We remain in a state of denial. We are fully capable, we say, of handling the terrorist threat; we are going to fix our economy; all we want is trade opportunities, not aid; and we do not accept or give blank cheques. The truth is that we are in a parlous state
The parliament approved unanimously, in the absence of the MQM, the Nizam-e Adl Regulation, which has now been signed by the president.
We were told that this would lead to the surrender of heavy arms by the Taliban, and Sufi Mohammad would guarantee a ban on the display of even small arms by the Taliban. Now we are told that the Taliban will not surrender their arms until they have determined that the Nizam-e Adl has been implemented.
This, it appears, is a determination that only the Taliban are competent to make. One well informed TV commentator was told by a Taliban spokesman that the Taliban will not use their arms in Swat but will retain them for waging jihad, which was an obligation for every Muslim. In short, he provided confirmation of the apprehension that Swat will become a safe haven for those waging jihad in the tribal areas and further afield.
We were told that there would be qazi courts, and it was assumed that they would be appointed by the state as required by sharia law. But it now seems that this will be the responsibility of Sufi Mohammad, who presumably will be doing so in consultation with the Taliban. Sufi Mohammad’s spokesman made it clear that these qazis would all have to sport beards to be considered eligible.
When told that this was not mentioned anywhere in the Holy Quran or in sharia law, he said that this was not a valid interpretation, that all the Sahaba had beards, and that accepting a clean-shaven qazi was out of the question. He conceded, however, that this restriction did not apply to other people who lived in the area in which the Nizam-e Adl was to be enforced. How long before this concession will be withdrawn is open to question.
The apprehension is that the Afghan Taliban’s practice of detaining every individual whose beard was not of the specified size will soon be introduced. Meanwhile, the crimes committed by the militants, many of them criminals, will be forgotten. How this will be in accord with sharia law only Sufi Mohammad can tell us.
It is correct that a section in Swat has long agitated for the system of quick justice that the Wali of Swat dispensed when Swat was a princely state. But was the enforcement of Nizam-e Adl part of the platform of the parties that contested the 2008 elections in Malakand Division, and did they win the elections?
If this is the demand of the people, as we are told, why was this not a part of the election campaign and why was the determinedly secular ANP allowed to win the majority of seats? Clearly, it is not the representatives of the people but gun-toting militants preaching a distorted interpretation of Islam who have intimidated the government into accepting the claim that they represent the will of the Swati people. Power, Swat proves clearly, flows through the barrel of a gun.
The news from other parts of the country is not very reassuring either. The Supreme Court has apparently granted bail to Maulvi Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid, and according to his lawyer, all charges against him have been dismissed. Meanwhile, Aziz’s sister-in-law Umme Hassaan has been creating a stir in southern Punjab, making fiery speeches and, according to one attendee of her rallies, claimed that she would bring about an Islamic revolution in three months.
The New York Times story on the militant threat to Punjab, and the situation in Multan and Dera Ghazi Khan, attracted a great deal of attention, but it did not contain any information that our authorities and analysts were unaware of. The Punjab chief minister may have words of high praise for the Punjab police force, but it is fairly clear that in combating the rise of militancy and in curbing the intimidation by the militants, the record of the police and the intelligence agencies has been less than stellar.
In last week’s column, I had mentioned the incidents in Sindh where a religious party has become influential enough to be able to enrol police and judicial support for banning traditional musical evenings. Now the chief minister of Sindh has said that while there may be Taliban in Karachi, there is no Talibanisation of Sindh.
On the other hand, an MQM representative recently claimed that there are 2.5 million Afghans in Karachi. This is clearly an exaggerated figure, but there should be no doubt that the number is far higher than what the so-called census of Afghan refugees in Pakistan had come up with. (5 percent of the total refugee population according to this census was said to be in the entire Sindh province.)
In Balochistan, the murder of the three Baloch leaders has heightened tensions and there is little evidence to suggest that the anger has been assuaged by the announcement of head money for the identification of the perpetrators. The Baloch are still upset about the difference in the ethnic-sectarian balance that the presence of the Afghan refugees has brought about, but this is overlaid in large part by their sense of deprivation and the perception that Balochistan exists only to be exploited. So far, it is only nationalist forces that have capitalised on this sense of grievance, but one can be sure that the extremists are also working on this.
At an increasingly alarming rate, the writ of the state and the ability of its organs to uphold the fundamental rights of citizens are being eroded. And yet we remain in a state of denial. We are fully capable, we say, of handling the terrorist threat; we are going to fix our economy; all we want is trade opportunities, not aid; and we do not accept or give blank cheques.
The truth is that we are in a parlous state. Our economic situation is such that the growth rate now being anticipated by the State Bank is between 2.5 and 3.5 percent. Industry is reeling from power cuts and the general sense of insecurity. While this comparison is odious, it has been calculated that India, with a much smaller rate of population growth, needed an 8 percent growth rate to make a dent in its poverty level and to create much needed employment opportunities that are the best antidote to the disaffection that breeds extremism.
At our current rate of growth and with the situation prevailing in the industrial sector, there is little chance that the economy will create the jobs that would wean our disaffected youth away from the clarion call of the extremists, who mysteriously continue to have access to almost unlimited funds.
Reading between the lines of Shaukat Tareen’s statement, one gets the impression that keeping the economy afloat and maintaining even this rate of growth will need an injection of aid in the range of $ 4-6 billion from the Friends of Pakistan meeting. Even this huge amount will need to be supplemented by a yet another debt rescheduling exercise with the Paris Club.
We can cry ourselves hoarse about the $34 billion that the war against terror has cost us while ignoring the fact that during the last eight years we adopted none of the austerity measures that such massive losses should have made necessary. We need assistance desperately if there is even to be a half-hearted effort at stemming the inexorable advance of Talibanisation.
How is this to be achieved without some attention being paid to the demands of the donor community, particularly when it is only rabid anti-Americanism or some other ‘deeper plot’ that prevents us from recognising that these demands are compatible with our own requirements? Are we doomed to march lemming-like to the cliff and into the sea?