What Can The IS Offer Pakistani Militants?: New Age Islam's Selection, 28 March 2016
New Age
Islam Edit Bureau
28 March 2016
• What Can the IS Offer Pakistani Militants?
By Umair Arif
• Is Pakistan In 'Danger' Of Becoming Liberal?
By Umair Javed
• Everyday Heroes
By Juggun Kazim
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
------
What Can the IS Offer Pakistani Militants?
By Umair Arif
March 28, 2016
In two words: nothing new. And this is exactly why its mass appeal and organised presence is very unlikely. Although I have always had serious reservations about the statements coming from the foreign ministry, I would side with them on this one. In order for a movement to be popular and organised, one needs to offer a unique aspect, either in terms of ideological appeal or material support. Coincidently, the IS scores zero on both counts when it comes to Pakistan.
Let us break this down a bit. As far as I understand, the IS wants to implement a strict form of Sharia law as a pan-Islamic caliphate; it wants to wipe out various sects; it labels those who do not support them as infidels; it encourages jihad against the West; it makes videos of brutal killings and beheadings and uses social media for propagation.
Those who are aware of the religious dynamics of Pakistan can very well see that all the points I mentioned about the IS are already present in Pakistan. Several organisations with such aims and objectives have been functional in Pakistan for well over a decade prior to the formation of the IS. In fact, the IS also has a serious disadvantage in that it is based thousands of miles away and thus, in no position to offer any kind of material support or create a consistent, reliable platform.
Another factor which the IS clearly lacks is that they split up with the main pan-Islamic militant movement, al Qaeda, which leads the jihadis of Pakistan and Afghanistan. After declaring their own caliph, they were not careful to denounce the widely-accepted Jihadi Amir of the Afghan Taliban movement, Mullah Umar. Pakistan’s Jihadi landscape is occupied by these two main streams i.e., the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda. The third and most important militant organisation is the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which operates solely in Pakistan and has a modus operandi similar to that of the IS, did not swear allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. There were some random defections towards the IS in Afghanistan, but as a whole, the TTP did not fall for IS. The TTP also released a detailed document denouncing the caliphate of Abu Bakr, on grounds that there is no consensus amongst the Jihadi Muslim organisations on their Leadership. Therefore, the extremely fertile Jihadi grounds in Pakistan have already been occupied by the TTP, Taliban and al Qaeda. Then there are some state-sponsored Jihadis like Jamatud-Dawa and Jaish-e-Mohammad, which fill in any gaps for additional Jihadi urges. They are fully controlled and ready to be used for our foreign policy objectives in Kashmir, India and Afghanistan. Consequently, to enter these circles from thousands of miles away and expecting the existing Jihadis to denounce their leaderships which nurtured them, is next to impossible.
Moreover, the IS considers various sects as infidels. Does that sound familiar? We already have our own version of the IS in the form of Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, who have demonstrated their capability to create havoc in society with exceptional resourcefulness and expertise. What else can the IS offer to people with sectarian leanings? I think it can easily be considered amateur in this business, when compared to those who have been in this profession for more than 25 years now.
If we talk about the ideological appeal that IS has to offer in the form of the idea of the caliphate and implementing Sharia, then there is still way too much and far more credible competition. Pakistan has a presence of ideological carriers of the idea of a caliphate in the form of organisations such as Tanzeem-e-Islami and Hizbut-Tahrir. These groups present a very modern image of a caliphate as compared to the IS image, which kills Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Tanzeem-e-Islami has a presence from the 1990s and has been propagating a non-violent method of establishing a caliphate in the country. Hizbut-Tahrir has been chanting the slogan of a caliphate from 1950s, after its formation in Palestine. It presents itself as a pan-Islamic movement, has a deep ideological appeal, is non-militant, has a strong presence on social media and has been advocating the idea in Pakistan from the early 2000s. Both of these organisations have categorically rejected the IS caliphate and its tactics and have, therefore, side-lined this aspect of IS ideological appeal within the country.
Therefore, when people say Pakistan has a fertile ground for the IS to propagate, I would consider it a superficial argument at best. The correct argument would be that Pakistan has a fertile ground for the political idea of a caliphate/Sharia law, the support for militant jihad and support for militancy against sects. But all three notions are locally occupied. Moreover, the seat bearers have also openly rejected to entertain a member who has nothing new to offer in terms of resources or ideas.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1073889/can-offer-pakistani-militants/
-----
Is Pakistan In 'Danger' Of Becoming Liberal?
