Horizons - Filled with Hope

• What is the difference between the “civilians” killed by security forces and those killed by the separatists?
• Why are armed forces left with no choice but to fire at crowds? (Hint: the answer involves the terms “stone”, “violence” and “danger to innocents” in no particular order)
• If the “civilians” killed by men in uniform, are instigated to resort to violence by the terrorists, ultimately who shoulders the blame for the death?

This is the story of 3 neighbours – the P's, the I's and the S's. The kids from the S family had gone to the Ps' residence to play with the kids from P family, when somebody attacked the S kids.

2 of the younger P kids discussed this incident with their father:

P Kid1: Papa, papa, who attacked the S children in our compound?

P Dad: Our neighbour, the I's did it Beta.

P Kid2: But why would they do such a thing Papa?

P Dad: To get even with us Beta.

P Kid1: I don't understand Papa.

P Dad: Do you remember a few months back somebody attacked the I's Beta? Many members of their family were victims of the attack. Even some of their guests were not spared.

P Kid2: Yes Papa, I remember.

P Dad: At that time, the I's blamed us Beta. They alleged that someone from our house had done it. Kisi aur ghar ki taraf nahin; ISI ghar ki taraf they have pointed fingers Beta.

P Kid1: But that is true Papa. Our eldest brother (your spoilt kid) had attacked them Papa.

P Dad: Sssh.. Don't utter such nonsense Beta. The I's simply wanted to rake up our old khaandaani dushmani – that's the reason they blamed us. And that is also the reason they attacked your friends – the Ss' children, when they were playing in our house. Certain intelligent people from the I family have given us a RAW deal Beta.

P Kid2: That is not true Papa. For one, there is no proof that anybody from the I family was involved in this attack. Secondly, there is ample proof to confirm that our eldest brother (your spoilt kid) attacked the I's a few months back. For all we know, he might have been involved in this attack on our friends from the S family too. We feel you are the one who's trying to get even Papa. You are simply blaming the I's for this attack.

P Dad: You children should not be speaking this way, Beta. Don't you know you should toe the line of the big boss of the house?

P Kid1: We are only being logical Papa. If you continue blaming others instead of controlling our eldest brother (your spoilt kid) then nobody will ever want to come to our house – whether to play or for anything else. Everybody will stop talking to us wherever we go. We will be isolated in every way. Why don't you try to control our eldest brother (your spoilt kid) instead, Papa?

P Dad: Shut up and get out of my sight Beta.

I think the P Kids made far more sense than their Dad. It makes me sad to see people blame the P family in general for anything and everything negative that's happening in their colony. I know for a fact that most of the members of the P family are against all this nonsense. Its only their eldest spoilt kid who's creating trouble. What bothers me though, is why is Mr. P, the dad, not doing anything about it?

This Review is cross-posted here; the original post is at BlogSarovar.

****************

Zahid Hussain is a veteran Pakistani journalist. He is the Pakistani correspondent for The Times (London), The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. His book "Frontline Pakistan - The struggle with militant Islam" was published in 2007; and covers events up to 2006. It does not mention the end of Pervez Musharraf's rule and the restoration of democracy in Pakistan, nor does it mention the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. It goes without saying that the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai had not taken place at the time this book was published.

You must be wondering why this book review is preceded by this Prologue! Well, because although Frontline Pakistan does not relate directly to 26/11, it gives the reader an astonishingly detailed insight into the history of militancy in Pakistan, the unwillingness of authority to keep it in check; and thereby goes a long way in explaining the current response of Pakistan to the 26/11 attacks.

In its 11 chapters, Frontline Pakistan takes the reader through various turning points in the history of the region, including (not in any particular order)

• 1947 and Partition

• The political history and turmoil that Pakistan went through in its early years

• General Ayub Khan and his decade-long rule

• Pakistan's 3 wars with India (1948, 1965 and 1971 - the last one resulting in formation of Bangladesh)

• Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's rule followed by the bloodless coup by Zia-ul-Haq

• The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan followed by a long Jihad against the Soviets

• The withdrawal of Soviets from Afghanistan; followed by rise of religious extremism in Pakistan

• The Kashmir deadlock

• Pakistan's nuclear program

• 9/11; followed by Pakistan's alliance in the US War on terror.

