Manifestations of the war on terror

By

Dr Ghayur Ayub

Almost every other Pakistani is talking about terrorism; a term highlighted by smart lobbyists in America in the 1980's. It remained nonspecific until the fall of the Soviet Union. After the fall, when the Jihadi friends of America focused their attention on Palestine and showed their concern of the growing American presence in Saudi Arabia in the early 1990's, it started irritating the only superpower. Sensing Iranian hands in the new development, America targeted Iran and took Benazir in confidence in 1995 who in turn tried to persuade the hardcore Deobandi clerics in Pakistan to isolate the Shia country. The scheme backfired, as the Sunni clerics refused to go against an Islamic state. A shrewd politician as she was, Benazir realised the situation and started helping the Sunni insurgents in Afghanistan and helped in creating and strengthening the movement of the Taliban. Some even suggest that she had "˜behind the scene' blessing of a strong American lobby with oil interests. Her international political statecraft was unique and it worked for that period in time.  

But in the process, she paved the way for influential American think-tanks to make terrorism specific, linking it to Muslim radicals. In swift succession, the term got prominence in the electronic media so when America was attacked on September 11, 2001; it gave birth to war on terror in a big way. They accused Muslim terrorists headed by OBL and supported by Taliban. Up until then, Osama was in the files of the secret agencies, the ordinary Muslims had never heard of him. Ever since, the term "˜terror' became inextricably linked to Muslim fanatics and the West started perceiving them as a bigger enemy than the communists ever were.   

9/11 brought dramatic changes;

• It split global society into Muslims and non-Muslims.
• It resurrected Judeo-Christian philosophy under the umbrella of Zionism in rank and file of Neo-Cons in US.
• It undermined the Palestinian struggle.
• It strengthened world sympathy for Israel for living under the newly understood threat from Muslim fundamentalists since 1948

They say that an enemy of an enemy becomes a friend. The Neo-Cons sympathetic to Israel feared that the post 9/11 development might bring the two warring factions of Islam closer to face a common enemy. To prevent this happening, they threw the first blow at Iran when George Bush included it in the "˜axis of evil' in his first post 9/11 State of the Union address. The announcement took Iran by surprise because Tehran was planning to develop working relations with Washington at that time. Some even presume that Saudi lobbyists, fearing Shia domination, also played a role in this insertion. At a later date, the seizure of a shipload of weapons allegedly sailed from Iran destined for use against Israel sealed the Iranian position as a permanent enemy of America. The call from Iran, denying any links with the weaponry, fell on deaf ears.

Meanwhile, the Neo-Cons at state level and the secret agencies at public level started working on widening the gap between the Muslim sects. Some believe that one of the strategies, among others, in American invasion of Iraq was to pit Shias against Sunnis. They think that repeated massacres in Karballa in successive Moharrams; bomb blasts in Najaf; and the blasting of Imam Hassan Askari Mausoleum were not carried out by the Sunnis. Similarly the attack on the Mosque of Sheikh Abul Qadir Jilani in Baghdad was not organised by Shias. It was a war on terror manifesting itself in bizarre ways. Iran retaliated by making undeclared contacts with diehard Sunni Al-Qaeda.In Pakistan, this war took a different shape;

• It started as an American war to expand the sectarian divide, to create ambiguity in the concept of terror and to target Pakistan's nuclear facilities.
• It became a diluting factor in Pakistan policy on Kashmir.
• It surfaced as war between Sunni and Shia in places like Parachinar, DI Khan and Hangu.
• It materialised as sectarian war between Deobandis and Barelavis in Karachi, Khyber and Aurakzai agencies.
• It appeared as pro-Taliban and Alqaeda war against Pak army in Bajour, Waziristan and Swat.
• It showed itself as war against Ahmadis and Aghanis in the Northern Areas and elsewhere.
• It became an ethnic war between Pukhtuns and Urdu speaking Mohajirs in Karachi
• It emerged as war against Baluch nationalists in Baluchistan
• It became visible as a conglomeration of all these conflicts in various parts of Pakistan with an aim to declare the war on terror as our own war.

As a result of these manifestations, Pakistan has started burning in a fire. Today, while certain lobbyists are trying to divide Pakistan geographically on the basis of ethnicity, sectarianism and linguistics; the intellectuals and thinkers in Pakistan are busy debating as to whose war it is. Fighting in the heart of Islamabad cannot be termed as not being Pakistan's war. In the beginning it was not; but now, it is.

We should understand that its sponsors have a trilateral plan of targeting; our economy, our nuclear assets and our leaning on Islam. Some economic wizards believe that we cannot survive without the generous support of the US. Contrarily, others say that being an agro-based country and having reasonable infrastructure of textile and pharmaceutical industries we can sustain existence provided, unlike the last seven years, we concentrate on these fields. On nuclear technology, it is said, that the facilities are dispersed widely at secret locations and taking them out completely by any foreign power is an impossible task. Secondly it is in the hands of extremely devoted Pakistanis whose dedication to the cause is unshakable thus making it extremely difficult to steal or destroy it.

This leaves us with the third target of leaning on Islam. After 9/11, the adversaries have been trying hard to stir up sectarian strife. Despite their apparent success they have fallen short of achieving their complete goal in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. It has already started backfiring in Afghanistan, seen as resurgence of unified Islamic force. It is up to the political power-players in Pakistan to seize the opportunity and convert this weakness into strength by bringing divergent sectarian forces under one roof and encourage them to revive Islam as it originally was during the time of Prophet Mohammad (PBH). If the adversaries failed to split Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan; why should we allow them to be successful in Pakistan?

The question is how? Using democracy as a tool, the problem can be tackled scientifically by a politico-administrative process in and outside the parliament by holding an APC exclusively on this issue with intention to form a "˜Body', having "˜Forums' that would deal with policy-making, policy implementing, coordinating and monitoring. The "˜Forums' should constitute "˜Working Cells' built on a disciplined hierarchy system, the sole purpose of which should be to create religious fraternity and harmony among Muslims at all levels of the society. The "˜Working Cells' in their turn should;

• Involve the public in villages, tehsils, districts, towns and cities in the discussions conducive to religious harmony. Depending on the place and category, important local/national scholars, political figures, civilian bigwigs and media personnel should be invited to participate in such debates.
• Maintain communication channels between the "˜Working Cells' through telephones, e-mails, SMS, and other electronic means sharing information on achievements of their activities and dispersing them onwards.
• Monitor the progress of such activities and report to the authorities a step high in hierarchy until they reach to the highest level.

This is a bottom-up approach in tackling issues and such approaches have had fruitful results in different development projects; so why not try it in a social project to alleviate sectarian disharmony and hate? With participation of the public, the government functionaries, the political parties, and the religious scholars at various levels, the chances are that the adverse forces would not only fail denude Islam through sectarian strife but will also fail to destabilise Pakistan which has been part of their trilateral plan.

The end