A dialogue with radicalised youth
Those conspiring in making heroes out of criminals shall fail to attract the youth as they have failed in the past.
The writer is a social activist who heads the Pattan Development Organisation. The views expressed here are his own
Hakimullah Mehsud is dead. He was the chief commander of an armed group, which is at the forefront of violence in which 50,000 Pakistanis have been killed over 10 years. The Pakistan Army considered him public enemy number one. The government of Pakistan on November 2, 2009 announced Rs50 million as reward for information that helped to capture or kill him. Four years later, some of our politicians have tried to reimagine this wanted man as a hero. It is ironic that simultaneously, some of our politicians have been trying to malign a courageous and outspoken teenager — Malala Yousufzai. This kind of manipulation of public images represents the tip of an iceberg. It is part of a cultural project to undo Jinnah’s Pakistan. A pro-jihadi media and half-educated elements of the rightist intelligentsia work day and night on this project. But ultimately, they will fail. Consider this.
Last month, I, along with my old friend Anis Gilani, talked about radicalisation in Pakistan with more than 200 young women and men. They had come to Islamabad from all corners of the country to participate in a national youth conference organised by the Civil Society Support Programme. The United Nations Democracy Fund funded the initiative. Before delivering my keynote speech, I thought I should pose some questions to the youth in order to educate myself about their views. Here are their answers to my questions. “How many of you are happy with the status quo?” Only three raised their hands. “How many of you hope for changes in the status quo?” I was not surprised when most raised their hands. My next question was, “would you take part in a socio-political movement that aims to change the status quo?” Again most were found willing to be part of such movement. When they were asked whether they would follow a peaceful and democratic or a violent way for the change, only nine raised their hands for violent methods. The rest of them disagreed and opted for a peaceful and democratic way.
But one young man from Mardan responded to the question about violence, shouting out, “A few families have captured our assemblies and electoral structures.” He reworked Abraham Lincoln’s famous saying, “Democracy and government have become for the elite and of the elite but by the voters.” He also said, “Elections will never bring any change.” Most appeared to agree with him. With this, an overwhelming confusion prevailed in the hall. The ball was thrown in my court. In such situations, I resort to history. I cited examples from other countries, as we don’t have any history of democratisation. Though models of democracy are radically different across Europe and North America, the deepening of democracy only took place in all these countries when disenfranchised and marginalised social groups challenged the status quo and the elite’s grip on power. In France, the masses adopted a violent method in order to break the monopoly of the monarchy.
In Britain, conscientious intellectuals and politicians used democratic means. They first mobilised the people through philosophical writings, poetry and dialogue. The people’s anger was channeled into civil disobedience and protests to push for radical reforms. The Society for the Defence of the Bill of Rights, Radical Whig parliamentarians of the late 18th and early 19th century and ‘popular radicals’ brought working classes into formal political and governance structures. This process gave birth, first to the Liberal Party and later to the Labour Party. John Wilkes, who challenged restricted voting rights argued, “every man has the right to vote” and has the ability to “properly judge political issues”. Nineteenth century Britain experienced a series of mass movements. Some MPs were thrown out of the House of Commons, imprisoned and charged under draconian laws. But they stood for change. The state treated the agitators ruthlessly but the democratisation process continued and eventually, a modern law-based democracy took shape.
In our part of the world, there is a long history of failed violent movements. The big changes — freedom from the British, the establishment of Pakistan and the empowerment over time of our citizens — have been an outcome primarily of non-violent struggle. It was, in fact, a constitutional and democratic struggle that paved the way for our liberation in 1947. Therefore, it could be argued with confidence that peaceful defiance, dialogue, consultation and consensus-building are integral parts of our genesis. Examination of our history from this perspective is extremely important for us to understand its relevance in today’s Pakistan. For instance, the growth of political parties, trade unions, bar associations and the rest of civil society in India in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, their working and engagement with each other and with the colonial power tells a lot about us. Take just one example — our communists and the religious right wing vigorously opposed the British Raj, but never took up arms.
Despite my serious ideological differences with many of them, I cherish all those who stood against the British Raj. Despite unfair restrictions and fear of imprisonment, the right wing and the communists, the constitutionalists and the agitators, all believed in the will of the people. Hence, they all strived to take their message to the people and for this purpose, nurtured party institutions. Both the Muslim League and the Congress would hold annual party congresses. Despite immense restrictions, fear of imprisonment and huge frustration, they never used terror as a political tool. Now things have changed. Political leadership is unscrupulous and visionless. No party holds an annual party congress. Leaders have sycophants but no members or followers, yet they don’t hold internal party elections. Rulers rule the country but hardly follow the law. For instance, in 1992, the abolition of bonded labour act was passed. But today, tens of thousands of families still work in slavery like conditions. District administrations don’t dare to implement the law as slave-owners belong to the ruling parties. We have assemblies who care little about their oversight role. MPs, instead of holding officials accountable, use them for their personal and private gains. No wonder most people face injustice, deprivation and inequalities and for the one per cent supra rich, every day is Eid. Yet, the masses do not want to give up the democratic path.
