion before an unfettered hegemony of the US.

While Pakistani Establishment though out of compulsion allowed US to use its airspace and military bases (although the details of such cooperation were kept in strict confidentiality and got ‘leaked’ only recently), it however made a strict policy of not dismantling the militant camps within Pakistan. It did however take stern measures against Kashmir-oriented Jihadi militias but it did not initially comply with the US demands to use military means to flush out Taliban or Al-Qaeda from tribal areas of Pakistan. Instead, Pakistan opted for a negotiated settlement. By striking a deal with Nek Muhammad of Waziristan in 2004, the Pakistan Military came to an understanding that Al-Qaeda operatives or Taliban will be closely monitored and strictly dissuaded from taking any part in terrorist activities. This agreement was widely hailed by the rightwing press. It was argued that the ‘so-called’ Taliban or Al-Qaeda were the ones who had once fought US war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. They had come from different parts of the Muslim world to take part in this Jihad against Soviets and their godless ideology of Communism. After the war was over, most of them got settled down in the tribal areas where they tied marital knots with women of local tribes. In that manner, these Arab warriors had become ‘naturalized residents’ of the tribal areas. It made no sense to expel them and their families from the area.

The US, however, saw it as a dangerous development. A missile attack a few days after the signing of the peace agreement resulted in the killing of Nek Muhammad. This was singularly the most important event in the ‘Pakistani phase’ of war against terror. It sabotaged the whole deal which the military had struck with the militants. The military was prevaricating its entry into tribal areas as it had no illusions about the valiant disposition of tribal Pashtuns, known for resisting tooth and nail any attempt to invade their territory. That stereotype of Pashtun bravery and love for freedom had been accorded currency after the first Anglo-Afghan War of 1839 in which, famously, only one British doctor survived and came back to narrate the gory tale of Afghan campaign. The ‘defeat’ of Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the 1980s reinforced that notion. The tribal area, for the Pakistan military, was hence a rugged terrain with all the enticements of bogging down a professional army in non-traditional warfare with a population where every man and child was supposed to carry a gun.

All those apprehensions notwithstanding, the death of Nek Muhammad left little choice for the Army. Hence the physical engagement became imminent. Odds against Pakistan army were far too many when battle got under way. More importantly, the tribal elders and influential figures who had mediated a peace deal in the first place, were singled out by the Taliban and killed. Most of them were brutally killed with their throats slit and dead bodies hung by a poll to make an example out of them. It seriously dampened the authority, influence and prestige of tribal leaders. They could no longer be expected to play a role for a negotiated settlement. The Taliban operatives were, hence, able to convert tribal areas into safe heavens for militants from all over Pakistan and Afghanistan. From these areas, they could launch operations against US forces in Afghanistan. Later the tribal area became the launching pad for a wave of deadly suicide bombings all across Pakistan. Once the urban centres of Pakistan came under such attacks, it was too difficult for Pakistan military to evade any longer the option of carrying out military operation in tribal areas. Although the military did pen more peace agreements in other tribal agencies as well (e.g. with Baitullah Mehsud in 2005 or with Faqir Muhammad of Bajaur Agency in 2007) but they all failed to deliver as both parties accused one another of failing to standby its commitments.

This was also the time when US had gradually started carrying out bombardment on suspected terrorist sites in the tribal areas of Pakistan popularly known as drone attacks. Very often these attacks resulted in the collateral damage in which scores of civilians lost their lives. These attacks evoked trenchant criticism from the Urdu press on two grounds. First, they violated the sovereignty of Pakistan’s airspace and secondly they were resulting in the death of innocent civilians because of faulty intelligence gathering operations of US on ground.

Rationalizing Terrorism

This scenario makes it absolutely explicable as to why the rightwing Urdu press and religious leaders tend to ‘rationalize’ terrorist bombings in Pakistan. The first argument given by the rightwing for terrorist attacks in Pakistan is that they are in reaction to the Drone attacks by the US in the tribal areas of Pakistan, which have killed innocent people. Soon after the attacks a video is released of the destructed site revealing that what is designated as a terrorist hideout by the US State Department is simply a madrassa imparting religious education to the children. Since there is an iron curtain separating the settled districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Tribal Areas, no one has any chance of verifying contesting claims by any independent means. The other, more important reason, cited in the Urdu press is an accusation of US’s deliberate attempts to fail any attempts at non-military settlement of the problem. The US through its killing of militant leaders willing for a negotiated settlement, had deliberately created a situation where Pakistani Army had to launch a military operation in tribal areas. This is why a number of Urdu columnists and TV anchors continue to argue for a revision of Pakistan’s policy in tribal areas. The question whether “Is this really our War or is it forced upon us” is a most contentious one among the rightwing and the liberals in Pakistan.

