|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
Editorial analysis view from america Popular belief By Waqar Gillani On Dec 10, 2008, Pakistan banned religious organisation Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and announced putting a stop to all its activities. The Jamaat, having allegedly a close association with the previously banned militant religious organisation Lashkar-e-Toeba (LeT) -- which still claims to be waging a war against Indian army in held Kashmir -- was banned in the light of the directive of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
As these lines are being written, the day's papers carry the photograph of our foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi along with his Swedish counterpart Carl Bildt. In the joint press briefing, Bildt is reported to have said that, according to his information, the Mumbai attacks were planned in Pakistan. The Mumbai attacks have exposed not just the multiple crises within the Pakistani state, they have laid bare the need for their urgent resolution. The burden of history, which in the recent case can be traced to 1979, has too often been cited as an excuse for all that has gone wrong in this country. It is time to redress those wrongs is the message being given to us by the international community. The fingers pointing at us are not just those of the Indians. But that's where the problem begins. Time to act, indeed, but by whom? The government of the day, of course, but is the government, or the civilian face, capable of acting in the manner that the international community wants it to. Who is the government in Pakistan is the structural question that has been posed once again and with full force. The international community has put its weight behind the elected political government, thereby strengthening it as well as putting the onus on it to act. On its part, the government has acted wisely so far, holding the flag for peace as opposed to war that the free media wants it to. In holding this flag and going against the alleged terrorists, it has gained the support of all coalition partners except perhaps JUI. Most importantly, the idea of peace with India at all costs is being supported by the major opposition party, the right-leaning PML-N, led by Nawaz Sharif who calls himself the architect of peace because it was he who signed the Lahore Declaration with Vajpayee. So far, so good. Also, because no contradictory voices have been heard from within the armed forces, in a manner that they were in 1991 when the then COAS Mirza Aslam Beg opposed the government's policy on US war on Iraq. So, for once, the government may be acting against the jihadi elements, both state and non-state, not out of any outside pressure but out of its own "conviction", and breaking new ground for the country by making full use of this "godsend" opportunity as Adnan Rehmat suggests in his analysis. Whether the government succeeds in its present attempts and emerge a victor may address the structural civil-military imbalance somewhat. Though we are not quite sure if we have reached the stage that warrants such optimism. For the moment, the government has offset the possibility of an extreme response to the Mumbai attacks in the shape of an armed conflict between India and Pakistan or a freezing of Pakistan's nuclear programme. But as Arif Jamal suggests Pakistan must now take tangible steps to curb terrorism if it wants to stay in the international system.
Pakistan's dillemma Islamabad has been shaken out of its national reluctance to acknowledge that things cannot go on as they have been since Gen Zia By Adnan Rehmat Being pointed a fat accusatory finger at its distinct if
anomalistic jihadi identity that is at variance with the world is nothing new
for Pakistan. Indeed, a majority of Pakistanis who almost permanently remain
naively bewildered at the Islamic republic's lack of trusting friends in the
international comity even take the jihadi identity as a perverse badge of
honour, some even as proof of the country's misplaced nuisance value. But the Rubicon may have been crossed with the senseless Mumbai terrorism leading many important world capitals (and not just India) to trace the blood back to Pakistan. No one is amused and even 'all weather' allies such as China -- witness Beijing actually casting a rare vote in favour of banning Pakistani organisations and persons as terrorists at the United Nations Security Council -- has shaken Islamabad out of its national reluctance to acknowledge that things cannot go on as they have been since the time of General Ziaul Haq. The situation cannot be overemphasised. Pakistan has to shed its sorry past, come out of the basement of the 1980s and reconcile itself to a new age of unprecedented internationalism, loss of political sovereignties, enhanced economic interdependence and answering to the bar of heightening collective security responsibilities. In an era of non-state actors, it's time for the state to stop acting up and act to safeguard shared values and rights. A godsend The incredibly mounting international pressure on Pakistan to clean up its act of being simultaneously a nuclear power and yet not only retaining an appetite for tolerating but also supporting private militant groups that are employed as instruments of foreign policy is a godsend for the emaciated but crucial representative political forces in the country in their perennial (and bruising!) fight for supremacy with the traditional military establishment that long ago hijacked the state for its own primacy and purpose. It is in this context that the occasionally sluggish and sometimes apparently unsatisfactory response of the Pakistan government to the piling of international pressure should be seen. The coalition government led by Pakistan People's Party (that is in the middle of learning to operate without its irreplaceable, tragically assassinated leader Benazir Bhutto) does not have an enviable job. It's an assignment that is perhaps the toughest any elected political government has had in Pakistan: institutionally disempower the military establishment while employing it to fight a vicious strand of terrorism (there have been more than 50 suicide bombings in the country in 2008 alone – more than those in Afghanistan and Iraq combined) right at home. The government is making an admirable attempt at saying and doing the right things even though more may find fault with them than favour. But that is more a reflex response