A good number of people in Pakistan get upset when Pakistans internal societal formations and politico-economic dynamics are criticised by Western analysts, think-tanks and officials. Recently, an American magazine, Foreign Policy, sought the opinion of experts on the state of terrorism in the world. Their overwhelming majority described Pakistan as the country that posed the greatest threat to the West today.
The typical Pakistani response to such comments is that the criticism is a propaganda campaign against Pakistan or why should we pay attention to what they say because we are a sovereign state. Another typical response is that they are against us because we are Muslims.
The comments from outside of Pakistan may contain some exaggeration about the dynamics of Pakistans internal affairs or these may reflect over-generalisations based on limited or selective data. However, it cannot be argued that everything is working smoothly in Pakistan and there are no socio-economic or political problems threatening societal harmony and political and economic stability. The denial of problems or explaining everything with one factor of external scheming against Pakistan creates the habit of not accepting the reality.
The sovereignty argument cannot be overplayed because every state is sovereign. In the present-day interdependent world, it is not rational to think of isolating a country from the rest of the world. A country like Pakistan cannot afford to delink itself from the rest of the world because this would intensify Pakistans economic and political problems. Pakistan can secure itself against external pressures by building enduring partnerships with other countries provided its leaders recognize that their capacity to exercise options in domestic and external domains depend to a great extent on a strengthened economy and socio-political harmony and stability in the domestic context.
There are groups and individuals in the West who have a negative disposition towards Islam and the Muslims but the states do not necessarily pursue this approach. The state policy is not shaped by interests, concerns and threat-perceptions. The US maintains friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, all Gulf-region states and Pakistan because of the sharing of interests. Its relations are troubled with Iran and Syria because of conflicts of interests and agendas.
In Pakistan, almost all Islamic political parties and groups were generally viewed as pro-West and pro-US during the 1980s; they cooperated with each other to knock-out Soviet troops from Afghanistan. However, there relations changed in the 1990s as the US pulled out of the region. The post Nine-Eleven policies of the US undermined the interests of Islamic parties. Therefore, Islamic parties and leaders are extremely critical of the US policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The perceptions and opinion of the outside world are shaped by the signals that go out from Pakistan. Islamic militancy and terrorism have contributed a great deal to undermining Pakistans reputation at the international system because its fallout goes far beyond Pakistans territorial boundaries. Had this been confined to Pakistani territory, the world would not have been so much concerned about it.
This raises the issue about the control of Pakistani territory by the government which is also an attribute of sovereignty. A state cannot allow its territory to be used against other states. The international community is appreciative of the efforts by Pakistans security forces to control such groups. However, as long as this menace is not fully controlled, others will view Pakistan as a source of militancy and transnational terrorism.
Further, Pakistani society is threatened by Islamic orthodoxy and intolerance. The assassination of Salmaan Taseer by a religious zealot in his security staff raises the spectre of two threats. First, religious intolerance has reached a stage that some people are ready to kill others for difference of views. Second, how deep rooted is religious extremism or sympathy for militant and sectarian Islamic groups in the lower levels of other institutions of the state?
More troubling than this is that a section of religious hardliners have garlanded the killer, describing him an Islamic hero. A large number of lawyers have offered to defend him in the court. It is not merely the religious leaders who have praised the killer but a good number of others, with modern education and belonging to regular professions, do not think that the killer has done anything wrong or un-Islamic.
A vast majority of those expressing sympathy with the killer are under the age of 40, mostly under 35 and are in the early or middle levels of professions. This generation was socialised into Islamic orthodoxy and militancy by the Pakistani state under General Zia-ul-Haq. The state education system since the mid-1980s socialised the young people into these norms and inculcated the notion of a transnational Islamic identity rather than Pakistan as a nation-state or citizenship of Pakistan. The education system and the media emphasised the fact of being a Muslim and taught them a purely Islamic worldview mostly articulated by the Wahaabi and Deobandi religious leaders. They began to see every aspect of personal life, society, state and global politics as a function of Islam as articulated by them.
This generation is actively defending the killer in cooperation with the hard line Islamic leaders and their followers and madrassah students. They do not attach much importance to the Pakistani Constitution or the legal system unless it helps to achieve their religious agenda.
This generational process has created people with a deeply religious state of mind. They are supportive of religious orthodoxy and express varying degrees of sympathy for Islamic militant and sectarian groups. A small number of them, in conjunction with hard line religious leaders, are prepared to use violence in pursuit of religion-based political agenda. However, there are people among the religious groups and other sections of population who are perturbed by the growing religion-based polarisation and violence. The state should mobilise them for promoting moderation in the society. It should also make sure that the education system and other state institutions promote religious tolerance and cultural pluralism. This is going to be a generational process.
The writer is an independent political and defence analyst.
