Pakistan Suicide Bombings: The narratives of ‘terror’
An overwhelming majority of Pakistan’s population finds itself hostage to narratives of ‘terror’ that are either alien to its ethos or are constructed by its home-grown theologians and opinion-makers. This is not to say that the issue of suicide bombings is easy to define and understand. They are essentially complex and located in decades of Pakistan’s evolution into a society that is difficult yet again to label: Islamic in name, struggling to be democratic and a republic it is not, well, not yet.
If we take the viewpoint of liberals, it is our war as much as a war of others. If we were to hear the west, it is about countering terror and preserving world peace; and if we listen to Pakistan’s right it is someone else’s battle fought on our land — the land of the pure lest we forget.
Where does this leave the confused, battered citizen who now has to strive for personal security among other daily struggles of existence? There are no clear answers and if one were to probe further, the questions are as murky as their geneses.
One thing is clear though: to identify the recurrent suicide bombings in the name of theological, tribal and imperial grievances is at best a half-truth. The genie is far more complex than a response to the reductionist narrative of “war against terror†and such other imperial phraseology. At the core of this phenomena, if one were to be rather blunt, lies an exclusive, bigoted ‘ideology’ of a few men of holy intentions orchestrating a script written by others.
The Deoband School has in no uncertain terms rejected the “Islamic†pretensions of acts against the civilians; and especially the ones of suicidal variety. Haram is forbidden and that’s that. The Pakistani madressahs, drawing their inspiration from the Deobandi view of the world, need to hear this clearly. The Holy Book, traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) and later jurisprudence down to the Al-Azhar debates today allow no room for the pusillanimity of the invisible men (or women) buying their way to heaven through self-immolation.
What is happening then? Among the various postulates, the economic argument is the strongest. Pakistan’s tribal areas, bypassed by modernity and economic progress are the poorest areas of the country. Other than lack, or shall we say virtual non-existence, of infrastructure and employment opportunities, the ordinary citizens (for the sake of argument only) live in a society bound by the tribal code and an administrative system reminiscent of medievalism. Human life and dignity are subsumed in tribal honour. And political Islam exploits all these fault lines to its maximum advantage.
In these rural ghettos, it is not difficult to sell the temporal and the spiritual package to families who are aggrieved by the ongoing war in their courtyards often sneaking into their schools, madressahs, marriage processions and day-to-day life.
This leads to the question of financing the militancy. Quite obviously, the figure of one million per family, anecdotal as it is, requires extensive cash transfers and an efficient system of exchange that either escapes scrutiny or is embedded. Either of the scenarios is worrying and merits a dispassionate analysis and not an emotional call for ending the “foreign†war.
Who are these clerics and networks that motivate young minds to accept death? What sort of indoctrination takes place where? The situation is mystified by anecdotes on all sides again depending which line you take and who is your source. The western media would make us believe that it is the simplistic jihad for Bin Laden-ism; the NWFP versions suggest a resurgent Pakhtun nationalism; and the mainstream right talks of the larger role of the west in the Islamic world. Utter state of confusion and uncertainty most conducive to such anti-people moments of history.
The tally is scary. During 2007, over 1,500 Pakistanis were killed and thousands injured and maimed. In the first quarter of 2008, nearly 400 have died in acts of terrorism most notably suicide bombings. In 2006 the suicide attacks were six in number. A year later, over 60 attacks took place and the graph continues to rise. Thanks to a liberated media, you can see real time heads, limbs, security guards being rammed into and all the gore that would put surrealism to shame.
And what does it say about the claims of our Islamic identity? That no mosque, Imambargah or even a funeral prayer is safe. Busy markets could turn into graveyards and peaceful rallies are venues for mass murders!
The discourse surrounding these acts is even more worrying. TV channels show speakers arguing for Shariat imposition in the north western areas to avoid such attacks; and respectable politicians, columnists and experts are found stressing that this is all a ‘reaction’ to our faulty policies. As if these were changed or reversed the jihad factories would change the production line? Perhaps for a short while but then where would the holy warriors go?
Not long ago, these warriors were fighting by the side of today’s villains. In the words of Samir Amin, “Political Islam is not anti-imperialist, even if its militants think otherwise! It is an invaluable ally for imperialism and the latter knows itâ€. This is why a range of opinion polls show that a vast majority of people are against suicide bombings. Overtime the people have smelt the rot masked as bravery.
The truth is that any ‘justification’, even if remotely rational, amounts to legitimising the heinous anti-people acts. What is the fault of ordinary citizens on the street to be targeted in such a brutal manner? No excuse or explanation will work as all such narratives lead to making barbarity the norm. Chopped heads in Swat, the blood of Benazir Bhutto and what not. How could an anti-imperial struggle end up imitating the imperial tact of wreaking and then accepting collateral damage?
The sooner that we realise this, the better it is. What needs to be condemned has to be condemned. Extremism is spreading within the body politic and it needs to be countered through all means, from dialogue, development and if needed force. The root cause is poverty and lack of opportunity leading to alienation that is easily exploitable. This alienation is not tribal or religious but economic and class-oriented; and did not spring from nowhere after NATO-occupied Afghanistan.
About time we faced these prickly little truths before blaming the world and the gods.
Published earlier in The News
Subscribe
The young men who crashed commercial airliners into the World Trade Center towers in New York on September 11, 2001 were rather well-educated and came from fairly affluent backgrounds. So, I am not sure if poverty and lack of opportunity are the root causes.
