Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Genesis of militancy in Pakistan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Genesis of militancy in Pakistan

    Genesis of militancy in Pakistan



    In Pakistan, there is a strong linkage between rising religious terrorism and poverty and role of dictatorial rule, based on well-defined hierarchical pyramid


    Dr Farooq Hasnat


    An unruffled study has to be conducted, with the intention of revealing the real reasons for the 'sudden' ascent of militant tendencies, in the Pakistani society. The broader propensity of intolerance is stretched to all layers of the state institutions, (including the military and bureaucracy) and is not confined only to the non-state actors. On the other hand, when it comes to a violent resentment, it is not restricted to the 'Islamic militants' or sectarian fanatics, alone - it is rather a part of more comprehensive phenomena. More than one ideological group are responsible for disturbing the non-violent traditions of Pakistan. The trend of violence and extremism is not confined to religious bigotry, as said before, or to ethnic hatred. It is reflected in all levels of societal contacts - a trend, which became more prominent as the Pakistani society moved towards the end of the last century. Militancy in Pakistan has many facets - ranging from military coups (including attempted) to sectarian killings. Also included are the ethnic related civil war situations. The society, as a whole has done away with the conflict management mechanisms, which should have been in the fabric of the societal relationships, in laws and in the agendas of the establishment.

    To uncover the truth, a narrow approach, which is intended for political and security purposes, must be broadened in general. We have to look far behind the closed walls of the madrassahs and the syllabus that is being taught at those places. The problem lies in the extended society; the manner in which the State is being governed and the types of relief a citizen is denied, through normal economic, legal and administrative/political methods. This is accompanied by the feeling of deprivation amongst a large majority of the people. Sponsored and encouraged by the corrupt military and civilian regimes, it has become an accepted norm to look for short cuts, strife for out of turn benefits, and to become wealthy, no matter what it takes. This practice has severely compromised merit and mediocre has replaced excellence and professionalism. All these trends promote militancy, as citizens have no customary channels to redress. An understanding of this phenomenon could help us to locate the level and kinds of frustration that is prevalent in the Pakistani society.

    On a broader spectrum, it has become a fashion to trace all acts of violent behaviour to Islamic community. There is so much rhetoric in this regard that other possible reasons for the rise of militancy in Pakistan, have been set aside. The international media has found a new excitement about the activities of the militant groups and linking them only and only with the Muslim ideology, no matter where they are located. It is being envisioned as if the origin and manifestation of extremism and terrorism is only confined to Islam or at least to people who believe in the religion and call themselves Muslims.

    This impression is further reinforced by the Greater Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes, which after 9/11 got the opportunity to strengthen their dictatorial rule, by deliberately misinterpreting the unrest in their respective societies. According to this propaganda tool, the element of dissent and revolt is branded as an act of extremism, which is evil and must be crushed, with whatever means the ruling junta has, at its disposal.

    In this way the state extremism or militarism received its authenticity, from the international community.

    After September 11, the dictatorial regimes of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Pakistan rushed to support the United States, facilitating the American onslaught on Afghanistan. The intention behind those gestures was not because of moral reasons or to become an honest partner in a war against the evil of terrorism. It was in fact to protect their regimes against the growing unrest within their societies, originating from the massive financial corruption, brutal control and gross injustice by the dictatorial rulers. In the process, every dissent and every revolt that took place within their respective countries was branded as Islamic militancy and being part of the international terrorist network. Under this pretext, the gross violations of human rights, by the state structures, were justified. These regimes have freely branded their opponents as Islamist militants, with the intention to disguise the grievances of the people. The rulers try to outdo each other, in getting legitimacy for their illegal regimes, as they are not able to get support from their own people.

    Until the beginning of 1990s, the Pakistani society was reasonably tolerant. In 1968, a gigantic mass movement against the dictatorial rule of Ayub Khan went on for months, in nearly all big cities and towns of Pakistan. There was hardly an instance of sabotage or any other source of violence, from the agitators. In fact this extended mass revolt, in search of tranquillity, demanded freedom and democracy and a freely elected Parliament. Another mass movement against the rigging of the 1977 general elections followed the same pattern.

    Decades of military rule created a way of life, where the real Pakistani values were undermined, which ultimately eroded for the worse. Oppression, intolerance and disregard for law were practiced by the ruling elite, as an accepted model. Taking advantage of the Afghan situation, in the 1980s, General Zia, further inculcated a culture of violence by his deceitful rule. While the Afghan resistance went on, his inapt military administration silently adjusted to the culture of violence and militancy, within the Pakistani society. Regional secular parties were created to protect the narrow objectives of the junta, which as a result undermined nationally acknowledged political entities. These narrow-focused military-sponsored political groups were based on hatred and suspicion, which became instrumental in disturbing the peace and balance of society.

    After the Soviets left, the military took upon itself an assignment of playing a 'role', in war-torn Afghanistan. The establishment's interests were based on egoistic and self-defeating multifaceted conviction that they could play a role in the making and maintenance of a regime of their liking in Afghanistan. Their close ties with the Taliban encouraged the militant Islamist organizations, to go ahead unabated, with their agenda of extremism. The Pakistani governments callously allowed the Talibanization of the Pakistani society, inducting culture of hate and bigotry, which ultimately ruined the centuries of societal balance.

    The Generals of Pakistan Army and the Talibans had nothing in common, as far as ideology is concerned - in fact they were poles apart. The Army generals have always been secular in their approach, representing in their habits, style and training a true reminiscence of the British colonial rule. While, the Talibans advocated a unique interpretation of Islam - rigid and uncompromising by any standards. However, the interests of the two coincided on such secular matters as narcotics money, kickbacks and providing arms and support to the Taliban regime. After the nuclear tests of May 1998, the faulty concept of 'strategic depth' was no more relevant, and with that the flawed rationale that had become an excuse to interfere in a neighbouring country, could not hold ground. The Pakistan Afghan policy had a certain mind-set which continued even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, although the events had drastically transformed the regional as well as international security perceptions. There was no possibility that in post 9/11 the Pakistani establishment could have wriggled out of the mess, of which it was equally responsible. Even the swiftness, with which the military took a u-turn, could not save the country from the well-entrenched effects of violent behaviour in Pakistani society.

    In Pakistan, there is a strong linkage between rising religious bigotry/terrorism and poverty and role of dictatorial rule, based on well defined hierarchical pyramid.

    Concluding, we can say that despair and frustration arising from the extended military rule, is directly linked to the unjust socio-economic order and the foreign policy issues, where a strong feeling exists amongst the Islamists, secularists and nationalists alike, that the national interests are being compromised.

    The Maryland (USA) based writer, a PhD in political science and former chairman of Punjab University's Political Science Department, is an expert on South Asia & Middle East affairs. Email: [email protected]

    http://www.weeklyindependent.com/opinion2.htm
    This is an interesting commentary on the Pakistan military's connection with terrorism.
    Last edited by Ray; 21 Jun 05,, 20:23.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    The Generals of Pakistan Army and the Talibans had nothing in common, as far as ideology is concerned - in fact they were poles apart. The Army generals have always been secular in their approach, representing in their habits, style and training a true reminiscence of the British colonial rule. While, the Talibans advocated a unique interpretation of Islam - rigid and uncompromising by any standards. However, the interests of the two coincided on such secular matters as narcotics money, kickbacks and providing arms and support to the Taliban regime.
    Providing arms and support to the Taliban is a secular matter ?

    Rubbish.

    Looks as though the author's written this article with his mind on dinner.

    Comment

    Working...
    X