Why did it take us so long to raise a general outcry about our military and civilian administrators’ failure to bring the Taliban issue to a clear and decisive conclusion? It was not as if the majority of us, the people, actually supported the Taliban. Perhaps it was that we recognised, quite rightly, that the Taliban were not so far removed from what we ourselves are, and that in many ways, we had more in common with them than with the forces they initially sought to fight.
Not that we agreed with everything the Taliban ever did at any given point. How could we? We could never endorse such tactics, either due to Islam, or due to any other powerful ethical motive. But once Iraq was invaded and the Abu Ghraib pictures emerged, a terrible silence descended on us. When the Taliban used their own brand of tactics to speak, we didn’t speak up in active agreement with them. But the voices of many of us outside their immediate orbit fell morbidly weak — our disagreement was expressed in a dismayed murmur rather than an angry shout. And for this — this paralysis imposed on us by the sharing of their rage, pain and deep sense of grievance — we are now paying a terrible price.
What also served to subdue our voice was the nature of the ‘counter-narrative’ against the Taliban. The blame for our present crisis lies not only with those who failed to act early enough to avoid it. It also lies, ironically enough, with many of the commentators who did call for action against the Taliban. Too often, they allowed their frustration and paranoia to frame the debate in such a way that acknowledging the injured humanity of the Taliban and recognising the need to take effective action against them appeared to be part of two irreconcilable narratives.
Yet these two narratives have never been irreconcilable. The Taliban insurgency is no mere, inevitable continuation of the religious and sectarian schisms which manifested themselves in our society prior to 9/11, as some commentators have sought to portray it. The scale of what we are experiencing today — the suicide bombs, the incessant murder and mayhem — is altogether different from anything we ever experienced before the setting in of the impact of US policies post-9/11 and our state’s ambiguous collusion in those policies.
It would be dishonest to downplay the role of the sort of political grievances that groups like the Taliban themselves cite, and to portray their insurgency as being chiefly the result of ‘barbarism’ and ‘extremist’ religious ideology, and as something that simplistic, if well intended, measures like rewriting textbooks could correct. We can fix the biased and erroneous accounts in these books to reflect a truer picture, but would the whole truth be any the less ‘radicalising’? Even if we delete the word ‘jihad’, a word like ‘struggle’ would always exist.
Perhaps we would have enjoyed greater success in developing an effective counter-narrative against the Taliban had we not imported wholesale a biased, ignorant, highly subjective, and Islam-obsessed Western vocabulary to describe them; if we had instead taken care to articulate a more independent line on this issue.
The truth is that this is not a war between good and evil, between secularist-humanist love and narrow religious bigotry, between modern civilisation and medieval barbarity. This is a war of interests, pure and simple. And it has been dawning on us for quite some time now that while we need to find correctives for this system of ours which doesn’t struggle effectively enough against global forces of oppression, it is still against our interests to let forces like the Taliban run riot in our country.
In this ‘war on terror’, too many written and unwritten codes have been abused by all parties for us to delude ourselves that we are clearly on the side of moral force and justice. The difference between the Taliban and us is not that they are so totally wrong, while we are so completely right. The difference is that we must protect our ‘own’, and this ‘own’ includes not just army personnel and their school-going children, but also the Christians, Ahmadis, Shias and Sikhs.
In order to fight them effectively, we do not need to think of the Taliban as barbarians and as less than human, as if brutal tactics of slaughter and torture are something no other human has employed in this war. It is, in fact, more important than ever for us to remember right now just how human they are, so that we can avoid inflicting greater violence on them than is strictly necessary to achieve our goals.
As for the world who has ‘stood with us’ to mourn the murder of our children, we must also question whether all condolences have the same value. What, after all, is the worth of the condolences of those who refuse to perceive the roots of this violence, describing it merely as the senseless act of an ill and brainwashed mind? Of those to whom our humanity only seems to be really discernable when dressed in school uniforms similar to what their own children wear?