By Umair Javed
28 March 2016
IS Pakistan in ‘danger’ of becoming liberal? Religious groups appear to think so, and are quite keen on mobilising against these changes to the country’s intellectual and legal foundation.
What we do know is that there are two sides to the state’s apparently ‘progressive’ turn in recent months. The first is a reassertion of the monopoly on organised violence. The army’s operation in the northwest, the ‘encounters’ against militants in Punjab and Karachi, and an accompanying crackdown in Balochistan is cited as proof of this reassertion.
The second aspect is the cultural agenda of tolerance exhibited by new laws protecting women and minorities, the very public agenda of normalising women’s participation in the workforce and on the roads, and other campaigns related to religious and communal harmony.
There are two sides to the state’s apparently ‘progressive’ turn in recent months.
If taken to their actual logical end with sound and firm intentions, there is reason to believe these government and military-led campaigns will lead to a reduction in non-state violence in the very short run. In the long-run, there may even be some chance of impacting cultural norms and values regarding gender roles and the role of religion in society, but as pointed out by others on these pages, the transition will most likely be fraught with resistance and more violence.
So why has this turn taken place? Did Pakistan hit rock bottom with the Peshawar attack, thus instigating a major rethink amongst the state elite? Was there a collective moment of mental clarity manifesting itself in clear-cut policy proposals?
This is often given as the explanation for the current ‘turnaround’. The army led the charge against extremism, the government had no choice but to follow suit, and so we find ourselves with a state trying to rein in a regressive society.
While the role of mental clarity and a change of ideas amongst the top leadership is no doubt important, it is most likely overstated. What is perhaps equally, if not more, important is the role of the context in which the economy operates, and structural factors shaping capital accumulation in Pakistan. The biggest change on that front is the spectre of China, and their proposed imprint on Pakistan’s economy.
For the past three decades, Pakistan has not seen stable conditions for capital accumulation. This is problematic for investors and businessmen, but also for the state, which does not have a reliable base to extract revenue and fill its own coffers. The international community has often met the fiscal shortfall of the state, but this is now becoming increasingly difficult in a slumbering world economy. Thus the state now more than ever finds itself structurally compelled to do something about the domestic economic base it aims to predate upon and govern.
The Chinese though have offered a way out of this perpetual malaise. By off-loading low-value-added industries, and using Pakistan to reduce transit costs, they may help in generating positive externalities for the local industry. This will allow for greater accumulation, and thus a bigger pie that the state can regularly eat a slice from. It’s a relatively easy bargain, because it doesn’t ask for the state to enhance its capacity over the existing pie. It just increases the size of the pie.
Crucial to this plan of national fiscal salvation are a set of domestic conditions — little violence, improved security for foreigners, an increase in the size of the labour force by getting more women to work, and most of all the public declaration of intent by the state to deliver on all these fronts. The last is important because it helps build the confidence of foreign lenders, investors, and local businessmen prior to the actual achievement of the stated end results.
This particular bargain, being brought in from abroad, is reminiscent of some earlier views on politics in the country.
Writing in 1972, sociologist Hamza Alavi theorised the Pakistani state as being heavily responsive to metropolitan interests, with the civil and military bureaucracy coordinating domestic affairs on their behalf. Local elites, like landlords and industrialists, were slotted in as junior partners in this overall arrangement of power.
Many observers subsequently criticised Alavi’s formulation for being empirically incorrect, given how extractive foreign direct investment has never been a major component of Pakistan’s economy (unlike in Latin America or Africa).
If, however, the CPEC bonanza goes through as some insist it will, this could be the first time that foreign capital starts to play a bigger role in the country’s domestic politics. Instead of Alavi’s civil-military bureaucracy, we now have a coordinating committee consisting of the army and a local political-business elite that sees its interests in this new arrangement. Thus the roots of any change in state behaviour, whether it’s a crackdown against militants or public campaigns against intolerance, need to be traced beyond just the realm of new ideas and sudden realisations. Cold, hard, interests often play a major, and far more durable, role.
