The Dogma of Average Pakhtun/Average Pakistani, Common Man

When people resort to such concocted terminology as “average Pakistani”, “average Pakhtun”, “common man” etc. what really they are supposing?

They suppose that the perceptions of the people under discussion are important. To them these perceptions are genuine and must be represented to make a pro-people discourse. Here they forget that all beliefs are perceptions which mostly try to look into the world in such a way that the same perceptions are validated. Hence, the whole belief systems are defended here. The use of such terminologies belittles the works and sacrifices of all great thinkers, activists and reformers of history who stood against popular perceptions and beliefs.

This is indeed bad thinking. Such bad thinking is inherent in the zeitgeist which is characterized by free-market economy which shuns creativity and innovation against its very soul. This abhorrence of radical thoughts, revolutionary fervor and all those ideas which tend to deviate minds from capitalism, free-market economy, the garb of the so-called neo-liberal states and the non-representative democracy is actually the cause of miseries of billions of people across the world who have no human security, no food, no drinking water, no health facilities, no education and no empowerment to change the world around them.

And finally, when people say they are representing the “common man”, “average Pakistani/Pakhtuns etc” they really don’t consider themselves average or equal to these so-called common or average people. Again bad thinking, if not hypocracy.

Terrorism: Policy and Strategic Alternatives for AF-PAK REGION

Terrorism: Policy and Strategic Alternatives for AF-PAK REGION

Muhammad Arif Tangi

ariftangi@gmail.com

Now that President Barack Obama has announced the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan till the end of 2014, the uncertainty in the AF-PAK region has increased manifold. The growing crises on many fronts within Afghanistan and Pakistan have been disillusioning many as more questions are being raised on the commitment of the international community for bringing peace to the region and ensuring human security. The spectrum of threats is such that no saner mind can look towards future with optimism.

As the US is failing to win the so-called war against terror amid ever-increasing militancy and terrorism in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and as she is looking further for a compromised settlement of the Afghan stalemate by opening avenues for dialogues with the Taliban, the outcomes of US withdrawal would seem more like a defeat for the mighty United States. Alternatively, this would be considered a victory for Islamic militants and their political supporters across the world who disdain US hegemony as major hurdle in the propagation of Islam and the establishment of Islamic Caliphate. Consequently, the world would be preparing itself for the worst nightmares ahead—global Jihadi outfits with renewed vigor. This would also raise many questions on the efficacy of international peace organizations such as the United Nations and the Security Council for failing to ensure global peace and security.

While the AF-PAK region will largely decide the course of history in the times ahead, analysts would remain engaged in gauging the efficacy of the existing policies and strategies to look for alternatives. These analyses would largely be done in the backdrop of the threats this region is facing and how effectively or poorly these threats are being mitigated.

The Threat Factor

The threats in the region are such that even one with common sense could predict a complete collapse of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Worst apprehensions are such that either the Jihadi outfits would completely overthrow both the states (Pakistan being a nuclear power) or they would find safer havens to attack their enemies across the world. It would, therefore, be important to enlist some of the primary threats vis-à-vis the existing policies and strategies in order to save the world from the menace of terrorism.

Militant ideology is gaining strength mainly because of a simple reason that the militants have been sustaining the so-called global Jihad against the United States and its allies. The United States’ direct but failed military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has actually increased militancy manifold. Firstly, use of coercive force cannot be calculated precisely and collateral damages are always greater. Secondly, overthrowing a regime is mostly followed by compromised political setups in the name of political stability. Thirdly, reviving a war-ravaged economy is not an easy task as peace precedes investment. Fourth, the common people desire radical and substantive changes to their living standard which could not be made without a massive civilian aid. Fifth, the more time passes by the more disillusionment one could see and which can often result into widespread resentment. Thus wining a war is actually winning the hearts and minds of the people which the US failed to win in Iraq and which we could see in Afghanistan as the US is planning a pull out while leaving behind a big mess.

