Pakistan faces a paradox on Islamic extremism and terrorism. Everyone condemns terrorism. You talk to any one and there will be a strong denunciation of suicide bombings, roadside bombings, armed assaults and killings and kidnapping of people. Despite such widespread condemnation of terrorism in Pakistan, a large number of people are not prepared to condemn the groups that engage in violent activities. In fact, many people either do not believe that militant Islamic groups engage in terrorist and violent activities or they accuse some foreign countries, including the US of sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan. Some argue that their group uses violence to fight back the terrorism of the adversary group. The other approach is to explain violence and terrorism in a manner that the perpetrator appears to be a victim of circumstances. Every religious-sectarian, jihadi and political group has created separate, often times rival, narratives of history and politics to justify its disposition and activities.
The ambiguity, if not contradictions, in the mindset and disposition of a large number of Pakistanis (i.e. abhorrence for terrorism but sympathy for the Islamic militant organisations) can be attributed to the growing tendency of neglecting individual’s obligations to societal good or welfare, citizenship of Pakistan as a nation state and its pluralist, tolerant and democratic framework. There is a noticeable weakening of the obligation of individuals and groups towards fellow citizens irrespective of caste, creed, religion and religious sect. One can easily notice prejudices towards non-Muslims and, among Muslims, denominational identities often override the fact of being a Muslim.
A large section of the political class views the Pakistani state and its institutions as legitimate to the extent these contribute to achieving their partisan interests. Consequently, every institution and process of the state as well as societal norms and practices faces a crisis of legitimacy because individuals and groups do not hesitate to dispute the legitimacy of the state and societal processes if their partisan agendas are not served.
Similarly, the notions of sovereignty, obligations towards the state, democracy, civil and political rights and humanity are employed only to satisfy group or individual agendas rather than implementing the substance of these principles as the over-riding considerations.
A noteworthy example of the use of different principles in a partisan and selective manner is the reaction of the Islamic parties and mainstream opposition parties to the Abbottabad episode, May 2. They criticised the civilian government, the military and the United States for violating Pakistan’s sovereignty and “invading” Pakistan. This argument does not have impact at the international level because it ignores the other dimensions of sovereignty. A sovereign state must enforce its writ on its territory. The militant and terrorist groups that challenge the Pakistani state in the tribal areas or in the mainland also violate Pakistan’s sovereignty. Further, a state should not allow its territory to be used against any other state. If the second and third conditions are not met, other states find a reason to doubt the viability of the state and, at time, interfere directly and indirectly. A rational argument will take into account all the dimensions of sovereignty which involves rights and obligations of the state in the international system.
The confusion is reinforced by two factors: The rise of Islamic orthodoxy and fundamentalism, partly patronised by the military establishment and partly as a consequence of the growing power of the hard line and militant groups. The other trend is the resurgence of ethnic-linguistic identities that threaten internal harmony and stability in urban Sindh and Baloch areas of Balochistan.
The first trend of Islamic orthodoxy and militancy has created a purely religion-based worldview that interprets every development in domestic and international politics as a function of religion. The followers of this mindset have created a discourse on domestic and international affairs with an aura of self-righteousness, narrow and self-centered worldview. In mutual interaction among the Muslims of Pakistan, religious orthodoxy has shifted the emphasis to Islamic-sectarian identity. Therefore, the rising assertion of sectarian identity and efforts of some of these groups to denounce other sect, declaring some to be out of the fold of Islam, has increased religion-based disharmony. This is in addition to ethnic-linguistic conflicts.
Pakistan, therefore, is more divided and fragmented today than was the case thirty-years ago. This internal drift poses more serious challenge to the survival of the state than any external threat because Pakistan’s internal resilience is waning. This trend has been reinforced because of the failure of the civilian government to address socio-economic problems and the threat of economic melt-down of the state in the absence of external economic and diplomatic support.
The imperatives of the mindset based on Islamic orthodoxy views the world in terms of “We, the Muslims versus the rest of the world as an adversary” favours an isolationist approach based on one-sided view of sovereignty in global politics. However, the predicament of growing economic dependence and diplomatic pressures on terrorism emphasise the need of working with the rest of the world. Pakistan’s civilian and military authorities are finding it difficult to balance these conflicting trends because the polarised mindset has penetrated the civilian leadership and military establishment. The Islamic orthodoxy mindset operates in an imaginary faith-based universe free of territorial boundaries.
Therefore, it sympathises and often supports Islamic hard-line militant and terrorist groups because they invoke Islam and challenge the West. The notion of Pakistan as a nation state with sovereignty is not relevant when it comes to the activities of militant Islamic groups. Their ladder of loyalty is from an individual to Islamic movements and a supra-state Muslim universalism. Pakistan is relevant to the extent it helps to achieve the objective of Islamic movements. However, Pakistan’s sovereignty is viewed as highly valued when it comes to interaction with India and the US
Pakistan’s major challenges are internal. They key question is what the political class and the military want to make of Pakistan. If Pakistan has to survive as a nation-state, its primacy has to be practically acknowledged by all those living in Pakistan, especially the Islamic movements, militant groups and their supporters. Only then will the international community also respect Pakistan’s sovereignty. If Pakistan continues to function as a centre of transnational militant groups and individuals, Pakistan’s future as a coherent and functional national state will continue to be in doubt.
The writer is an independent political and defence analyst.
