Ideological conflicts and critical discourse

Successful counterterrorism requires containment, alienation, and delegitimisation of disruptive forces. Limited by porous and disputed borders, an unfriendly neighbourhood and the muddled strategy employed by political and security institutions, eliminating physical sanctuaries of terrorists in Pakistan has proved an arduous task. Equally important and challenging is the dismantling of political sanctuaries: the radicals’ supportive sociopolitical sections. It requires delegitimisation, and a negation of the moral and rational justification of their goals and means. This demanding task entails progressive social engineering and reformulation of our collective consciousness through a dispassionate ideological discourse.

Understanding the nature of a conflict is the primary requisite for its resolution. Tangible conflicts that demand sharing political, economic and territorial rights and benefits become unaccommodating when subjective differences of ideas are manipulated and projected as root causes. The political goals of Pakistan’s extremist radical forces are not limited to the division of assets and control, but also include a desired ideological orientation of the state and individual. A rigid framework shapes our history and religion, credible counter voices are silenced and the state’s machinery seems to lack a unanimous and objective stand. All this prevents a critical ideological discourse from developing, which, in turn, hinders the evolution of a collective identity.

Motivated by the goal of achieving an Islamic state or Khilafat and turning Pakistan into one has become the leading slogan of those religious parties that resisted the country’s creation. Whether Pakistan was created to actualise the ideal of an Islamic state or whether it was the result of efforts to politically and economically empower the Muslim minority in India, are two divergent frameworks that set different ideals. Disastrously, the former is overemphasised for fear of disintegration of a multi-ethnic Pakistan. Jihad and fatwas are used as strategic tools to eliminate any obstacle that there may be to forming a Khilafat.

Mainstream religious-political parties and militants are only different in their approach towards this common ideal. Muslim Khan, the Taliban commander in Swat, termed their armed struggle against Pakistan for fulfilling the promise Muslims made to Allah on August 14, 1947. Maulana Fazlur Rehman in his address to the National Assembly on June 5 did not sound any different when he attributed the Taliban’s armed struggle to their desire for actualising true Shariah in Pakistan.

The concept of a religious state, once devoid of its glorifying verbiage, was put to legal discernment in a court inquiry, headed by Justice Munir, in the wake of the 1953 riots in Punjab. Dissensions were acute among religious scholars of all sects about practical examples of a religious state, its process of legislation and administration, and its necessity. There was no consensus on the definition of a Muslim. The question of who is a Muslim still haunts every Pakistani. Constitutionally, Pakistan is bound to protect, respect and encourage living a collective life in accordance with Islamic principles. The symbols of Islam are duly venerated.

Extremist radicals need to present a viable political system to replace the existing one, as militancy alone would never result in the ideological restructuring they desire. Till now, intellectual sterility in this regard is a serious crack in their armour. Critical discourse could help resolve such a conflict, provided history is seen objectively and questioning with a dispassionate zeal of prevalent orthodoxies is allowed.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 5^th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.