The militants cannot operate without an ideology. Ideology could not gain strength save public support for it or if public is neutral and not opposing militancy. It should be reminded that in both Afghanistan and Pakistan we are facing a generation which was ideologically nurtured by the US during Cold War. This generation finds pride in global Jihad and this faith system is equally accepted by all and sundry to a greater or lesser degree. It is no surprise that despite of spending billions of dollars on this war the states and society in both Afghanistan and Pakistan remain hostage to this ideology. More surprisingly this ideology has virtually paralyzed the Pakistani state while Afghanistan is relatively less contagious.

The AF-PAK region will mostly remain ambivalent towards militancy. Firstly, countering militancy would require the governments and security apparatus to wage a war against itself which is like cutting a cancerous parts of one’s body. Secondly, the will, commitment, inspiration or motivation for such a fatal surgery would only come through a deeper understanding of the impending catastrophes to the states and society at the hands of the militants. Thirdly, those who have this deeper understanding are fewer in number, having less capacity and are mostly outside the power structures with little say in the affairs of state and society.

Now that the US is pulling out from Afghanistan and that Pakistan is completely engulfed by terrorists the only ray of hope is to understand the fundamental flaw in countering terrorism. This flaw is lack of understanding of the militants discourse. Even if this flaw is understood the problem will not be solved overnight. We need to have fresh policies and strategies as a new beginning for bringing peace to the region.

Policy and Strategic Alternatives for Afghanistan and Pakistan:

Irrespective of the reasons why the international community is fast losing its commitment for the AF-PAK region and realizing the deadly implications of an impending pull out by the United States, both the country should work out policy and strategic alternatives with a focus on saying a big “NO” to the US for dictating policy guidelines for the region. This is the first and foremost step towards developing an indigenous counter-terrorism mechanism by taking into consideration the national sovereignty of each country (Afghanistan and Pakistan) and respecting the same for reducing the trust deficit. Surely this is a long journey but setting up a right direction would itself mean covering half of the distance. Both the states must peruse independent and sovereign policy alternatives with or without mutual cooperation but with a focus to understand terrorism as major threat to the survival of both the countries. The policies would only find public supports if they are detached from the US as majority of the people are already suspicious about the US’ role in the region.

The policy alternatives shall also be having a religious or Islamic context. Keeping in view the widespread perceptions against the so-called “infidel west”, the policy alternatives must redefine the very meaning of Jihad. This could only be done if we rely less and less on our “friends” in the Middle East who support extremist Wahabi interpretation of Islam which form the core of militants’ ideology. The religious scholars must come forward with innovative ideas for peaceful propagation of Islam and coexistence through laws, foreign policy, administration, education system and media.

On strategic level a direct military action against the terrorists shall be accompanied by a psychological warfare which aims at destroying support base for the militants. This would mean deconstructing the militants discourse aggressively and ensuring a foolproof society where terrorists’ ideology could not permeate. Much has been written on the constituents of this discourse. It is now time to act wisely, firmly and with a broader vision.

The Change Mantra

The logic goes on to tell us that Pakistan needs a “change” in the coming elections. Apparently most would agree with this catchword because the prevailing situation in the country demands a forward looking positive political development to cope with the plethora caused by multitude of problems. Change in this context is taken for granted and it is supposed that a "change" would bring an end to all political crisis through new faces and refined vision.

Wherever the word change is used these days, the users are either expressing their disillusionment with the status quo or to a lesser degree they see in Imran Khan’s PTI a kind of frail hope for gearing the country in the right direction. The “youth’s hero” Imran Khan has sympathizers in the media and establishment because he is supposed to bridge the gap between the establishment and the disempowered youth. On a deeper level, this is the establishment’s growing hatred for the rising Pakistan bourgeoisie who according to them are corrupt, politically inept and at times a threat to status quo. Thus the discourse of change is perpetuated so that a level playing field is provided to Imran Khan for contesting elections without having to allow him to become reactionary, revolutionary or anarchist.

