The writer is a retired lieutenant colonel of the Pakistan Army and is currently pursuing PhD in civil-military relations from the University of Karachi
Was the political and military elite thinking about the Maulana Fazlur Rehman-led response and how it would shape and draw the new battle lines when the 21st Amendment was being introduced? The military and the entire nation are now confronted with this swiftly developing dangerous situation in which the good Taliban are also threatening to become bad. And guess who is threatening to lead such a revolt — Maulana Fazlur Rehman. He is not only a staunch supporter of the Taliban but is also somebody who has been visiting the US and the European Union in the 1990s to seek and secure support for the Taliban. As far as his Arab contacts are concerned, they date back to the time when the Arab rulers of Saudi Arabia and the UAE were invited to Pakistan and for whom he arranged hunting trips in Kandahar. Much of the financial support that the Maulana is able to muster and which our interior minister claims is difficult to monitor and detect comes from such Arab rulers.
Although the Maulana is the current chairman of the Kashmir Committee, his most controversial statement as a politician is also on the subject of Kashmir. Visiting India and addressing its media in 2003 as the leader of the MMA, the far-right wing parties’ alliance that opposed General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s rule at that time, he said that “Kashmir is a territorial problem rather than a religious issue”.
Going by his political wisdom, the three wars that Pakistan fought with India must then have been for the acquisition of territory and not for the injustice meted out to the majority of Muslim Kashmiris who have been deprived the right of self-determination. For the external wars that Pakistan fought and the indigenous rise and the daily battles that the people of Kashmir fight against the Indian occupation army, the Maulana finds no role of religion. But when it is the need of the hour and the collective will of the nation is required to fight against those who are murdering and killing our children, he terms it a war directed against the ‘religious constituency’ in the country — the constituency which votes him to power and defending which is not a matter of national but personal interest to him.
A constant propagator of anti-American sentiment in the country, the true side of the Maulana was exposed when WikiLeaks secret cables disclosed that he had invited an US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, to dinner in Islamabad and during a conversation with her, sought American support to become the country’s prime minister.
At the moment, the military is in a tight spot. The National Action Plan warrants the military to act. Maulana Fazlur Rahman is mincing no words in how he wants to defend and protect the ‘religious constituency’. Terrorism perpetrated in the name of religion is the core ill that infects our society and unless the military takes action against all those who practise and preach religious extremism, the war on terror will continue to remain a stalemated and a deadlocked one.
There is huge risk that the military might get embroiled in fighting a long war against a deeply entrenched mindset led by opportunist leaders, who are ready to take a stand behind the shield of religion. Fighting against such people is not an act of vengeance but a dire and existential need to maintain national security.
This is something that the generals all along have been aware of. General Shuja Pasha, the former DG ISI, explained the growing problem on our western frontier to Leon Panetta, a former US defence secretary, who in his autobiography Worthy Fights — A memoir of leadership in war and peace, writes that “On my first visit to Pakistan, I was told by Pasha that the problem with western Pakistan stemmed from the replacement of the malik, the secular tribal leader, with the mullah, the religious authority”. Like General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, General Pasha was very close to General Musharraf and the comment he made was not personal but a deep set belief of the core group of the senior military leadership of the time.
General Musharraf had actually set the tone of such military thinking when he took over as the military ruler and gathered all the leading religious scholars and clerics from all over Pakistan at the Convention Centre, Islamabad and while addressing them said, “How does the world look at us?... It looks upon us as terrorists. We have been killing each other. And now we want to spread violence and terror abroad. Naturally, the world regards us as terrorists. Our claim of tolerance is phony … we never tire of talking about the status that Islam accords to the women. We only pay lip service to its teachings. We do not act upon it. This is hypocrisy.” The point I want to make is that the military’s senior hierarchy all along knew where the epicentre of terrorism lies in Pakistan. Limited and restrained by the now jettisoned ‘concept of strategic depth’ and the lack of political support, military operations were either delayed or not launched at all. It’s General Raheel Sharif, who has now finally committed to fight against ‘the entire spectrum of terrorism in Pakistan’.
