You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
India-Pakistan
The collective denial
2008-01-27
By Nadeem F. Paracha

Newsweek in its recent cover story claimed that MusharrafÂ’s stubbornness to desperately hang on to power is distracting Pakistanis from tackling the real enemy i.e. Islamic extremism. I am in agreement. But the reasons behind such a happening are not quite as black and white.

Certainly, thereÂ’s now a rapid consensus developing across Pakistani society that the time has come for Musharraf to leave. But the larger question is: exactly how will this address the bigger issue of extremism? I concur that MusharrafÂ’s recent antics and blunders have made his reputation precariously venerable to critics of all shapes and sizes. But it is simplistic to assume that all shall be hunky-dory if he steps down. The truth is that this anti-Musharraf vigour is not really a case of distracted energies.

First of all, the fact that violence-prone extremism was ironically the creation of the CIA, with patronage provided by petro-dollars and the local intelligence agencies.
From Jinnah's "Direct Action Day" in Calcutta in 1946, the Pak elite has used violence to further political ends. It was Jinnah who threatened the British with Jihad.The CIA had nothing to do with the 'lashkar' sent to plunder Kashmir in 1947. The madrassa system was massively expanded, and curriculum changed long before Afghanistan. It was done as a response to the Baloch uprisings and defeat in the 1965 war (when "freedom fighters" entered Kashmir to "liberate" it for Islam.
There is not an iota of doubt about the history of these agencies using the concept of jihad as a calling card to gather fighters for the so-called “Afghan jihad” in the 1980s. A string of radical Islamic scholars was used along with the state-owned media and madressahs to fervently indoctrinate a huge number of young Muslims.

The indoctrination took place using a sternly orthodox and puritanical strain of Islam, especially in Pakistan where more than 70 per cent of the population followed the more apolitical school of Islam. The idea was to radicalise them to fight AmericaÂ’s proxy war in Afghanistan. Interestingly, though a majority of Pakistanis still belong to an apolitical school of religious thought, the aggressively puritanical version of Islam that was propagated did manage to penetrate the psyche of a substantial number of Pakistanis. TodayÂ’s extremism is a monstrous fruition of the seeds planted in the past.

More dangerous was the way droplets of this aggressive strain started to trickle down to shape the sociology and politics of Pakistanis who are not extremists. ThatÂ’s why, for example, if you mention names like Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif, one wonÂ’t be surprised to see a number of Pakistanis leap to action, getting into an animated mode, criticising and lambasting corrupt politicians and power-hungry generals. However, the moment you try to discuss a recent episode of suicide bombing, most Pakistanis can then be seen suddenly going into a shell, trying to avoid the topic.

The majority will not condone suicide bombing, but they will not condemn it either. And that’s dangerous. Some would avoid discussing it altogether, actually believing that maybe criticising the “holy warriors” (no matter how violent they may be), is like criticising Islam, while some would gladly become navel-gazing apologists of such acts.
In other words, they really don't have a problem with suicide bombing, just who it is used against. It is OK against Hindus in India and Jews in Israel, but bad against others.
Whom should we blame, seems to be the question on their mind. The thinking is that blaming the extremists is perhaps equal to agreeing with Musharraf and the US. It is this narrow, egocentric mentality, coupled with echoes of years and years of indoctrination of a contradictory and xenophobic strain of Islam that has left a bulk of Pakistanis apathetically suffering and subdued by matters such as extremism and terrorism.

What Musharraf represents in the form of the establishment comes with a historical and visible baggage. It is thus a target that can be clearly seen, pinpointed and attacked, whereas extremism remains an elusive enemy. Some would even go to the extent of negating its very existence, in spite of the ubiquitous sights of blood, bodies and limbs quivering on blackened streets. So, it is not general apathy or distracted energies of the people that the extremists are feeding on; it is a collective case of denial on the part of an increasing number of Pakistanis that is strengthening the extremists. The denial is made worse by the apologists.

Though it is true the terrorists are not overwhelmingly popular with the masses, it is also true that most Pakistanis have yet to perceive the extremists as the kind of enemy that they really are. With ready-made explanations like RAW, CIA and that “fellow Muslims are being subjected to state atrocities in the north” spiel being their best answers to the madness of extremism and terrorism, it is highly unlikely to expect Pakistanis to tackle the issue anytime soon — regardless of who the next president or the PM will be.
Posted by:john frum

#1  Pakistan's free fall into crapulence couldn't have anything to do with Zia's 1978 overthrow of Common Law inherited from the Brits to implement sharia. Instead it was the CIA's mid 80'sgift of a few dozen Stingers. That would make the Pakis the World's Cheapest Whores.
Posted by: ed   2008-01-27 13:40  

00:00