The nominating of a four-member committee, including a couple of renowned journalists (Irfan Siddiqui and Rahimullah Yousafzai), a former official of Pakistan’s powerful spy agency, Major (retd) Amir and a former ambassador from the tribal areas, Rustam Shah Mohmand, by the prime minister (PM), is now much debated. Apparently the dialogue committee nominated by the PM is ‘capable’ and ‘credible’. Let us not question the composition of the committee and its members despite shared ideology. Let us forget that Major Amir belongs to a family that led the campaign to ‘Saudi-ise’ (read Wahabi-ise) Pakistan, particularly Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, back in the 1980s and 1990s on the behest of the designers of Pakistan’s security doctrine. Rahimullah Yousafzai loves to remain impartial, although ideologically he seems to be inclined towards Islamist politics as is evident from his opinion pieces in one of the leading dailies in Pakistan. Irfan Siddiqui is not different as per his Urdu columns where it seems he intentionally sits on the fence.
The Taliban have nominated their committee initially comprising five people including Imran Khan, Maulana Samiul Haq, famous for being the ‘father of the Taliban’, Professor Ibrahim of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the Red Mosque hardliner cleric Maualana Abdul Aziz and Mufti Kafayatullah of JUI-F. Imran Khan shrewdly distanced himself from the committee while Maulana Fazlur Rehman is not happy with the nomination of his man. The committee, now known as the Taliban committee, is left with three men — all of them are firebrand extremists. Before the Taliban came up with its demands, their committee men, especially Samiul Haq and Maualana Aziz, put ‘imposition of sharia’ as a precondition. This has already put the dialogue on a tight rope. Let us still hope for the better.
However, the question of whether this arrangement for peace will work needs to be scrutinised. Given the history of similar dialogues with the Taliban in the past, which failed altogether and eventually emboldened the terrorists, the dialogue will not be successful. One hopes the dialogue will succeed but in that case too, peace in Pakistan will not be lasting. Similarly, a military offensive in isolation cannot bring permanent peace. Both approaches are cosmetic as they do not address the root cause of this religion-based terrorism, sectarian or otherwise.
Ideological terrorism in Pakistan is the impact of religious extremism, which in itself is the outcome of a doctrine — Islamism or political Islam — and Islamism is the product of our ‘concept of a nation state’, which is unfortunately melded in the history of Muslims, often described as Islamic history.
Whether Islam, the religion, is political or not is another debate but Islamism or political Islam suggests the use of religion for political power. Islam has always been used for political power. The so-called caliphs, monarchs in the early history succeeding the Prophet (PBUH) and his nearest followers, used Islam for their grip over political power. They even designed Juma’a Khutbaat (Friday sermons) where the state mullahs would terrify the public by castigating any democratic agitation against the sultans as a sin against the Almighty. For instance, refer to the sermon before the Friday prayers “Al-Sultano Zilu-Allah Fil-Ardh. Man Ahana Sultana faqad Ahana-Allah” (the sultan (monarch) is the image of God on earth. He who does not obey the Sultan, disobeys God).
For a layman like me the least negligible example of political Islam is when a fellow Muslim comes to you and exhorts you to say the prayers five times a day. Obviously, this act is of no harm but, if looked into deeply, the man brings religion out of its private domain. Political Islam is something where you forcefully impose or want to impose on others some religious norms or laws, which you think superior to every other law, norms or system, and thus make religion a tool for control, coercion or suppression.
It is also true that religion is sometimes made a means to end control, coercion or oppression. The struggle for Pakistan started from a minor movement for more communal rights in British India and later on took the later course, which was to use religion to end ‘coercion and oppression’, although it proved to have only replaced the suppressors and oppressors. The oppression could then be ended by other means as well but Muslim stalwarts adopted the other way. Both Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Muhammad Iqbal were personally less religious compared to two other great Muslims, Maulana Kalam Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, generally known as Baacha Khan. The latter did not take religion as political means or the means of making a nation yet they were strenuously more religious than the former two.
Extremism and its result — terrorism — in Pakistan is the result of political Islam manipulated by religious groups, political parties and the state’s most powerful institution. Unfortunately, our constitution also supports these elements because they have designed it to be so. In order to ensure permanent peace in our society and resultantly make Pakistan a respected and civilised nation among the international comity, the government, army and society must go for a three-pronged strategy.
Dialogue with the terrorists is but one among them. It must be continued but purposeful dialogue needs strength and this can be ensured by the use of state force against those who do not cease to carry out attacks on mosques, bazaars, state installations and institutions. These two strategies still cannot bring permanent peace, though they can calm down the situation for short periods. As long as they are not accompanied by the third approach there is no hope for long-term peace and development. This is a long term strategy. The Aegean stables cannot be cleansed in a day but one has to begin.
Many things need reversal. Pakistan has to cease using Islam for security purposes. A societal reform policy needs to be designed and then followed consistently, irrespective of which party makes the government. Reforms in the textbooks in schools and madrassas must be given priority. The hate speeches spewed daily from the loudspeakers must be monitored constantly. Dialogue, use of force and reforms at the societal and educational level need be put in simultaneously and be integrated. None of them will work in isolation.
The writer is based in Swat where he heads IBT, an independent civil society organisation on education and development. He can be reached at [email protected]