To me it seems that whenever the government of a country breeds the Frankenstein’s monster of insurgency in order to harm another nation and, thereby, to further its own ’strategic interests’, the monster turns onto itself and the people of the country that it governs, when it seeks to jettison its former friends, the insurgents, at a later stage, on account of a change in circumstances.
For instance, it is an open secret that Indira Gandhi’s government recruited and trained the Tamil militants in Sri Lanka. Later on, when Rajiv Gandhi’s government sent the Indian Peace Keeping Force to Sri Lanka to fight the LTTE, they not only turned against the Indian government but also carried out a suicide bomb attack to assassinate Rajiv.
Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts were, it has been reported, at one point of time, allied with the US, but when the Americans turned against them, they carried out the 9/11 suicide attacks.
Similarly, it appears more than likely that a fairly large percentage of suicide attacks in Pakistan are being carried out by friends-turned-foes of the Pakistani government, after it joined the US-led ‘war on terror’. They do not seem to bother much about the ‘collateral damage’ in terms of civilian deaths, just like most other terrorist organisations around the world.
Comment by Sidhusaaheb — April 21, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Excellent article. We have just added it to http://www.musliminstitute.com Please visit us for this and more.
Comment by Farida A — April 22, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
no its not poverty.. there are many poor countries and tribal areas across countries .. but they don’t produce suicide bombers . most of these terrorists are educated people with good degrees ..
so the next question is , then what is the motivation for these people …? if your see modern history , there are many motivations for these acts, from Tamil suicide bombers fighting for self respect and freedom to Japanese pilots fighting in the name of National pride . but then these were localised and limited against a specific group and till a specific time period . however the Pakistani phenomenon is targeted against everyone .
its an fundametalist ideology created by a religious group and its started with Jinnah ..where they were told that they cant live with other religious groups …
Comment by Raj — April 22, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Mister Raj… i am no apologist for Mr. Jinnah.. but please correct your facts ! i learn history from facts.. not advani, modi or togadia. Pakistan resolution was passed on 23 Mar 1940. Also please read Iqbal’s Allahabad Address to the Muslim League (1928). Read minutely… Much before Iqbal and Jinnah., it was BHAI PARAMANAND (An Arya Samaj leader of United Punjab); LALA LAJPAT RAI., and VIR DAMODAR SAVARKAR who spoke of dividing India on communal lines… to get RID of Muslim majority areas… Please research on Bhai Paramanand, Lajpat Rai and Savarkar… cuz they realised they could never build the Hindu India of their dreams with such a huge muslim presence. So the process was set in motion. Please read Ayesha Jalal’s FINE THESIS on Partition. There are loads of documents at the India Office Library, London… Do not learn History from cheap rags…(tabloids)… or hate-shops like RSS that manufacture history !
Of course, Jinnah responded… and fulfilled Savarkar’s desire. The Partition of India was a mistake that was “avoidable”… but Jinnah “alone” is not responsible for partition. I can write pages.. but let me sum up. It is Gandhi who first spoke of a “Ram Rajya”… not once… but continuously for years ! It is Gandhi who introduced “religion” into Indian politics, making a dangerous cocktail. It is Gandhi who ignored Subhash Chandra Bose.. and who ignored Jinnah for 28 years… Gandhi built his leadership on the “Hindu-Vote-Bank” plank. So naturally, the other party would look for an alternate plank. More than Jinnah, it is Gandhiji and Sardar Vallabh-bhai Patel who are resopnsible for partition…. not to forget Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru. Out of the 3, Patel was the most powerful., cuz he remote-controlled Gandhiji.
Communal elements on both sides of the spectrum were supported by the British (Madan Mohan Malaviya - who was an agent of the British bent on breaking Hindu-Muslim amity… had his counter-part in a few Muslim leaders too). Please compare the sacrifices made by the Muslim Maulanas.. vis-a-vis- Hindu Pundits.
Infact, fact of the matter is… that the struggle for India’s freedom was started by the Muslim Maulanas…. The British hated Muslims more than they hated the Hindus… cuz…1857 revolt was led by muslims (with hindu support)., but its muslim character (and losses in life/property) were dominant. Do you know that Hindu homes were left un-touched in Delhi post 1857 ? It is the bearded Maulanas who started the struggle for India’s freedom….. how many hindus know about the contribution of Jamiat-al-Ulema-al-Hind…. and their sacrifices towards Indian freedom struggle ?
Comment by Dastagir — April 23, 2008 @ 6:34 am
Dear Dastgir
every ideology is as old as humanity ..so these secessionist tendencies were always there in every society . Jinnah just exploited it . he has an option of exploiting or negating it , with his leadership .
by the way Ramrajya is not a religious world .. its utopian concept of a happy society ..
Gandhi made what India is today .. secular and free from any law of Blasphemy. may be you dont understand the differnce between the concept of dharma and concept of religion .. these are two different things .. dharma is based on ethics which is beyond religious narrowness ..
your sense of history is full of rumours without any facts ..
and where did you get this data that 1857 revolt was led by Muslims .. from Mangal Pandey to Jhansi ki rani to Tatya Tope to Bahadur shah Jafar .. every one contributed equaly .. and it was a struggle of indians …
Comment by Raj — April 23, 2008 @ 4:11 pm