Purge the system of violence!

By Dr R L Bhat

Half of terrorism is sustained by the terrorists themselves in their proclivity and agendas. The other half comes from humanism confounded with a specious, if not mischievous interpretation of rights. That is the situation where a dacoit, a murderer has come to have rights even when it is see that he/she is guilty of the most heinous crime that can be committed against the humanity. When it comes to activists who appear to be laboring for some undefined ephemeral freedoms, that lenient view becomes a right in itself. Thus while an ordinary criminal does not evoke much sympathy; a terrorist who terrorizes whole populaces and kills men women and children indiscriminately finds advocates who rationalize the crime, supplant it with fallacious reasons and theories. This attitude become the most abnormal in situations where the pluralism of societies is seen as a sanction for all types of agendas save that of the society itself. That is the sanctity of 'cause' bestowed on the most cruel of inhuman inclinations viz intolerance.

Much of this is rooted in the last century's freedom struggles all over the third world. Those struggles saw Gandhi imprisoned and Bhagat Singh hanged in the dead of night for taking a somewhat violent stand against the imperialism, that violated the whole human mass of India. India is, and has been, the land of ahimsa. Though the bold young men of freedom would not give imperialism much patience, much less allow it the privilege of non-violence, they represented but a fringe of the freedom struggle. The overwhelming creed was the Satyagraha of Gandhi that preached uncompromising nonviolence even in the face of violent repression by the colonial forces. That finally won India freedom. A full half century later that position undid the apartheid in South Africa. History would be divided whether it was the effect of Gandhi having founded the South African struggle on the nonviolent principles or that the Gandhian instrument came to be the only effective weapon to fight the very efficient apartheid regime, but the undercurrent of nonviolence in the struggle of that country is as clear as it is unmistakable. That purity of means did not inform similar ends of freedom and independence in all parts of the subjugated world.

Probably, the African continent stands most prominently there. They either had shaky dominations or robust traditions of violent behaviour. In any case, the short tract of violently fighting the imperialist foreign dominations became the preferred tool of their struggle from the yoke. The Russian example of a bent-on-violence mass of people taking the Czar out and later the military efficiency of the extremist minority taking over the land, the empire and the majority communism and the people set an example that not only legitimized the extreme use of force but also lured many struggles across continents to this quick-fix freedom. Only it was not freedom as sundry regimes from Egypt to Indonesia confirmed. But the world was not told that naked truth. Worldwide leagues of progressive litterateurs, instead, provided text and explanation to make the societies not only receptive to violence but even authorized the use of force as the means of choice in many instances. In many cases the use of violence was instigated by these enlightened men and women. Societies and groups were, and still are being, encouraged to look to violence to solve everything from a problematic civic amenity to eviction of despotic regimes.

Were all these ideologues too innocent to know where all this stoking of violence was leading? Probably. Or, at the very worst, too complacent. We have instance from the American society still not recognizing that the gun culture- no, not the terrorist variety that is rampant here, but the 'right' of everybody including budding teenagers to 'possess' a gun- that they have been fostering is behind much of the turbulence in the children there. And, of course, none of their strategists would acknowledge that it was their dalliance with the violence, if not a career in subtlety, that produced those Boeing -missiles hitting the world towers. Just as too much faith in the discretion of young children has given that society trigger-happy children, the delusions of invincibility have lead them ignore the logical outcome of training men in ballistics without the giving them a notion of tolerance. And they accordingly ended up producing an intolerant nation. That 'nation' may have been 'corrected' but the widespread justification of violence and intolerance are still straddling this world.

But then, strategies are still fostering violence, ideologies are encouraging refractory behaviors and complacence born of self-security are endangering the world by making terrorism a permanent feature of the world we live in. Afghanistan is not the end of terrorism. Nor is the US concern the only rationale for the war on terror. Terrorism lives in the society. It could be traced to the inequalities and injustices. And, with inductive logic drawn to incisive lengths it can even be traced to the hunter-gatherer primitive using the thorny club to ward off animals. Violence is in the nature of man. It would have to be fought out. Injustices too are rampant. They too would have to be nullified. But, those should not be excuses for promoting violence. Eschewing violence should not be linked to remedial measures there. The proclivity for violence especially the tendency to justify it on ruses, excuses, as well as invocation of rights has to go.

Violence as a means should not be available to any person. And, none should be allowed to propagate it, or believe in it, whether it is thought to divinely ordained, or sought to be justified on the ground of ideologies. Short of that clear and concise commitment the violence and its logical result terrorism cannot be wished out of this world.

Pak polls: A reading

By Sharad Dixit

Pakistan kept its promise to the developed world and conducted elections for the National Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures on October 10. The fact that the constitutional and legal processes had been distorted through prior constitutional amendments, administrative orders and the intervention of the State machinery are of little consequence.

A 'referendum' securing the General's place at the helm of affairs for the next five years, machinations granting him extraordinary powers including those of dissolving the Parliament and dismissing the Prime Minister, and a ban on any legal action against him and his cronies at a later date, have made his position constitutionally unassailable.

