In Search of Political Will: Fight Against Militants in Swat

The rights of state and its subjects in its current form are considered to be the phenomenon as the outcome of various movements, revolutions and wars in the modern European history starting almost with the renaissance. Very little thought is given to the fact that the rights of state and its subjects are also given its proper weight in the Islamic history. I talk about the Islamic history because the recent events in Pakistan in particular and Islamic world in particular call for special emphasis on the shaping of state, and concept of its relation to its subjects.

Islamic conception of state in its outlook is very modern in concept. In fact the monopoly of violence as the sole right of state has been the backbone of Islamic states (as is with every state), and throughout history we find numerous examples of it. The first example that we come up with the monopoly of violence is at the time of Truce of Hudaibya, where despite many companions’ uneasiness over the terms of truce, the dissent was not expressed in violent form contrary to the terms agreed. One can argue, and validly so that it was due to commanding presence of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) among believers, but the point of conceding the right of action to the state as embodied in the person of the Prophet cannot be missed, and should not be missed.

On another occasion, when the writ of the state was challenged by a group of people fighting along with Hazrat Ali (RA) - the fourth Khalifa, this group was considered outside the folds of Islamic community. The group was named Kharijis (the one who left), and by consensus is considered a group against which the state has the right to take arms both by Sunnis and Shias. The charge sheet against the Kharijis is none except the fact that without the state authority they claimed to raise arms to implement their version of interpretation to the clash between the Hazrat Ali (RA) and Hazrat Muawiya (RA). No one considers the merit of the reasons put forward by them in support of their position, which may or may not be valid, but consideration is given solely to their action of raising arms, and validly so, because it broke the covenant that governs the relationship between state (the institution of Khilafat in this case) and its subjects.

Both of the above two examples are taken from the history of Islam that predates the formation of imperial houses of Banu Umayyad and Banu Abbass to guard the discourse against any accusation of giving any implied approval to the imperial form of government, which though is historic fact but has as it foundation not the public support but either the number of soldiers or the right to rule as a birth right as was the case of many hereditary Islamic Empires.

After establishing the broad framework of right of state as is understood in its modern form and which also has the backing from the era of Islamic history that is undisputed by two mainstream sections of Muslims i.e. Shias and Sunnis, we can safely conclude that as the defining element of state, the monopoly over violence is the inherent and undisputed right of a state.

Now, let us consider the application of this to the current situation in Pakistan and especially in the context of outburst of violence in Swat and FATA in particular and NWFP in general. Where does such militant group stand in this whole picture? Are they holy warriors as are considered by many religious scholars and a large part of our general public by their tacit support? Is their raising of arm is justified?

But before we answer these questions, let us have a look at Al Qaeda, the organization ideologically behind this ideology of reform (whatever that means) through violence. The elements of Al Qaeda are originally Arab, and have their roots both in Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia and Yemen in particular) and Egypt. All these elements basically have their conflicts with the rulers of their own countries. Osama bin Laden’s original reason of taking this violent path was the presence of U.S. army in Saudi Arabia. But instead of taking the fight to Saudi Rulers, he took the fight with U.S. It is like blaming the customers of a prostitute and not taking the matter with the prostitute itself. Same goes for Egyptian elements of Al Qaeda who want to change the political scenario of Egypt to their wishes, but like Osama have taken the fight with U.S., which again raise the question of choice between the customer and prostitute, especially when the prostitute belong to one’s own family. Moreover, the lives of citizens of their host country (as they are believed to be in Pakistan or Afghanistan) is expendable. Just because the reason that a Pakistani person is employed by Danish Embassy as security guard, his life is expendable but the lives of their own family members is not even if they live, and marry in the U.S. This is pure hypocrisy. Another hypocrisy is their very own organization, where the main nucleus is formed by only Arabs. Non Arabs are not seen in this close circle (Khalid Omar Shaikh is the only exception but he is almost an Arab for living almost all his life in Kuwait). Hence, non Arabs are only cannon fodder; expendable but not trustable. This is pure Arab racism and nothing else. These misguided, ill informed, and imbeciles are not only criminals and bigots in their actions but are also full of their own selves to think anything about their non Arab allies. They are there to be used and these non Arabs themselves have allowed themselves to be used because of their ignorance and short sightedness.

Now, coming back to the question of militant elements in Pakistan, the concept of statehood in Islam and clear precedents from Islamic history dictate that they are Kharijis. While in case of Al Qaeda, not only they are Kharijis but also racial bigots.

So, in my humble opinion, not only the state of Pakistan has the right to take arms against these elements but rather has a duty to curb these elements with all of its might. Same was the case regarding Lal Mosque brigade for which even many bleeding heart liberals shed their tears as if being a women or student exempts anyone from the responsibility of a crime.

But the million dollar question is - can we do this?

The answer depends on us collectively as a nation and not on any single individual or institution. So, if there is collective effort then yes we can do this; but if we stay divided on the issue, then the only thing we will be left for us to do collectively would be to dig our own grave as a nation.

This is war; let us be clear about it. There is a group of society that considers itself outside the domain of statehood, and this group is our enemy.

When a nation goes to war, it participates in it collectively. As Winston Churchill said the war is too serious business to leave it to generals, and he is right. Unless and until there is not a collective support for military operation against these criminals, armed forces cannot do much on their own. Armed forces are like a blade of a sword, and the public will forms rest of the sword. So unless the whole nation is not in this operation with there hearts and minds, this sword will not deliver results. Let us be clear about it; we cannot win this war solely by relying on the armed forces.

This brings our attention back to the lot of politicians. This is the lot from where the political will is supposed to come from. But they are doing nothing except issuing half hearted statements about the issue. Most of the opposition leaders like Nawaz Shareef, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, and Imran Khan have said nothing about it. Not only they have said nothing but they are making all the wrong noises. All of them are stuck in the limbo on this question as none of them have the requisite insight into this militant phenomenon. All of them confuse this phenomenon of militancy by linking it to our beyond the border events. I have no doubt that this might be the case, but it is again like the question of customer of a prostitute and prostitute it self. The prostitute in this case is militancy phenomenon. We have to curb it, and curb it at home. These politicians should come out in the public and denounce these militant elements with full force to mobilize public support. I think it would be great idea, if our Prime Minister or President comes on the state television and address the nation about these criminals by equating them to kharijis, so that our public realizes that the nature and extent of the problem, and brace it self for what is coming in the future.

But can we expect this from our current lot? The answer is not beyond informed guess work but let us keep hope, though I don’t see any reason why?