VIEW: Playing favourites —Gulmina Bilal Ahmad

For terrorism to be tackled, we must stop playing favourites amongst terrorists. A bomb creates the same havoc in a Shia’s life as it does in an Ahmedi’s or an Ismaili’s life

Is it a coincidence that both ‘Taliban’ and ‘terrorists’ start with a T? This is not surprising because they have become synonymous with each other. Whether we talk about the Punjabi, Pakhtun, tribal or the Swat Taliban, all are labelled as terrorists. While some analysts distinguish between the “good” and “bad” Taliban, it is generally believed that the Taliban are not kosher, to put it mildly. Even the Taliban sympathisers and apologists — whether present amongst the media, academia, government and other sections of civil society — are united on one point: the end may be justified but the means are not.

The ‘end’ of course, as put forth by the Taliban and their apologists, is the establishment of a global Muslim rule over various parts of the world. Even the most ardent critic of the Taliban declares at some point that the Muslims do have an axe to grind globally. In other words, that the Muslims are ‘justified’. The ‘axe’ being the grave injustices by the anti-Muslim lobby.

The prime objective of all terrorists, regardless of their affiliations, is to challenge state actors. Mullah Fazlullah of Swat, Maulana Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid, Baitullah Mehsud, et al are united in their purpose. All have wanted to challenge the state of Pakistan. All have been, at varying points in time, been supported by various governmental and non-governmental agencies for political reasons.

This has been our albatross. We have politicised religion and painted politics in religious colours. The establishment of an Islamic government and state is a political purpose for the Taliban. Thus, political conflicts must be treated as such because they are not religious conflicts. The Taliban use violence to create fear, chaos and terror in a country and region. For terrorism to be tackled, we must stop playing favourites amongst terrorists. A bomb creates the same havoc in a Shia’s life as it does in an Ahmedi’s or an Ismaili’s life. Giving such labels as the Pakhtun or Punjabi Taliban or asserting which is more dangerous is a zero-sum game.

One was baffled at the extent that we play favourites even within the victims of terrorism. Anecdotally, it has been reported that amongst significant socio-political circles, remarks like ‘the events of May 28th in Lahore are tragic but not devastating because Ahmedis got killed’ or the ongoing assertion and consequent denials of the extent of the terrorist footprint in Punjab.

The worldview that compels individuals to challenge state writs through violent means is not localised to an area. It would be easier if that had been the case. However, it is not and to myopically look at the terrorism challenge as such is to deliberately misconstrue. This is quantitatively supported by a recent survey conducted by the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS) titled, ‘Radicalisation in Pakistan: Understanding the Phenomena’. The survey results show that “there are not many Taliban sympathisers in FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Only 22 percent in FATA and 25.3 percent in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa believe that the Taliban are fighting for Islam.” There were more sympathisers found in Punjab (30.1 percent) and Balochistan (49.4 percent). The general impression is that in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA there are more sympathisers.

The survey also reveals how politically schizophrenic we all are. Forty-six percent of the respondents declared that in their opinion the Taliban were not “fighting for Islam”. Interestingly, the respondents who were sympathetic towards the Taliban also condemned their violence (39 percent). However, what is tragic is that even today after we have lost 3,791 innocent lives to terrorist violence just this year, 21.9 percent still “do not know how to react” to the Taliban. On the one hand we ‘condemn’ the violence but on the other we are ‘sympathetic’ towards them and then there are some of us who still do not know how to ‘react’ to them. The survey results also showed that “nearly 55 percent of the respondents maintained that the bloodshed on the western side of the Durand Line was a political war”.

It is imperative that a distinction must be made between religion and politics. Unless, this is done, we would not be able to contextualise and problematise the challenge. This is an important step for conflict resolution.

The writer is an Islamabad-based development consultant and can be contacted at contact@individualland.com