The choice of the new Prime Minister was already restricted by the elimination of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif from the fray. It has narrowed down further in the post-poll scenario to Mian Mohammed Azhar of the PML-QA, Farooq Leghari and Imran Khan. The last named may be a liability in the emerging context because of this Western wife and image. Leghari with his civil service background and 27 years of political experience wherein he held several important posts including those of the Finance Minister, the Minister for External Affairs and the President of Pakistan might be a little too hot to handle over a protracted period.

This leaves Mian Azhar who has the eminently suitable qualities of mediocrity, a subservient attitude to the Military - Intelligence establishment and a low profile image. The PML-QA has accordingly received all possible support in the run-up to the elections, to the extent that the party is mockingly referred to as "The King's Party". The choice would be in perfect harmony with the role perceived for the Prime Minister - that of obtaining the nominal sanction necessary for presidential decisions from a pliant Assembly and regularising them. Failure or resistance, of course, could mean dismissal and further action some have learnt to their discomfort.

An anticipated outcome of the polls was the public consolidation of the hardline Islamic opposition to the General. The MMA, a coalition of six religious parties gained an absolute majority in the provincial elections in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and in Baluchistan, and garnered about 20% of the seats in the Assembly Elections.

Pakistan establishments have ever been wary of the tribals in the areas bordering Afghanistan. The West of the country has been largely left to itself, so the volatile, independent people are difficult to govern according to modern norms. It is also the area where the nascent Taliban flourished in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and where large numbers of Taliban and Al Qaida fighters have found sanctuary after the US assault on Afghanistan. Many believe that the trans-border movements and the provision of cover had the tacit, sometimes explicit support of Pakistan.

In the context, the continued non-interference during the election - as compared to other areas, could be an effective stratagem. The MMA has emerged as a Kingmaker in a hung Parliament. This strengthens the General's position in his interaction with the US. He can now claim legitimate and powerful opposition to some pro-US policies and demand greater incentives to pursue them. The MMA at the same time, is aware of the powers of the President and those of the Army and would be unwilling to engage them in open conflict. It's leaders, infact, have already been making moderate statements citing National interests above Party objectives.

The assessments of Western observers who visited Pakistan during the elections, therefore, seem somewhat mild and cautious. They appear to be coloured by considerations other than those relating solely to the electoral process. The US State Department, for example, described the elections as "an important milestone in the transition to democracy". The Commonwealth observers described them as "well organised and for the most part transparent". EU observers were a little more critical calling the process "seriously flawed". They criticised the use of Government machinery to favour certain political parties, particularly the PML-QA, the Government's moves to limit the powers of the new legislature and its bar on some opposition candidates. They also expressed serious reservations about the implementation of the desired (ostensibly) transition from military rule to a civilian Government.

Nations, however, do not become super-power so or major international powers by being naive, gullible or overly concerned about casualties among hostile populations -- whatever the diplomatic stance may be. The US cannot be but aware of the games Pakistan has been playing. The current reaction must hence be presumed in consonance with its anti-terror objectives. American troops are in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in the Arabian Sea. The creation of safe havens along the Afghan-Pakistan border would thus lead to concentrations of hostiles in the area, over a period. And modern forces would much rather deal with concentrations than with dispersed cells who use their own citizenry as human shields.

The Commonwealth has been mild for two reasons. The first is that the UK in support of its major ally wishes to avoid premature confrontation. The second is the predominance of third-world countries in the Commonwealth who revel in the apparent defeat of any capitalist/neo-colonialist design. Their transparency often makes them fairly malleable.

The EU, however, is not in total accord with US policies. It's concerns, infact, are frequently in conflict with those of the latter. Mainland Europe has traditionally been anti-Zionist, and continues to be so. Most of its developed nations have large migrant populations from the third-world, reinforcing the bias. Economics are under pressure and social fissures are being exacerbated by unemployment, perceived discrimination and a host of other factors fuelled by racial polarisation. Repercussions of outright conflict would inevitably be significant domestically. Criticism is thus meant to counter partially the US urgency, as also to dissociate the EU from direct culpability and an apparently racist stand, even though majority sentiment may support i.

India specifically would be under greater pressure as a result of the polls. Its geographic vulnerability and demographic divisions make it an ideal target for the asymetric, low intensity clandestine conflict it has been subjected to for decades. The formalisation of the radical strength in the legislatures and amongst the people would strengthen the Pak establishment's hand, pleads inability to control 'Nationalistic' sentiment. State sponsored terrorism would be more blatant and intensified, as attention is sought to be drawn from domestic concerns.

India has been consistently reactive to Pak belligerence. It's attempts at non-military solutions and confidence - building measures are considered ludicrous, perhaps fearful, by the neighbour. Military pre-emption, whatevr its pros and cons, is unfortunately not an option as per our current political culture. One wonders whether the situation will meander along for another fifty years. Perhaps the solution our leaders are waiting for is the much discussed 'Clash of Civilisations' that would hopefully leave India on the fringes of the conflict or the eventual implosion of Pakistan, as happens in most situations where extra-statutory militants are created.

PTI Feature