Daily Times

The words radicalism and extremism are often confused with each other. Radicalism is about behaviour and the opinions of people favouring extreme change whereas an extremist is one who acts outside the ambit of social norms. Thus, the term “violent extremism is the use of violence to achieve ideological, religious or political goals on account of the radicalisation process. In a social system where social consensus governs different social actions, a violent extremist challenges social opinions and tries to intimidate the majority through constant demonstrations, agitations and disturbances.

The recent decision by a three member Supreme Court (SC) bench on the appeal filed by Mumtaz Qadri wherein the honourable judges rejected the plea and upheld the decision of the trial court is not only commendable but is also part of a countering violent extremism effort. Such strict decisions against extreme actions have strong social imprints provided they are persistently backed by the state’s machinery. However, out of nowhere, a string of continuous demonstrations have been exhibited in favour of Mumtaz Qadri in different cities of Punjab since October 7, 2015. These demos are part of a larger radicalisation process whereby different religious elements are pressurising the state administration to provide them space for action. The quantum of concession granted to them by the government will determine the extent of extremism taking place in our society. The high frequency of religious demonstrations against the apex court’s verdict is also baffling in the sense that these so-called religious entities are now attacking the judicial process of the country. Such an attitude is unethical and illegitimate. We will now examine the data on the ‘Mumtaz Qadri Movement’ and try to find some of the emotional discourses being employed by an array of religious figures for violent extremism.

Since October 2015, when a three-member SC bench announced its decision, the Mumtaz Qadri Movement has organised 48 rallies, 36 demonstrations and numerous corner meetings and seminars in Punjab. Most of these demos were held in Lahore along with Sheikhupura, Gujranwala, Gujrat, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi and Multan. The majority of these agitations were organised under the banner of a particular religious party, which has actively been supported by a spectrum of small and large religious-political organisations. The leading lights of the movement are allegedly well entrenched in foreign countries and they come to their beloved homeland as extreme winters set in in their land of permanent refuge. Recently, the comments made by the Prime Minister (PM) on liberalism, wherein he indicated the strong resolve of his government to protect the rights of minorities, were severely criticised in a number of religious congregations. The Mumtaz Qadri Movement, therefore, may turn critical and even violent against the present security apparatus in the coming days. The provincial police should chalk out a clear strategy for future law and order matters relating to the movement.

Apart from other things, during these agitations, the religious leaders have harped on about various narratives for emotional appeal to sensationalise things for the public. For example, they say that when Mumtaz Qadri’s appeal was dismissed in the SC, the whole country was hit by a high intensity earthquake. This assertion is totally baseless since the verdict on Qadri’s petition came on October 7, 2015 whereas the quake occurred on October 26, 2015. Secondly, all religious leaders of the movement vouch that if Raymond Davis can go scot-free after murdering two Pakistanis why can Mumtaz Qadri not be set free after killing an ‘infidel’ governor of Punjab? Here, it is pertinent to mention that the Raymond Davis matter was altogether different than that of Mumtaz Qadri’s case. The former was arrested and then released on a compromise through Islamic laws. No such thing has happened in Salmaan Taseer’s murder even though the complainant is constantly being harassed to withdraw the case. They proclaim that Ghazi Ilamddin case was solicited by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah whereas Allama Muhammad Iqbal participated in his funeral procession just because he had killed a non-believer. They urge that the reigns of the present government are in the hands of those who are friends with Jews and Christians. They all announce in unison that Mumtaz Qadri is neither a terrorist nor a murderer but a pure soul who has strived in the way of God. Lastly, they have threatened the government of launching a long march if their demand of releasing Qadri is not met promptly.

These contentions have become important tools of extremism in the hands of a religious junta spearheading the Qadri movement. There is no counter voice that can confront the high-pitched emotional narratives of these mullahs to properly educate the general public. Lack of social curiosity about religious teachings and absence of social inquisitiveness about the history of religion force a common person to accept whatever these mullahs say about a religious point or an ideological subject. This blind following of religious expressions or explanations of complex ideological issues is one of the reasons behind spreading extremism and vigilantism in our society.

Once a person embraces violent extremism, he or she can do anything let alone laying down his or her life for the achievement of an elevated benchmark. A violent extremist might be thinking through a manipulated mechanism of the controlled human-mind space-effect whereas his or her mentor, the motivator (human or technical medium), constantly exploits the exposed fragility of the nervous system of the individual for a perpetuated process of radicalisation.

The remedy lies in a three-pronged approach. First, the government should focus on primary educational outlets and try to neutralise them through moderation and syllabus reconfiguration. Second, all mosques should be streamlined in accordance with established rules and procedure. Third, monitoring of social media should be performed in an ingenious way. In other words, we need to act holistically without creating any exceptions.

The writer is a senior superintendent of police