Had the suicide bombings remained confined to tribal areas, or even some settled areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa alone, there would not have been much concern in the cosy environs of Pakistan’s urban centres and its perplexed Muslim bourgeoisie. But the wave of terrorism soon spread beyond tribal areas. It was not before deadly terrorist attacks in Lahore and Islamabad – the heart of Pakistan’s Punjab-dominated establishment – that there was a furious public outcry. One can distinctly remember when Taliban started targeting Lahore their first act of terrorism was in Garhi Shahu Lahore. At that time just a few crackers went off in the Garhi Shahu Bazar near the juice corners. The following day, Urdu press reported that these shops were responsible for spreading vulgar influences in the area as they had become “dating points” for the students of nearby Queen Marry Girls College. This, in a way, justified the targeting of these juice corners so as to scare them off for future. Such apologetic explanations for terrorist attacks changed mainly after the tragic bombings of Marriott Hotel Islamabad and Moon Market of Lahore which killed hundreds of civilians.

I reckon that the incidents like Marriott bombings and Moon Market bombings brought about a sea-change in the public perception about the war against terror. Finally, the imposition of ‘Shariat’ in Sawat by Maulvi Fazal Ullah in 2007-08 swung the public opinion heavily in favour of strict and aggressive military handling of the terrorists. This was in stark contrast with the earlier public responses. Initially, majority of Pakistanis were willing to accept the explanation that terrorist activities were in reaction to US actions in Afghanistan and tribal areas. Many attributed the increased ferocity of terrorist activities to military operation of Lal Majid in 2007 which had not only desecrated mosque’s sacred space but also, allegedly, killed hundreds of women and children (This is a separate debate whether these innocent women and children were being used by militants inside as human shields or they succumbed to disproportionate use of force by military). Many of the initial targets in the urban centres of Pakistan were installations of security establishment. The apologists for the Taliban, not in the Urdu press but in hard-core religious journals associated with seminaries, could justify Taliban’s targeting of what they could describe as ‘combatants’ or ‘accomplices’ to US policies in Afghanistan and tribal areas. But even such radical religious journals could not offer any explanation, no matter how much they stretched various verses of Quran, to rationalize the targeting of civilian population in Pakistan.

This lead to the invention of Black Water. When I say ‘invention’, I do not intend to doubt the existence of such an organization (as a CIA front) or its operatives and operations in Pakistan. I mean to say that the rightwing Urdu press and radical Islamist writings desperately needed an ‘explanation’ or ‘rationale’ for their clientele which was getting increasingly confused and hostile due to spate of deadly bombings. They needed a scapegoat which could be blamed for carrying out attacks on mosques, shrines, imambargahs and religious processions. There had to be someone else if the statement “No Muslim can ever do such a thing” had to hold any validity. Black Water served that purpose perfectly. The fact that US press itself was talking about the existence of such an organization in Iraq and now in Pakistan, the Urdu press started publishing numerous stories about ‘suspicious activities’ of US nationals in Pakistan. The most famous of such stories was about the renting of almost 400 houses in Islamabad by Black Water agents. The Black Water could now be used in every discussion following a suicide attack in any city. A classic explanation for suicide bombings in Pakistan and the US involvement in it runs as follows: Since Pakistan was reluctant to jump into Afghan and tribal quagmire because of the history and geography of the region and also because of a possible public backlash, the US orchestrated terrorist activities within Pakistan to force a change in its policy. Thus, the US operatives and agents (Black Water and others) in Pakistan carried out bombings in major urban centres. They knew US drone attacks in tribal areas was actually creating sympathy for the militants and creating an environment, absolutely unfavourable to military operation by Pakistan army. Therefore, the US sponsored bombings at major shrines, important mosques and sensitive religious processions in order to create a feeling of hatred for the Taliban.