The change mantra derives its strength mainly from the weak political leadership of the left who are distancing from their ideological roots and the masses. Over the years, the religious state narratives have been shrinking their political space and continual military take-overs have forced them to become conformists. Politics of the left has degenerated to a level that ideologues are basking in the sun of power, wealth and luxuries. Thus they are failing to provide a genuine anti-establishment platform to the masses.

Pakistan is becoming a laboratory where political ideologies are tested. Now it seems every country can have a space for experimentation if she has money and the right plans and strategies. The time is not too far when every Pakistani will be a political scientist. But the problem is each of us has to survive explosions, mob-frenzy, persecution and abject poverty. 

We are cursed by our own spells

We are cursed by our own spells

Muhammad Arif

When an old witch in a fairy’s guise

Enchanted us and gave us sweet dreams,

We thought, we were the chosen ones;

Transfixed citadel with glorious wreathes

And every tower occupied by a learned magician

Helped us memorized the difficult spells.

All the accumulative wisdom of their predecessors,

These masters of words, deceits and treacheries

Made us believe into a world which never existed.

But we know the path to “glory”.

Each time the spell breaks

More blood of the innocent is needed.

Religiosity of Pushtuns

Without going into the complexity of definitions I’ll use some common sense definition ofsecularism and religion.
Secularism is worldly and religion is divine
Similarly Pukhtunwali, the Pukhtun’s code of life is worldly, is against Islam but survived side by side with Islam which is a divine religion.

For hundreds of years Pakhtunwali and Islam existed harmoniously in Pukhtun’s land. The reasons for this paradoxical existence might be that neither Islam is practiced and understood by Pashtuns in its real sense nor Pukhtunwali can be practiced in an ideal form. Thus religion remained restricted to certain externalities like occasional prayers, fasting or performing certain rituals or celebrating certain days. Islam never took a direct conflict with Pukhtunwali as tribal traditions, problems, individual freedom etc etc were more relevant in Pukhtun’s society than pleasing a God 24 hours a day. Thus life of an individual was worldly.

Yes for the past two or three decades and during the Afghan war our society witnessed certain transformations. This is not just an increased religiosity but a kind of decaying generations and a loss of cultural values. If we closely examine our society the transformation or change that has occurred is not something positive or we cannot call it a relatively improved social order. In cultural context we have not adopted an improved culture but rather our society is in a state of cultural anarchy. Even in pure economic terms we are not better off as compared to our past. The thing that is reshaping as a result of transformation is not the thing that we desire. An imposed Indian culture has polluted our cultural tastes and an imposed religiosity has disturbed the balance between the religious and secular. As a result our society has become more religious and away from its cultural roots with less tolerance and more abstraction. Giving more room to the religious trends would mean a complete annihilation of our culture. To put it simply this religious factor is leading our society to more polarization, anarchy and destruction than to establish a harmonious social order.

In my mind modern secular society has two interpretations: western secular society and our traditional secular society with a touch of modernity. The former is a far fetched reality and is therefore out of context for the time being. The later is the harmonious balance between Pakhtunwali and Islam—the secular and the religious. This system was indigenous to our society and its eradication is quite a recent phenomenon. I don’t know whether the Indian example would be suitable or not but even during my primary school days, in the mid-80s, when Islamization had not yet taken roots in our society I remember people would not pray or keep beard. Women would take Naswar or Chelum and there was no strict concept of Purda. Women would go to Meela (fairs), Urs or they would work in the fields. Even sexual aberrationwas not a taboo. There was a small Hindu community in our town and that was part of the socioeconomic partnership. What I am trying to say that the pivot of our life was worldly and not religious.


Secularism may be a developed western philosophy but it is not all together a western product. In the western history things are formal, organized or systematic. In societies like ours things are random, disorganized and non-systematic.