The 21st Amendment has now enabled and empowered the military to bring to justice through its military courts, the captured and surrendered militants. Yet, it’s not about dispensing speedy justice; it’s more about confronting the ‘bad mullah’ — the self-proclaimed ‘guardian of our religion’ — and ‘religious authority’, which has indoctrinated and brainwashed many minds that challenge the authority of the state and fight against it. Any step backwards at this stage will only mean a very insecure future for our children, and for this country, a not so pleasant fate.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 6th, 2015.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (16)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1731046534-0/trump-(22)1731046534-0-165x106.webp "article")
-(14)1720679028-0/(image-blakelively-on-Instagram)-(14)1720679028-0-165x106.webp "article")
@Zalmai: By the way India has never claimed that it was responsible for any of Afghan successes unlike Pakistsn who claims that they defeated USSR when it was in factAfghsn Mujahidin who fought. Not a single Pakistani soldier fought in that war.
ET Mods - how is it that you publish this man's unsubstantiated attacks on Hindus? His comment to me has little to do with either what I said or what the OpEd is. If you print his tripe, please allow my response.
@Motiwala: Your fetish about Hindus is absurd. India has almost as many Muslims as Pskustan does. Also it's secular constitution has allowed people of all religions to rise to the top in their chosen fields. The COAS in 1971 was a Parsi. The man to whom Tiger Niazi surrendered was a Sikh.
so please stop confusing India with Hindus. Your absurd diatribe is a reflection on you more than Hindus.
@ Motiwala
Please stop giving Bharat so much credit for their involvement in Afghanistan in support of Najib's government and the Northern Alliance. With or without India's help the Afghans would have done just exactly as they did and the end result would have been the same.
It is Pakistan's incompetence and false assessment of Afghanistan and India that has it in this quagmire. The Mullah and military nexus is what got you here and no amount of obfuscation and deflection will absolve Pakistan of its flawed policies that has resulted in tragic consequences for Pakistan.
Afghanistan will always use a benefactor to help it against Pakistan, which used Arab and American benefactors to destroy Afghanistan. You are seeking new benefactors like Russia as we speak and you have an issue with neighbors and their benefactors. Get with the program, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
The problems of Pakistan come from the Military playing one side against another to maintain their stranglehold on power. The Mullah was used to bring people on the street against the Politician. The terror proxies were not just used to attack neighboring countries but also to settle scores with dissident Politicians, Journalists and Baloch nationalists. The Mullah, Madarassa were used for indoctrination and recruitment. To suddenly believe wisdom has dawned like Manna from Heaven would be a severe underestimation of the effect of indoctrination.
A. Much of the financial support that the Maulana is able to muster and which our interior minister claims is difficult to monitor and detect comes from such Arab rulers.
OK. So you are saying that all these reports of India funding anti-Pakistan forces are bunkum? Good. Finally, the truth has dawned upon you.
B. “On my first visit to Pakistan, I was told by Pasha that the problem with western Pakistan stemmed from the replacement of the malik, the secular tribal leader, with the mullah, the religious authority”.
In 2004, the TTP massacred more than 150 Maliks in order to consolidate their hold on FATA. And the Government of Parvez Musharraf entered into 'Peace Treaty' with them. How come Gen Pasha is not aware of this.
C. addressing them said, “How does the world look at us?… It looks upon us as terrorists.
And the same General claimed that 'Mujahideen' were occupying the Kargil heights. And the same General also rewarded Ilyas Kashmiri, a TTP terrorist, in person. Kashmiri, of course was later killed by an American drone, much to the annoyance of Pakistan
D. The 21st Amendment has now enabled and empowered the military to bring to justice through its military courts,
And Nizam-e-Adl was also enacted to authorise Sufi Mohammed, Maulana Fazalullah and the TNSM to bring 'Justice' to Swat. Wasn't it?