But the people in general and the youth, in particular, have been pushed to adopt radical views as marginalisation and deprivation are deepening and spreading in the country. We must not ignore this. Though at this stage, a large majority of the youth abhors violence and terrorism, there is all likelihood that more young people will join ‘violent’, radical ranks. Remember, during the British Raj there was no TTP and al Qaeda and no Saudi and American funded jihad. Though the forefathers of today’s religious right wing never used terror as a political ideology, Western states managed to inject terrorism in their blood in the 1980s. Therefore, today the youth is vulnerable to this hazardous project.
Terrorism is the product of a simple mind. For a terrorist, the gun is the only remedy for all ills. Terrorists do not need to kill many people as a few can terrorise millions by killing 50 ordinary people and one high profile personality occasionally. The mightiest institutions could be made subservient; at least this is true in case of Pakistan. Look at how obediently all known leaders compete with each other in appeasing terrorists. Terrorism appears to give quick results and terrorists glorify their nefarious success. This must be a very empowering experience for a terrorist. But this is just a farce and they delude themselves by living in it.
On the other hand, for democratic change, the involvement of millions is a must. This is not an easy path to adopt. It is time consuming and it may not always give results. Thus, having deep conviction and unending patience is essential and for this, one requires intelligence and a sense of history to understand complexities and acquire the ability to convince others. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Quaid-e-Azam, Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Gandhi, Bacha Khan, Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in India and William Beckford, John Wilkes, Charles J Fox and Thomas B Hollis in the UK steadfastly fought their battles without guns and achieved their objectives, too. However, despite differences in their contexts and political ideologies, all of them may be called radicals as they believed in radical reforms. Then, why in today’s world, holding radical views has become unnecessarily dangerous?
Holding a democratic radical point of view in the context of Pakistan and to struggle for it is my right as long as I respect the law of the land and do not use terror as a tool. The youth wants radical changes in the system and they have 101 reasons to be radical. If 19th century British radicals can force their parliament to bring radical reforms, why can’t we do the same? We do not have any Radical Whigs in our assemblies, who could lead us. Therefore, it is imperative that we explore other avenues and the best way forward is that the youth’s anger and energy is transformed into a peaceful movement. They must be exposed to healthy debate and dialogue but they must also be trained to organise themselves, present their views in a convincing way and to challenge those who don’t follow the law. They must be helped to get involved in social movements too. This will ultimately enhance their interest and participation in political and electoral structures and processes. As a result, the ruling elite will feel its heat and pave the way for change. As mentioned above, this is a tested way forward for humanity, peace and democratic development. A terrorist’s way is a criminal’s way. It always failed in achieving its objective, let alone in bringing anything good for the masses. Those who are conspiring in making heroes out of criminals shall fail to attract the youth as they have failed in the past.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 28th, 2013.
Last month, I, along with my old friend Anis Gilani, talked about radicalisation in Pakistan with more than 200 young women and men. They had come to Islamabad from all corners of the country to participate in a national youth conference organised by the Civil Society Support Programme. The United Nations Democracy Fund funded the initiative. Before delivering my keynote speech, I thought I should pose some questions to the youth in order to educate myself about their views. Here are their answers to my questions. “How many of you are happy with the status quo?” Only three raised their hands. “How many of you hope for changes in the status quo?” I was not surprised when most raised their hands. My next question was, “would you take part in a socio-political movement that aims to change the status quo?” Again most were found willing to be part of such movement. When they were asked whether they would follow a peaceful and democratic or a violent way for the change, only nine raised their hands for violent methods. The rest of them disagreed and opted for a peaceful and democratic way.
But one young man from Mardan responded to the question about violence, shouting out, “A few families have captured our assemblies and electoral structures.” He reworked Abraham Lincoln’s famous saying, “Democracy and government have become for the elite and of the elite but by the voters.” He also said, “Elections will never bring any change.” Most appeared to agree with him. With this, an overwhelming confusion prevailed in the hall. The ball was thrown in my court. In such situations, I resort to history. I cited examples from other countries, as we don’t have any history of democratisation. Though models of democracy are radically different across Europe and North America, the deepening of democracy only took place in all these countries when disenfranchised and marginalised social groups challenged the status quo and the elite’s grip on power. In France, the masses adopted a violent method in order to break the monopoly of the monarchy.
In Britain, conscientious intellectuals and politicians used democratic means. They first mobilised the people through philosophical writings, poetry and dialogue. The people’s anger was channeled into civil disobedience and protests to push for radical reforms. The Society for the Defence of the Bill of Rights, Radical Whig parliamentarians of the late 18th and early 19th century and ‘popular radicals’ brought working classes into formal political and governance structures. This process gave birth, first to the Liberal Party and later to the Labour Party. John Wilkes, who challenged restricted voting rights argued, “every man has the right to vote” and has the ability to “properly judge political issues”. Nineteenth century Britain experienced a series of mass movements. Some MPs were thrown out of the House of Commons, imprisoned and charged under draconian laws. But they stood for change. The state treated the agitators ruthlessly but the democratisation process continued and eventually, a modern law-based democracy took shape.