of the average Pakistani's conditioned perception of India and the United States as an 'axis of evil' scheming to unravel the state and punish it for being 'the most powerful Islamic state' or some such grand illusion. The government has demonstrated responsibility by offering its readiness to investigate complicity in Mumbai by any Pakistani entity or person and any other cooperation provided the rules of engagement are clear. It has also demonstrated remarkable restraint in the face of provocation and hostility both diplomatic and military from all around. A political fight Going beyond the response of the federal government, a refreshing picture is emerging of how the country's biggest and most representative political forces, the ruling PPP led by President Asif Zardari at the federal level and the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-N in Punjab, led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, are handling the twin battle. There's the visible diplomatic battle at the international level where emphasis is being laid on compliance with international treaties and obligations (such as taking action against entities and persons designated as terrorists by the UN) while at the same time not being provoked by India's anger and at times embarrassingly exaggerated public posturing. The extension of undiluted political support by PML-N to PPP on the crackdown against jihadi infrastructure more than just mature is even courageous considering that it will have to face the unpopular consequences of shutting down Jamaat-ud-Dawa's unnervingly vast presence in Punjab. The Sharif brothers have a history of bruising antagonisms with jihadi and military/sectarian groups as well as the big right-of-centre constituency on which it banks for political muscle and which it cannot afford to annoy. The PML-N is also taking a bit of a political gamble by placing itself in the camp of the growingly unpopular PPP on the issue of accepting Indian demands for crackdown on jihadi groups. Setting an example "Pakistan should go the extra mile to combat terrorism (in the wake of Mumbai). Nobody should be prepared to spare (any) organisation that is playing havoc both here and in India. We should take serious action and we should let India know that… action is now being taken against such elements," Nawaz Sharif said. "I think we should now set an example." Braver words were to follow: "I am absolutely sure the government in Islamabad was not involved in the Mumbai attacks. The political leadership of Pakistan has no such agenda. Pakistan is fighting with elements within our country that are people who don't believe in democracy. These elements are products of dictatorship. There were no suicide bombings when I was prime minister. They emerged after Musharraf's takeover. He is responsible for grooming them. Such groups were wrongly projecting jihad. The definition of jihad is to fight against tyranny and injustice. Killing innocent people is not jihad… The army and the ISI are legally and technically under the civilian government's control but some adventurers in the past have been derailing democracy." The response concert of PPP and PML-N indicates that the other big -- and invisible -- fight in Pakistan, the struggle to redefine who crafts and implements national policies, has started moving into the right direction although it is too early to feel in control. Sharif's words and those repeatedly asserted by Zardari also hint that Pakistan may finally be acting not because an "unfair international system" is forcing its hand but out of conviction. If true, there now exists an opportunity for the US to make a positive shift in its relationship with Pakistan. For the first time in almost a decade, the US and the world have legitimate partners in the democratically elected government of Pakistan, not self-styled highwaymen as Musharraf. Opening space for action The country's largest representative political forces may have their heart in the right place but that may not equal the government's ability to undo organisations long protected by the powerful military establishment. By taking tough action under domestic political risk the government is already demonstrating seriousness knowing it will get no space to operate if the radical right remains in clasp with the military. But because the military itself is bogged down in the tribal areas in an unpopular war and recent general elections having turned a historic verdict against military primacy, the government and allied political forces are emboldened. It also helps that the government despite its unpopularity because of the economic crisis currently remains assertive because of strong US pressure and support for action. The international community in general and the US in particular will have to work with Pakistan's representative political forces, its friends and neighbours to create a new strategy for improving security in Pakistan, to make the country an effective ally in the war on terrorism but only by helping them fend off the key challenges. The country is experiencing growing internal violence and regional instability and needs help, not threats to combat the hydra-headed network of extremists made up of Taliban, Al Qaeda and affiliated indigenous militant groups that are escalating deadly attacks within Pakistan and its neighbours including Afghanistan, India and Iran. Empowering political forces Pakistan is faced with failing governance, as its civilian government remains weak after years of military rule, under-investment in government institutions and a dysfunctional political leadership. The 2008 Failed States Index ranks Pakistan as the ninth most likely state in the world to fail. That may or may not happen but the US needs to make a shift from a reactive, transactional, short-term approach -- narrowly focused on bilateral efforts -- to a more proactive, long-term strategy that seeks to advance stability and prosperity inside Pakistan. The US must do this through a multilateral, regional approach. As emphasised earlier, there now exists an opportunity for the US to make a positive shift in its relationship with Pakistan. For the first time in almost a decade, the US and the world have legitimate partners in the democratically elected government of Pakistan. Strengthen its hands against terror and against a military establishment whose disproportionate primacy is the result of American support to it over the decades at the cost of political forces.