However, blaming squarely US or Black Water for all that mayhem that caused was not all that convincing. It did not account for Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan’s claiming responsibility for terrorist attacks. Besides, it could not explain whether it were the Black Water agents themselves who were blowing themselves up in suicide missions. Of course, there was no possibility for rightwing and radical Islamists to attribute such Imani Jazba (devotional courage) to white Protestants. Thus, there had to be another theory to explain the phenomenon of suicide bombings. I call it the ‘Lawrence of Arabia Theory’. According to that theory, there are a number of training centres in the West where Islamic teachings are imparted to Christian agents. These agents acquire an excellent and most comprehensive knowledge of Islam (including Quran, Sunnah and Fiqh) from these institutions in addition to the languages spoken in their regions of espionage mission. These agents are then parcelled out to their designated areas where they pose themselves as preachers and scholars of Islam. People flock to them because of their knowledge and apparent piety. It is in the guise of scholarship and piety that these agents brainwash innocent Muslims and inspire them for suicide missions. In case anyone thinks that I am exaggerating about such details, I would refer to them the issue of Urdu Digest published a few months back which has narrated a story about the existence of such an institution somewhere near London. One should also keep in mind that Urdu Digest is no less popular among Urdu readers as Readers Digest is among English readers.

The rationalizing of terrorism and violence is not just confined to incidents where there is mass murder. There are also ‘explanations’ as to why Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer or Federal Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti were assassinated. In case of Salman Taseer, almost all the Urdu columnists with the exception of a few daring voices, held the governor himself responsible for his assassination. It was argued that he had injured the sentiments of the Muslims by calling Blasphemy laws as black laws and appealing for mercy and pardon of Aasia bibi convicted of blasphemy by lower courts. Very few people, at least on TV, approved of Taseer’s assassination in an unqualifying manner. Most of the religious leaders and rightwing ideologues stated: “We condemn the killing of Salman Taseer BUT he should not have provoked people by taking a stand against blasphemy laws.”

In case of Shahbaz Bhatti, the causes for his death were not found in his committing a blasphemy or uttering words contemptuous of blasphemy laws. Instead, it was said that he invited his own death by not keeping his security squadron with him at all the times. A lack of religious tolerance in Pakistani society was not an explanation that majority of rightwing Urdu press could come up with or was willing to accede to.

Shame and Sorrow

I would even be willing to accept that the “infidel powers” are conspiring against Pakistan and Islam by providing arms, ammunition and funds to terrorist forces. When we call US, Israel and India as our enemies, why do we expect them to act in a friendly manner? As our enemies, they should do what an enemy is required to do, i.e. to take advantage of the mess that is of our own creation and to use it for their own strategic advantage.  So while I am ‘willing’ to accept all the conspiratorial explanations offered by religious leaders and right wingers, I will qualify my statement with a big BUT. There does exist an extremist ideology of Islam in Pakistan to which many people subscribe to. They may not necessarily desire a world domination of Islam (although they may regard it as the only natural world order) but inflicting of maximum damage to an enemy called West on which they blame the present state of Muslim ummah. As my friend scholar Bilal Ahmad puts it, it is a state of extreme mental agony between feelings of “Shame” and “Sorrow”. According to him, we are not sorry for being intolerant and lacking in a progressive and liberal worldview which breeds violence against non-Muslims and even our co-religionists. Rather we are ashamed of our present state. We are ashamed of the fact that while our forefathers were once a world power dictating their terms to the rest of the world, we have been reduced to a position of servitude to the Christian west. Instead of this sorrow gearing us towards the achievement of positive goals, we are overburdened with feelings of shame which enrages us to commit acts of violence and seek explanations for such barbaric acts. With this shame, we want to ostracize ourselves so as to avoid agony of real world around us.

Conclusion

The religious leaders, scholars and the rightwing Pakistani Establishment – especially Urdu press – have successfully created an environment in which it has become impossible to condemn violence and terrorism in an un-qualifying manner. According to them, the killing of innocent civilians is either a by product of US action in the tribal areas or, even worse, these acts are being conspired by outside forces to weaken Pakistan and bring a bad image to Islam and Muslims.  Until and unless we address such reservations which are being created in the minds of general public, no campaign – no matter how forceful it is in it military strength – can be successful in eradicating terrorism. Also, it is not just by preaching an alternative version of Islam that we can root out this problem. It is only by realizing that fault lies within ourselves and that terrorist are operating within our own ranks that we will be able to confront the problem and then chalk out an effective strategy to combat that problem.

(Ali Usman Qasmi holds a PhD in Modern South Asian History from the University of Heidelberg. His book entitled Questioning the Authority of the Past: The Ahl al-Quran Movements in the Punjab has just been published by the Oxford University Press, Karachi. He is also the author of an edited volume on Allama Muhammad Iqbal.)