The truth is that our grief at Peshawar is no simple grief. It is the combined grief of what was done to ‘our’ children, and the grief of what was done to ‘their’ children that they did this to ours. And we are not being apologists when we acknowledge both kinds of grief. We are not indulging in ‘whataboutery’ when we seek greater nuance and balance in our counter-narrative.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 3rd, 2015.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (42)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
....once Iraq was invaded and the Abu Ghraib pictures emerged, a terrible silence descended on us. When the Taliban used their own brand of tactics to speak, we didn’t speak up in active agreement with them -
And through your inaction condoned extremism - choosing to ignore that it was Americans who discovered their own sins and worked to deliver justice by convicting the wrongdoers. You chose the extremist path yourself. Americans can do a little to help you get out of it but the hard work of changing your minds and acknowledging personal and collective error is yours, not ours - as will be the rewards.
@Sexton Blake: That is one of the plausible theories. Thanks for nicely articulating it.
@Hasan Mehmood: Dear Hasan, You have quite a detailed knowledge as does Rex Minor, and you are both obviously concerned about Pakistan's future. I will not go into detail, but the genie is out of the bottle. Obviously, Western powers, assisted by Pakistan, have been involved with creating the disaster unfolding in Pakistan, You may recall that Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud's assassination by the US in the middle of peace talks brought them to an abrupt end. You may also recall that General Sharif's predecessor General Parvez was keeping a tinderbox situation under reasonable control. Unfortunately, General Sharif was appointed, and after close consultation with the US, on a visit to Washington, he came back and instituted the disaster which now prevails in N W Pakistan. It would appear for reasons I will not go into that the US is determined to create massive disruption in the Islamic world stretching from Africa through to the sub-continent. You should keep in mind that to the US Pakistan is merely a small part of a very large overall strategic plan. I will not go into detail about brutality, but you should keep in mind that war is brutal, and there are no good guys in warfare.
@Rex Minor: Correction:- one asylum seeker from FATA now in Germany. Foreigner? Who? Where.? Pathans from FATA, are now foreigners?
@Rex Minor:
You are right on several counts. However the mass displacement and Arial bombardment is a recent phenomenon whereas the brutal killings / suicide bombings have been going on since much longer. USA had been putting severe pressure on Pak Army to go in North Waziristan (the nerve centre of Taliban) for many years. It was only the spectacular failure of peace talks last year that Pak Army moved in. Civilian casualties cannot be denied but nowhere near the scale propagated. Although you are a foreigner, you can easily search google map to find out the thinly populated nature of Tribal Areas. Pak Army is not like NATO forces in Afghanistan to mistake funeral or wedding processions as Terrorist gathering and bomb them.
You are also right about Tribal culture (in spite of being a foreigner). But if you care to delve a bit deeper you will find the Taliban and Al Qaeda associates do not represent tribal values. They never kill women and children of their worst enemies. Any way Tribes were being self governed by Maliks (local influentials, google again) since over 100 years. The first thing Taliban and their foreign friends Al Qaeda did when moving in from Afghanistan after 9/11, was to destroy the social structure by killing off literally hundreds of Maliks and imposing their brutal / barbaric structure. Do you they have bombed peace gatherings / Tribal Jirgas including tribal funerals and mosques repeatedly to instill fear in common tribal people. In an open election they would never vote for Taliban. Again you are right about UK / USA. But they were occupying powers. The Pakistan Govt. has practically let them on their own for six decades without even imposing main cities rules over them. Please do a bit more research to arrive at your own conclusions.
@Hasan Mehmood: My apologies, I am a foreigner and do not know much about Punjab Talibans, but what I do know from a human activist writing on ET about the millions of tribesmen and their families who have been displaced on both sides of the border and the heavy casualties they have suffered as a consequence of the areal bombing. I also happen to know about their culture which does not recognise forgiveness or laying down of arms. The one who challenges them must prove that he is more powerful than they are? Both the USA and NATO have failed in their mission after 13 years of war.
