Daily Times

The recent wave of extremism jolted Pakistan’s social, political and muscular stanchions, compelling the decision-making institutions to re-visit their anti-terrorism resolve. The Prime Minister and the army chief, both have agreed to launch a country-wide grinding operation to obviate extremists, their handlers, facilitators, and sympathisers. Hence without any discerning mechanism, the resolve seems to rewindprevious determinations conventionally opted by law enforcing agencies and the civil, political elite of the country.

The violenceacross the country during the last two weeks has not only disfigured the efforts of muscular power hub of the country but dismantled government’s fantasies of bringing peace at large. Leaving aside the external components and strings controlled by NDS or RAW or anyone else, let us first understand our liabilities as a sovereign country. Border control and foreign policy always play a vital role in internal peace, prosperity and development. Because of the internal mess of the weaker institutions and inefficient justice system a culture of corruption and favouritism has generated a significant divide in the society.

Moreover, sectarianism, intolerance and religious hatred are the rationales behind the societal collapse. Zarb-e-Azab, Radd-ul-Fassad or any new operation with alternative rubric after every three-years’ term may or may not serve the purpose. The fault line does not lie with muscular power hub of the country but the civilian legislators. The National Action Plan, a shelved document, if had been implemented properly, the result would have been different. Killing extremists is unlikely to bear any fruits until the religious deradicalisation takes place which is only possible by targeting the ideology of extremism. Extremism is a global phenomenon that cannot be steered by one country. But there are some grounds available to trivialise extremism. Strict border controls, strengthening the national database system of enumeration, bringing all educational institutions and madrassas under a strict uniform policy approved by the parliament, thorough reforms in curriculum starting from primary to university level, and ensuring school syllabus free from hate content, intolerance, inequality, and injustice.

The modern perforated social fabric demands a crisscross of candid patriotism free from provincialism and sectarianism. In a pluralistic society, this is a big challenge to opt such a formidable approach of terrorism constraint. Pakistan was created in the name of Islam; thus, two nation theory was a widespread orthodox slogan. The founder of the Pakistan was well aware of the wave that glued most of the Muslim community, so in his speeches, several references indicate that he wanted a separate homeland for Muslims but equally a piece of land where all sections of different religions would have equal rights as free citizens supported by the Islamic jurisprudence. However, Quaid-e-Azam was acutely aware of the convulsive stance of radicalorganisations.Therefore, in his famed speech on 11 August 1947 he said, “We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another.

We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.” Strengthening his argument, he said, “The people of England in the course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country, and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.”

Most importantly the founder stressed that “in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.” After his speech, it was being believed that Quaid-e-Azam wanted to make Pakistan a ‘secular country’ so the objectives resolution in 1947 was passed whereas all minority members opposed the resolution deeming it against the vision of the founder. This sudden change in the constitution was the provision of an autonomous open play right to all fundamental forces who opposed the creation of Pakistan at first place. Bangladesh was part of Pakistan acquired via two-nation theory, however, as an independent country in 1971, a new Bangladeshi constitution of 1972 based on nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism was introduced. Still, some forces were against the secularism of the country, and in the Fifth Amendment the word ‘secularism’ was omitted, and a term ‘the principle of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah’ was introduced instead. However, in 2010 the Supreme Court of Bangladesh revoked that provision bringing back the constitution to its original form.

The purpose of the whole story is to revisit the speeches, vision and framework of the country in the light of the decisions of the founder of Pakistan. A comparison is not the objective, but in Bangladesh, there is very little space for fundamentalorganisationsto operate openly, whereas the constitution of Pakistan has allocated an open space for such forces who play in the name of religion. Fighting against terrorism is a difficult challenge, but certain legislation may bring the real solution to curb internal chaos.

This could be wishfulthinking, but all patriot Pakistanis want peace in the country; the policy of destroying those who believe in destruction may or may not work, and there is need to understand the enemies of Pakistan. The present operation Radd-ul-Fasaad must assess sympathisers as well but as I tried to explain, curbing ideology is the real solution, but the best one is available in the vision of the founder of Pakistan. Even after another seventy years of mess, the country will have to come back to its founder’s approach. Can we afford to wait in this fast-changing world? No!

The writer is a freelance columnist, can be contacted at kaleem.dean@mail.com