Time to act The international community wants Pakistan to act firmly and transparently
By Arif Jamal The terrorist attacks in Mumbai on Nov 26 came as a rude
shock to both America and Europe. For the first time since the attacks on
America, the international community took terrorism outside the Western
hemisphere so seriously. There is a consensus among the US officials,
think-tank analysts and media that the attacks originated from the
neighbouring Pakistan with the active collusion of some elements in the
Intelligence agencies. The terrorist attacks brought the West much closer to
India and the West clearly showed that it considers India a victim of
terrorism. India never enjoyed so much Western sympathy for being a victim of
terrorism in the past. The terrorist attacks in Mumbai have done more harm to Pakistan and its defence than any other terrorist attack outside Pakistan since 9/11. They came at a time when the United States was already complaining of the role of the ISI in helping the Taliban in Afghanistan. Analysts in the United States claim that the United States has sufficient evidence of the ISI officials' involvement in helping terrorist incursions inside Afghanistan to act and only a tiny part of it has been shared with the Pakistani prime minister when he came here in July 2008. The attacks only reinforced the belief. They complain that Pakistan has not acted on the evidence. For the past couple of years, the US officials have been worried about the cooperation between the Taliban and the Kashmir-oriented jihadi organisations such as the Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, Lashkar-e-Toeba, Al-Badr, Jaish-e-Mohammad and even the Hizbul Mujahideen. There was cumulative evidence of fighters from the Kashmir-oriented jihadist groups carrying out attacks on the US soldiers and installation from the tribal zone of Pakistan. They believed it could not have come about without the active support of Pakistan's intelligence apparatus. As the US officials were looking for links between the Kashmir-oriented jihadis and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Mumbai terrorist attacks convinced the Western world that the jihad in Kashmir had crossed the international borders. The attacks were meticulously planned and a show of dramatics. The terrorists who struck Mumbai carried out their job with utmost precision. They targeted at least nine carefully chosen sites in the commercial hub of India and killed Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad chief Hemant Karkare. Fighting like well trained commandoes, the terrorists kept the city hostage for nearly 60 hours while they battled 500 Indian commandos. Analysts in America believe that such precision were not possible without an organised support. The choice of sites symbolised an attack on the entire infidel world -- Hindu, Christian and Jewish. If this was the message terrorists wanted to send, they have been quite successful. Several official and media commentators in America have declared Pakistan an epicentre of terrorism. Some call it an intersection of terrorism and nuclear arms. Former US senator Bob Graham called Pakistan the "intersection of the perfect storm". However, the description of Pakistan by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who described Pakistan as an international migraine, has caught the attention of quite a number of people. There is no doubt Pakistan will be the number one preoccupation of the Obama Administration. However, the official reaction was more balanced. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said there was evidence that people from Pakistan were involved in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. "There is evidence of involvement somehow on Pakistani soil," she said, adding that the US officials did not think the Pakistani government was involved in the incident. "The investigation is still going on," Rice said, "Pakistan needs to cooperate transparently." However, Senator John McCain and former US presidential candidate has been less of a diplomat. He told journalists in Pakistan that "there is enough evidence of the involvement of former Inter-Services Intelligence officers in the planning and execution of the Mumbai attack and if Pakistan does not act, and act fast, to arrest the involved people, India will be left with no option but to conduct aerial operations against select targets in Pakistan." The words of Senator John McCain seem to be more representative of the feeling in the Bush Administration than those of Rice who tried to be somewhat diplomatic. The Mumbai attacks may be a blessing in disguise for the fledgling Pakistani democracy. The attacks in Mumbai have also created some sympathy for the beleaguered civilian government in Pakistan. The media and think-tank officials have started realising that it was a mistake to ally with General Musharraf regime and not to support the new democratic government in Pakistan. One of the questions that props up during discussions here is how can America strengthen democracy in Pakistan. They now clearly distinguish between the civilian, democratic government and the army/ISI. They do not hide their feeling that the ISI may still be out of the civilian government's control and the civilian government cannot be blamed for these attacks. The Obama Administration is likely to give unprecedented support to democracy in