Making peace with militants By Irfan Husain

AS cracks appear in the newly formed ruling coalition in Islamabad, there are other ominous signs on the horizon. The attempts to negotiate a truce with Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), have far more serious implications for Pakistan than political hiccups in the capital.

When the firebrand Maulana Mohammad Sufi was released from jail recently, he said he would not return to his terrorist ways, but would continue fighting for the imposition of the Sharia in Malakand and Swat. This, incidentally, is the same cleric whose fiery rhetoric sent thousands of young Pakistanis to Afghanistan on the eve of the American attack after 9/11. Hundreds did not return, and angry, grieving parents would have vented their fury against him had he not begged the authorities to jail him.

His son-in-law is Maulana Fazlullah, the cleric who has been waging war against the state in Swat in order to impose a Taliban-like system in that lovely valley. Hundreds have been killed, and scores of families have sought refuge elsewhere. The army has imposed an uneasy calm on the area.

On the face of it, there appears nothing wrong with making peace with these militants, and others of their ilk. After all, the argument goes, they are Pakistanis, and we should not be fighting them at America’s behest. And as recent bloody events have proved, these terrorists have the means and the motivation to strike hard and deep at targets across Pakistan.

Another reason that is advanced to justify negotiations is that force has already been tried, but to little avail. Under Musharraf, the army proved unable to defeat the militants, losing nearly 1,000 soldiers in fierce battles. Hundreds more have surrendered. Finally, this undeclared civil war has resulted in many deaths among the civilians who shelter and conceal the jihadis.

For all these reasons, the policy of confrontation, adopted by Musharraf with Washington’s prodding, has been condemned across the political spectrum. While we need to review the policy, we must understand what we are being asked to accept in exchange for a temporary truce.

Firstly, even though the militants may not hit targets within Pakistan, they will certainly launch cross-border attacks into Afghanistan. Secondly, while they have promised to expel foreign terrorists from the tribal areas, there is no way to ensure this has actually been done. And once the army withdraws from these lawless lands, a key TTP demand, who will monitor the movements and activities of Mehsud and his henchmen?

It should be clear that these holy warriors are driven by utopian dreams and hard cash: greater freedom of movement and a respite from army action will allow them to move arms, heroin and fighters more easily. They have already imposed their own brand of Islamic law upon the hapless tribals who live here. And the menace is spreading.

Those who advocate Sharia law should think long and hard about the implications. We saw the Taliban impose their version in Afghanistan when women were lashed for the slightest infringement of barbaric laws; ancient statues were destroyed; and music was banned. Is this the kind of Pakistan we would like to live in?

There are those who say the Taliban went too far, and advocate the Saudi model instead. Having struggled for democracy for so long, do we really want to be ruled by ignorant mullahs? In Pakistan, a number of women have distinguished themselves by excelling in their chosen fiel ds. Benazir Bhutto, Fatima Jinnah and Asma Jehangir are only some of the better-known figures. There are many more who have carved out formidable reputations in the face of heavy odds. In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to even drive cars or travel without permission from their mahrams. Is this the kind of Pakistan we would like to live in?

When people speak glibly of ‘Islam being a complete way of life for all times’, they forget the crucial role of ijtihad. This concept of change and evolution through consensus is at the heart of adapting the system to new circumstances. Clearly, tribal laws from the medieval era were never intended to be applied in a period of massive social and political change. I am no Islamic scholar, but I am a student of history, a discipline that teaches us that unless systems and species adapt, they die.

The basic reason why most mullahs reject the central concept of ijtihad is that a rigid, literal interpretation of holy texts gives them an authority they would not enjoy if a modern, rational approach was taken towards understanding the spirit of religion. More learned Islamic scholars fear a multiplicity of opinions might take the faith away from its origins. But this is a risk we will have to take if we do not want the Muslim world to be left further behind. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves what Muslims have contributed to world civilisation over the last 500 years.

These are some of the questions we need to pose when we talk of appeasing the militants who threaten not only Pakistan, but the region and countries far away. People like Baitullah Mehsud, Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar thrive in conditions of anarchy. Angry young men flock to their banners when they are poor and uneducated. Others see them as romantic revolutionaries who want to change the world. But what they seek is power, and unable to win it through the ballot box, they use terror to push their agenda.

Judged objectively, the wars we have fought thus far have been largely of our own making. None of them was the result of existential threats to Pakistan. But the war imposed on us by militants such as Baitullah Mehsud and Mullah Fazlullah threatens our freedom and our way of life. It is not a conflict of our choosing, but it is one we will have to fight unless we want to end up like Afghanistan under the Taliban, or as a poor version of Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, we have to decide what kind of country we want to live in.