As an oddly smiling President Zardari of Pakistan stood behind a visibly concerned President Obama in the White House yesterday, one had to wonder what Mr. Zardari was smiling about. Seven thousand miles away, in the country over which he presides, the economy has tanked, the province of Baluchistan is in the grips of a secessionist movement, Karachi is embroiled in ethnic violence between Pashtuns and Urdu speakers, and that's not even the most pressing problem this nation of 170 million people is facing. As I write this, tens of thousands of refugees were pouring out of the Swat valley in anticipation of a major military offensive by the Pakistani Army against the Taliban.
For weeks, headlines around the world have raised alarm about the proximity of the Taliban to the capital Islamabad, and analysts have puzzled over the curious detachment with which the civilian government and the Pakistani Army seemed to be observing the situation deteriorate. Now that the Pakistani army is finally engaging the Taliban, there is one question on everyone's mind: Is Pakistan serious about this fight this time, or will it cut a deal with the militants, as it has done in the past with disastrous consequences?
The answer to this question depends on the outcome of a larger battle for Pakistan's soul which is raging across Pakistan's cities, homes, television channels, newspapers and in heated conversations in people's living rooms. The fight for the hearts and minds of the ordinary Pakistani is the most important fight going on in Pakistan, as its outcome will determine whether the cancer of Talibanization can be localised and ultimately rooted out, or whether it will continue to metastasize and further destabilize a country which is already reeling from economic, political, and leadership woes. As in most battles there are two adversaries - in this case two competing views of Pakistan, and the nature of the challenge facing it.
The conservative view held by many Islamist parties, populist politicians, retired army brass and hyper-nationalistic television anchors is that the Taliban are a reflection of the people's desire for an Islamic system of governance, with quick justice, order and compliance with God's will as the hallmarks of public life. Proponents of this view maintain that the excesses of the Taliban are greatly exaggerated, and that the real threat to Pakistan is from the US, which has destabilized the whole region with its Afghan war and its drone attacks on Pakistan. According to this view, the real aim of the US is to undermine Pakistan's sovereignty and deprive it of its cherished nuclear weapons. To date, the conservatives have been more vocal, and gained more traction with the Pakistani public - drowning out the concerns about the Taliban by pointing fingers at George Bush, the US and India.
On the other side are people derided as "Liberals" and "Western apologists" by the conservatives. These liberals, many of them western educated, secular and belonging to the professional urban classes, have been reminding whoever will listen that while Pakistan is a Muslim majority country, it was created as a constitutional republic with the ideals of an independent judiciary, a parliamentary system of government, and representative democracy. Liberals argue that letting parts of the country become theocratic enclaves run by armed gangs of religious extremists undermines the ideals on which Pakistan was built, threatens its territorial integrity and is a recipe for disaster. Liberals insist that the Taliban, and their policy of "Islamicization at gun point" is the real threat to Pakistan, not India or the United States.
Which narrative ultimately prevails is crucial to Pakistan's future because it determines whether the people of Pakistan see the fight against the Taliban and extremism as their own fight, or whether they will continue to see it as a US manufactured Global War on Terror into which Pakistan has been sucked. If Pakistanis see the fight in Swat as their own, then there will be public support for a continuing military offensive, there will be more latitude given to the bumbling civilian government of Asif Zardari, and there may even be some tolerance for the drone attacks which normally cause deep resentment among Pakistanis. But if the dominant narrative in Pakistan continues to be that Pakistanis are victims of global conspiracies, that the Taliban threat is exaggerated, and that Pakistan should have no part in fighting "America's war", then the military will most likely be forced to sign a truce with the Taleban, the civilian government will probably collapse under the weight of its unpopularity, and Talibanization will continue unchecked, one district at a time.
The lack of singular narrative and of national unity in the face of the Taliban threat is the reason that the army has been reluctant to engage in battle. That is also why the civilian government vacillates between threatening the Taliban one moment and begging them for a truce the next. More than economic aid, more than drone attacks, the fate of Pakistan will be determined by whether the people of Pakistan will come to believe the conservative view or the liberal view as the legitimate approach to understanding the challenges they face. The good news is that in the one month that the Taliban ruled Swat under the peace deal, they committed so many atrocities and imposed such a grotesque version of Islam that many Pakistanis were repulsed. The bad news is that an equal number of Pakistanis are disappointed and disgusted with their corrupt and incompetent elected leaders, who aren't much of an alternative.
Secondly, the army hesitates or doesn't function that well against taliban since both of these groups use the same motivation/ fighting philosophy: JIHAD in the name of GOD.
Of course this is not the only reason but i agree with Farrukh here that this war is not being fought for reinstating the writ of the government, it is a war for the soul of this country and like minded majorities will decide the outcome. If the religious views of the like minded majority remain concepts like JIHAD for the infidels and death as punishment for apostasy, then i think all of us should prepare our bouquets of flowers to lay on this country's grave in the near future.
As war is fought it takes charge
And events spin out of control.
The madness of men can alter the soil
Which nourishes the roots of their soul.
Many things will forever change
Far more then wished to be.
As the wrath of war starts to destroy
Those things we fight to keep free.
War is the greatest plague of man
Religion, state, and sanity.
Any scourge is more preferred
Than the one which disables humanity.
When war breaks out, boundaries change
And all who die are a token
Of the rage that must run it's course
Before words of peace are spoken.
War I hate, though not men, flags nor race
But war itself with its ugly face.
When we lose faith in the brave, which die
Then we're not fit to greet those who cry.