Pakistan if Pakistan visibly takes action against what President Zardari calls stateless terrorists. The Mumbai attacks shocked and angered India to an unprecedented point. It was natural. But it shocked and angered the West more than India. It reminded the West that the terrorists are very much alive and kicking, and they exist left, right and centre. The fears of another terrorist attack on the United States have been once again revived. The Mumbai attacks have only helped reinforce the already slowly building belief that international terrorism is the offshoot of the jihad in Kashmir and, therefore, the Kashmir-oriented jihadists need to be targeted. The designation of the Lashkar-e-Toeba and some other groups and individuals as terrorists by the United Nations is perhaps only the first step towards the war on jihad in Kashmir, which is being looked at more as a terrorist problem than a national liberation movement. In the past, only the United States had designated some of the Kashmir-oriented jihadist organisations as terrorists. The latest action by the UN is an act by the international community. The international community in general and the West in particular want Pakistan to act firmly and transparently. Nobody in the United States is taking seriously the (half-hearted) efforts to put a few Lashkar-e-Toeba jihadists under house arrest and seal some of their offices. The photographs printed in the Pakistani media give the impression of all this being stage-managed. So far no tangible action against terrorists seems to have been taken by Pakistan. It appears to be a replay of what the Musharraf regime did in 2002 to avoid war after the Indian army came close to the international borders. In the short term, there is no threat of war between India and Pakistan. There is no threat even to the Pakistani nuclear assets. However, the international community cannot be taken for granted for very long. Next terrorist attack inside India whenever that comes would bring more hostility to Pakistan from the international community. If Pakistan does not immediately start taking tangible steps to curb terrorism, it will soon emerge as a pariah state, outside the international system. Pakistan cannot postpone making choices any longer.
(The writer is a fellow at the Center on International Cooperation in New York University)
The situation calls for a fair analysis of the factors that have led to the tremendous increase in the popularity of religious organisations doing relief work, particularly JuD
By Shahzada Irfan Ahmed The ban imposed by the Pakistani government on
Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) on the directive of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
seems to have relaxed gradually, over the last couple of weeks. Different
countries of the world, including the US and India, have taken a strict notice
of the fact and urged Pakistan not to succumb to pressure of any sort.
However, the government of Pakistan, which reacted very fast earlier, now
finds it difficult to continue with the ban. The fact that JuD is successfully managing a network of around 150 healthcare centres, eight hospitals, 160 schools and 50 madrassas in the country and getting public funds to support these activities speaks volumes for the popular support it enjoys. The organisation claims to treat 6,000 patients a day, to have a countrywide enrolment of 35,000 students and to run one of Pakistan's biggest ambulance services. Soon after the imposition, the representatives of JuD said that they did not have a history of holding protests or blocking roads. But they did say the masses, irrespective of their religion, cast and creed, would come out on the streets in case they were deprived of the services (offered by JuD). This did happen and the situation now is that the government of Pakistan has refused to shut down JuD facilities providing education and health facilities to the masses. Although it says the administrative control of these facilities will no more be given to JuD members. The situation mentioned above calls for a fair analysis of the factors that have led to the tremendous increase in popularity of religious organisations doing relief work in general and JuD in particular. This popularity has also caught the attention of the world powers that think it may be used negatively. For example, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said recently, "I understand that there are so-called charitable activities… But... the United States learnt the hard way that sometimes these are too intertwined with organisations that have terrorist ties." Political analyst Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais says the involvement of religious organisations in relief work has increased over the years, especially after the arrival of western NGOs in Pakistan. "These religious organisations think that if allowed to work freely the NGOs are bound to influence the minds of the direct beneficiaries." He says the religious organisations have found the secret. Now they know that they can become popular only if they live with the people, understand their problems and get solutions to them. "You give quality education to a deserving child and you win the support and sympathies of the whole family," he adds. What Dr Rais says is also supported by a Wall Street Journal report carried earlier this month. About JuD, with respect