The question left to ask now is whether this arrangement will hold and whether the requisite domestic conditions will be achieved. Some observers say that top-down efforts by the state can only bring cosmetic changes in a radicalised society, unless accompanied by grass-roots politics that induces change in attitudes, behaviour, and norms. Otherwise, local resistance will undermine any progressive legislation and crackdowns will generate further radicalisation.
My own view is slightly more ambivalent. The state certainly doesn’t have the coherence, the capacity or the reach to de-radicalise society, but I also think changes in law, demographic transformation, and the advent of new economic relations may achieve this task in a long-drawn-out, convoluted manner. What remains to be seen is whether this will happen relatively peacefully, or with social conflict, resistance and violence.
Umair Javed teaches politics at LUMS.
Source: dawn.com/news/1248292/a-liberal-dawn
------
Everyday Heroes
By Juggun Kazim
March 28, 2016
The world is a very strange place. Our role models are usually people we have never known in person. And, most of the time, the superhero we want to be is not even a real person, but the figment of a cartoonist or scriptwriter’s imagination.
Why does your kid wish to be Wonder Woman and not you? Think about it. You wake up in the morning to go to work, no matter how terrible you feel. You juggle twenty different tasks at one time. You work extremely hard but you still remember to pay attention to family and friends. Name one superhero that actually made time for his family or even had a group of sincere friends?
I remember when my son was desperately eager to be Spiderman. It was an adorable phase but today I look back and wonder what made Spiderman cooler than me. A mother saves her kid’s life on a weekly basis, if not daily. From making sure they don’t slip down the stairs to ensuring every electrical socket is childproof, to sterilising the whole household numerous times a day — a mother’s work is never done.
What about the parents who work all day, come rain or shine? Who pays all the bills, plans vacations, buys groceries, remembers PTAs and makes sure the homework and incomplete class work is almost always done. Doesn’t that sound like somebody worth admiring? You don’t need to be super to be a hero. You can just be you. We have been conditioned our entire lives to look for a hero outside of our homes. But who says you cannot be your own hero? There are plenty of situations where unconsciously, we save ourselves and the people we love every day, yet when is the last time you congratulated yourself on your achievements or the fact that you’ve managed to survive life up to this point?
What is the definition of a hero? Someone who meets tough challenges and overcomes them. Someone who never ever quits! These challenges are the opportunities they use to push themselves beyond what seems humanly possible. The thing is why should you desire to be like some fictitious hero when the real superhero is, in actuality, you? It’s time you started patting yourself on the back for a job well done.
You need to become the change you want to see in your life. I recently got a text from someone saying, “There is a superhero inside you; you just need to have the courage to put the cape on.” For once, it didn’t feel like a senseless forwarded message, but an opportunity to wake up and take charge.
We need to stop waiting for life to happen to us. No one is going to come and save anyone; that just happens in the movies. You have to take control of your own life. The first step to doing so, is to take action. Bad job situation? Send your resume out and resign from the current dead-end situation. New things are frightening and they take time. Just don’t give up. You need to be consistent and, of course, be brave. It might all appear terrifying, but it’s the path to a better future. Finally, while you should definitely take risks, you should also choose wisely.
The trick is to commit to creating a better world for others and yourself. Nothing comes out of nothing. There is nothing stopping you from emulating the actions and courage of the superhero you so admire. Do that and you will become the hero of your own life. Do that and you will become the real life superhero that your kids or siblings will never grow out of admiring. Choose to make a change. As scary as it seems, choose to be your own hero.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1073910/everyday-heroes/
------
A Muslim Mayor for London?
By Ayesha Ijaz Khan
March 25, 2016
On May 5, Londoners will be voting for a new mayor. There are five candidates contesting, but the race is essentially between the two representing the largest political parties. Zac Goldsmith is running on the Conservative ticket while Sadiq Khan is the Labour candidate. The differences between them are stark.
Zac hails from the aristocratic white elite and is the son of a billionaire. His primary income is derived from the trust fund his father left him. Sadiq, on the other hand, is the self-made son of a bus driver. His parents were migrants from Pakistan and he grew up on a council estate. In spite of securing the Labour ticket, Sadiq is, for all purposes, the underdog in the election. Not because he lacks experience or is not capable of being a great mayor for London, but because as someone who comes from the minority Muslim community he is immediately disadvantaged in the eyes of many.
London is, perhaps, the world’s most diverse and cosmopolitan city. As such, it is far more open-minded than most other cities in the world. Imagine, for a moment, an openly Muslim man with a name like Sadiq Khan contesting for mayor in New York. It’s unthinkable in today’s Islamophobic climate.