While I do not hold Maulana Fazlur Rehman in very high regard, or even the least bit of regard, if he said "Kashmir is a territorial problem rather than a religious issue", to me he does not appear to be altogether in the wrong. If we really had very strong pan-Islamic feelings and felt so bad about the injustice meted out to the majority of Muslim Kashmir's (totaling a few million) that we considered the cause worth fighting three wards with India, than we would not have done what we did to Bengalese. Now, Bengalese were just as much Muslims: in fact during Hajj time I found them to be better Muslims than us Pakistanis. While Pakistan were busy shopping, the Bengalese spent nearly all their time praying.
And we abandoned Muslim Pakistanis in Bengal to languish in camps in sub-human conditions even when Rabita Trust had arranged funds for bringing them to Pakistan.. In fact, a small number Pakistanis were actually brought to Pakistan under the scheme, which means their right to come to Pakistan was accepted, but the process was discontinued later. With a record like that, it becomes difficult to believe that we fought three wars with India purely for the love of Kashmiris, and not because of the source of our rivers being there and other considerations.
We have got to realize that leaving aside the territory in Kashmir that we won in early days of Pakistan, we are not in a position to grab any more of the territory there and even if we make a dash and capture some area, we can not maintain our hold on it as was clearly demonstrated in the case of Kargil. And it is unlikely that India will offer Kashmir to us on a plate, more so because no Indian government can afford to do that.
And as for raising the Kashmir issue at international level, well, the international community's moves are worked out on the basis of interests and not through matters of conscience which is why it is busy courting India, which provides a big market for their products. Unfortunately, by remaining fixed in history, and hoping for the impossible to happen, we fail to take a course that could reduce Kashmiris' suffering substantially. If we care to analyse our conduct dispassionately, taking view of the present-day realities, we will see that as their unwise friends, we continue adding to the misery of Kashmiris.
As for good/bad Taliban, well, at a time when the Americans and their allies were not being honest with us, there was no need for Pakistan to make more enemies than it had to. George Bush started his map-change operations in the region with the invasion of Iraq. George Bush had hoped that Iraq would be just a walk-over after which he could return to our region to complete his agenda. The US and other western countries have often expressed apprehensions about our nuclear arsenal and they want to make India the regional leader. Fortunately for us, Iraqi irregulars kept Americans and their allies bogged down for nearly a decade. And in the meantime, US public opinion turned against their country's foreign interventions. So with the abandonment of map-change plans by the US and its accomplices, and with the coming to power of a sensible and sincere leadership in Afghanistan, there is no need to continue the past policy which was most appropriate for those times. With the change in circumstances, Pakistan armed forces did not take long to change their policy and our Afghan brothers are reciprocating in the most appropriate manner. They had attacked the terrorists who planned Peshawar carnage. Moreover, first batch of Afghan cadets has already arrived in Pakistan for military training, instead of going to India. We must continue the cooperation because peace in both countries is interlinked.
Opposition by Maulana Fazlur Rehman and others to the recent measures was to come anyway, and can be handled all right. All that is needed is for the civilian leadership to shed its timidity and demonstrate a bit of resolve, instead of leaving everything for the army to handle. Failure is definitely not an option.
Karachi
@Gp65: Well, the author has penned his opinion. A very astute and well received one. Completely understood by Paks. What the author did not dwell on, is the Hindu equation. on Western Pakistan. From DAY ONE. Since the war against Soviet aggression began. Bharat, being a proxy of the Soviets, was aiding and abetting Najibullah, the Soviet puppet, in a very detrimental way. After the Soviet defeat, Bharat still kept it's fetid toes in Afghanistan by supporting the Northern Alliance. After the defeat of the Northern Alliance, it still kept it's fingers there. And is now supporting, aiding and supplying mulla Fazlullah leader of the TTP. So, if Bharat gets off the merry go round in Afghanistan,...things might look a tad shiny. No Bleak House there, due to Bharat's malevolent presence. Now, then, do Paks have a reason to be paranoid about hindus in Afghanistan?
ET please print. We all know you are owned by hindus. They will not shut you down.