************************************

After reading the book, I have come up with my conclusions on the prime reasons for the instability in the region. These are the opinions that I have formulated and are not necessarily stated per se in the book.

Prime Reason #1: The US-Russia cold war

When the Soviets arrived in Afghanistan in the fag end of 1970's, the CIA jumped in to "help" Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Of course, the help extended probably had more to do with USA's eagerness to show its one-upmanship in the cold war rather than any genuine concern for Afghanistan. Help it did, but the means were questionable to say the least. USA lifted some of the sanctions which had been imposed on Pakistan when the latter had started its nuclear program in the 70's. CIA teamed up with Pakistan's intelligence agency ISI to help counter the Soviet occupation by Afghanistan. ISI, in turn, whipped up strong religious sentiments amid calls for Jihad. Weaponry was provided in abundance, tribals in the lawless region along Pak's border with Afghanistan were trained and given arms, and thus there were a huge number of volunteers to fight for Afghanistan against the Russians.

This generosity in supplying arms to religious fanatics backfired badly on USA. With the exit of Soviets from Afghanistan came the Taliban rule. For one, the Taliban was right-wing to the extreme. Secondly, the thousands of youth who had answered the call for Jihad had now become trained in arms and ammunition, even in explosives and such. The Taliban sheltered, even sowed the seeds of, terrorist groups in Afghanistan (al-Qaeda for example). The stage had been set for religious fanaticism which had nothing to do with the religion it was supposedly glorifying. This was the beginning of the perversion of the term "Jihad".

Prime Reason #2: Extremist ideology originated from, and financed by, the Arab world

A large number of mujahids who fought in the Afghan war were from the Arab world. Also, petro-dollars had made some elements in the Arab world extremely rich. The fact that some of these "extremely rich elements" also happened to be conservative extremists did not help the cause of stability in the region.

Even after the defeat of Soviets in the Afghan war, the right-wing religious ideology was kept alive by scores of Arab-funded madrasas all over Pakistan. This extremist ideology kept the Jihad flame burning for decades to come. The madrasas became breeding grounds for future mujahids.

Prime Reason #3: Kashmir

After the partition in 1947, the Maharaja of Kashmir requested Indian assistance to ward off attack by armed tribesmen from Pak's NFWP (North-West Frontier Province). A year-long war later, UN had intervened and both India and Pakistan had agreed to hold a referendum in the state of Kashmir. Pakistan's official contention is that this referendum was never held and thus Pakistan disputes India's claim to Kashmir. Two decades later, in 1972, the Shimla agreement was signed which created a Line of Control in Kashmir - thus was born Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK - which is referred to as "Azad Kashmir" in Pakistan).

This still did not seem to satisfy Pakistan - nor the extremists. There were allegations of ill-treatment of Muslims in Kashmir by Indians. In late 1980's and early 1990's, terrorism reared its ugly head in the "paradise on earth" Kashmir valley. Fodder was easily available in form of war-hardened fighters returning from Afghanistan.

The key factor in the Kashmir issue was that the Pakistani administrations (whether during military rule or democratic rule) were openly supportive of the "cause" of Kashmir. This only spelled doom for any effort at peace in the region.

Prime Reason #4: Authoritarian/Administrative failure to contain terrorist acitvities on Pakistani soil (often deliberate)

The rulers in Pakistan have time and again turned a blind eye to the rise of militancy within the country in all its forms - home-grown in the madrasas, armed activities in the lawless tribal belt, or imported militancy in the form of al-Qaeda and others. The reasons have varied.

• Ideological - The Paksitani army and ISI have always had several extremist-oriented members among their ranks.

• Political - Zahid Hussain points out that Musharraf could have contained terrorism in Pak by casting a net on the activities of various terrorist groups. However, most of Musharraf's actions in the war on terror have been half-hearted - under international pressure. The real agenda was survival. Musharraf feared backlash from within the army and from the Pakistan's citizens had he gone ahead dismantling the terror network. That is the reason that although several top al-Qaeda "leaders" had been captured and handed over to US during Musharraf's rule, he had stopped short of completely wiping out these terrorist groups. In essence, Musharraf failed the world in favor of his self-interest. This, notwithstanding the fact that he had risked his life by supporting the US war on terror (several assassination attempts on him stand testament to this).

