Successive governments seem to have failed to implement the National Action Plan (NAP) adopted after the APS attack and the sad incident of Sialkot where a violent mob burnt to death a Sri Lankan national on the suspicion of blasphemy has once again sparked a debate as to what the state should do to curb the menace of extremism. Bol News talks to experts to discuss the crisis and the possible measures that are needed to be taken to handle the rising extremism as no institution or department can’t deal with it all alone.
Lt Gen (retd) Amjad Shoaib, political analyst
Lack of education is one of the major reasons behind extremism. Because of lack of education, our people are emotional regarding religion and religious affairs. However, some people use these emotions for their political purposes.
The firebrand religious leader and former chief of the TLP, Khadim Hussain Rizvi, had a gathering at Faizabad for several days in the name of religion and he was using the slogan of Labbaik Ya Rasul Allah. Was he doing any service to the religion?Lack of education is one of the major reasons behind extremism. Because of lack of education, our people are emotional regarding religion and religious affairs. However, some people use these emotions for their political purposes.
Three slogans – Khatm-e-Nabuwat, Tahaffuz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat and Nizam-e-Mustafa – have been used by religious parties over the years as people get emotional on these matters.
If the government wants to give a clear message to any party or group to stay away from such issues, it should ban these slogans’ through parliamentary legislation. Pakistan is a Muslim country and these issues have already been settled here.
Politico-religious leaders are to be held responsible for playing with people’s emotions as they have their own political agendas to fulfill. The leaders gather all the support in the name of religion.
The TLP now has become a party with no roadmap, agenda, or manifesto. They’re just playing with the emotions of the people. No one should consider himself a champion of the religion.
If the parliament stands united in giving this message then this issue can be addressed. If you play with the emotions of the people in the name of religion, it will have consequences. Lynching of Muslims in the name of religion in India is common. Hindutva has spread hate for other religions, caste and communities in India. With national consensus, this phenomenon can be defeated. However, I don’t think the state has surrendered to extremists or is pampering any of these groups.
If you talk about the recent agreement with the TLP, it was to avoid further bloodshed on roads. NAP was not a complete failure as the military did its job but the political leadership did not take action.
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif who introduced NAP just chaired a single meeting to review its implementation. When a premier doesn’t take interest, how could institutions working under him take the matter seriously? The PTI also did nothing for implementing NAP. The fault doesn’t lie in NAP but in our commitment.
Muhammad Amir Rana, Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS) director
The state has used religion for its political purposes and now religious extremists believe that religion is the state’s weakness and a vulnerable point. They manipulate the state and institutions by using religion. Extremism, nurtured and supported by the state and its elders is now striking at the very core values of the country and its existence.
Over the years, the state and its organs have used extremism as an important tool to further their political agendas in Pakistan’s heterogeneous society.he state has used religion for its political purposes and now religious extremists believe that religion is the state’s weakness and a vulnerable point. They manipulate the state and institutions by using religion. Extremism, nurtured and supported by the state and its elders is now striking at the very core values of the country and its existence.
This phenomenon is now posing a major threat to the very existence of the country, which has already lost half of its territory in 1971 thanks to mismanagement of a political crisis.Extremism has its roots even in nationalism. One of the most considered factors was Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which led to the Afghan Jihad in late 1970s.
The revolution in Iran and changes in the Middle East are also the other factors behind this menace. Extremism is a mindset and at least half of the time spent on its creation is needed to reverse it. Till now, the government of Prime Minister Imran Khan, as well as the previous political governments, has not made any comprehensive plan to tackle this menace. From top to bottom, we hear so much about dealing with extremism but what has been missing is a plan and a strategy to implement such a plan.
A lot is being discussed about NAP but nobody knows about its implementation and as to who is actually responsible for implementing it. NAP, if seriously implemented, would have helped a great deal in changing our collective behavior. There is a need for an effective plan to reform the curriculum in order to change the narrative to counter extremism. Unless the state doesn’t stop using religion for its political purposes, the menace of extremism cannot be controlled.
