Difference of opinion or diversity of thought is a natural and necessary part of any sane

human society. But the kind of polarization we are witnessing in our country on the
issue of combating the unending war on terror is crossing the danger level, to say the
least. Hardcore right wing parties, under the leadership of Imran Khan are explicitly
supporting talks with the Taliban as the only viable initial step in solving this chaos. On
the other end is that segment of the civil society which opposes any such ‘muzakaraats’
and is in favour of the ‘hard way’ to fight the insurgents.

Though both are apparently aiming for a common end, which is peace in Pakistan, this
division of approach has torn apart our societal fabric. By simply noting the language
used by each side for the other, one can say that the real enemy is not terrorism itself
but the ideological ‘other’. Imran Khan is labelling those opposing him as ‘America ke
totay (America’s parrot’s)’ and ‘liberal fascist’ while the terms used by the other side
include ‘terrorists’, ‘political wings of TTP’ or sarcastically ‘ghairat brigade’.

The comments on one of the online news clipping announcing the statement by US that
they might cut off all aid to Pakistan if the blockade of NATO Supplies is not reversed,
were really bizarre. I am quoting a couple of them here to highlight what path this
polarization may lead us to.

“US should ban entry of IK and JI ppl in all NATO countries .. why threatening Pakistan
for consequences !!”

“Usa ban kpk aid, rest of pakistan has nothing to do with taliban crackheads”

The severity found in these comments, going to the extent of even disowning one of the
provinces, is a reflection of the level of extremeness that is perpetuating in our society
at large.

‘Pak Fouj Ka Jawan Marey Tou Koi Baat Nahi

Mulk Dushman Ke Marney Par Tujhey Hain Tahafuzzat

Arey Kia Vote De Kar Tujhey Is Liye Sahib-e-Iktadar Banaya Tha

Ke Dar Dar Ke, Bilak Bilak Ke Tu Boley ‘Muzakarat’

It may be a sincere attempt on part of Jibran, but we cannot turn blind on what impact it
may have on the public debate at large. It is adding to the hatred and misunderstanding
between the two sides. This ‘either you are with us or against us’ approach is suicidal.
By treading on this line, we develop a psyche where we would do things to ‘others’
which we could never imagine doing to ‘ourselves.’

The day we succeed in harmonizing this clash, we would be able to get out of this
quicksand. In trying to analyze why there are such extreme views, I see
misunderstanding as a major candidate for villain. People are not willing to listen to the
other side and realize that what others are saying is actually not much different from
their own view.

For example, pro ‘military action’ people are of the view that negotiating with the Taliban
is equivalent to endorsing the stance of the Taliban. This is by no means true. Had
Imran Khan or the right wing parties been endorsing Taliban’s stance, there would have
been no need of any negotiations! Do friends need to negotiate? Dialogue always takes
place with whom you have difference of opinion. If this point is well understood, I think
half of the issue would be resolved.

Secondly, ‘Taliban Khan’ and allies are blamed for not condemning the suicide blasts
and the atrocities of the TTP as fully as they do so in case of drone attacks. I don’t find
any base in this allegation especially after seeing how 3 of his MPA’s have been
targeted by the TTP. He is the one who immediately reached the place of the Peshawar
Church blast. He is the one who went to condole with the family of General Niazi
shaheed. He is the one whose political future solely depends on establishing peace in
one of the worst hit areas. So if people get to understand that actually no side is
discriminating between the dead, this ideological fight would subside.

Similarly, Imran Khan also need to understand that when he calls some media anchors
‘America ke pitho’, he is actually boasting up the divide between the two margins. He
need to understand that those demanding further military action to stop the growth of
terrorists may not be doing so on the orders of America, but by their own common
sense.
I remember Hassan Nisar explaining the definition of a humane society in one of his
columns, and I concur with his analysis. He was of the view that the day we start
understanding others, we would be on the right track. The West has been civilized to an
extend that they now empathize with each other and not only accept but also appreciate
each other’s presence; though they themselves learned it the hard way, after fighting
great wars. The way forward would be to spread this message of unity towards
developing nations too. On the other hand, we are at a very elementary stage of
development in terms of humaneness that we still fight amongst ourselves. Spreading
the message of brotherhood to the whole world is not even imaginable.

I hope that the leaders of this ideological debate understand each other’s point and
recognize that both parties are actually trying to achieve the same end. Unless we stop
fighting amongst ourselves, I don’t see a way forward in combating terrorism in
Pakistan. Ending it with a verse from Muhammad Iqbal, with the optimism that our
opinion makers may learn something from it.

Ujaara Hai Tameez-e-Millat-o-Aaeen Ne Qomoun Ko

Mere Ahl-e-Watan Ke Dil Mein Kuch Fikar-e-Watan Bhi Hai?