Rex Minor
@Rex Minor:
[Before you cry foul, you should have the decency and the civil courage to demand it. The author has both] I sure have the courage to demand it and even go a step further. I would sincerely like an unconditional state level apology for the actual as well as perceived atrocities and blood money in billions. In return I would ask for forgiveness and expect them to lay down their arms and live a normal peaceful life. Can you guarantee that? The author says [It is the combined grief of what was done to ‘our’ children, and the grief of what was done to ‘their’ children that they did this to ours] I would certainly like to be enlightened as to what was done to the children of Punjabi Taliban the most vicious masterminds in TTP. Remember Adnan Rasheed? They in fact have been treated with velvet gloves by Punjab establishment.
@Rex Minor:
Sorry Sir: You have only partially and vaguely answered only one of my three comments. I stand by my opinion. Has anyone of the Peshawar attackers lost his family members in drone or military strike? STOP BEING AN APOLOGIST UNDER THE COVER OF BEING EVEN HANDED
@Hasan Mehmood: Should'nt you be confining your comments to the article of Miss Sabri as well instead of throwing numbers around? Have you an idea of the numbers of casualties which Pakistan indiscriminate areal bombing has caused in the tribal territory? Has the press been allowed to visit and see the effects and report their findings to the people of Pakistan? Before you cry foul, you should have the decency and the civil courage to demnd it. The author has both..
Rex Minor
@Hasan Mehmood: Dear Hasan, You were not specific about who the 50,000 civilians were, and which country they belonged to. However, I can only presume you are referring to Pakistan, and the usual inaccurate statistics which people always refer to. As a result it would be difficult to rebut your observations point by point. However, you are obviously thinking about problems which require solving, and if you ever do solve them I would be grateful if you could keep me informed. Unfortunately, I do not think that you ever will.. The British Raj started most of the sub-continent problems and as a result hundreds of millions of people are no longer with us. After the Raj left childish Pakistan/Indian spats moved into action which created and is still creating a great deal of misery. About 20 years ago US/Russia decided to introduce their so called humanitarian intervention, and Pakistan.Afghanistan has been a basket case ever since. I do not see a workable solution for Pakistan/Afghanistan emerging any time soon, but I hope I am wrong. If you care to think about it how could anyone ever have imagined that the Anglo-Saxon race could have damaged a beautiful region like the sub-continent so efficiently?
@Rex Minor: Can you kindly rebut my observations point by point instead of going off on a tangent. I would love to be educated but within the specific confines of my remarks. Just to refresh my comments centered around comparative brutality, motivating force and lack of revenge from 50,000 civilians next of kin. Please do not wander. I will be obliged. As for the balanced narrative, would love to see that on mainstream UK / USA media.
@Saifullah Mahsud:
You are such a typical apologist. What balance you are talking when there is no comparison whatsoever between unintended few hundred Taliban related civilian casualties and the most barbaric, open eyed, intentional, proudly owned slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. A person who attempts a balanced narrative in the face of playing football with severed heads is simply out of his mind. This is not a socio economic uprising or fight for civil rights or an independence movement. If it is portrayed as struggle for Sharia, name a single well recognized Mufti of any sect in their ranks. Even Maulana Samiul Haq their spiritual father has disowned their tactics. Surely Mangal Bagh, Mulla Omer and Maulvi Fazlullah etc do not qualify as religious authority by any stretch of imagination. As for revenge attacks not a single captured or video taped suicide bomber ever claimed he is doing it for his dead parents. Even if true it means that over 100,000 next of kin of civilians killed by extremists pointlessly are simply bay ghairat and incapable of revenge since they have not produced a single suicide bomber. Balanced narrative?? What a cruel phrase
Moderator ET: Please publish. Nothing wrong in it.
You nailed it lady.
@Freeman: Dear Freeman, I have no argument with you in regard to how 300,000 people have died in the US/Saudi inspired and equipped terrorist war in Syria. However, I thought I made it quite clear that I was basically addressing the Pakistan issue where many people appear unable to see that deaths in Afghanistan as a result of official military campaigns are much higher than a few hundred deaths by militants. At the very least my take on the issue is that most journalists have written rather calmly about military killings if they have written at all, but become quite hysterical when referring to militant activities, and many people use inaccurate statistics. Incidentally, my latest reading on deaths in Syria comes to 202,354. You were inaccurate by nearly a hundred thousand people.
