Superior but terrified

Khayyam Mushir is like a brother to me. Being a chartered accountant, perhaps there is no other person in Islamabad of his age and in his profession, who is such a great aficionado of literature, a serious student of philosophy, a wise commentator on politics and a crazy buff of vintage international cinema.
Islamabad is a small city by South Asian standards but a much smaller place when it comes to educated professionals seriously indulging in literary or artistic pursuits or having a passion for cerebral and creative subjects. Having people like Khayyam around gives us some succour. Otherwise the harsh winds of philistinism, irrationality, bigotry and violence raging over the intellectual wasteland of Pakistan would break us.
The other day, when Khayyam was flaunting his not-so-new android cell phone, he downloaded an application and made me listen to the lines from a novel by Charles Bukowski in the writer’s own voice. Bukowski said, “It was my first poetry reading...I bust my cherry on that one...I felt terrified...superior...but terrified!” What an expression – superior but terrified. It got me thinking. When does one feel that?
When an artist is exhibiting his work, a poet reciting his poem or a writer reading from her work in front of an audience who may not be as skilled as the performer but still possesses the authority to approve or disapprove, applaud or dismiss on that occasion. While being intellectually and physically superior to her, you may also feel the same in front of a beloved whose charm and wit disarm you. You long for her presence but when she is in front of you, you feel scared – you are terrified.
These are all conditions of an individual, a normal human being. Can this happen to a collective, an institution, a class, a nation, a country? Yes, it can. This is exactly what is happening with the powers that be that are running the affairs of the state of Pakistan today. The state and government of Pakistan is

superior to the TTP and all other militant outfits but at the same time completely terrified by them.
Why do I say they are superior? First, we have an elected parliament which has the legal and moral authority to legislate for the people of Pakistan. It can make any laws that help it further the national agenda. Second, we have a strong government at the federal level, which by no means has to wriggle out to keep itself in power while continuously worrying about keeping deceptive coalition partners on board – as was the case with the previous PPP-led government.
Policymaking and wielding their executive authority is much easier for them than was the case previously. Third, we have a standing army of half a million with sufficient experience, strength, equipment and ability to take on anyone who challenges the writ of the Pakistani state.
Then why are they terrified of the TTP and other militant outfits that work in the name of religion? They are not scared a wee bit when someone wages a struggle against the state or the government of Pakistan in the name of provincial, economic, linguistic or labour rights? The arms of the state stretch out and crush them. In case of militant outfits which work in the garb of religion, they are terrified and confused. They become apologetic for not acting at all in time, rightly or wrongly is a different business.
When the interior minister says that Americans have betrayed Pakistan by killing the TTP chief, he conveniently forgets that the state of Pakistan had not removed the head money from Hakeemullah even after agreeing to the process of dialogue with them. Nor had the TTP declared ceasefire on us. There were at least half-a-dozen acts of terrorism against Pakistan in the meanwhile including the killing of senior army men. He avoids telling us that the delegation of three religious clerics being sent to initiate the dialogue was supposed to meet other people and not the slain Taliban leader. He forgets to mention in his speech in the National Assembly that Hakeemullah’s younger brother was apprehended in Afghanistan a few days ago when he was trying to plot more attacks in Pakistan with the help of Afghan intelligence.
The PTI chief, in his subsequent speech in the National Assembly, praises the interior minister for his unrelenting pursuit for initiating a peace process with groups within the umbrella of the TTP and also its splinters. In his advocacy for the dialogue process, he says that we should also think what happens if a military operation from our side fails. What he decides not to speak about is what happens if the dialogue process fails.
So why are we terrified by militant outfits that operate in the name of Islam? It is not that difficult to understand if we take a view of the past. All our ills are rooted in our history. The PTI is a little handicapped to do that since for their leader, the political history of Pakistan begins with the formation of his party. For them, extremism and terrorism in Pakistan and the wider region begin with 9/11 – as recently as in 2001. Interestingly, at the pretext of respecting Muharram, he has announced not to block Nato-Isaf supplies until the fourth week of November. I had no idea that the Nato-Isaf forces observed Ashura.
Coming to the PML-N, it has contributed to a part of that past of Pakistan and still draws support from the conservative middle classes of Punjab and the Hindko-speaking areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Historically, the Pakistani state establishment, its military and right-wing political actors like the Jamaat-e-Islami created a narrative of the state of Pakistan based on exclusion, intolerance for those who are different and a certain kind of religiosity in the name of Islam. They encouraged using religion to counter every internal and external challenge to their authority and influence, to shift focus from the real issues of poverty and dispossession of the common people, to control the minds of the people.
The powerful institutions of the state and the institutions of society supported by the state infused a certain mix of paranoia of both India and the west and a pride in their religion and nationhood in the name of religion through biased and lopsided curricula, conservative media messages and harbouring religious movements, both violent and non-violent, that were bigoted in nature. This narrative has become popular today with a large number of people in the power centres of northern Pakistan – Lahore, Islamabad and Peshawar besides other cities and towns in these areas.
The slain leader of the TTP is termed a martyr by the JI chief. He had the gall to say that even after knowing that Mehsud was waging war against Pakistan and had killed thousands of innocent women, men and children.
Any sane person would suggest holding a dialogue with those who want to lay down arms and become part of the mainstream political process; and then go on and rehabilitate them. But what is your position? Also, what do you do with those who will not lay down arms and instead come up with conditions that are detrimental to the very foundations of the state? What will the PML-N and the PTI say then? They are not pursuing the process from a position of strength.
Perhaps they can’t because even if they know the truth, they cannot speak the truth to their constituents, those who have voted them in. The Pakistani establishment has made a certain narrative popular, which the two parties are based into. If we want a theocracy in Pakistan, militants just want more of it and of course of their own brand. Even if we are superior but terrified, we are not superior. They are.
The writer is a poet and author based in Islamabad.
Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com