Chapter 23

 

Ali was taking his assignment rather seriously. He had never made a presentation before and wanted to give a good account of himself in his debut presentation. “I should first understand the phenomenon of terrorism and then see how the tools of philosophy can be applied to it,” he thought.

 

Accordingly, he decided to seek guidance from his parents, especially his father, who had filed a number of stories and features on terrorism. So after dinner, he told his parents about his assignment and where he needed their help.

 

“I can tell you about terrorism in a general sense and then your father will be in a better position to dilate upon its concrete expression in Pakistan,” Mrs Naqvi began. “Briefly, terrorism as I understand it is a weapon for achieving some political objective, a weapon which can be used both by the state and against the state. In fact, contrary to popular perception state terrorism has been more widespread than anti-state terrorism. Whenever the state’s authority is based on sheer force, we have state terrorism. Anarchists as well as Marxists are of the view that the state is essentially a child of force and so by implication an agency of terrorism.

 

“Terrorism against the state is more often than not a form of political protest, a form gone violent because the avenues of peaceful expression of political discontent are not available,” Mrs Naqvi continued.

 

“But mother can there be a justification for terrorism?” Ali questioned.

 

“To me there can never be. But for terrorists whether acting against the state or for the state, there definitely is. Remember one thing: Terrorists working against the state are criminals in that they defy the law of the land, but to be sure they aren’t the ordinary criminals. They fight for a cause and they have a strong faith in their cause. However the state may label them, for themselves and their supporters, terrorists are freedom fighters and in our case the soldiers of Islam or mujahideen. Terrorism thus has an ideology and the best way to attack terrorism is either to attack that ideology or to alleviate the discontent of the people that underlies terrorism,” Mrs Naqvi answered.

 

“Forgive me Fatima. But if, as you say, terrorists have a strong faith in their cause, wouldn’t attacking their ideology harden them and thus prove counterproductive?” Mr Naqvi joined the discussion.

 

“It may some time,” Mrs Naqvi admitted. “But if terrorism is to succeed it must have a popular basis. However, if it can be shown to the people that the cause for which the terrorists are fighting is not a worthy one, terrorism can be attenuated. Popular support, I may say, is the ground under terrorists. If the ground gets slipped, their movement will fizzle out.”

 

“Can force be an answer to terrorism?” Ali asked.

 

“Force has been used successfully to put down terrorism. Its most recent example is Sri Lanka, where the government crushed Tamil uprising after facing years of resistance. So yes force can be an answer,” Mrs Naqvi replied.

 

“One last question before I turn to father: Is it possible to launch a popular resistance movement without in any manner resorting to the use of force?”

 

“Theoretically it’s very much possible. People may use constitutional means to get their demands accepted. However, in practical terms, the use of only constitutional means is subject to several factors. For instance, is the use of constitutional means open to the people? Do the people see any tangible chances of success if they use such means? What kind of ideology is the basis of the movement? If the ideology itself is diabolical, then chances of a bloodless struggle are very much limited. What kind of leadership is at the helm? Movements led by the leaders who believe in passive resistance or are constitutionalist are more likely to eschew violence. The struggle for Indian independence was for instance largely peaceful partly because the two frontline leaders, I mean Gandhi and Jinnah, were pacifists,” Mrs Naqvi explained.

 

“Now father it’s your turn,” Ali addressed Mr Naqvi. “How do you see the terrorism that we are facing?”

 

Mr Naqvi took a deep breath and then began: “Much has been said and written about this menace. But briefly, this represents a classic case of political exploitation of religion. I can give you a brief account of the genesis of this menace.”

 

“That will be nice. But there’s a counter point that the current spate of terrorism in Pakistan is the result of the country’s role of a frontline ally of the United States in the campaign against terrorism. Therefore, the only way to rid the country of this menace is to shun the alliance with the US. Is it really so?” Ali asked.

 

“Well, Mr Naqvi answered, “I don’t dispute that suicide terrorism has struck Pakistan only in the wake of the country’s post 9/11 alliance with the US. Yet the roots of the malady lie much deeper. The terrorism that we are facing is largely an embodiment of religious extremism, which earlier expressed itself in sectarian killings. The bottles may be new but the wine is old.

 

“To trace the roots of terrorism,” Mr Naqvi continued, “you need to go back to Pakistan’s involvement in the US led war against its prime antagonist, the USSR in Afghanistan. In 1979, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the US deemed it to be a move in the USSR global strategy — expansion of communism. The invasion of Afghanistan coincided with the advent of the revolution in Iran whereby the pro-American monarchy was abolished and an anti-US Islamic regime set up. The change in Iran struck at US influence in the region. Hence, when the USSR dispatched its troops to Afghanistan, the US reaction was prompt and tough.

 

“The Americans wanted to secure the support of neighboring countries of Afghanistan, so that they could launch an effective anti-Russia campaign. The US could not get the support of India and Iran for different reasons: India was a staunch ally of the USSR, while Washington-Tehran relations were on the ebb. However, in Pakistan, the US found an ally, and it was through the former that the latter found its war against the USSR in Afghanistan.

 

“The problem before the then government in Pakistan, which happened to be dictatorial, was how to justify its involvement in the Afghan war. And their answer was simple: let’s give the war religious meaning. Hence, the Afghan war became a jihad and the Afghanis on the US side mujahideen. The illegitimate Ziaul Haq regime, which itself was desperately looking for legitimacy as well as political and economic support, welcomed the Islamisation of the Afghan war. The people were made to believe that the communist USSR invasion of Afghanistan had endangered Islam and therefore it was the religious duty of the government and people of Pakistan to fight in the war on the side of America, which was fighting for Islam. You see America was portrayed as fighting the war of Islam!” Mr Naqvi said.

 

“However, with the decline in the USSR’s superpower stature, before its eventual disintegration, and realization on the part of the Soviet leadership that their Afghan adventure had proved a misadventure, Moscow decided to pull out from Afghanistan. With that the US involvement in Afghanistan fizzled out. Hence, in 1989 when the Soviets left Afghanistan, the Americans also said good-bye to the Afghans. The US closed its embassy in Kabul because of what they called security concerns leaving the warring Afghans to themselves. The US departure showed that its interest in Afghanistan was purely strategic dictated by its national interest and not born of its concern for Islam or the Afghans.

 

“However, for Pakistan the impact of the Afghan campaign was disastrous. The Afghan war resulted in massive supply of arms and money to Pakistan. But this money was spent not on the welfare of the people but on recruiting militants and rewarding generals. Since the Afghan crisis was portrayed as a conflict between Islam and kufr, activists of many religious outfits fought in the war, who were provided money and arms in a generous way. These militants knew only one way of living — living by the sword. They also needed an enemy. If the enemy was not a Russian, it could be a Muslim of the rival sect. Hence, the training and arms which the militants had received were later used against rival creeds resulting in enormous sectarian violence.

 

“Pakistan’s involvement in the Afghan war also strengthened the notion that Pakistan should be made the citadel of Islam and that it is the duty of Pakistanis to actively support Muslim resistance movements all over the world. The Soviet humiliation in Afghanistan also made the jihadis believe that they can defeat an adversary however strong. Hence, the jihadis made their way into India, China, Chechnya and elsewhere. In turn, Pakistan received militants from different parts of the world. The jihadis’ infiltration into China was the main reason why Beijing stopped supporting Pakistan on the Kashmir issue,” Mr Naqvi explained.

 

“Where would you fit in ideology here,” Ali queried.

 

“The jihadis would also have us believe that Islam provides only for a monolithic society in which different cultures or sub-cultures cannot co-exist; rather they have to be merged with the so-called Islamic culture. If preaching cannot effect that merger, force can be, and must be, used. If such an interpretation of Islam were to be accepted, then the use of force to remove cultural diversity would become legitimate and freedom of conscience, which underlies all moral freedom, become meaningless. There would be only one creed and one moral code, not by choice but by force. Such an interpretation of Islam would not only divest society of all ethical freedom but also breed mayhem and chaos as jihadis would wade through blood if need be to purge society of what they consider to be un-Islamic beliefs and practices,” Mr Naqvi answered.

 

“What has been the role of the madaris?” Mrs Naqvi asked.

 

“In breeding and nurturing religious militancy,” Mr Naqvi said, “the madaris have played a lethal role. The pen is bloodier than the sword and this is perfectly applicable to our madaris. The madaris teach negation, and hence repudiation, of doctrines, rituals and moral standards different from theirs. Hence, those who profess a different creed or have a different moral standard are looked upon as evil. Women who do not put on veil or men who do not have a beard are considered impious. Men and women who mix with one another are regarded as essentially wicked. Those who listen to music are deemed to commit a grave sin. All such wicked or impious people have to be reformed — by the use of force if need be.

 

“The education imparted in the madaris instead of inculcating in students a dispassionate quest for truth or at least enabling them to take to some socially useful profession, indoctrinates in them hatred for other creeds. The students are taught that only their creed is based on truth, whereas the rest are an incarnation of evil whose elimination is a most sacred duty of theirs. The reward of performing that duty, they are taught, is an everlasting life of pleasure in the paradise. Most of the students owing to their impressionable age come to believe this stuff. Hence, when they leave their institutions, their hearts are filled with the strong desire to carry out their sacred duty. The madaris also churn out sectarian propaganda in the form of inflammatory literature, which denounces followers of rival creeds as kafirs, who must either be coerced into conversion or exterminated.

 

“It is such an erroneous view of Islam that lies behind religious extremism in Pakistan, which has expressed itself in sectarian violence, suicide blasts, burning of schools and video shops. No doubt, growing injustices in society, poverty and illiteracy have also contributed to terrorism. But one needs to be mindful of the fact that terrorism also has an ideological basis and in case of Pakistan the ideological basis is provided by the monolithic-cum-militant view of Islam,” Mr Naqvi finished.

 

“What about Pakistan’s post 9-11 alliance with America?” Ali asked.

 

“Blaming America for the instability and violence in Pakistan would not solve the problem. Nor should we expect Washington to change its strategy for the sake of Pakistan. No country will do that. The US Afghan policy is dictated by what it perceives to be its national interest. At best, we can try and convince the Americans that their tactics, such as drone attacks, will weaken efforts to defeat militancy. But the basic responsibility for defeating militants remains our own,” Mr Naqvi explained.

 

“Then what’s the solution to the problem?” Ali queried.

 

“Well the solution lies with us,” Mr Naqvi answered. “The government will have to fight on many fronts. Strong action needs to be taken against the militants who do not surrender. There has to be a real fight against poverty and injustices, so that people do not become a tool in the hands of terrorist outfits out of desperation and frustration. The government should also fight religious extremism on ideological front. The view propagated by successive governments and even today by religious parties that Pakistan was meant to be a theocratic, monolithic state and a citadel of Islam and that it is our duty to practically support Muslim resistance movements all over the world needs to be corrected. It is largely because of such misleading views that Pakistan has become a fortress of terrorism, upon which religious extremists from all-over the world look as their refuge. This is how, my son, I look upon the terrorism problem in our society,” Mr Naqvi said.

 

Ali had fruitful discussion with his parents on terrorism and he considered himself fortunate that he had such enlightened and considerate parents with whom he could discuss anything. The account that his parents had given him was essentially political. But now the problem before him was how to go beyond politics to treat terrorism as a philosophical problem. Moreover, he felt that his father had shown him only one side of the picture.

 

“Can the problem of terrorism simply be attributed to Pakistan’s involvement in the American war against the USSR? Doesn’t the problem go deeper? Are the terrorists only villains?” he thought.

 

“Being a student of philosophy, I need to go beyond popular views to arrive at a profounder appreciation of the problem. This alone will make terrorism a philosophical problem.” Accordingly, Ali decided to seek the guidance of his professors and the foremost name that came to his mind was Dr Junaid.