************************************

Frontline Pakistan is a must-read for anyone intending to understand the complex dynamics of the volatility in the SE Asia region; and the so-called "Islamic Terrorism". The author has conducted interviews with several prominent personalities - right from Pervez Musharraf, to several radical leaders (even leaders of groups which were later designated as terrorist groups). This lends the all-important element of credibility to the book.

I must warn the reader that even though the book looks "small" (at 190 pages), it can turn out to be a fairly demanding read - since it takes lot of concentration to grasp the enormity of some of the statements/events which Zahid describes.

The book does refer to religious extremism and Islamic militancy every so often - however, I am disappointed that there is absolutely no attempt to show the reader the moderate or liberal faces of Islam or those of Pakistan. Agreed that this is not at all the objective of the book (after all, the caption says "The struggle with militant Islam"). But, to an uninitiated reader, it might give the wrong impression of the religion as a whole. The book would have been more balanced, had the author described or even referred to in passing mention, the role of moderate or liberal Pakistanis in the fight against terror.

It is for this single lapse that I deduct one star; I rate Frontline Pakistan at 4 stars out of 5 - and of course, designate it as a must-read.

************************************

The Prime Reason #4 which I have detailed above, explains Pakistan's refusal (or rather, inability) to meet India's demands of eradication of terrorism from Pakistani soil post-26/11. While Musharraf and the military Government had considerable sway over the extremist religious parties, the same cannot be said of the present Government. Any attempt by the current Gilani Government in Pakistan to dig deeper into 26/11 and bring the perpetrators to book, will only meet with vociferous, internal opposition. We can continue to hand over dossiers and Pakistan will continue to deny the involvement of any Pakistani national, in spite of Pakistan being well aware of the attacks having been orchestrated from Pakistani soil by Pakistanis.

It has been almost two weeks since the terrorist attack in Mumbai; on India. This attack has shaken the masses like never before. Everyone has been jolted into “action”. There has been an overnight explosion in the number and magnitude of knee-jerk reactions. Except that these reactions refuse to die down even after the “knee-jerk” period has elapsed.

In this post, I offer my two cents on the various opinions and solutions doing the rounds and attempt to reach a middle ground rooted in realism rather than one spewing out from emotion.

Reaction 1: Declare war on Pakistan.

WHAT??!!

I just can’t gauge the reasoning behind this opinion. I believe that Pakistan is suffering from more or less the same problems as India: a toothless political class; shameless, over-zealous media; and rampant internal terrorism.

Agreed that there’s evidence that links the Mumbai attacks to Pakistan. Agreed that India has evidence of terrorist training camps in Pakistan. But, are we saying that we should attack a whole country, with a population of 17 crores, for this reason?

By the same logic,

• Jihadi training camps have been found in Karnataka. So, should we bomb Karnataka?
• It’s a shame that India has been the world-leader as far as dowry-deaths, Sati, female infanticide/foeticide are concerned .. and this has been happening for decades (if not centuries). These shameful practices kill far more innocent people than terrorism. So, how about nuking India?
• Road accidents in India probably kill more innocents every week than terrorists do in a year. So how do we deal with a Government which is unable to control these drivers (analogous to terrorists in the current scenario) from wreaking havoc? Declare war on 1 billion Indians?

How many of those 170 million Pakistanis really support terrorism? A few thousand? A few lakh? And have we even thought about those countless innocent Pakistanis who, just like countless innocent Indians, only want peace and harmony between the two countries? Just think about our heroes and icons from Pakistan - like Ustaad Ghulam Ali, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Ateef Aslam. Just think about the outstandingly talented contestants from across the border in reality shows (Amanat Ali, Akbar Ali, Sara to name a few). Are they not just like any of us?

Besides, this kind of hatred will only spell doom for the future generations. It will only result in more terrorist groups springing up everywhere; and more bloodshed.

Yes, war it is. However, the Indians and Pakistanis (as in the general public in the two countries) are on the same side in this war. They are all waging a war against terrorism; against their respective impotent Governments; against the elements whose only aim is to destabilize the entire region.