In our part of the world, there is a long history of failed violent movements. The big changes — freedom from the British, the establishment of Pakistan and the empowerment over time of our citizens — have been an outcome primarily of non-violent struggle. It was, in fact, a constitutional and democratic struggle that paved the way for our liberation in 1947. Therefore, it could be argued with confidence that peaceful defiance, dialogue, consultation and consensus-building are integral parts of our genesis. Examination of our history from this perspective is extremely important for us to understand its relevance in today’s Pakistan. For instance, the growth of political parties, trade unions, bar associations and the rest of civil society in India in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, their working and engagement with each other and with the colonial power tells a lot about us. Take just one example — our communists and the religious right wing vigorously opposed the British Raj, but never took up arms.
Despite my serious ideological differences with many of them, I cherish all those who stood against the British Raj. Despite unfair restrictions and fear of imprisonment, the right wing and the communists, the constitutionalists and the agitators, all believed in the will of the people. Hence, they all strived to take their message to the people and for this purpose, nurtured party institutions. Both the Muslim League and the Congress would hold annual party congresses. Despite immense restrictions, fear of imprisonment and huge frustration, they never used terror as a political tool. Now things have changed. Political leadership is unscrupulous and visionless. No party holds an annual party congress. Leaders have sycophants but no members or followers, yet they don’t hold internal party elections. Rulers rule the country but hardly follow the law. For instance, in 1992, the abolition of bonded labour act was passed. But today, tens of thousands of families still work in slavery like conditions. District administrations don’t dare to implement the law as slave-owners belong to the ruling parties. We have assemblies who care little about their oversight role. MPs, instead of holding officials accountable, use them for their personal and private gains. No wonder most people face injustice, deprivation and inequalities and for the one per cent supra rich, every day is Eid. Yet, the masses do not want to give up the democratic path.
But the people in general and the youth, in particular, have been pushed to adopt radical views as marginalisation and deprivation are deepening and spreading in the country. We must not ignore this. Though at this stage, a large majority of the youth abhors violence and terrorism, there is all likelihood that more young people will join ‘violent’, radical ranks. Remember, during the British Raj there was no TTP and al Qaeda and no Saudi and American funded jihad. Though the forefathers of today’s religious right wing never used terror as a political ideology, Western states managed to inject terrorism in their blood in the 1980s. Therefore, today the youth is vulnerable to this hazardous project.
Terrorism is the product of a simple mind. For a terrorist, the gun is the only remedy for all ills. Terrorists do not need to kill many people as a few can terrorise millions by killing 50 ordinary people and one high profile personality occasionally. The mightiest institutions could be made subservient; at least this is true in case of Pakistan. Look at how obediently all known leaders compete with each other in appeasing terrorists. Terrorism appears to give quick results and terrorists glorify their nefarious success. This must be a very empowering experience for a terrorist. But this is just a farce and they delude themselves by living in it.
On the other hand, for democratic change, the involvement of millions is a must. This is not an easy path to adopt. It is time consuming and it may not always give results. Thus, having deep conviction and unending patience is essential and for this, one requires intelligence and a sense of history to understand complexities and acquire the ability to convince others. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Quaid-e-Azam, Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Gandhi, Bacha Khan, Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in India and William Beckford, John Wilkes, Charles J Fox and Thomas B Hollis in the UK steadfastly fought their battles without guns and achieved their objectives, too. However, despite differences in their contexts and political ideologies, all of them may be called radicals as they believed in radical reforms. Then, why in today’s world, holding radical views has become unnecessarily dangerous?
Holding a democratic radical point of view in the context of Pakistan and to struggle for it is my right as long as I respect the law of the land and do not use terror as a tool. The youth wants radical changes in the system and they have 101 reasons to be radical. If 19th century British radicals can force their parliament to bring radical reforms, why can’t we do the same? We do not have any Radical Whigs in our assemblies, who could lead us. Therefore, it is imperative that we explore other avenues and the best way forward is that the youth’s anger and energy is transformed into a peaceful movement. They must be exposed to healthy debate and dialogue but they must also be trained to organise themselves, present their views in a convincing way and to challenge those who don’t follow the law. They must be helped to get involved in social movements too. This will ultimately enhance their interest and participation in political and electoral structures and processes. As a result, the ruling elite will feel its heat and pave the way for change. As mentioned above, this is a tested way forward for humanity, peace and democratic development. A terrorist’s way is a criminal’s way. It always failed in achieving its objective, let alone in bringing anything good for the masses. Those who are conspiring in making heroes out of criminals shall fail to attract the youth as they have failed in the past.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 28th, 2013.