to the suggested ban, it says: "Jamaat's is a difficult case. Its substantial social-service and humanitarian efforts within Pakistan have given it a deep base of local support and funds. The group also raises money around the world, including from mosques in the UK and charities in Saudi Arabia." The report goes on to say that "from abroad, money comes from Jamaat's ties to a network of mosques in Europe that are frequented by many ordinary Muslims with no connections to violence." It also hints at the helplessness of the government in this respect and quotes Rehman Malik, Adviser to Interior Ministry, who said: "If there is a hospital, what can we do?... We do not want to shut down all these things." Abu Ehsan, administrator of Markaz Taiba, Muridke, thinks it's the provision of essential services to people where they need them the most that has made JuD popular among the masses. He told TNS that the hospital at the centre catered to the people of 66 villages in the close neighbourhood of the centre. He says, unfortunately, there is not a single proper basic health unit or other government facility in this area. Secondly, he says it is the trust of people in JuD that leads them to contribute to its cause. "We are running a trust and nothing is owned by an individual. The facts that our Ameer lives in a four-marla house and all our funds are audited show how transparent things are here." Abu Ehsan says that most of the donors give zakat and alms money as a religious obligation. They do not want the government to deduct zakat from their bank accounts and prefer to give it to JuD. JuD has also formed a traders' wing comprising traders who convince the business community to dole out funds to JuD to support its social services network. The traders of Faisalabad were the first ones to come on the streets and block roads to protest against the ban imposed on the organisation. Abu Ehsan says JuD has been active since 1986 but it won worldwide recognition for the relief services it rendered after the 2005 earthquake that hit the northern part of the country. At that time the government could not do much and all the communication links were severed. But JuD which already had a presence in Azad Kashmir, purely as a charity, took charge and also assisted the UN in its relief activities. "It's strange that the UN that acknowledged our humanitarian services at that time has called for a ban on our activities," he adds. There are quarters that believe that JuD targeted the deprived communities and won public support by providing them services that are the responsibility of the government. In other words, they filled the void and won the sympathies and trust of those served. Dr Rais does not believe in the notion that it is the failure of the government to provide social services that has led to the popularity of religious charities. He says that individual organisations, however big, cannot match the services provided by the state. By providing such services they are complementing the efforts of the state and taking up the challenge to serve the society. If it were only for state failure, there would not have been any charities in welfare states and developed countries. Dr Rais says the religious organisations in Pakistan are also using this image of theirs to win political mileage. The example of Jamaat-e-Islami that runs a huge network of charity institutions in the country is just a case in point. This very formula was also used by the Justice and Development Party in Turkey to become popular and finally form their government. Back with a ban Banning Jamaat-ud-Dawa appears to be only an effort to decrease the level of world pressure
By Waqar Gillani On Dec 10, 2008, Pakistan banned religious organisation
Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and announced putting a stop to all its activities. The
Jamaat, having allegedly a close association with the previously banned
militant religious organisation Lashkar-e-Toeba (LeT) -- which still claims to
be waging a war against Indian army in held Kashmir -- was banned in the light
of the directive of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). India has pointed fingers at JuD and its chief Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar of Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) as the chief suspects of the horrific plot that shook India, killing over 200 people in Mumbai. The general impression is that the UNSC took action on India's demand. The UNSC labelled as terrorists JuD chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, LeT leader Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, Haji Muhammad Ashraf and Zaki-ur-Bahaziq. Moreover, the UNSC also banned two Pakistani charity groups, namely Al-Rashid Trust and Al-Akhtar Trust, in order to crush the financial support of the Jaish-e-Muhammad (JM) of Maulana Masood Azhar. These trusts, according to the reports, were allegedly linked with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Earlier, the committee had imposed sanctions on LeT in 2005. However, on the Pakistani front, the ban on JuD appears to be nothing but an effort to satisfy the UN and India and to decrease the level of world pressure on the state. According to reliable government officials, a number of JuD offices have been sealed across Punjab with prior intimation to the Jamaat workers and leaders. In some districts, the police also called on JuD activists and told them that the situation was getting worse and that they ought to leave and make necessary documents and records away from their offices before any raids or sealing of the offices took place. In Muridke -- one of the biggest JuD campuses said to be used for educational and social services purposes for nearby villages of District Sheikhupura -- TNS found the Jamaat workers quite relaxed. "The police only visited us on the night of Dec 11 but luckily our offices, schools and hospitals had already been closed due to Eid-ul-Azha," Abu Ahsan, the administrator of the Complex, told TNS. "We are purely a peaceful people and this campus is used only for educational purposes. So we expect the government not to close the educational and relief services of Jamaat-ud-Dawa." Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, who termed Mumbai terror attacks a time for India to ponder, in his Dec 5 Friday sermon at Lake Road's Qadsiyya Centre, reacted to Indian allegations with calm and confidence. He said that India must realise that times had changed and the Indian Muslims had also awakened. He also supported the actions of the Muslim groups such as Deccan Mujahideen that had stood up against India's anti-Muslim aggression and claimed responsibility for the Mumbai attacks. He said that India must blame Pakistan for its every internal problem. "Muslims are peaceful but if infidels did not stop crushing them, they can also turn vengeful," he added. Muhammad Talha Saeed, son of Hafiz Saeed, seconded his father. "We are not extremists or militants but purely a relief work organisation," he said, talking exclusively to TNS. However, he emphasised that being a Muslim organisation they had sympathies with the Muslims of the entire world. Talha said that JuD did not discriminate on the basis of faith. "We help people of all religions and treat them as equal human beings." A study of the latest edition of Ghazva, a JuD weekly, shows the Jamaat's highly-charged version on the Mumbai issue. The journal, in its lead story, terms Mumbai attacks a "historic" victory for the Muslim warriors. The back page of the greatly in-demand Ghazva carries an appeal by JuD, urging the people to donate the hides of sacrificial animals to the organisation. It gives a very interesting message: "Donate the hides for the war against infidels in Kashmir and to teach a lesson to the mean Hindus who have blocked Pakistan's waters… If you give Rs 25 as charity to a roadside beggar, it is not as rewarding as the charity which is used to buy the bullet that will hit the chest and the forehead of a Hindu soldier who raped a Kashmiri Muslim woman." (Translation) Ghazva, printed simultaneously from Lahore and Karachi, quotes some 4,500 mothers who "donated" one son each and another 83 mothers who offered two sons each to JuD -- for the noble cause of promoting, preaching and defending Islam against infidels. A senior Interior Ministry official, requesting anonymity, told TNS that the government was committed to the cause of curbing extremism but it was waiting for strict directives from its political command. Talking to TNS, Nadeem Hassan Asif, Home Secretary, Punjab, claimed that the police was guarding all JuD offices, including the Muridke campus. When he was told that the picture on ground was different, he said, "The government has decided to go about it in gradual phases." He further said that the Interior Ministry had directed the Jamaat to close its main offices. "Yes, we are against extremism but we are not for closing JuD schools," opines I A Rehman, Director, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). He suggested that the government should take over the social services and welfare projects, including the schools, of JuD, and run them properly. "The situation is getting out of our hands, and no eyewash will be acceptable. The need of the hour is a consistent policy to curb the menace of extremism." He lamented the fact that nothing concrete was done against extremism in the Pervez Musharraf regime. (Email: vaqargillani@gmail.com)
The story so far... After 9/11, Pakistan banned extremist religious organisations. On August 14, 2001, the then President General Pervez Musharraf banned Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Muhammad and placed Sipah-e-Sahaba and TJP (Tehreek-e-Jaffria Pakistan) under observation. In Jan 2002, admitting that the situation had "not much improved… and sectarian violence continued unabated", Sipah-e-Sahaba and TJP were finally banned along with Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat e Muhammadi (TNSM). The government had already banned Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toeba in early 2001. The government also announced seminary reforms and tried to stop the misuse of mosques. All mosques were now required to register themselves and no new mosque could be built without prior permission. The use of loudspeakers was limited only to prayer calls and Friday sermons. The government also banned printing of any hate literature. However, these bans were not implemented effectively during Musharraf's time and things continued on as before. Post Feb-18 general election, the PPP government imposed ban on Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) being run by militant leader Baitullah Mehsud. It also announced freezing of all accounts of the TTP. -- W. G.
|
|