Distinction of sects and laws has destroyed nations

Is there any concern for the homeland in my compatriot’s hearts?
 Pakistan's Politics of
Polarization
— Farooq Tariq
THE SEPTEMBER 11 incident has had a polarizing effect on politics in Pakistan, to
an extent never seen before.

The Pakistan Peoples Party, the party of the Bhuttos, is now

supporting the stand of the military regime ofall-out help for the
Americans. Such is also the case with the Mutihida Qaumi
Movement (MQM), the party of the immigrants with a mass base
in Sind cities.

In the North West Frontier province, the National Awami Party

(ANP), the largest party of the Pushtoons, has also changed sides
from opposing the military regime to openly supporting the
regime.

The PPP and ANP until September 11 were openly opposing

the military regime and are part of the Alliance For Restoration
of Democracy (ARD). The PPP has also tried its best to please
the military regime by participating in demonstrations on the
government’s so-called Solidarity Day on 27th September.
General Musharaf gave the call for this day.

Some of the smaller alliances of the radical and Stalinist parties

are also openly supporting the standpoint of the military regime.
"The United States must be supported to root out terrorism," is
the cry from these ex-left parties justifying their support for the
regime. These "left parties" include the National Workers Party
and Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party (Communist Workers
Peasant Party). They have now abandoned their anti-U.S.
sloganeering.
 The Muslim league of ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is
trailing behind the religious fundamentalists, half-heartedly
supporting the Taliban and opposing the military regime’s
support for Bush.

The religious fundamentalist forces are propagandising for all-

out support for Osama Bin Laden. Over 50,000 demonstrated in
Quetta on 2nd October, led by Jamiat Ulama Islam, a religious
party that has openly supported the Taliban from the beginning.

This party was allied to the PPP of Benazir Bhutto in the power
struggle from 1994 to 1996, the period when the Taliban took
over Afghanistan. [Bhutto’s government was toppled and
replaced by Nawaz Sharif under a cloud of corruption. Sharif,
who in turn was overthrown by Musharaf, was subsequently
convicted of attempted murder and ultimately sent into exile—
ed.]

Benazir Bhutto, coming on side with the military regime, is

now claiming that she was "about to go against" the Taliban
regime in 1996, when she was overthrown. In fact it was her
period in power which paved the way for the Taliban taking over
in Kabul.

The first act of the Taliban at the time was to hang the body of
Dr. Najib Ullah in the main center of Kabul for a few days, after
he was taken out of the United Nations office and killed by the
Taliban. Neither the UN, the Americans or Benazir Bhutto had
anything in particular to say about this barbaric act.

Dr. Najib Ullah had been the head of Afghanistan government

from 1988 to 1992. When he was overthrown by the Mujahadeen
in 1992, he took refuge for four years at UN headquarters in
Kabul until he was killed by the Taliban.

Hypocrisy Over Kashmir Terrorism

 The hypocrisy of the military regime is revealed by the fact
that it has for the first time condemned in words the terrorist
attack on the Indian held Kashmir assembly on October 1, where
in a suicide attack 32 were killed. The Jaish Mohammed, the
religious fanatic group [with reported bin Laden links—ed.]
which has claimed responsibility for this brutal attack, has a base
in Pakistan.

The government had no choice. They could not say now that
the attack in New York was a terrorist attack while the attack in
Srinagar was part of the national struggle, as was their policy
until now.

Jaish Mohammed’s leader Masood Azhar was released only

two years before from an Indian jail on the demand of the
hijackers after the successful hijacking of an Indian plane. After
his entry to Pakistan from Afghanistan, he was allowed to form
the Jaish Mohammed group, collect funds from all over and to
train the terrorists in Pakistan. Most of the small shops all over
Pakistan have a box inside with an appeal to help the Kashmir
Mujahadeen with funds.

The Kashmir Mujahadeen has nothing to do with the national

struggle of Kashmir, but plans to make Kashmir another
Afghanistan controlled by a new Taliban. They had the full
support of the Pakistani State under the military and under the
previous civil governments of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto.

The military regime has taken a U turn—from a position of full

support of the Taliban and Mujahadeen, to supporting the even
bigger terror, U.S. imperialism, to carry an all out attack on the
people of Afghanistan.

No to War or Terrorism!
 The 11th September attack has also polarized the civil society
organizations. Some are taking a position of No to War but yes
to "a measured response."

This position was taken by a group led by former chairperson

of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and renowned
human rights activist Asma Jahangir. Her article in the Daily
Dawn on 30th September revealed her position quite clearly.

