Dangerous talk

WHAT was once media and congressional talk is now becoming official. Even though President George Bush in his Saturday’s radio speech did not threaten American military action against presumed

Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan’s tribal belt, other US officials have spoken in more threatening tones. On Sunday, Homeland Security Adviser Frances Townsend lent weight to what Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher and White House Spokesman Tony Snow stated last week, saying that the administration’s job was to “protect the American people. There are no options off the table”. President Bush’s speech contained no open or implied threats, but he said — on the basis of intelligence reports — that Al Qaeda had established “havens” in Pakistan. The reason for this was the failure of the deal with the militants last September — something which, he said, President Pervez Musharraf had himself admitted. President Bush, however, made it clear that he believed Pakistan was quite capable of doing the job itself and expressed full confidence in President Musharraf’s government. Like their boss, Ms Townsend and others plied President Musharraf with the usual platitudes and said that the administration’s “first and foremost” priority was to work with Pakistan. Before Congress now is a two-billion-dollar bill that provides for $300 million for the Frontier Force to turn it into a modern fighting army as part of the US-Pakistan counter-insurgency efforts.

Pakistan has reacted angrily to the implied threats, with Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmud Kasuri saying that the talk of America attacking Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan was “irresponsible and dangerous”. As he told CNN, Pakistan was “committed to controlling terrorism, and people in Pakistan get very upset when, despite all the sacrifices that Pakistan has been making, you get all these criticisms.” As for Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts, Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao said that those who knew precisely where Osama was should share the intelligence with Pakistan. Evidently, the failure of last September’s deal has given the American media and some Congressmen and officials in the Bush administration a ready-made pretext to put further pressure on Islamabad to ask it to ‘do more’.

Foreign governments and newspersons seem to be selective about the evidence before them. They may note, for instance, the recent wave of suicide bombings, but they forget that the victims are all Pakistanis, and that alone should spur any government in Islamabad into fighting terrorism. Pakistan has deployed 90,000 troops in the tribal belt and has suffered 800 dead. Also, as the Lal Masjid crackdown shows, ignoring the rightist backlash that was expected, the government went ahead and crushed what indeed was a Taliban rebellion. Obviously what can be done in Islamabad cannot possibly be achieved along the 2,400-kilometre porous border with Afghanistan with a mountainous terrain that is ideal for guerilla warfare.

The talk of American action in the tribal belt is laden with consequences. Any American air strikes within Pakistani territory could lead to serious consequences, destabilising Pakistan and embarrassing even the moderates, who will then find themselves in the company of the extremists whom they despise. The fight against the Taliban is in Pakistan’s own interests. What happened in the Lal Masjid — a virtual parallel government in operation in the heart of the capital — is enough for the people and the government to realise the danger which religious militants pose to society and the state.

Turkey’s inherent strength

TURKEY’s Islamists do not fit the typecast role. That may be the reason why the Justice and Development Party (AKP) remains as popular as ever amongst a people who are far more progressive in their outlook than most other Muslims in the world. Still, there can be no denying the underlying identity crisis in Turkey, once the nerve centre of the Islamic world. In terms of its character and defining traits, should it look east or west? Must the origins of the nation be a stumbling block in the way of evolution, the direction in which the country is headed? Or is it possible to harmonise the past with the present, resulting in an entity and an identity that is uniquely Turkish? So far, the people and rulers of Turkey have mapped their course well, remaining true to the secular tradition while holding fast to the country’s Muslim roots. The re-election of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP is testimony to the fact that Turkey remains a melting pot that can forge a sturdy alloy without diluting the character of the core ingredients. The victorious AKP, an Islamist party, has pledged its commitment to the ‘Copenhagen criteria’, maintaining Turkey’s secular tradition and joining the European Union. Pakistan’s self-appointed guardians of Islam would do well to take note of this desire to embrace the best of all cultures.

The AKP’s resounding success reinforces the recent tradition of a government that is not dependent on a shaky amalgam of coalition partners. This naturally bodes well for the stability of the new administration. Key questions, however, still remain. Most significantly, how will the armed forces — the constitutional guardians of secularism — respond to this latest vote of confidence in a party that the military views with suspicion? Of particular interest will be any attempt Mr Erdogan’s AKP makes to elect a president of its choice — a move only recently scuttled by the military. With a healthy contingent of pro-Kurdish politicians making it to parliament, Turkey’s dubious human rights record could also come under the spotlight — not only of outsiders but its own citizens. But then introspection, looking inward, is Turkey’s strength.

