Are varsities breeding grounds for militancy?

Incomplete investigations into only a handful of cases are insufficient to draw such conclusions

Universities are a breeding ground for terrorists; therefore, we need to take serious actions to resolve this issue. This is the argument that is being bombarded by the state institutions towards the academia.

Let’s analyse the first part of the argument: Is it really so? Examples of IBA alumnus Saad Aziz and the recent phenomena of Abdul Karim Sarosh Siddiqui—a central commander of Ansar-ul-Sharia Pakistan (ASP) and a dangerous militant described as the mastermind of the attack on Izharul Hassan—are cited to justify this point. However, looking at this point deeply shows that both of these people had left the university well before they started their terrorist activities.

If the varsities are to be blamed for the actions they did well after leaving their institutions, then why not also talk about their schools, colleges, locality, mosques and everything else around them? Why point out just one level of education? And out of more than 30,000 students at Karachi University (KU), if you have one example, would you consider it to be a systemic problem at the university level? Or is it just a natural outcome of how the society at large is responding to state policies, not just at the campus level but also at a local level.

This seems to be a case of grasping at straws on part of varsity administrations, as no matter how invalid the argument may be, it facilitates pressurising campus students and varsity bodies to curb any form of dissent against the policies of the state.

Secondly, if universities are somehow facilitating radicalisation, then we must go through the university curriculum and carefully analyse it. After all, the curriculum plays an important role in an individual’s learning process. But when we observe that a person who was studying applied physics or business administration is getting radicalised towards militancy, something feels amiss. Is there even a correlation between militancy and such advanced subjects?

Thirdly, if the case is presented in such a manner that a non-university-going person, who was a non-militant individual, became a radicalised individual after joining a university, then this argument can and should be investigated. But, before we delve any deeper into it, we need to question the state once again: When you ban student unions and create various hurdles and roadblocks in the way of an open environment for political discussions at campuses, what else do you expect?

How will the students—some of them deeply frustrated—vent the anger that exists against state policies and religious bigotry? If they are not allowed to discuss and debate such issues, sorting them out in an educated, political manner, then—like it or not—the environment of militancy would naturally flourish. This is true not just for a university, but the society in general.

The state routinely abducts people, and they go ‘missing’ on matters of political differences and ideas, without giving them the right to present themselves in a court. When these individuals return, their jobs are gone; their family is devastated; they have gone through psychological trauma; their friends are deeply affected. Such an environment of fear will only give rise to a hidden form of militancy, which can be easily exploited by incorrect Islamic interpretations. This is generally true for the whole society, and, when it comes to campuses, it is evident there as well.

Fourthly, the examples of militants cited were not actively engaged in developing a militant network in their respective universities, as we have one ex-IBA student and one former KU graduate who connects with others and engages in a terrorist activity. They were not creating a network of militants in IBA or KU which would have meant that an environment of militancy was being created at campuses. Had they been engaged in any such venture, they would have been easily singled out and targeted beforehand by the administration. But that was not the case.

The first part of the argument does not hold any weight on which the next part is being suggested by the Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD): The CTD wants data from the universities and they want character certificates of the students and teachers from police stations before admission.

If for the sake of discussion, we agree that the universities are indeed a breeding ground for terrorists, then the suggestions presented by CTD seem to be very irrational. There are over 3 million students enrolled in grades 13 through 16 in Pakistan’s 1,086 degree colleges and 161 universities, according to Pakistan Higher Education Commission report for 2013-14. Is this a rational approach to put 3 million students under surveillance just on the basis of some lone wolf terrorists, who were not even trying to expand militancy within the campuses? What message will you be sending to the students in general? As Senator Raza Rabbani correctly pointed out: it would create fear amongst the students, which is a very negative impression for them.

On the contrary, if a person had a militant or radical mindset before joining a university, there is a fair chance that he may change his mindset after getting a decent exposure of social sciences and technology. His vision is more than likely to be broadened in understanding society after coming across different perspectives and ideas.

Opening up student unions and allowing political and religious discussions in an educated manner can flush away lingering thoughts of militancy within a society.

What needs to be done is to grasp the real reasons behind militancy and radicalism that has engulfed our society in general. Not recognising a string of wrong foreign policy decisions by the state since the 1980s will only exacerbate the situation. A coherent counter-narrative to extremism is yet to be developed, whereas the state is still relying on force and coercion to resolve this issue.