A lot of erroneous assertions in there - the Mujahideen and their training camps were not set up as 'terror factories', they were set up as training camps for rebels fighting an occupation. The same with the Madrassa's, they were not set up and funded, primarily by the Arabs, to create terrorists and suicide bombers, but to preach a particular interpretation of Islam and motivate individuals to fight against an invasion and occupation. I would appreciate it, if you are going to continue this discussion, that you not distort history and the facts and ascribe to Pakistan and its policies attributes that they never possessed. Jihad is not something unique to the form of Islam taught in those madrassas nor is it something unique to Pakistan, and in the context of the Soviet occupation the call to Jihad against the occupation was a legitimate use of that particular religious tenet.
Sir, in all sincerity, my comments are in no way intended to annoy you or create any distortion of history while putting forth my views, and I thank you for indulging me with your participation in our discussion.
However, the intent to profit from the theological structure and the Islamic identity of Pakistan has indeed been the objective of the Pakistani government and the army which in fact was the government for most parts its history arriving up the Afgan jehad scenario (albiet for a small part wherein Bhutto was a helm). Even going up to the genesis (DNA) of the nation, the intent to create an Islamic identity and to achieve various political objectives from it are very well discoursed. I seek to bring up the following for your kind perusal while requesting your consideration to my above comments:
Foreign Policy in Focus | Islam and Pakistan
From its Cold War role as a bulwark against the irreligious, evil empire of the Soviet Union to its status as a major non-NATO ally in the post-9/11 war on terrorism, Pakistan has flaunted its various religious credentials. Vacillating from jihad to enlightened moderation, Pakistan’s ruling civil and military elite has unscrupulously employed religion as a means to gain domestic and international legitimacy. ..............
The use of Islam as a tool of politics precedes Pakistan’s inception. The country was carved out of British India owing to the religious divide between Muslims and non-Muslims on the subcontinent. The country’s founding fathers claimed that India’s Muslims were a nation separate from non-Muslim Indians. The Muslim League, led by a secular westernized Mohammed Ali Jinnah, demanded a separate homeland in India’s Muslim majority areas in the northwest (the Pakistan of today) and the northeast (Bangladesh since 1971). The political slogan of that time -- that Pakistan will be home to all of South Asia’s Muslims and prevent them from becoming a permanent minority in India -- proved untenable. ...........
In the chaotic power struggle that ensued in the new state the West Pakistan-dominated military, in cahoots with the bureaucracy, outmaneuvered and forced out the political parties. Throughout this period, Islam was touted as the unifying factor that was supposed to override banal ethnic and geographical divide. As the formative decades of Pakistan also coincided with the start of the Cold War, the military-led Pakistani elite had a double incentive to espouse Islam as the defining characteristic of state and society. At home it used Islam to co-opt and reward the clergy of all Muslim sects to keep the secular, democratic political parties at bay. Internationally, the Pakistani government showcased its Islamic credentials to prove its allegiance to the anti-communism cause.
I agree with you that the Pakistani army did not have the foresight of imagining the monster that they were creating in the guise of the Afgan Jehad will ultimately turn towards consuming its masters as it has done today.
But that does not absolve the whole "ruler set' of Pakistan from the fact that they over the history tried to encash the Islamic identity of Pakistan while pursuing their objectives and agendas.
Instead of creating a union based on pluralistic principles of tolerance, the shortest way to achieve it was used = Islam. And in no way am I commenting on the masses to be a part of this practice because in our countries, the masses are purely led by our rulers by showing whicever perspective is convenient to the rulership. The cognitive decision making in the nation takes a long time to arrive and our nations, even to this day are no where near where we would like our polity to be to ensure that our sentiments and beliefs are not hijacked by unscrupulous individuals at the helm of power in our nations.
Even during the administration of Bhutto, the Ahmadis were outcasted with a amendment to the constitution. This was a civil government and the way in which they tried to hijack the Islamic sentiment of the masses by harping on a more extremist tone and eliminating a few millon of its population of basic constitutional rights in one stroke is despicable on the least. We may Sir, differ on the objective of the Pakistani government in abrogating the constitutional rights of Ahmadis but the fact that it was made clear that there is no room in Pakistan corridors of power for pluralistic thinking was very evident by their above act.
However, I have to give it to Jinnah that even though in the process of achieving Pakistan, he polarised the masses quoting a religion but he clearly up on the independence of Pakistan stated & I quote:
"In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims-Hindus, Christians and Parsis -- but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan." Quaid-i-Azam, Feb. 1948 [1]
I quote some more..