A public enemy at large

MAULANA Fazalullah has proved that he cannot be trusted. The government may have known this a long time ago and yet went ahead and signed a deal with him in May under which the maulana agreed not to use his illegally set up radio station to preach against girls’ education and the polio vaccination. Yet this past weekend came the news that the firebrand cleric had forbidden girls from going to school. Almost 2,000 girls in Imam Deri, Swat, were stopped by their parents from going to school because the cleric said it was un-Islamic. Most of the girls were availing of education for the first time in their lives and will be deprived of it unless the government steps in and overrides the cleric. He has already done much damage to the polio vaccination campaign. In April alone, 25,000 children were not vaccinated against polio during a three-day campaign, and he is once again preaching against it. It is clear that no amount of negotiation is going to make Maulana Fazalullah change his mind. The time has come for the government to take stern action against him, for his ways are in clear violation of the law. No one has the right to pass edicts that go against the people’s right to education and protection against a crippling affliction.

The government will make a grave mistake if it fails to protect girls against attempts to deny them their right to education. It is engaged in a confrontation with militants in the tribal areas but it cannot afford to ignore an equally dangerous conflict like this. How can any sane person preach against girls’ education and protection of children against polio? The government’s priority must be to safeguard the lives of the people, not all of whom subscribe to obscurantist views and sermons.

The tragic showdown at Lal Masjid

THE implications of the showdown at the Lal Masjid are tragic, bewildering, shameful and utterly outrageous. They are symptomatic of our general state of affairs. That this particular incident came to pass when warning signals were discernible earlier this year denotes culpable negligence if not mala fides.

The primary responsibility for the disaster lies with the party best able to control the outcome – that is the regime headed by President General Musharraf, who is facing the most difficult year of his rule, followed by smooth-toned Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and a special team, including the ubiquitous trouble-shooter, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, ministers Aftab Sherpao, Muhammad Ali Durrani, Tariq Azeem and the Minister for Religious Affairs, Ejazul Haq. This colourful crew is monitored by a matrix – a shadowy cabal of sorts – structured on the three special agencies, the ISI, the MI and the IB and the Corps Commanders.

The setting up of the Lal Masjid and its associated institutions on state land has since the dark age of Ziaul Haq been aided and abetted by the matrix, while the activities of its clerics were honed to propagate Talibanism and to counter political developments likely to threaten the dominance of the incumbent stakeholders. The truth is that the Lal Masjid could not have become what Ejazul Haq calls “the hub of militant extremism for the whole region” – a terrorist sanctuary and a bristling armoury for jihadis without the acquiescence of the matrix.

In view of the matrix’s omnipotence, the fallout of the Lal Masjid transgressions visited on the hapless citizens of Islamabad earlier this year should have been nipped in the bud. Instead, the matter was allowed to simmer either because of weakkneed indecisiveness or for countering the impact of the Chief Justice’s challenge or for ensuring western support for the Musharraf regime, or for neutralising the significance of the London-based All Parties Conference (APC). Whatever the reason, since the matter was not scotched in time, it came full circle to bite the hand that fed it.

The government’s ineptitude in handling the situation was exacerbated by lapses, all of which came to roost in the Lal Masjid crisis. For instance, the failure of successive administrations to provide countrywide public schooling has left the underprivileged children with no option for education other than the madressas. Additionally, failure to control madressa proliferation during the last two decades has led to the proliferation of seedbeds of terrorism.

Inaction in imposing a broader education programme on the madressahs (until recently) has facilitated the dissemination of extremist Salafi teachings and militant propaganda. Treating the clergy as nobility has given rise to a new class with vested interests. Handling charlatans posing as bonafide ulema with kid gloves has contributed to the criminality displayed in the Lal Masjid scenario.

When the government moved decisively – laying siege to the Lal Masjid and subsequently, storming the complex – such moves have been viewed as steps in the right direction, even though they were knee-jerk reactions to the kidnapping of the Chinese masseuses by the seminarians in the former instance, and the breakdown of negotiations after the expiry of the deadline for surrender in the latter case. Despite such reservations, these measures were well supported by the general public, even though their overall impact was muted by indecisiveness.

By letting diverse parties jump into the Lal Masjid fray with proposals for resolving the crisis, and allowing unrestricted media coverage of such deliberations, the administration externalised what should have been an exclusively government concern. It trivialised the cowardice and hypocrisy of Maulana Abdul Aziz, chief cleric of the Lal Masjid, by telecasting a re-enactment of his attempted escape from the mosque in which he appears bedecked in a burqa.