@Freeman: Official name of the country and also the name of the Capital city which was built after the country's birth.
I think the author of this blog is agreeing with that comment in the old American comics: "We have met the enemy, and it is us".
@Sexton Blake: Deaths of victims or perpetrators are deaths of human beings in the scheme (war by and on terror) of things. The 300,000 deaths in Syria in a "civil" war along sectarian lines are 300,000 deaths. Numbers reflect the magnitude of the problem, whether one likes to admit it or not.
@Dr. Mohamed Boodhun: The difference between a free and democratic country and an unfree and authoritarian country (whether authoritarian in the mindset of its people or the governance structure chosen or both) is that the former leave it up to the individuals to decide which religion they follow or do not follow; the latter intervene and decide which religion and religious groups have their official blessings and which don't. (To see examples of the latter, just read about Russia and China as well as Muslim majority countries, including those in Asia.) In Pakistan the state as unwisely steeped in and decided which brands of Islam are un-Islamic; and through blasphemy laws (available only to Muslims), which religious folks are worthy of living. (Plus the official name of the country, which also sends a signal to the over 33 jihadi organizations and others.)
@Hobi Haripur wala: Dear Hobi Haripur wala, The statistics I am reading differ somewhat from yours. If you are referring to deaths from so called terrorism within Pakistan the latest figures show that between 2003-2014 the death toll was 55,973. Additionally, 30,016 of the dead were purported to be militants and over 6,000 were military personnel. Presumably the 30,016 were mainly killed by bombing/military campaigns, and due to lack of data we have to presume there were no innocents amongst them, because the military would not tell lies would they? I will not go into your injury statistics, and I do not feel I am an apologist. However it is important to use accurate statistics and refrain from hysterical nomenclature.
@Hasan: I have commented with necessary links in the comments, but the Moderator somehow decided not to let it pass through. Its not really difficult to find out.
Hatts off to you lady! Yet to come across a more balanced piece on the issue. And this is coming from someone who is from Waziristan and has worked on the issue of militancy in that region for the last 10 years.
A. In short there is the Taliban.
B. And there are Taliban Apologists.
C. The favourite pastime of the former is to kill unarmed Civilians, preferably Women and Children. Be they in Ahmadi Places of 'Worship' or Hazra Colonies or Christian Churches or Shia Townships or Children's Schools.
D. And the favourite vocation of the latter is to tell us how the victims had it coming to them for having 'injured the humanity' of the Taliban in the first place.
I believe dealing with the Apologists is as important as dealing with the Taliban.
@Umer: Would you like to talk to the survivors/relatives of the 58,000 men women and children slaughtered by the 'others' ? Would you like to talk to the 300,000 injured, some maimed for life? Some blinded for life. Would you like to do that? Your sanctimonious comment WILL be read to them. So they know what your perception about the "others" is. These OTHERS who destroyed their lives. In cases the sole bread winner of the family is dead. May God have mercy on your injured soul, your humanity, and your human rights.
This is perhaps the most nuanced and ethically mature piece that has appeared in any of our English dailies about how to respond to the Peshawar incident. The lesson is simple: we can never resolve the problem of violence that engulfed our entire regions for so many decades, without recognizing the injured humanity of the "other". This is the ethical perspective that has been, and still remains, missing in "liberal" Pakistanis' response to terrorism. We cannot convincingly speak about human rights and equal dignity and in the same breath condemn some human beings as "animals", and condone their extermination through military might or their execution the through summary trials. We cannot win this without ethical courage.
I disagree with the author's assertion that the violence post 9/11 is qualitatively different than pre 9/11. The scale and nature of Taliban violence is very similar to what was going on in Afghanistan from 1994 to 2001. In fact, one can argue that the TTP has not yet reached the level of brutality that the Afghan Taliban was inflicting on the people of Afghanistan. Public executions, the mazar e Sharif massacre, the list goes on.