On the other hand, many others are advocating "No to War; No

to Terrorism," condemning both and declaring their solidarity
openly with the international peace movement. Fareeda Shaheed
of Shirkat Ghah and Nighar Ahmed of Aurat Foundation lead this
trend within the civil society organizations.

The Labour Party Pakistan position is very close to the position

of "No to War; No to terrorism." The LPP will not have any
confidence in the United Nations to solve this issue by legalizing
the war on Afghanistan. It will not support the creation of
International Criminal Courts (ICC), as this would be another
institution to cover over the crimes of the U.S. government.

From the very first day, the LPP condemned the terrorist attack
and the policies of U.S. imperialism carried out in the past against
the colonial countries. The LPP would never justify the terrorist
attack for any reason; but it was consistent in its opposition to the
methods and program of U.S. Imperialism.

The party was already organizing the anti-IMF and World

Bank movement in Pakistan. It also started to build a peace
movement as like others, it is anticipating a fully-fledged war on
Afghanistan.

The LPP has to oppose the religious fundamentalism and the

powers that were harboring it, mainly the military regime of
Pakistan in general and the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) in
particular. Unlike other trends it did not support the "lesser evil"
philosophy.

The position of the official labor movement is also more and

more to support the military regime. The Pakistan Workers
Confederation (PWC) main leadership has openly supported the
military regime, while appealing to the United States not to attack
Afghanistan.

Those trade union leaders within the PWC who are members
of LPP are waging a war within the labor movement for no
support to war. These trade union leaders, including Yousaf
Baluch, are receiving a good hearing from the workers.

The religious fundamentalists have different influence in

various parts of the country. They are now losing ground in the
cities, mainly Lahore and in Karachi to some extent. But they are
in a more favorable position in the main cities near Afghanistan
like Peshawar and Quetta. They are also making headway in the
small towns and villages across Pakistan.

Alignment with Imperialism

The capitalist economy internationally is in a period of crisis.
Through institutions like the IMF and World Bank they made
agreements that put the entire burden on the already sinking
economies of the third world countries.

Against these injustices, a strong anti-capitalist movement was

developing in the advanced countries. We saw hundreds and
thousands of workers in different parts of the advanced world
protesting in anti capitalist demonstrations.

After September 11 it became clear that American government

has new friends, like the military regime of Pakistan, to go for
war. The Americans have lifted sanctions against Pakistan and
have announced a good friendship with the Pakistan military
regime.

The general impression is created that the American aid would

help the sick economy of Pakistan. But this is contrary to the
factual situation. Pakistan exports have been deeply affected after
September 11. Many export orders have been cancelled or
postponed.

The main crisis of the Pakistan economy is productivity, which

will decrease even further. All the conditions of the IMF and
World Bank have made the life of the workers and peasants even
worse than it was before the military took over in October 1999.

In these circumstances, the revival of the Pakistan economy

does not seem possible even if U.S. imperialism pumps in
massive injections. It will make the life of the rich and the ruling
class better but not the life of the workers.

In the eighties over thirty billion dollars were pumped into the
Pakistan economy after the Russians entered into Afghanistan.
This massive amount did not change the life of the masses. But
it did help the military generals and their sons and daughters to
become the new rich.

We will see many more Ijazul Haqs (son of General Zia ul-
Haq, the military dictator from 1977 to 1988) and Hamayoons
(son of another military general close to Zia). They both are now
very rich and are owners of factories and many big houses. The
American aid (if it comes) will be a real treat for the military
generals.

The possible aid from the United States will make a difference
to the life expectancy of the military regime. Before 11th
September, this regime was losing its social base quite rapidly.
But the terrorist attack and his U-turn towards American
imperialism has earned Musharaf good new political friends like
the PPP.

The regime has strengthened its position for the time being.
But there are religious fundamentalist elements within the army
top ranks, who have been forced by the pressure of the events to
keep quiet but have not been kicked out of the army.

Democratization?
On 14th August the military regime announced a "road map"
for democratic restoration. It was announced that elections would
take place in October 2002. The intention of the military regime
was to install a civil government very dependent on the military.
But now there is no talk about any plan for the restoration of
democracy.

It seems likely that the Taliban regime will loose power soon.
This will definitely give a morale boost to the military regime
and help them to remain in power longer than the expected three
years.

Nothing can be said for sure, as the situation is very fluid. It is

a rapidly changing scenario. But the U-turn of the military regime
in favor of the United States has many negative aspects: It has
given a new life to the fanatic forces. It has endangered the life
of the progressive and left forces within Pakistan.

The labor movement has to oppose the American intervention

in the region. But also it cannot close its eyes to the growing
influence of the religious fundamentalists. These fundamentalist
forces are in contradiction with U.S. imperialism; but workers
cannot gain by siding with one against the other.