Share this story!            

Editorial “Do more” once more

The New York Times reports that US National Security Adviser James Jones carried a letter on his recent visit from President Barack Obama to President Asif Ali Zardari urging Pakistan to expand its operations against the Taliban and al Qaeda. The letter warned that the success of the new US strategy in Afghanistan depends on taking the fight to the militants from the ongoing offensive in South Waziristan and concentration on the Taliban attacking cities to groups using safe havens such as North Waziristan, where US intelligence says the extremists have retreated and where Jalaluddin Haqqani’s Shura is said to be based, to plot attacks against US troops in Afghanistan. The US wants President Zardari to rally political and national security institutions in a united campaign against the extremists. To sweeten the pill, President Obama offers a range of new incentives such as enhanced intelligence sharing and military cooperation.

The Pakistan Foreign Office has confirmed the delivery of the letter but declined to give details. Pakistani officials are said to have told the Americans they harbour two deep fears about Obama’s new strategy: the US would add too many troops on the Afghan side of the border and the American effort would end too soon. 30,000 plus troops added to the US contingent in Afghanistan could send Taliban fighters across the border into Pakistan, thereby complicating the South Waziristan operation. The long-term commitment of the US to see the struggle against the Taliban through in Afghanistan is also doubted, given the contradictory and sometimes alarming (from a Pakistani point of view) statements by top US officials. The latter concern persuades the Pakistani security establishment to retain its ties with the Afghan Taliban in preparation for the eventuality that the US and NATO may withdraw at some stage, leaving a virtual political vacuum that the discredited Karzai government would be hard put to manage.

While US President Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have reiterated that al Qaeda still represents the greatest threat to US security, the State Department has complimentary things to say about the Pakistan army’s ongoing South Waziristan offensive. However, the demand to “do more” raises hackles in Pakistan, especially since it remained a constant refrain through the Bush years and now seems to have been resurrected under Obama. Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi felt constrained therefore to state in answer to a question that Pakistan cannot be prodded into military operations by outsiders. He posited consultations with the military to determine what are Pakistan’s requirements and priorities.

The concerns of the US seem to be too narrowly focused on al Qaeda without giving due weight to the nexus between Osama bin Laden’s organisation, the Afghan Taliban and now, arguably, the Pakistani Taliban along with militant groups originally nurtured for the Kashmir struggle but who have now emerged from the deserts of south Punjab to make common cause with their extremist brothers in arms. Pakistan on the other hand, is hoist between taking on al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban and their allies while retaining the Afghan Taliban card close to its chest for a rainy day. This disjuncture between the respective positions and concerns of both sides in the uneasy US-Pakistan alliance may one day lead to divergence, unless both sides sit down and come to the conclusion that the militant threat is indivisible. There cannot be peace in either Afghanistan or Pakistan unless and until the extremist threat is crushed completely, irrespective of which banner the militants fight under. *

Second Editorial: Unholy crusade

The Tablighi Jamaat has spoken out in very strong terms against the Taliban and their terrorist activities in the name of Islam. At the Jamaat’s annual feature in Pakistan, the Tablighi Ijtema in Raiwind, scholars denounced the Taliban for their “unholy crusade” against humanity. ‘Tabligh’ in Arabic means ‘to deliver (the message)’ and the Tablighi Jamaat, a Muslim missionary and revivalist movement, aims to revive a duty they consider primary for Muslims. During the past two decades, the emotive resonance of the word ‘jihad’ was used by politically motivated clerics to bring about immense destruction throughout the world. Pakistan was no exception. The state-sponsored jihadist movement in the 1980s has led to the rise of extremism in this part of the world. Therefore, it is heartening to see the moderates speaking out against the extremists. The Taliban are fanatics and do not represent mainstream Islam in South Asia, or arguably in the broader Muslim world. Militancy carried out in the name of Islam is not endorsed by any Muslim and only a few extremists are trying to malign Islam by carrying out terrorist attacks. The reverberations of religious terrorism are not only being heard in South Asia, but also in North Africa, Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. The recent spate of suicide attacks in Pakistan shows that al Qaeda may be active here. The only way to curb the menace of terrorism is by educating the masses.

The Tablighi Jamaat’s message of moderate Islam will surely resound amongst the believers. By taking this position against the Taliban, the Jamaat has shown the Muslim world the true face of the Taliban. This message comes at a crucial time because in the recent past, we saw the fanatics dominating the discourse on Islam in the media and the public space. It was only after the recent spate of suicide bombings, where women and children were also targeted, that public opinion started to change in Pakistan. The Taliban’s barbarism opened the eyes of the public and it became clear that they were not ‘true’ Muslims as they projected themselves to be.

It is the need of the hour that moderate Muslims speak out against these barbarians so that the masses could be mobilised against these hardcore militants. It is hoped that progressive Islamic scholars will try to create more awareness about extremism and its adverse effects on society. *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!