" You may belong to any religion or caste or creed -- that has nothing to do with the business of the state ...... We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and citizens of one state....... in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state."
I found the following on the internet and I would tend to agree with most information mentioned on the quoted forum moving up to the early years of the genesis of Pakistan. I submit also for your perusal:
Islamic Pakistan
With all sincerity at my disposal I wish that the founding father of your nation too was alive and well to guide your nation through the initial tumultous birth pangs. We were just fortunate on this side of the border that our old men were there for a little longer and that seemed to have been enough.
Though I do not have much to comment on the way in which Jinnah went about achieving Pakistan but nonetheless, I have a strong belief that if Jinnah was alive to see thru the initial years of Pakistan, he would have used the same Islamic ideology of Pakistan to put it on an altogether different path and make it a welfare state rather than a military/theological state that it soon became after he departed for the heavenly abode. In all probability, if we were fortunate to have him for a few more years, we could have been best friens Sir, your nation and mine.
I do not put forward the Islamic identity as the cause of the downward spiral of polity in Pakistan but my argument is that this Islamic identity was used by the successive rulers to further their own version of the destiny that Pakistan awaits. Unfortunately for the initial years these definers of Pakistan's destiny were opportunistic military rulers or for a short span, an untolerant power hungry Bhutto who twisted this Islamic Identity regularly to point it in the directionthat suited them the best. (I hope you would have read my comments earlier in this thread regarding his role in the division of Pakistan).
The Madrassas created during that time were not set up because of something specific to 'Pakistan's DNA' or identity, but from an 'Islamic POV. The fact that many of them were funded and created by the Arabs indicates that the creation of the Madrassa's transcended 'Pakistan's Islamic identity', and tapped into a global Islamic sentiment that the occupation of Afghanistan had to be fought, and that there was a religious obligation to fight against that occupation. What Dhume argues is that somehow this was all specific to Pakistan alone - had there been another Muslim nation in Pakistan's place, allied with the US, the policy decisions at the time would have been similar.
That is where Dhume's analysis, questioning Pakistan's identity alone (he specifically goes out of his way to contrast Pakistan with other Muslim nations) is flawed, and why there is no contradiction in my criticism of Dhume.
Jinnah spoke of a Muslim identity, not an Islamic identity - there is a difference.
The Madrassas were long there Sir and some of the most famous scholars have graduated from these fine system of education. The Islamic systems have been in our sub-continent for centuries and I have great faith in these.
However, I find convergence with Dhume's Islamic Identity argument on account that the Pakistani rulers and generals instead of identifying with their version of Afgan cause (terroritorial/ strategic / India "hegemony" centric / ambition to be in power etc.) chose to justify their intervention by giving it a religious identity = Jehad, rather than projecting it in any other way.
Lacing project Afganistan as Jehad was the easiest and most convincing argument for the Pakistani generals because of the Islamic Identity of Pakistan. There was no other easier way in to acceptance by the masses once Zia made it a Jehad - you rightly said a valid tenet in Islam.
Imagine, if Jinnah had had his secular way then will it have been equally easy for Zia to hijack the Islamic identity of Pakistan to justify his objectives, or for that matter for Ayub to think that muslims being a martial race will have a cakewalk in to India in 65? Would there have been a "Muslim Pakistan versus a Hindu India" so strong in the masses if this Islamic Identity at the genesis of Pakistan was moderated and tolerant in line with the vision of the founding father of the nation?
As I mentioned earlier, put an Islamic/Muslim state other than Pakistan in Pakistan's place, facing the same geo-political situation and threats, and the response would have likely been the same, since Jihad against injustice and occupation would have been a rallying cry for any Muslim in that situation, especially when the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan could also be extrapolated to represent a threat to the Muslim/Islamic nation bordering it.
Your argument is that because Pakistan was Muslim/Islamic, it chose certain policies of encouraging Jihad and Madrassas to motivate rebels to fight Soviet occupation, but since Jihad is a central tenet of Islam, the only other option would have been if Pakistan was a non-Muslim majority State, which is obviously a ludicrous proposition.
Sir, which part of a general do you think understand politics? So the fact that Pakistan soon found itself in a most difficult geo-political situation is not something that surprised many.
My argument is not that being an Islamic state Pakistan was automatically set on an auto-pilot course to where it is today. No Sir. What I am trying to submit to you is that because of the strong Islamic Identity nutured in the masses over the years, the generals were able to easily further mould public opinion in to furthering their own territorial etc. ambitions.
