Extremism at the grass roots
By Mushfiq Murshed
THE unenviable position of being a front-line state in the war on terror has resulted in the branding of Pakistan as the most dangerous place on earth and, more recently, after the Mumbai attacks, the ‘epicentre of terror’. Unfortunately, these pronouncements are not entirely bereft of truth.
Internal threats have reached such alarming proportions that even the induction of additional troops, training of indigenous security forces and the injection of funds and equipment, though necessary, will no longer be sufficient to defeat the Al Qaeda/Taliban-led violence.
Extremist ideology, which manifests itself in rampant terrorist attacks in the country, continues to gather momentum. The obscurantist doctrines espoused by so-called religious parties target free markets, democracy, women’s rights and modernity in its diverse aspects, and have made inroads at the grass-roots level. Their efficient welfare network whereby food, clothing, shelter and education are provided to the needy, as at the time of the 2005 earthquake, further bolsters such outfits and provides them a continuous flow of radicalised recruits.
In contrast the injustices and inequality prevalent in society, inflation without economic growth, massive disinvestment, unemployment and a large yet ineffective state administration is gradually eroding the confidence of the people in democratic values and the secular parties that they brought into power less than a year ago.In societies where economic depression and injustice become unbearable, an educated middle class usually provides the impetus for civil movements to rectify and address grievances. In extreme instances, these result in revolutions. In Pakistan, however, the middle class itself is being gradually eroded and sinking into the quicksand of poverty. This socio-economic morass is being skilfully exploited by the well-organised and well-financed extremist elements, in the face of the callous neglect by the state, to gain support of the masses.
The meltdown can only be arrested if the government snaps out of its lethargy. It has to merge its disjointed efforts and strategise to win back the hearts and minds of the people. The solution lies in a mix of economic and ideological initiatives.
The ideological battle cannot be won until economic deprivations are addressed. Social and economic inequalities, the widening gap between the rich and the poor and the erosion of the middle class are playing a more pivotal role in increasing the flanks of the militants than negative indoctrination by the clerics.
The government needs to economically empower the masses by broadening the country’s economic base. To date, economic prosperity has been restricted to a few who have amassed huge fortunes. The country no longer has the time for the much-touted trickle-down benefits of growth. An island of prosperity cannot sustain itself in an ocean of poverty. Distribution of wealth through projects in vocational training, development of small- and medium-sized enterprises backed by micro-credit schemes need to be encouraged. Simultaneously, low-income housing, healthcare and education have to be developed.
These projects are, however, a part of a medium- to long-term strategy with respective gestation periods. The immediate objective is to tackle inflation (averaging 24.65 per cent for just the first five months of fiscal year 2008-09) which, without economic growth, has reached pandemic levels. Reports of suicides and the sale of children indicate the severity of the problem.
Desperate times require bold and imaginative measures. The government must lead the way. Public awareness media campaigns are required to sensitise and mobilise the more fortunate. Funds for poverty alleviation are urgently needed and can be raised from both the private and public sectors. The proper utilisation of these funds in the form of food banks, subsidies, temporary shelters and clothing must be efficiently coordinated and monitored. The luxury of procrastination is no longer available to the government which has to move with speed and determination to redress the inequities.
The ideological battle with its concomitant objective of owning the war on terror has received the same lacklustre, disjointed and sporadic support from the government. The silver lining is that the lack of direction and leadership by the state is, to an extent, being replaced by an activist civil movement.
This movement began with a single song titled: ‘Yeh hum nahin’. The message of the song was simple. It conveyed that Muslims/Pakistanis are not terrorists and that the heinous crimes committed by these extremists are anathema to the Islamic doctrine. The song is now widely considered as the anthem for the anti-terrorism movement in Pakistan.
However, it is just the first step in the ideological struggle against extremist violence. To some extent, the movement has succeeded in galvanising popular support against extremism and more such initiatives are required to take the country towards new frontiers of tolerance, stability and economic prosperity.
The writer is editor-in-chief of Criterion Quarterly.
mushfiq.murshed@gmail.comM


Treating a cold: British vs French style
By Agnes Poirier
SEASON of sneezes and fitful drowsiness, the poet might have written. Colds, sore throats, coughing and all kinds of wintry afflictions have already stricken European workers in recent days. Perhaps the dreaded recession has played a role in sapping their morale and weakened their immune system. Whoever the culprit is, the remedy varies enormously according to where exactly in Europe you caught your germs and where you decide to be treated. France and Britain offer opposite attitudes.
In the 13 years I have lived in Britain, I’ve used five different GPs. The scenario never changes. I get a cold; I fight for a week on my own, resorting to a cocktail of raw garlic, ginger infusion, chicken broth and hot baths. After admitting defeat, I go and consult my local GP. He or she hardly looks at me and invariably asks: “So, what is it you have and what is it you want?” “Antibiotics?” I venture. “Go back home, have some rest, and take an aspirin. If you’re still ill in a week, come back to see me.”
I leave feeling even more forlorn than when I arrived. A little angry too, even if I know, deep down, that the doctor is actually right.
Cut to the practice of my local GP in France. Jars of pate and homemade jams given by grateful patients stand by a small aquarium. Le docteur asks me how I feel. I give him all the horrid details: running nose, saliva’s discolouring and an impression of permanent fog in the brain. He seems fascinated and asks me to undress. I already feel better: somebody is taking my cold very seriously. Thorough examination ensues: nose, ears, throat, skull, chest, stomach, blood pressure. He uses a few Latin words to say that, well, I have a cold. And I leave with a long prescription of vitamins, mineral supplements, ear drops, seawater nose spray, soothing blackcurrant pastilles and antibiotics. The mist in my brain has disappeared before I even reach the nearest pharmacy. It’s called the placebo effect. I’m sure I could actually do away with the antibiotics now that I’ve been listened to and examined properly.
The question, of course, is whether it makes any sense to prescribe antibiotics for a cold which is probably only a virus and not a bacterial infection. British GPs’ no-nonsense attitude is in fact, certainly in medical terms, the most sensible to adopt. However, patients may end up feeling worse: the way GPs dismiss them, as if to say colds are for wimps, generally proves emotionally counterproductive. Of course, if you have never known any other kind of medicine, you simply get on with it. But if you have been used to the pampering French system, your local British doctor’s apparent indifference is a bitter pill.
Or perhaps, this is another case of laissez faire against dirigisme. British medicine says: laissez faire la nature and your cold will eventually go away. French medicine declares: let’s annihilate any soupcon of bacterial infection with nuclear-strength antibiotics. The first one treats its patients with harsh firmness, the second with dangerous exuberance. While we ponder on those two opposite medical options, we are left to sneeze. — The Guardian, London

