Swat Deal Cannot be a Matter of Choice for Pakistan

The deal between the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat Muhammadi (TNSM) leader Sufi Mohammed and Pakistan authorities, whereby the latter have agreed to impose Shariah rule in the Malakand region, which includes the Swat Valley, exposes the serious fissures and inadequacies that bedevil the Pakistani state. Once again, it clearly reiterates that religion has miserably failed as a unifying force for Pakistan’s nationhood. In effect, it is a triumph of fundamentalist forces over the moderates. It also amounts to a tacit admission that the security forces of Pakistan do not have the ability and confidence to force a solution to the insurgency and writ of the Taliban and its ilk. Most importantly, the deal exposes Pakistan’s equivocation and duplicity with regard to its cooperation in dealing with the jihadi forces. New York Times journalist David E. Sanger, in his book, The Inheritance, says that the Director of National Intelligence of US in May 2008 was privy to a telephone-tap transcript in which General Kiyani described the Taliban leader and the progenitor of suicide cult, Jalaluddin Haqqani, as ‘a strategic asset’. Later, some calls originating from the Pakistan military units were intercepted, wherein Haqqani was advised to relocate with his cadres in view of the impending operations.

The deal between the TNSM and Pakistan authorities is significant in the backdrop of President Zardari’s recent statement on CBS TV that Taliban was in control of large tracts of the country and was trying to takeover Pakistan. He also admitted that Pakistan was fighting for its survival.

There are many facets to President Zardari’s statement.  First, he has tried to salvage Pakistan’s international position by implying that the country is a victim and not a perpetrator of terrorism. Second, he suggests that the Taliban phenomenon impacts as much on Pakistan as on American interests in Afghanistan. Third, by saying that “it’s been happening over time and it’s happened out of denial”, he has sought to deliver the message that Pakistan, under his leadership, was more sincere in fighting terrorism than his predecessors, who had been hoodwinking the international community, particularly the US. This was a clear move to placate the administration of President Obama, which has adopted a tough posture with regard to Pakistan’s cooperation in the fight against terror. Fourth, President Zardari has probably tried to earn political reprieve, as it is widely felt that without the US signal or tacit support no regime change can take place in Pakistan, given its current acute economic and other vulnerabilities. Fifth, he may have tried to earn international goodwill and leverage over the two other centers of power in the country i.e. the Prime Minister and the Military, with whom he has lately been uncomfortable. Sixth, his statements may have been meant to act as antidote to the already decided move to enter into an agreement with the TNSM and impose Shariah in the Malakand region. As it is, the anti-US Taliban and other fundamentalists in Pakistan’s tribal region increasingly view President Zardari as an American stooge, who has surrendered Pakistan’s sovereignty.

In August 1998, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had moved the 15th Amendment Bill in parliament to enforce the rule by Islamic Law. Lamenting the provisions of the bill, a Sindhi parliamentarian Abdul Hamid Jatoi, during the proceedings in the lower house, said, “Mr Speaker, I feel like crying… ours is a beautiful country. For God’s sake don’t break it up.” However the bill was passed. Owen Bennet Jones in his book, Pakistan: Eye of the Storm, maintains that Sharif probably “never fully understood that the Shariah Bill would have fundamentally altered the nature of Pakistan. As far as he was concerned, it was meant to improve law and order and remove irritating constraints on his power such as Parliament and Constitution.” Before the Senate (Upper House) could have passed the bill, Musharraf had removed Nawaz Sharif. Permitting the Shariat in the Malakand region is, therefore, a huge concession to radical Islam and accentuates the bisecting line between fundamentalist and moderate Islam.

Don Belt, in his article ‘Struggle for the Soul of Pakistan’ in National Geographic, has painted a tellingly vivid picture of the scenario as it stands today:
“If there is an address, an exact location for the rift tearing Pakistan apart, and possibly the world, it is a spot 17 miles (28 kilometers) west of Islamabad called the Margalla Pass. Here, at a limestone cliff in the middle of Pakistan, the mountainous west meets the Indus River Valley and two ancient, and very different civilizations collide. To the southeast, unfurled to the horizon, lie the fertile lowlands of the Indian subcontinent, realm of peasant farmers on steamy plots of land, bright with colours and the splash of serendipitous gods. To the west and north stretch the harsh, windswept mountains of Central Asia, land of herders and raiders on horseback, where man fears one God and takes no prisoners. This is also where two conflicting forms of Islam meet: the relatively relaxed and tolerant Islam of India, versus the rigid fundamentalism of the Afghan frontier. Beneath the surface of Pakistan, these opposing forces grind against each other like two vast geologic plates, rattling teacups from Lahore to London, Karachi to New York. The clash between moderates and extremists in Pakistan today reflects this rift, and can be seen as a microcosm for a larger struggle among Muslims everywhere. So when the earth trembles in Pakistan, the world pays attention.”

The future of the people of Malakand region, who had voted for secular parties i.e. Awami National Party and Pakistan Peoples Party, has been mortgaged to fundamentalist forces. The leader of the TNSM, Sufi Mohammad, and his son-in-law Maulana Fazlullah, also known as Maulana FM, have terrorized the people of the region by criminal enforcement of their brand of Islamic code. Music and all forms of entertainment have been banned. Women are their special targets. Girls have been forbidden from attending schools and colleges and punished for not observing the prescribed dress code. Men not supporting beard are also meted out harsh punishment.

The imposition of Shariat, in fact, amounts to two parallel justice systems in Pakistan, one extremely harsh and the other based on informed jurisprudence. While, the prevalence of medieval Islamic laws has been a feature in FATA and other tribal areas of Pakistan, its extension and Talibanization to the Swat Valley, which till sometime ago was the most favoured tourist destination in Pakistan, is a grim indication of the increasing influence and clout of the Taliban. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a professor of Physics in the Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, avers: “The common belief in Pakistan is that Islamic radicalism is a problem only in FATA, and that madrassas are the only institutions serving as jihad factories.  This is a serious misconception. Extremism is breeding at a ferocious rate in public and private schools within Pakistan’s towns and cities. Left unchallenged, this education will produce a generation incapable of co-existing with anyone except strictly their own kind. The mindset it creates may eventually lead to Pakistan’s demise as a nation state.”

Pakistan-Afghanistan region stands at a defining moment. Since it has emerged as the epicenter of global terrorism, the course this region takes will determine the security of not only of India, but the entire world. It will also impact the religious discourse of Islamic countries. The fight against terrorism by NATO forces will not yield enduring results unless the religious and psychological causes are addressed. To do so, the rudimentary imperative is the rollback of Islamic fundamentalism, starting from the Pashtun belt straddling Pakistan and Afghanistan. The world cannot afford to lose this war against terror, as it will amount to ushering medieval forces into world arena with all its pernicious concomitants. This is essential for survival of Pakistan itself. Therefore, any internal policy of Pakistan that militates against this ongoing war on terror should not be permitted by the international community. If Pakistan security forces are incapable of tackling the terrorists and the radical elements, then direct intervention by other countries in the interest of their own security and global peace is justified.
 

(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views either of the Editorial Committee or the Centre for Land Warfare Studies)