Conversely, picture a Christian or a Jew contesting an important election in a Muslim-majority country, and it’s a non-starter. Unfortunately, in much of the Muslim world, the law discriminates against non-Muslims. In Pakistan alone, the Constitution bars non-Muslims from holding the office of president or prime minister, for example.
In the United States, as in much of the Western world, there is no legal bar to religious minorities holding public office, but the environment is currently so Islamophobic that it is simply not conducive to Muslims participating fully in politics.
Comparatively, London is probably as good as it gets for minorities. But it’s still far from perfect. It is still not free from bigotry or racism or Islamophobia. Would Sadiq Khan’s election to the position of mayor thus create history and place London in a league entirely of its own, a model for both other Western and Muslim countries to follow? Yes, it would. Sadiq Khan’s win would be far more exciting than Zac Goldsmith’s not only because he is Muslim but because he is a religious minority in the UK and one that is increasingly, and often unfairly, looked upon with suspicion.
Indeed, Sadiq Khan himself has been subjected to unnecessary questioning regarding some allegedly radical speeches his ex-brother-in-law made. But, as Mehdi Hasan pointed out in his piece for The Guardian recently, “If a moderate like Sadiq Khan shouldn’t stand for London mayor, which Muslim can?” and how come Zac Goldsmith has never been asked to account for the controversial speeches Imran Khan, his ex-brother-in-law, makes? The piece also notes that members of Zac’s campaign have capitalised on the prevalent Islamophobia and derisively referred to Sadiq as “the Muslim” and Zac has used words like “radical” when describing Sadiq.
So those who claim that race, religion, gender or ethnicity have no part in politics must be living in an alternate universe. The minority is always subjected to greater scrutiny, is looked upon with suspicion and is expected to prove its patriotic credentials in a way the majority never is. As Bernie Sanders, an American presidential aspirant, has repeatedly pointed out, “I was never asked for my birth certificate like Obama was… maybe it has something to do with the colour of my skin.”
On March 15, the Mirror reported that Zac’s campaign has been scaremongering, pitting voters of Indian-origin and particularly those from London’s Hindu community, against Sadiq Khan, with untrue information contained in leaflets distributed specifically to them. As Adam Bienkov, deputy editor of Politics.co.uk tweeted the same day, “Zac calls Khan ‘divisive’, then targets other ethnic minorities with scare campaign about him”. Some of this has backfired for Zac as his leaflets were described by members of the Indian community as “patronising” even as they contained pictures of Zac embracing Prime Minister Modi, portraying him as a great friend of India’s.
“If you want to support Sadiq Khan because he is Muslim,” I was told on Twitter by a fellow Pakistani, no less, “why don’t you just move back to Pakistan?” This knee-jerk reaction misses the point entirely. If I lived in a Muslim-majority country like Pakistan, a Muslim running for key office would be the norm and not the exception and thus, I would be more inclined to support the active participation of non-Muslims in public office there. When Rana Bhagwandas, a Hindu, became the Chief Justice of Pakistan briefly, for instance, I was as pleased with that as I would be if Sadiq Khan were to become mayor of London.
For a minority community to feel properly empowered and assimilated, it is essential that capable members of their community are a part of important decision-making and administrative matters. Glass ceilings for women, people of colour, or religious and ethnic minorities, must be broken if we are to truly embrace diversity and equality. In his piece for The Guardian, “Yes, he tried: what will Barack Obama’s legacy be?” Gary Younge writes that “When he [Obama] was contemplating a run for the White House, his wife asked him what he thought he could accomplish if he won. ‘The day I take the oath of office,’ he replied, ‘the world will look at us differently. And millions of kids across this country will look at themselves differently. That alone is something.’”
Indeed, each time a woman or anyone from a minority race, religion, ethnicity or other disadvantaged group breaks through a glass ceiling, particularly in as public a profession as politics, these words will hold true. Sadiq Khan’s election, therefore, would not only be a win for Muslims in the West, but religious minorities at large. It would also bolster London’s place as a world leader in multiculturalism and assimilation of immigrants.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1072847/a-muslim-mayor-for-london/
URL: https://newageislam.com/pakistan-press/offer-pakistani-militants-new-age/d/106779