And that is the difference between Pakistan and other Islamic nations/majority nations that you referred to. The politicians in other Islamic countries did not resort to evolving the Islamic identity of their nation into such extremism as Pakistan did!
Please peruse of the following to understand my perspective a little more:
http://www.twq.com/05winter/docs/05winter_haqqani.pdf
Although listed among the U.S. allies in the war on terrorism, Pakistan cannot easily be characterized as either friend or foe. Indeed, Pakistan has become a major center of radical Islamist ideas and groups, largely because of its past policies toward India and Afghanistan. Pakistan supported Islamist militants fighting Indian rule in the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir and backed the Taliban in its pursuit of a client regime in Afghanistan. .....
Nevertheless, Pakistan’s status as an Islamic ideological state is rooted deeply in history and is linked closely both with the praetorian ambitions of the Pakistani military and the Pakistani elite’s worldview. For the foreseeable future, Islam will remain a significant factor in Pakistan’s politics.
Yes what does the awaam think LeT and JuD claim? See that is the problem, you have no evidence to back up your argument that the awaam that supports the LeT/JuD believes it is supporting the above, whereas I have clearly pointed to polls that show the overwhelming majority opposes terrorism and attacks on innocents. If you have data indicating that the people who support the LeT/JuD do so because the want to see a 'Ghazwa-e-Hind' or 'elimination of all Kafirs' then please show me - without that all you are doing is engaging in hateful speculation and ascribing hateful views to Pakistanis.
For example, I consider my self well read and informed, yet the first I heard of HS's speeches and the agenda mentioned in the articles you refer to was on this forum, from links provided by Indians. To argue that the people who support the LeT/JuD are aware of all that content and support all of it is a flawed assertion. People don't even vote for politicians because they agree with every thing the politician says or stands for - typically it is because the politician supports something(s) that top the list of priorities for an individual. For most people who support LeT/JuD, from my conversations with them, that is the liberation of J&K from Indian occupation.
Is there are hardcore following of these organizations that is aware of everything they stand for and supports that entire agenda? Certainly, but to then argue that EVERYONE who supports the LeT and JuD falls in that category is illogical. To show that you will have to ask more than just 'do you support the LeT/JuD', and instead ask people specifically 'why they support LeT/JuD', or whether they support the position of 'Ghazwa-e-Hind' or 'kill the Kaafirs' or 'are attacks on innocents, non-Muslim & Muslim' justified?
I did not say your definition of LeT/JuD's agenda was ludicrous, I said your argument that everyone who supports the above two organizations does so while being aware and agreeing with the entire LeT/JuD agenda as described in the articles you posted is ludicrous. I don't support the LeT, am pretty internet savvy and informed, and even I haven't read most of the stuff you posted.
Sir, all that JeD and LeT profess to represent is what they say in their speeches, write in their pamlets and convey via all other means at the disposal including (and least of all) the terrorist activities that they plan and execute.
I offered several sources of information for your evaluation on this subject during the course of our discussion. As far as I can understand, in your views, the general Pakistan populace do not understand that these terrorist organizations are following an agenda of Jehad and violent Islam. However, everything that these groups so publicly and with great amount of impunity state is completely clear while the message is going out to the general public = They are fighting a Kafir Hindu India, a Zionistic Israel and a Kafir U.S.A amongst other things which is in fact a part of their agenda to establish over the world a rule of Islam!
Even after having had the first hand experience of how this monster can morph, by allowing the terrorist groups to fight in Kashmir quoting Jehad is tantamount to committing the soceity further to extremism! And then we could be discussing again in retrospect a few years later how this was a geo-political compulsion of Pakistan to use another Jehad.
If these groups are getting the support that they are even up on such clear admission of their violent ideology then it is clear that they are drawing from the current version of the understanding of the Islamic identity by the Pakistani government and the populace.
Correct, the GoP and Military did utilize these groups and Islamic ideology to achieve political and military objectives, but that was a policy decision influenced by geo-political dynamics and threats, and not something inherent to 'Pakistan's DNA or identity' while not being so for other Muslim nations.
As I said before, put another Muslim nation in Pakistan's place facing the same geo-political dynamics and threats and you might have the same results. Alternatively, change the course of historical events - no dispute over Kashmir, no Afghan refusal to accept Pakistan and support for terrorism in Pakistan, a Pakistani alliance/friendship with the Soviet Union, different leadership, no military coups etc. and with the same Pakistan there might be different results.