What distinguishes war isn't death
But that man is slain by fellow man.
Crushed by cruelty and injustice
With his enemy's murderous hand.
War tends to punish the punishers
So the losers won't suffer alone.
The essence of war is but violence
Till the survivors come marching home.
By Conservative Poet
Tom Zart
Most Published Poet
On The Web
TOM ZART’S RADIO POEMS
You can hear all of Tom Zart’s 333 poems
of love, war, faith and more 24-7 on web radio at
http://internetvoicesradio.com/Arch-TomZart.htm
Tom Zart ARCHIVES:
Global
Special
Operations
101
http://www.globalspecialoperations.com/tomzart2.html
A Man or a Nation that would not stand up and defend (war) its values and citizens are cowards. Period!
Yes, there are good wars and there are bad wars. Only a lefty can be so callous in not discriminating these two.
I don't see how the country can survive in one piece. The Taliban are increasingly ruling the roost in NWFP and Federally Administered Tribal Areas, while the Pakistani military dithers and avoids moving against the Islamist zealots which it sees as instruments of national policy.
Even now the latest military offensive seems designed to produce many more civilian casualties than Taliban ones. It seems that the military will use force in a deliberately ham-fisted way, so that a public uproar occurs. This would allow the Pak military to throw up its hands and shrug helplessly to the West, "we can't do it anymore, the public is against us"
But when it comes to groups that the Pakistani military don't like, such as the Baloch separatists, then the military acts rapidly and with ruthless efficiency. The difference is like night and day.
Recently, a few weeks ago, some Baloch separatist leaders were kidnapped in broad daylight, and their dead bodies dumped on the outskirts of town. There was widespread rioting, as locals and Pakistani human rights groups all blamed the state security apparatus for the assassinations.
In the case of the Taliban however, the military will dither and dodge and weave, as it looks for excuses not to destroy its own misbegotten children, the Taliban.
Thank you for your feedback, its very valuable. You're right that my piece did not talk about the solution but only laid out the problem. But that was the intention of the article. Without understanding the competing frame works with which Pakistanis are viewing the entire situation, its not possible to gain an understanding of the actions of (and constraints upon) the government or the military, nor is it possible to lay out a coherent action plan to tackle issues.
So a solution oriented article will be the next step - stay tuned, and thanks again for your interest and your comments.
"The madrasa- inspired and Saudi-financed advance of Wahhabi Islam, which is directly linked to the spread of anti-Western radicalization. On my last visit to Pakistan, it was very clear that while the Wahhabi-dominated North-West was on the verge of falling under the sway of the Taliban, the same was not true of the Sufi-dominated province of Sindh, which currently is quieter and safer
Visiting the popular Sufi shrine of Sehwan in Sindh last month, I was astonished by the strength of feeling expressed against the mullahs by the Sindhis who look to their great saints such a Lal Shabaz Qalander for guidance, and hate the Wahhabis who criticize the popular Islam of the Sufi saints as a form of shirk, or heresy: "All these mullahs should be damned," said one old Sufi..
The Saudis have invested intensively in Wahhabi madrasas in the North-West Frontier Province and Punjab, with dramatic effect..
The tolerant Sufi culture of Sindh has been able to defy this imported Wahhabi radicalism.." (William Dalrymple)
So in this case, the liberals are wrong. The conservatives are right. Pakistan is an Islamic state. That was the idea in which Pakistan was born.
You can't wish that away. Sorry. No soup for you liberals!
Pakistan was indeed created as a muslim majority state. But that does not mean that it cannot be a state based on earthly law. As a matter of fact, the founders of Pakistan were secular individuals who saw Pakistan as a political safeguard for muslims rather than an Islamic state in the sense of Saudi Arabia.
There are several examples of muslim countries which have secular laws and progressive governments Indonesia is one, Malaysia is another one and Turkey yet another one. Granted there are differences, but all I'm saying is that just because a country is "Islamic" does not mean that it cannot be democratic or progressive. Another very good example is of Israel which is the only other state I know which was created specifically for a religious group. And Israel does not operate on Talmudic law.
Of course the issue is that the founders may have been secular, but the religious groups have been chipping away at the margins to the point where now the country has an overwhelming Islamic character, and liberals feel besieged. But there is hope. Like I said in the article, just one month of Taliban rule in Swat has snapped many people out of their Islamic utopia fantasies and focused them on the implications of an illiterate hoard taking over in the name of Islam...
So there just may be some cold, leftover soup for liberals....
I don't believe Pakistan is ready to do that.
As far as Malaysia is concerned, its kind of iffy. They too are a confused lot. They are going back and forth.. Not sure how long that is going to last.
Indonesia is probably something to look up to. But then Indonesia has not yet been corrupted by the Wahhabies as yet. Their local culture including the influence of Hinduism has tempered their ideology.
But I am sure, every Indian should be grateful to Jinnah for making Muslims a minority in India. Imagine if the whole of Pakistan and B'Desh had been part of India. Muslims would have been a majority in India in another 20 years.
When will we learn not to oversimplify this mess? The Pakistani problems of corruption at the top and neglected, grinding poverty at the bottom; the close cross-border ties of families and sects; the geopolitical realities of AfPak, China, India, and the West; and the ever-present wrangling over pipelines and natural resources...This seems like the most important story anywhere today.
Let's all educate ourselves before we accept MSM labels.
Asia Times - Pepe Escobar - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/Escobar.html
Real News - Pepe Escobar - http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=74&jumival=pepe+&search=search