It is very ahistorical to claim that the TTP emerged in a vacuum and as a reaction to the war on terror. Just because Pakistanis were in denial about the pre 9/11 terrorism that Pakistan was sponsoring and supporting in Afghanistan, doesn't mean that it didn't exist
Brave, Sensible and Subtle. This piece is meant for those who like to think deeply
You discerned Right and Wrong at the most sensitive areas. Thanks a million for that. This is the bravest and wisest thing to do. Everything you said can be so easily misinterpreted and ridiculed. I respect and stand by every word you said. Now its a war for our children, and it should be limited to the necessary actions. If we are after some "ism" with a "gun",we wont reach any end.
If only we had a few more journalists with the intelligence and foresight shown by Sahara Sabri. To my knowledge one can never read anything of this quality outside of ET in the Western media.
This article is very, very brave - and right on the money. You have made some very good points which escape a lot of these extremist idiots. Good job, very brave of you
brilliant article!
@Alfa Romeo: [Entire villages and towns have been virtually wiped off from the face of earth. Plenty of videos available on YouTube] Can you kindly post some links in support of your claim. As far as I know Taliban immediately cordon off all strike zones and don't let anyone near. Nothing could be more effective for their cause than the picture of a dead girl with a doll lying around or a dead boy alongside a torn school book. Are such civilian victims even 5% of the civilian casualties on the other side. Comparing relatively few victims of collateral damage (reprehensible nevertheless) with tens of thousands killed point black with open eyes is not fair.
and the grief of what was done to ‘their’ children that they did this to ours.
Really??
So it was something that was done to 'their' children that inspired,
A. 9/11 New York
B. 26/11 Mumbai
C. Church Bombing Peshawar
D. Malala Yousufzai Shooting
The mind boggles, to say the least.
Are you trying to patronize because you have Spoken like a true closet Taliban. It also goes to show that Taliban is a state of mind and you don't have to be in hijab or have a beard.
It is a game of interests?! Between those who are not that wrong and not that right! So Taliban type wanting a theocratic state, no matter the means, are not wrong? The military and others in the establishment nurturing violent religious groups are not that wrong either? Millions of Pakistanis giving donations to these groups are "not that right"? And so the game of denial continues.
And, prior to 9/11, the state did endorse every barbaric action of Taliban in Afghanistan. But deny this too.
Though the article takes lots of unnecessary twists and turns, a point is made but albeit very subtly. No doubt killing of school children is bad and sad., but bombing and wiping out families using bombers is also a heinous crime. Entire villages and towns have been virtually wiped off from the face of earth. Plenty of videos available on YouTube. The media has been blocked in the conflict zone and no miseries of the victims are broadcast, so are the real stories of IDP's. All for someone who has bought out our generals and politicians to fight that someone war. If militancy is THE primary target, then why are so many militant groups being left alone and infact encouraged?
Totally confusing and convoluted arguments. Your line of argument is similar to Shahbaz Sharif, converging the two narratives as the same. Nothing could be more misguided.
Intellectually bankrupt, what a torture o read it!
The state has to recognize that in September 1974 the it did not have the right to minoritize the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. This culminated in the 2010 Lahore mosques massacre. The media at that time sided with the government and added insult to injury by calling Ahmadi mosques as "places of worship". Also instead of calling the ahmadies to express their point of view on that tragedy, we saw people from JI aand tahafuz e khatmenabuwat on the shows. How can anyone in their right mind expect this country to now eradicate intolerance when those running the government and the media are nothing but intolerant.
There is a general outcry? Where? It took long? Huh? They killed 140 in a church bombing, But Christians don't count. They were systematically killing Sikhs. But Sikhs don't count. They killed 200 Shias in Karachi, in one blast. But Shias don't count. They killed 190 Hazaras, in Quetta in one blast. But Hazaras don't count. They killed 90 Sunnis at Wagah, in one blast,...do Sunnis count? Nobody knows. Though this is a Sunni country. Sunnis of every stripe live here.
OK, please give me an example when their children were killed point blank with bullets to their heads, otherwise, stop writing nonsense.
what a tortuous , zigzagged article is this , simple fact be complxed