The problem with your and Dhume's contention is that you take a myopic approach to the situation, and because of an anti-Pakistan bias/prejudice automatically blame 'Pakistan's identity and DNA', when the reality is that any Muslim nation in Pakistan's position might have done the same, and Pakistan's policies were the result of complex geo-political dynamics and threat perceptions.
It is a highly flawed and narrow minded approach, that seeks to bolster an existing anti-Pakistan mindset and narrative.
Our choices are a culmination of the total executable actions to achieve our ambitions and goals for our future so even when the Afgan Jehad decisions were taken, the element of where the generals wanted to take the country was primary in the decisions even though now we discuss the realities in retrospect.
And what did the generals choose, they chose to exploit the Islamic identity of Pakistan to create a violent ideology to create the Afgan Jehad and then very conveniently continued to use the same against India. At one time, the idea was also to go after Iran. And I strongly believe that if it was Iran of today in 1987 then U.S would have stuck to you and would have done a sort of Afganistan in Iran and your army in the quest of their ambitions would have found another ingredient to add to the identity of Pakistan which would have been convenient for the public consumption and believe me, it would have been another tenet to do with Islam.
Flawed argument, because were his decisions based on a Pakistani narrative, why did he not do so in his teens or twenties? Why did thousands of Arabs, Chechens, Turks and European born and bred Pakistani and non-Pakistani origin Muslims join both the Jihad in Afghanistan during Soviet times, and after the US invasion, and continue to do so?
Sir, the point is that the participants in the Afgan Jehad came on their own volition and they came because your government provided them the space not their own governments at least not in their own society and with such impunity!!
And the fact that they still continue to do so shows that the tolerance that Pakistani psyche is exhibiting towards the existence of organizations which are attracting these individuals!!
It is something like that for good tourism there needs to be good infrastructure. Now people can be motivated to come to the good tourist destinations via advertising but finally the tourist will choose to visit places with the promised infrastructure and liesure.
You pose a question that you left unanswered, 'Now why would he do that?'
He would do that because of a perception that his people were under attack from the US, because of a perception that his people were being massacred by the US, because some Imam somewhere, directly or indirectly (at this point some suggest a Yemeni, but it is not confirmed) influenced him in his later life to commit a crime to avenge a perceived crime.
So how does this perception sets in to individuals. How do we gain perspective. We gain perspective from our family, our educational instutions, from our immediate environment, our friends, our colleagues and other cognitive sources that we research. Perception is not formed over a day specially a perception to justfy which, a person is ready to put everything good that he has seen in his life to sword and eternal infamy!! Hence I brought in the comment regarding his wish to join the Afgan Jehad. That is when the initial perception could have set in and I already explained to you in my last post my thoughts about how Pakistan army had exploited the Islamic identity of the nation and the affliction of its citizens with Islam to further their agenda in Afganistan.
No it doesn't - the Islamic identity is not the problem, the problem remains eliminating havens for militant groups, and acting against extremist Islamic ideology, whether spread through a neighborhood mosque or through the internet, and working to negate its effects.
An improper diagnosis that misses the woods for the trees, as you have suggested, won't help much at all. The problem is reversing the loss of State control over various regions and entities, and winning the ideological battle against extremism, not against Islam or an Islamic identity.
Sir, the terrorism and the extremist ideology prevalent in Pakistan is a mere result of the tunnel visioned policies of Pakistan army and government to further their ambitions. Going after the terrorist is of course the immediate action required, however to ensure that there is total elimination of this ideology, the govenment needs to ensure that the Islamic identity of the masses is moderated. Pakistan can continue to be an Islamic country albiet more pluralistic and tolerant. That message will only eliminate this ideology.
Pakistan and its government did no such thing as a matter of policy, that is an outright lie. Distortion and corruption of religion happened on its own accord, given the peculiar cultural and political environment in which it evolved. I will warn you once again to not ascribe false attributes to Pakistan's policies - there was never any intent to corrupt or distort, to produce suicide bombers and terrorists. The intent was solely to utilize a central tenet of Islam to motivate rebels to fight against occupation and subjugation, a noble cause. That it evolved into the monster it is today is unfortunate, but not something forecast or planned by those that devised the policy.
As I put forth above, Pakistan did not arrive at where it was in a day up to the choices of Afgan Jehad and neither does the corruption of a factor such as religion which is the single most primary thing in the genesis of Pakistan happen overnight. And no government can be absolved of any commission or omission claiming that it was not their policy.
By allowing the vaccum in which the religion could sprial in to where it is now, the government executed its motivated policy of yielding spaces to these terrorists and some of it is continuing to this day.
And all the above was only possible due to the Islamic identity of Pakistan.
