[Sanatana Dharma] Pakistan's leading journalist says it all

[Guest guest]

http://thefridaytimes.hypermart.net/ THE FRIDAY TIMES (PAKISTAN NEWSPAPER),

NOVEMBER 21, 2003 WRITING ON THE WALL Najam Sethi's E d i t o r i a l Last week

the government of General Pervez Musharraf announced a ban on three jihadi

outfits which were earlier banned by the United States. As if on cue, the

police swooped down upon them, "sealed" their offices and detained dozens of

their activists. Their bank accounts were ostensibly "frozen". This is supposed

to be another historic blow against extremism and terrorism. Rubbish. General

Musharraf's thunderous assertions are sounding like a scratched 78 rpm record.

Two years ago, we received a blast of the same banalities. The Jaish i

Mohammad, Sipah i Sahaba, and Tekrik i Jafaria were "banned" by Pakistan (after

they were outlawed by the United Nations Security Council), their offices

"sealed", their leaders arrested and their empty bank accounts frozen. Soon

thereafter, everyone was released, the three parties renamed themselves as

Khuddam ul Islam, Millat i Islamia and Islami Tehrik respectively and were

allowed to function, recruit people, collect funds for jihad, publish their

journals and give rousing sermons against all infidels. In fact, Maulana Azam

Tariq, the leader of the renamed Sipah Sahaba, was encouraged to contest the

2002 general elections and "helped" to become a member of the National Assembly

so that he could duly provide "that crucial single vote" enabling Mr Zafarullah

Jamali to scrape together a government. Similarly, Allama Sajid Naqvi, leader

of the Tehrik i Jafaria, alias Islami Tehrik, was allowed to contest elections

and become a respectable member of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal. And Mr Masood

Azhar, the leader of the Jaish, alias Khuddam, was encouraged to preach jihad

and collect funds all over the country. In fact, in a brazen display of

bonhomie with the khakis, he recently preached his doctrine of jihad in a grand

mosque in the very heart of Lahore's military cantonment. The pattern has become

predictable. Whenever American pressure to clamp down on extremism breaches a

threshold noise level, Islamabad is quick to offer a sop. In January 2002, it

was President Bush and last week it was Nancy Powell, the American Ambassador

to Islamabad. In between these two bans and many meetings of "pious people"

drummed up by the government to "tackle religious extremism", we have been

subjected to gruesome sectarian killings in Quetta and Karachi which have been

squarely laid at the door of one or another such organisation. Meanwhile, the

world is increasingly convinced that Pakistan is the original home of radical

Islam and terrorism. A recent poll in the EU claimed that 48% of the

respondents thought Pakistan was a threat to world peace. This perception

hasn't been helped by the fact that the Musharraf government has made no effort

to stop local jihadi leaders from their violent tirades against the "West and

all infidels". What is so special about these Islamic groups that the Pakistan

army cannot countenance an end to them? Why must ordinary, moderate Pakistanis,

and the world at large, continue to pay the price for their extremism and

radicalism? When will the Pakistani state realise that the price of

mollycoddling them has become prohibitively high? The answers are obvious

enough. Radical Islam has served to keep the Pakistan army in power (even when

it is not in office). It has provided the jihadi cannon fodder for keeping the

Kashmir issue alive, which in turn has sustained long-term hostility with

India, which in turn remains the raison d'etre of soaring defense expenditures.

Radical Islamists have also helped to weaken the thrust of the mainstream,

moderate, political parties that have come to challenge the Pakistan's army's

self-proclaimed role as the primary motive force of this country. But will this

formula work as effectively for its patrons in the future? No. First, radical

Islamists are increasingly forging their own national, regional and global

long-term agendas that don't square with the short-term imperatives of their

military patrons. Indeed, some of them have enormous potential to destabilize

their creators - as Mulla Umar did to Musharraf's Pakistan and Osama bin Laden

has done to the House of Saud in Arabia. Another major attack by Al Qaeda in

the US or in Britain or in Europe would likely unleash dire consequences not

just for Muslim peoples all over the world but also for Pakistan and Saudi

Arabia. Within the region too, the jihadis have enormous potential for

destabilization - as we saw when they attacked civilian targets in Kashmir and

New Delhi and provoked the Indians in December 2001 to march their army to the

border with Pakistan and threaten all-out war. Another such attack could plunge

the region into crisis and conflict. Second, the record shows that radical Islam

is incompatible with nation-building, democracy, universal human rights and

economic development - critical elements of the new world order. It perpetuates

a clash of civilizations and is inimical to global stability. If Pakistan

continues to harbour radical Islamists in its midst the price will surely

become prohibitive. If General Pervez Musharraf can read the writing on the

wall and act to uproot extremist "Islamists", he will do himself, the Pakistan

army and the Pakistani nation great good. But if he is guided by the same

provincial notions of national security, army infallibility and military

ascendancy as in the past, then we have all had it. [Non-text portions of this

message have been removed]

Terms of Service.