Terrorism vs. Peace in the Af-Pak Region

In my view the ongoing conflict in the region is not the product of a perceived indigenous movement of Taliban who are supposed to be linked with international terrorists’ organizations such as Al-Qaeda and whose only purpose is to defeat the mighty superpower, the US and thus subdue all nations one by one and establish Islamic Caliphate. The conflict in the region is historical continuation of the US hegemony which is challenged by no other but its close friends and allies:  Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani establishment. While the US came to Afghanistan under compulsion after the 9/11 attacks, the Saudis and Pakistani establishment want to engage her in this conflict for different reasons. The Saudis who predominantly profess extremist Wahabi interpretation of Islam need influence through Al-Qaeda and Taliban in the region and the propagation of Wahabi Culture for future strategic and economic interests. These might include the ever increasing obsession of the Saudi regime with the Shias as a major threat to their power not only in the Middle East but also in other parts such as South and Central Asia.  Their economic interest may range from obtaining cheap labourers for internal labour market, revenue generation through increase number of devotees who could perform Hajj and Umra regularly and creating an enabling environment for the expansion of their corporate ventures in the region. The Saudis would also need to create a nuisance value for themselves to avoid any criticism on its internal human rights abuses; they would keep themselves in power with US’ support amid ever-increasing domestic and regional revolts such as the Arab Spring and they would wish to obtain military aid from the US in case of any foreign aggression.  For Pakistan US presence in Afghanistan is like a jackpot as the policy pursued during Musharaf regime earned for Pakistan billion of dollars through this war. For Pakistan, terrorism also brought an opportunity to be a major stakeholder in this game and thus the old security doctrine of “strategic depth” is automatically justified and further pursued with renewed zeal as India is expanding her influence in Afghanistan. This is a war fought with the power of ideas in which the Arabs and Pakistanis and their supporters are using Wahabi/Deobandi Islam as a soft-war tool while the US, her allies and supporters  are supporting democracy, human rights,  education and rule of law as soft-war propaganda.

Peace is an illusion in the capitalist world. They (capitalist) impose wars and simultaneously set sup camps for IDPs. They fund the teaching of peace education to the war-affected children and channelize their depression so that they do not revolt. This is how they operate. In this system peace is a long term process and can only be established once enabling environment for capitalism is created where you accept free market in its totality, allow global corporations to operate unchecked and share major chunk of your resources with the wealthiest.

This is the whole rotten capitalist system which takes pride in testing new technology for warfare. This system is getting more ambivalent towards its old friends of Islamic ideologues and fanciest regimes. However, it cannot get rid of both for some obvious reasons as the system also carries symbiotic relations with Islamic ideologues and autocratic regimes. Its hollow slogans of democracy (controlled democracies in most cases), human rights, education for children and girls and empowerment of youth and women are bearing no fruits despite wasting huge charity funds.. Only a handful of liberal apologists are getting benefits from the system. The rest of the population is alienated and are the victims of all kinds of hatred  besides being poor, having less to eat, having no healthcare and no better prospects for their future.

The left must understand that it has a historical burden on its shoulders. The leftists must understand that merely awarding distinction to a certain individual is not genuine activism. The left must be critical of the excesses of the capitalism. It must be sensitive towards the symbiotic relationship of capitalism and religious militancy. The left must understand that social and political emancipation requires genuine political ideology, commitment and struggle. A leader, an intellectual or activists does not merely teach. She/he leads by example. She/he is full of empathy for all those who are alienated by the system. And finally leadership is not merely the name of an individual. Leadership is an institution. A leader does not beg for vote. She/he can deliver without votes.