Author: Irfan Husain
Publication: The Dawn
Date: May 18, 2002
Over a week has passed since the
gruesome suicide bombing that left 14 people dead, including 11 French
technicians, but no heads have rolled and, more importantly, no introspection
seems to have taken place.
It is true that it is very difficult
to stop an attack if a terrorist is willing to die, but it is not impossible
to anticipate where an attack will take place. In this case, it was glaringly
obvious that religious extremists would seek out foreign targets from nations
supporting the ongoing 'war on terror' as attacks on them would also hurt
the Pakistan government.
The movements of the French contingent
working on the submarine project were predictable, and even our navy could
have foreseen the strong possibility of the visiting Frenchmen coming under
attack, specially after the grenade assault in a church in Islamabad that
left five foreigners dead. So clearly, a massive intelligence failure has
occurred, and so far at least, nobody has been held accountable.
Over the last week, newspapers and
TV talk shows have been full of what the government intends to do to prevent
the recurrence of such terrorist attacks. The list runs from the decision
to set up an anti-terrorist force to getting 'the latest technology' from
the West. This begs the question why old technology like finger-printing
has still not been integrated into our 19th century police methods. Although
senior police officers move around in expensive vehicles like Land cruisers,
the department can't find the money to upgrade forensic labs.
But more importantly, nobody has
focused on the underlying issues: why has there been a steady build-up
of terrorist activities on our soil over the years? Why has the state tolerated
the growing presence and activities of religious and ethnic terrorists?
We don't need new anti-terrorist forces or courts; what we need is for
the law of the land to be strictly and impartially enforced. But above
all, we need the sustained political will to stamp out the culture of violence
and lawlessness that has taken root here.
The current issue of Fortune magazine
carries a long and devastating article on Pakistan (which the writer refers
to as 'Problemistan') which discusses the multiple crises we are passing
through. A few days ago, a story in the Washington Post based on interviews
with American embassy staff concluded that most US diplomats wanted to
leave Islamabad because their families could not stay with them because
of security concerns. A recent New York Times article on the trial of those
accused of the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl describes how the
alleged criminals openly threatened and abused witnesses in the court,
and how the judge was unable to control the proceedings. The report suggests
that Pakistan has become a 'soft state'.
In the plethora of hype and justifications
flowing from government spokesmen, nobody has asked how and why we have
reached such a pass. The story in Fortune even claims that Pakistan has
the largest number of terrorists in the world, and I have no reason to
question this estimate. Certainly, no other country has suffered so much
terrorist activity over such a long period of time on its soil. Against
this background, it is relevant to ask why successive governments have
permitted this state of affairs to continue.
Initially, the terrorist phenomenon
in Pakistan began with our involvement in Afghanistan in the early eighties:
retaliating to our military support for the mujahideen, the government
in Kabul unleashed a series of bomb blasts against civilian targets across
Pakistan. The easy availability of arms in that period swelled the arsenals
of outfits like the MQM, leading to years of bloodletting in Karachi and
Hyderabad.
After the Soviets withdrew from
Afghanistan, followed by the Americans, Pakistan attempted to shape events
there by propping up proxies, and then began our ultimately disastrous
support of the Taliban. In this period we also encouraged jihadi outfits
to operate in Indian-held Kashmir. The recent slaughter of the families
of Indian soldiers is an offshoot of this aggressive policy.
Sustaining extremists like oxygen
is the aura of fake piety that permeates Pakistani society today. Endless
religious talk shows; years of compulsory religious instruction at school
at the expense of the sciences; and the constant invocation of dogma have
become the hallmark of contemporary Pakistan. It is as if we have acquired
a monopoly on Islam and are its sole custodians.
In such an environment, the call
to jihad has greater resonance and appeal, specially for those who have
no future in a rapidly changing and demanding world. Underpinning the network
of jihadi groups is a system of madressahs which imparts nothing but the
rote learning of the scriptures. Graduates are also taught to hate all
those whose practice of the faith diverges in some minor detail. These
fanatical foot-soldiers are the ones who are spreading terror and death
across the land.
General Musharraf has repeatedly
announced his intention to eradicate this menace. In January, two thousand
extremists were locked up, only to be soon released. Several hundreds have
been scooped up in the wake of last week's suicide attack on the French;
let's see how soon they will be set free. So far, the general has yet to
exhibit the political will to take on the zealots, and here he can study
the methods used by General Babar, Benazir Bhutto's interior minister when
he set out to crush the MQM's militant wing.
Despite the lamentable human rights
violations that undoubtedly took place, Karachi was rid of the daily violence.
Whatever we may say about her now, the fact is that she showed more gumption
and staying power in dealing with this menace than any of her successors,
including the ones in uniform. Now that the government is negotiating with
the MQM, my businessmen friends report that they are getting calls demanding
protection money or bhatta again.
And this is precisely why the problem
cannot be solved: those in power persist in doing deals with all kinds
of shady organizations to achieve questionable short-term goals, and in
the process give them immunity from the law. This licence is then abused
by these extremists to further their own agendas. Very often, the police
are ordered to release militants because a deal has been struck over their
heads. Even when they are brought to book, they are released as witnesses
and/or the judges are frightened.
What General Musharraf and his security
advisers must understand as they grope for answers is that no amount of
'modern technology' can substitute for resolve, effective intelligence
gathering and an efficient judiciary. Above all, they must stop cutting
deals simply to keep certain politicians and political parties out of power.
If our intelligence agencies spent their resources on keeping tabs on terrorists
instead of politicians and journalists, Pakistan would be a far safer place
today.