Author is onest enough o admit that until recenly Afghan Taliban received warmth and hospiality in Pakistan. Yet they are the ones that Pakistan took money to fight in the supposed war on terror. Considering that hey did nt fight them at all, it is outright hypocrisy to assess all losses arising from fighting an entirely domestic insurgency (TTP) to the lobal war on terror and claim victimhood.
@MSS: "All credit to Gen. Raheel Sharif for taking this bold but incomplete step"
Kayani too led an operation in Swt and south waziristan. Even this general despite claims is not fighting those that target India and Afghanistan. He is ot very different. Just as Musharraf and Kayani were oraised when they were in power and criticized heavily once they left, the same fate will meet Raheel Shareef who has already carried out a soft coup by including military courts for civilians.
Fairly honest admission by a former Pak army officer of what all ails Pakistan. Maulana Fazlur Rehman is 100% correct when he says that Kashmir is a territorial dispute and not the religious one. Unfortunately for Pakistan, whole world also believes the same way as Maulana Fazlur Rehman. Pakistanis should ask the honest question to themselves if they can ever take Kashmir through force or through coercion or force any UN resolution on India ? Pakistan has tried every possible means when whole world was with her and India was relatively very weak. Even an all out nuclear war won't get Kashmir. India is not like US and USSR in Afghanistan. Indian army can sit in Kashmir for ever without affecting anything. Maulana Fazlur Rehman is playing similar type of politics with Pakistan what Jinnah played with India.
Mr Ehsan you are absolutely right about the following:
"Terrorism perpetrated in the name of religion is the core ill that infects our society and unless the military takes action against all those who practise and preach religious extremism, the war on terror will continue to remain a stalemated and a deadlocked one." And,..." the military's senior hierarchy all along knew where the epicentre of terrorism lies in Pakistan."
I believe the solution also lies with the military. Military constantly plants ideas that are popularized and expanded by journalists and some intellectuals. Ideas such as "root cause", "violation of sovereignty" and so on. The separation between state and religion needs to be demarcated, other wise politicians like Mullah Fazluar will continue to flourish.
When it comes to Kashmir, the author criticizes Rahman's view that the issue is territorial rather than religious one and claims that the issue of Kashmir must be considered as Right of self determination of Muslims (his logic ignores non Muslims, because he considers the issue as Muslim (religious )self determination) and argues that was the very reason for PAK's three wars(not sure how he counts these).
Whereas, when it comes to PAK, Rahman's religious views must be suppressed, and only PAK territorial integrity is a must, and Rahman's soldiers must be considered as terrorists and PAK soldiers must be considered as islam and national patriots.
PAK army will be fighting this losing battle for a long time to come in her own soil. On the issue of Kashmir, things are already said and done.
The author is quite correct in his assertion that the military minds have known about the roots of the problem of terrorism especially recognising that Gen. Zia's institutional input was deleterious on society. Gen. Kiyani was afraid that his military might break up because of action against the TTP and their allies. All credit to Gen. Raheel Sharif for taking this bold but incomplete step. Hopefully, Pakistan will succeed in this IK's love for Taliban notwithstanding.
After "Good Taliban vs Bad Taliban" the new debate is "Good Mulla vs Bad Mulla"? Perhaps we should put aside both those and debate on "Good Governance vs Bad Governance" if we want to progress.
"The problem with western Pakistan stemmed from the replacement of the malik, the secular tribal leader, with the mullah, the religious authority"
Unsurprisingly, the author conveniently forgot to mention that his institution was responsible for this 'replacement'.
In my view it is not good or bad Mullah we should be fighting against, but encourage all to leave political decisions to the government and the army to seetle internal and external threats. Anybody who takes law in his own hands is not only bad but evil. That includes not only Mullahs but many others who think that they interpret laws themselves and act accordngly. Musharaf was right in pointing out the bad name the country has been getting abroad. But it is much bigger problem to be left to mullahs. If people treat Qadri as a hero and the guy who showered qadri with flowers become a high coourt Judge, you wonder if the subject of good and Mullahs should include those who are supposed to defend rule of law are in fact law breakers.