It sent mixed signals by TV coverage showing. Ejazul Haq embracing the Maulana at the police station where he was detained after the aborted escape.

It prolonged the siege of the Lal Masjid by not cutting off electricity, gas and water supplied to the complex, and by failing to check telephone contact between Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi (the principal challenger of the writ of the state) and the world outside, it enabled him to thumb his nose at the administration by declaring his terms for surrender and for the release of hostages, by putting forth his justification for the transgressions.

Even the final assault was launched without foreknowledge of elements present within the complex resulting in several deaths that could have been avoided. Confusion has prevailed on facts triggering the assault, on whether the crackdown was warranted and on the accuracy of the official post-assault data on destruction, raising doubts about the veracity of such reports.

As catalysts of the crisis that held the country at bay for eight days, the Ghazi brothers are responsible for precipitating a national disaster. Their intransigence cloaked in religiosity formed the basis of an anti-state agenda. They are culpable on several counts, including running the so-called “hub of militant extremism for the whole region,” unauthorised stockpiling of weapons, networking with other jihadi outposts, propagating a literalist Salafi doctrine that demonises other Islamic sects, raising student cadres of militants and suicide bombers, and so on.

Like the Kharajites of yore, they have harmed the cause of Islam. Moreover, they have dishonoured the academic tradition of the madressah and made a mockery of the burqa. Their obduracy was the principal cause of the loss of lives and bloodshed occasioned during the crisis.

The clerical fraternity and the Islamist parties have also played a negative role in the Lal Masjid showdown. The former could have influenced the direction of events at the preliminary stage by means of persuasion supplemented by the active intervention of Muslim personages from Pakistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world instead of standing in the wings and letting the tragedy unfold.

A correct approach called for applauding what was right and denouncing what was wrong, especially when the stakes pertained to matters of greater concern than mere politics. The Lal Masjid clerics may not have heeded the call of the Islamist parties, but at least they could not have been faulted for lacking moral probity in adopting the correct approach.

The secular parties too have been somewhat equivocal in their approach to the Lal Masjid issue. With their attention largely taken up by matters such as the Chief Justice imbroglio, the unresolved questions concerning the elections, and the APC, they paid scant attention to the Lal Masjid saga. While the crisis was brewing, party spokespersons muttered about it being a diversionary ploy of the Musharraf regime for drawing attention away from the Chief Justice’s campaign. For their inability to gauge the significance of the crisis and for not initiating steps for defusing the crisis, they also defaulted.

The media’s role represented by the TV networks that provided countrywide coverage on a minute-to-minute basis as events unfolded has been creditable, despite some lapses. The networks also deserve to be commended for raising the red alert when the Lal Masjid affair first surfaced. We were forewarned.

For ignoring several such warnings over the years, and for abjuring our responsibility to protect the interests of the state, we are also culpable. If there is truth in the cliche that people get the government they deserve, then let us strive for betterment in ourselves and in governance, otherwise successive Lal Masjids heralding death, destruction and darkness with await us.

The writer is a barrister and lecturer in legal studies.

A touch of command

Like a bull suddenly shaking itself free of picadors who have been tormenting it, Britain’s Labour Party on Friday cast aside its vulnerability. For most of the last two years the party has been a weakened creature, tormented by David Cameron, by the cash for honours inquiry and by its own fears over the succession from one prime minister to the next.

Now those worries have gone and with their passing has come a new command. How Gordon Brown uses this opportunity, and how long he is able to sustain it, will determine when, and if, he wins an election.

Days as good as last Friday come to prime ministers only very rarely. First, in the early hours, the party secured two easy wins in by-elections that in other circumstances might have been lost. There was no need for ministers to reach for the ready excuse of "midterm" contests. The victories, in Sedgefield and Ealing Southall, carried with them the bonus of leaving the Conservative party in disarray. Then, at lunchtime, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it was to take no action against suspects in the cash for honours inquiry. An investigation that had lasted 16 months and which brought much frustration to Tony Blair - perhaps even causing him to leave office earlier than he had wanted - had ended.

In different ways, both the by-elections and the prosecution decision underscore what has changed since Tony Blair left office on June 27. Labour has regained its strength, ahead of events once again, not chasing them. Though Mr Blair's departure was only three weeks ago, it feels much more distant.

––The Guardian, London