Reaction 2: Shoot all the politicians.

Well, this is what came to my mind too when I saw the ridiculous manner in which the whole issue was handled by Indian “leaders” (Government and opposition alike). However, lets take a moment to think – can we really do without them? A 100 crore people need leaders. A country needs politicians to run it, especially when it is the largest democracy in the world. Our hatred for them notwithstanding, we need these leaders. Full Stop.

The alternatives are not very tempting either. President’s Rule, Military Rule, Dictatorship – these are all good only if the leader is good. But, will the “right” person ever get to be at the helm? Will Abdul Kalam ever be given full powers? I doubt that. Its more likely that without democracy, India would be divided into two dozen Myanmars!

IMO, the better option is to choose the right leaders. Go out and vote. I admit that at the moment, we do not have any good party to vote for .. they are all as bad as any other. But, lets hope things change for the better. Lets rest our hopes on the young blood in politics. Lets also resolve to enter politics ourselves if we don’t see any worth in the current swarm of leaders.

I know all that’s easier said than done, but I believe that change and reform are more effective if carried out at the grass-roots level (which means it will be slow) rather than aiming for overnight overhaul of the system.

Reaction 3: Negative Profiling of Muslims

I again find this highly puzzling. I strongly believe that Muslims are as patriotic as any of us. They are also as much victims of terrorism as the rest of us. Why single them out for negative profiling?

Before harboring unwarranted feeling towards an entire community, should we not stop and think for a moment about the Muslims we know? Who are close to us? Who are our role models? What image do you get in your mind when you think of Amir Khan? Do you feel anything other than respect when you think of Abdul Kalam or Naseeruddin Shah? What image does the thought of Ustad Zakhir Hussain conjure up in your mind?

The Muslim community has been blamed for not speaking out against these acts of terror as strongly as they should. That might have been true in the past. No anymore. Imams all around the country are voicing their opinions against terror; and denouncing this form of Jihad. Blogosphere is full of Muslim bloggers who have been crying hoarse against anything which disrupts the peace of the country (like this absolutely must-read post: Dear Mr. Terrorist ).

I strongly feel this is the time to unite as a country against terror; rather than play petty divisive politics amongst ourselves. Demographic classification be damned.

Reaction 4: Permanently silence the media

To say that I was upset with the insensitive manner in which the media handled the entire episode would be a gross understatement. Blog posts like Shoddy Journalism shed more light on how low the media really stooped during those 3 days.

However, is silencing the media really an option? I think not. The vibrant Indian media is crucial to the functioning of a democracy. The problem is that compared to the print media, the electronic media is just an infant; and infants get excited easily don’t they?

I am not suggesting here that we simply accept the TV news channels as-is. The last thing I want to do is idolize journalists like Barkha Dutt (who probably lets out an ecstatic moan of you-know-what, every time she sees an injured person or a dead body), or the other equally blood-thirsty hyenas who love to call themselves “reporters”. What we can do is change the channel if one news channel is so repulsive in its coverage! I have found that regional language news channels handled the coverage in a much more mature manner. Switch over to those.

Further, unlike the political class, the media is not in a position to disregard the public opinion. After all, the very reason they are breaking every rule of responsible journalism is to garner higher TRP’s; for which they need to keep the viewers happy. Right now, public opinion of media is as negative as it could possibly be. What we need to do is take this opportunity to reform the media as well! Write more blogs to make our anger known to the journalists. Contact the news channels, post comments on their blogs, write emails to them. Again, I understand that many of these efforts might prove fruitless. The Barkha Dutts of the world might simply trash our email. But, as I mentioned earlier, reform is a slow process.

Reaction 5: Raid the Terrorist Camps in Pakistan and in PoK.

This by far seems to me to be the most appropriate course of action for India. If we have irrefutable evidence that terrorists are being trained in those locations; we should demand that they be cleansed. If the Pakistan Govt is unable to carry out this operation, then India should be allowed to do so.

In conclusion

I believe now is the time for nation-building. Lets all resolve to tide over this crisis; lets all resolve to defeat the terrorists as a nation. Lets stand united against this heinous form of crime. Most importantly, lets also use this opportunity to start long-term reforms in every walk of life. JAI BHARATH.