Swat is Burning

The Pakistan report card
Labels
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Fasi Zaka

A label is a powerful tool, pushed on to you by someone else, condemning one to argue, defending oneself rather than explaining personal motivations without prejudice. Labels create the parameters of debate, artificially skewing whatever is being discussed into ad hominem defences rather than free discourse.

A breakaway commander recently labelled Baitullah Mehsud a CIA agent. That he did so in the face of a major Army operation doesn't really bode well on the basis of purity of intentions. It's interesting that rather than absolutely condemn what Baitullah stands for, which can be easily morally denounced, the crutch of connotation and allegation was used. In doing so the methods that stand counter to human values gain respite because they are not addressed directly and unequivocally.

Follow up:

This myopia is partly explained by the lack of tradition in respecting differences. Rather than question ideological moorings, we treat it as inexplicable and push the belief that individuals who believe otherwise are infantile and controlled by others. That's why you have a Zaid Hamid convinced of Hamid Mir being, well, CIA again. Whether Hamid Mir is right or wrong for beliefs introspectively gained, one can at least credit him with being someone who makes up his own mind rather than taking dictation. Versions of this abound for the Talat Hussains, Nadeem Parachas and the Najam Sethis of this world too. For example, the context just changes when it is applied to the Urdu press; there the preferred label becomes Ahmadi influence. These are but just a few examples.

It's understandable when the less educated hold these views, but in general the same methodology is also at work in the intelligentsia, rather alarmingly so. Unfortunately, these labels tend to acquire Omni-explanatory powers that suppress further discussion because the label is not just a descriptor, but actually a judgment.

When I wrote a recent article called the Tebbit Taliban Test that had a rather broad spectrum of questions on positions of the major parties on the Taliban (directly or indirectly), I got responses from the media wings of the MQM and the Tehrik-e-Insaaf. The MQM's was rational, and sent across documents to explain what their actual position on the IDPs was. Some of it I agreed with (such as the eventual need for registrations and their donations to the cause), but still remain skeptical based on the manner in which they inflamed feelings, either intentionally or unintentionally.

The Tehrik-e-Insaaf sent a mildly amusing, and greatly overenthusiastic letter to The News, to which I will come later. I do agree that Imran Khan has been a victim of a label, the eminently catchy and sound-bite-friendly term "Taliban Apologist." It gets tricky from here on, because the issue is no longer just about Imran Khan but also many other people (some in the media) who fall into this lot, whether fairly or unfairly.

Positions that appear to defend the Taliban come from two major categories, the right and the left. The left wants to understand what causes extremism, and indirectly condones it by finding an explanation that creates cause and effect, almost legitimising it. The right sees the Taliban as an expression of archaic purity that divorces itself from the influence of the west entirely in a form of perverse revivalism. Even though both would not normally agree with one another, they come to the defence of the Taliban.

Imran Khan's position is, of course, a mix of both the left and the right. From the left he borrows the lambasting of the failure in governance and justice (on which he is correct), and from the right the desire to have a Nizam-e-Adl of Sufi Mohammad that mirrors his ethno-nationalism and admiration for Jirgas.

But the reason he has been slandered (as he believes) is not because of the composition of his stance, but simply because he was willing to extend many more chances to the Taliban for their intransigence than others. But if he says he is not with the Taliban in sympathy, we should take his word for it because at least within the current lot of politicians his integrity is not in doubt, even if his platform and ideas seriously are. Calling him a Taliban Sympathiser obviates whatever else is meaningful in his stance, whatever that may be. But coming back to the letter to The News from the PTI. It made one major mistake. Outside the poorly worded sarcasm mentioning the book "How To Lie With Statistics," it alleged that those who support the Army operation against the Taliban endorsed Zionist methods because it displaced people and controlled territory.

There are obvious errors in the analogy, but there is more to it. Maybe the reference to the Zionism of the Army was the fault of an unthinking office-bearer of the PTI, but similar mentions have also been made by others in the media.

There is a lot to fault the top brass of the Army, such as the dictatorships and the covert misadventures in our neighbourhood, including a reluctance to do something about the militants prior to the current operation because of the insufferable idea of strategic depth. But to call what they are doing now as Zionist is blatantly unfair. Soldiers don't want to fight their own people, but are doing so to stop the cancer of barbarism. Every life lost sheds blood so all of us, including those displaced, can hopefully live with dignity and protection from arbitrary and cruel "justice," from bombs that hit mosques in some inexplicable defence of the Taliban's form of religion.

Maybe most of the refugees from Swat and other areas will tell us today that they preferred living in their homes under the Taliban than a poorly-provided-for camp. It's a sad day for Pakistan that such a question can be asked. I would be hard pressed to face them and explain why I support the operation. We should have never been in this position, it's a failure of governance, both civilian and military, and the only reason action is being taken now is so the fruits of the failure don't grow elsewhere. It's an ugly situation with no black and white.

The refugees are our burden to bear as a country, and, ID cards or not, the provinces need to show willingness to extend them everything they can. When Pakistan was created we didn't wait for a NADRA to get its act together before taking in those coming from India. And the soldiers fighting in the troubled areas are no Zionists. They are heroes.

The writer is a Rhodes scholar and former academic. Email: fasizaka@yahoo.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=184761