So there is a need for introspection in order to bring about a real change in our national policies and strategies. The nation and its political and military leadership must wake up to the challenges that need to be addressed without delay as we cannot afford more incidents like the recent Sialkot tragedy which has put a stigma on us as a nation.
Ihsan Ghani, National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA) former national coordinator
Enough has already been said and written about root causes of the prevailing extremism in the country but it’s time to think what we can do now to save our future.
From the era of Quaid-e-Azam to military dictators – General Ayub and General Yahya – and from Afghan Jihad to the war on terror, this phenomenon has existed but now we all should take responsibility in countering violence and extremism.nough has already been said and written about root causes of the prevailing extremism in the country but it’s time to think what we can do now to save our future.
We must accept that the Afghan Jihad and handling 9/11 were blunders.
If we analyze the last thirteen years of democratic rule in the country, we can safely say that no political government including that of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) took responsibility to combat the menace of extremism.
Not a single political government took ownership of Counter Extremism Violence (CEV) underlined in the 20-point NAP. Everybody said it was the responsibility of the army but they were wrong, absolutely wrong.
The army can only fight the enemy with bullets which it did successfully but political leaders didn’t play their part. The army can only conduct an operation but handling a mob doesn’t fall under their domain. They are not trained for this job.
The PPP adopted the NACTA Act in 2013 and before that the authority remained functional under an executive order for the five years. The next government of the PML-N put NACTA under the Interior Ministry through a notification but the then premier never took any responsibility and it remained a neglected subject.
This government of PTI abolished the Joint Information Directorate (JID) at NACTA. The CEV has been under the domain of parliament but our political governments didn’t take interest or ownership to counter militancy. National policy guidelines were framed but never implemented.
To counter violence and extremism is not the job of a single institution but collective efforts from all the organs of a state are required for success. When political people and political institutions don’t work and express their reluctance then somebody would be forced to act and they will act.
Behzad Taimur, geo-political analyst
The TLP presents an interesting case, particularly because everything about it is so divisive. It started with a cause that hardly anyone will stand to dispute. Yet, the methods it adopted were problematic and caused the general public trouble, earning the TLP a bad name. Then, the TLP entered democratic politics as a registered political party. Any participation in the democratic process should be cause for appreciation. Yet, the TLP continued with its brand of confrontational, adversarial and agitational politics.
Similar to this duality, the matter of TLP’s future prospects is also beset by its own dualism. On the one hand, the TLP embodies a spontaneous, grass-roots outpouring of popular disenchantment – with the present political parties, economic woes, social issues, and so on. For a country that is oft-regarded as a basket case of “elite capture” in multiple ways, a popular movement or party that seeks to link popular will of the generally under-represented and under-served, with political power, should be a welcome prospect. Similarly, a social group that seeks to participate in the democratic process, in particular through a registered political party, cannot be seen as a disservice to the cause of democracy – in general. Finally, even a predilection towards agitational politics is neither unheard of nor unique to the TLP. Almost all major parties in Pakistan have, at one point or another, wet their feet in the currents of agitation.
Having said that, and on the other hand, what TLP does as a political outfit and how it goes about trying to realize its political aspirations, is – and will remain – at the center of its future prospects. The TLP needs to tamper its rhetoric; better organize and train its cadres; and, above all, reinvent its modus operandi. Here, the manner of its participation in the democratic process may be seen as the most important determinant of its future and future politics. If the TLP can do this, it may gain some political currency; remain relevant to the politics of Pakistan; earn broader-based public goodwill; and, eventually, amplify its voice in and influence over political and administrative structures of the country.
However, if the TLP fails to do this, then, it is reasonable to argue, it may fizzle out. Conversely, if the TLP escalates its adversarial, agitational brand of politics, it is likely that the state will continue to view it as a threat to public order and safety.
