Us versus Us

When interior minister cannot find it in him to condemn attacks on state itself, it begs question who represents state

Another attack, death and destruction, murder and chaos, etc., sinking the spirit once again, one tries to be outraged. Sustained outrage over senseless killings is becoming increasingly difficult and tiring. Yet, it has to be done, despite murder now being as commonplace as it is. In the Islamabad court attack, all the elements of what should shock us, move us to tears and despair were present. Perhaps, the most visible manifestation of our state in recent times; the courthouse, was attacked with breathtaking impunity. The photograph of young Fizza Malik, who started practising law two days ago, the hope and aspirations, life itself being destroyed by frenzy should haunt us for some time. Perhaps, ‘sometime’ is the operative word for most of us, since those of us who did not know her, will move on, will find another victim for our outrage. For some of us, those who earn their subsistence and go about the business of working lives in courtrooms, at a personal (and indeed, slightly petty) level, the assault at a courtroom signifies another artificial layer of protection being reduced to rubble.

Yet, as the news of the tragedy poured in, it was one piece of information that caused ‘the’ chilling effect, the effect probably one feels when one has already lost. It was the TTP not only disowning the attack but condemning it. Chaudhary Nisar Ali Khan and Mr Imran Khan have finally had it their way. It must have been getting really embarrassing to make excuses in advance for the attacks, only to discover the perpetrators having no inclination for making an excuse, quite to the contrary, taking incredible pride in their murderous sprees. Now that has changed. The TTP has learnt, what we seem incapable of learning. The psychological warfare battle is over, for the moment at least. They can have their cake, eat it and smear the leftovers on our faces. Mr Imran Khan apparently, and rather strangely, does not like to be called the ‘Taliban Khan’, and perhaps, he should not be called that now. Since Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan is competing for the title with incredible zeal. ‘Taliban Khans’ or the ‘Brothers Taliban’ is what it should be now.



While it is all right to lament the murders of the honourable Judge, Mr Rafaqat Awan, and young Fizza Malik, the moment you ask for holding the murderers accountable (a fairly natural progression in most murder condemnations generally), you are a warmonger. The semi-literates insist that by asking for action against those who kill our brave judges and inspirational daughters, we ask for bloodshed. It has come to the point where it hardly matters now whether the TTP accepts responsibility or not; we refuse to believe them. The ‘Brothers Taliban’ should walk to Fizza Malik’s house, look her family in the eye, and tell them that “she died due to an attempt to sabotage the peace process and we do not have the spine to say anything else on the matter”.

The ‘good’ Taliban and the ‘bad’ Taliban distinction, the flaws in the model, etc. have been dwelt upon to death. Yet, the discourse continues, the only difference is that the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ now conduct this lovely discussion amongst themselves on prime time television, while we sit as the ‘ugly’.

To talk or fight are questions of strategy. Our challenge is significantly elemental: what are we fighting or talking for? Unfortunately, nobody seems to know, that is nobody except the ‘non-state’ actors. The primary imperative for the state has already been lost. There is no raison d’État (the reason for the state). When the interior minister cannot find it in him to condemn open attacks on the state itself, it begs the question of who represents the state. Hence, it is only logical to wonder, if the very concept of the state is abandoned (even if we for the moment ignore what sort of state), then what the point of any of this is. Anarchy is upon us.

There is no lowest common denominator that we as a people and as a state agree upon. For example, fundamental questions such as should we not have, at least, one woman in the ‘negotiating team’ (or whatever else we are calling it this week)? Should there not be a member of the ‘minority’ community part of the ‘peace process’? The fact that these questions cannot seriously be even asked now, answers these questions quite conclusively.

‘War’ and ‘Peace’ have value attached to them only when they are means to some end, and by their nature are relative concepts. Hence, to be only for ‘peace’ is, perhaps, saying too little and maybe a bit too much at the same time in our context. The question ‘Taliban Khans’ should be asked (it actually would be nice, if they ask it to themselves) is sacrificing our non-Muslim compatriots and women for the ever illusive ‘peace’ a reasonable price to pay? It is not about being anti-Taliban or anti-anything, it is about being pro-something. And the sad fact is that we are no longer pro-anything not even pro-ourselves. Operation or not, talks or not, what do we want from them? Being pro-peace means nothing.

That is what it is now. It is not necessarily closet ideological alignment alone, not cravenness alone, not cheap populism alone. It is something of all these. However, most importantly, it is that frenzy has taken a course of its own.

Aitzaz Hasan and Fizza Malik are just victims of the frenzy, where it is no longer about anything else really, no cold calculations; the old men have just committed themselves to it, and cannot find it in themselves to stop now.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 9^th, 2014.

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