Need for restraint

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School

Mumbai has suffered a terrible calamity. The world is aghast and India is enraged. The madness caused by the terrorists needs to be condemned and the loss of life grieved. But turning Pakistan into a punching bag will serve no purpose, other than that of the terrorists. Bearing the brunt of non-state agents of terror and their depraved ideology that justifies slaughter of innocent civilians to protest state policies is a curse of our times. Savagery of this sort is a sick human condition the contagious effects of which do not recognize territorial boundaries. The fight against terror will need to be fought with moral clarity, logical consistency and a conviction shared by nations across the world. But in order for the civilized world to succeed in the fight against terror, our response to manifestations of terror must be informed by wisdom and restraint and not anger and bravado.

Political elites and thought-leaders in India and Pakistan must not squander the opportunity to realign their historically acrimonious relationship for momentary popularity before local jingoistic audiences. Notwithstanding the misplaced zeal of Prime Minister Gilani to dispatch the DG ISI to India as a manifestation of Pakistan's no-holds-barred support for the investigation underway, the top-Pakistani leadership has reacted with appreciable maturity so far. While condemning the attacks President Zardari unequivocally assured India that his government would take strict action against any individual or group from Pakistan found complicit in the attacks, while also warning against the danger of knee-jerk reactions holding the Pakistani state unjustifiably culpable for actions of non-state actors.

Likewise, Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, very eloquently emphasized that both the Pakistani and Indian nations were victims of terror and neither India's seething rage nor the burden of history should distract he two nations from fighting a shared enemy. In laying the entire blame at Pakistan's doorstep, the Indian media and political elites are giving vent to the desperation and anger that such senseless terrorism stirs up. While it is not justifiable, the Indian reaction is understandable.

When confronted with irreparable loss, finding someone to blame is a natural tendency to avoid feeling hapless. Let us recall Benazir Bhutto's assassination or the Marriott bombing for instance and the storms of rage and bouts of finger pointing (within the country and toward foreign elements) that those events provoked. Now throw in the confession of a perpetrator who connects the terror plot to a neighbour considered traditionally untrustworthy. And then add to this incendiary mix an election season wherein nationalistic bravado and tough sounding rhetorical hate-speech against an archenemy promises immediate political dividends apart from deferring the need for introspection and addressing indigenous causes of violence.

Amidst India's sabre-rattling and Pakistan's tit-for-tat indignant nationalistic fervour, we must not lose focus of the fact that terrorism remains a shared threat and intimidating war-talk between the two neighbours will allow this menace to proliferate. Once the initial emotional shock subsides, constructive responses to the tragedy will emerge from within India. Meanwhile, Pakistani political and military elites must rise above the temptation to respond in kind when their Indian counterparts choose to vent their anger and frustration through belligerent words. Pakistan's patient and considered response to transient Indian swagger will not pose a national security risk to our country's interests. As a nation that feels empathy and grief for loss of innocent life in Mumbai, Pakistan's efforts to alleviate India's suspicions and not up the ante will be evidence of our responsibility and not weakness.

Simultaneously we must remind the world that as a country Pakistan has been the biggest victim of terror since 9/11: we have lost the most citizens to violence unleashed by extremists in our cities and our towns amongst all victim states; the Pakistan army has sacrificed more soldiers to the fight against extremist than any other army; and the capital flight caused by terror and the financial impact of this menace inflicted upon Pakistan is incomparable to any other country. The PPP-led government has taken ownership of Pakistan's indigenous fight against extremism even though the war strategy is not yet backed by a strong national consensus. It is thus inexplicable how bringing more international pressure to bear upon a frail coalition government already committed to exterminating extremism from Pakistan will further the global fight against terror.

The security threat posed by non-state agents of terror is not amenable to tradition militaristic solutions. The complex nature of this threat has been challenging the international community to reconsider cookie-cutter military solutions designed to deal with threats posed by state actors. For example, just because pirates are in business along the Somali coast doesn't mean that threatening Somalia with military reprisal will sort the problem out. Likewise, in case of terrorism, the doctrine of state responsibility needs to be applied intelligently. Even if footsteps of some Mumbai terrorists can be traced to Pakistan, it doesn't mean that the state is culpable. Nation-states have traditionally been held responsible for wrongful acts of their officials, but not necessarily those of private citizens or non-state actors.

For Pakistan to be legally held accountable, evidence must be adduced that Lashkar-e-Taiba (or Jamat-ud-Dawa), Jaish-e-Mohammed or any militant group that contributed to the Mumbai carnage is presently being sponsored by the state or the ISI. But formalistic legal arguments apart, let us also not be in denial when it comes to understanding the constituent elements of terrorism and the past acts and omissions of the Pakistani state that have contributed to its proliferation. A denigrate ideology inspired by an obscurantist view of Islam; a deliberate state policy nurturing and supporting jihad waged by non-state militant groups that furthered Pakistan's strategic interests; a medieval tribal culture braced by a colonial legal framework creating perfect sanctuary alongside the Pak-Afghan border; and a moth-eaten state structure reeking of corruption that allows the government little control over the men, weapons and money that pass through Pakistan have all contributed to the creation of this monster.

It is true that the jihadi project was not contrived by Pakistan alone. History bears witness that it was conceived by the US during the Afghan war and materially and financially supported by the CIA. The Pakistani state was reckless with the security of its citizens in the first place when it opted to launch such a misconceived project from its own territory and later when it continued to nurture it on its own once the US strategic interest in Afghanistan stood realized at the end of the cold war. The religious extremism and militancy that we are presently suffering is a residue of this deliberate strategy to arrange, motivate, train and arm non-state actors to fight against occupation forces in the name of religion. While hatching the project no thoughts were expended on how it would eventually be decommissioned. And it never was until 9/11 happened.

The point simply is that while Pakistan has been left holding the bag, global cheerleaders in the war against terror have an equal number of skeletons in their closets. In taking the moral high ground in the post 9/11 world, the international community must not lose sight of history and succumb to the temptation of indiscriminately accusing Pakistan of creating this Frankenstein all by itself. However, history is no justification for a perilous and immoral strategic doctrine that nurtures faith-inspired militancy. Notwithstanding the circumstances in which jihadi outfits gained state patronage in the past or the staggering pace of Indo-Pak rapprochement, Pakistan must not waiver in its resolve to put the abhorrent religious ideology, warped worldview and barbaric tactics of terrorists out of use.

However, uprooting the terror network with its roots firmly entrenched in our backyard will not be easy. Faith-inspired militants are not amenable to acquiring alternative skill-sets. And even without state patronage the hardcore elements within these networks will continue to spawn terror as long as they survive. But just because the immediate Indian account of the Mumbai terror attacks has holes and its wagging finger betrays an unhealthy siege mentality does not mean that Pakistan should fitter away this opportunity for introspection and to initiate further corrective action to clamp down on extremism. We must continue our struggle against extremism with perseverance and resolve not because that will help improve ties with India or score brownie points with the world-at-large, but because we will continue to remain soft targets and the biggest victims so long as religion-inspired terror survives around us.



Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu