Cycle of violence

Dr Muzaffar Iqbal
October 17, 2009

As the season changes and 2009 hurls to its inevitable end--with an ever-changing yet ever-present scenario of random as well as planned violence, inflicting lands stretching from Afghanistan to Iraq with Pakistan at the centre--one is inclined to look at the grand scheme of things from which this unbridled violence has emerged to claim thousands of lives. What has made these ancient lands so full of violence and death? Why is so much blood being spilled in certain countries of the world and not in others? What is behind this ever-present scene of ruthless killing of human beings in these lands which are supposed to be filled with a sense of security and peace because the majority of people who inhabit these ancient lands are Muslim--that is, those from whose hands other human beings are supposed to be safe?
The case of Iraq is rather clear: a ruthless military dictator came to power, established an unjust system of governance and ruled with an iron fist, until he became too big for his boots: his ambition invited foreign players who used him against Iran, then overthrew him and killed him once he started to misbehave. The illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq led to the destruction of whatever system there was and killing and displacement of millions of human beings. Thus violence was sowed in the land and it is being harvested.
The case of Afghanistan is likewise explicable: The Soviet invasion of 1979 brought this sleepy pre-modern land to the forefront of an international confrontation, and the American involvement in its affairs since then has been at the root of all its problems. It continues to remain under American occupation and thus, after thirty years of violence and with continuous occupation by foreign troops, it has little possibility of peace.
The case of Pakistan is rather strange: it seems that this land was hurled into the fire, rather than giving birth to a now intensifying cycle of violence and death. Despite its political instability, Pakistan was still a peaceful land until Z A Bhutto was hanged at Central jail, Rawalpindi, on 4 April, 1979. Whatever the personal shortcomings of Z A Bhutto, he was a man of a previous era--an age in which politics still followed certain rules of conduct and his famous declaration about the murder case against him still holds: My lord, he had said in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, this is not a case of murder; it is murder of a case.
Despite his political activism and grassroots appeal, it was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who planted seeds of violence in Pakistan. His socialist policies, coming so late in the day when the entire world was moving in the opposite direction, his failed economic policies which slowed down Pakistan's economic progress, and, most of all, his human-rights abuses, especially those in Balochistan, certainly destabilised Pakistan and strained its already weak socio-political fabric.
As if this was not enough, the military dictator who replaced him poured oil over fire by opening Pakistan to the Afghan drug trade and American weapons: thousands of Pakistanis were recruited to fight a war in Afghanistan, which despite its glorious title of Afghan Jihad, was, in the final analysis, an American war. Thousands more came from other parts of the Muslim world through a well-advertised and well-funded campaign.
In the heydays of the Afghan Jihad, no one was concerned about the after-effects of that war; no one was concerned about the spread of weapons in Pakistan and the consequent emergence of smaller groups which would turn their weapons against the state once the Afghan Jihad was over. True, Afghanistan needed to be released from the Soviet iron fist and there as an Islamic imperative for this, but the same Islamic imperative also demands sagacity in matters that involved the living conditions which would affect future generations. No one was concerned about what would have happen once the Soviet army retreats; no one was inclined to look into the consequences of playing with the fire as if the terrible price of such a play was a joking matter.
Since the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, Afghanistan has remained filled with violence, and the ever-increasing circle of the violence that originated in that country is now sweeping through Pakistan. The uncontrollable smaller units of armed men can walk into any city, mosque, building, or other public space and kill at will. This is not what the 180 million people of Pakistan had hoped for; this is not the dream for which millions of people sacrificed their lives and property in 1947; this is not the consequence of anything that emerged from within Pakistan; violence is a foreign element that has intruded and penetrated every nook and corner of public life in Pakistan.
Yet, despite its ubiquitous presence, the present cycle of violence cannot be allowed to become the defining feature of Pakistani polity; it must be brought to a full stop and a new beginning needs to be made for the future of Pakistan. That new beginning requires an entirely new paradigm--an entirely new operative mechanism at the national level. This new policy directive needs to come into existence through a thorough and critical analysis of the present state of affairs, keeping in view the historical roots of violence and the multi-directionality of the very volatile situation that now exists in Pakistan. This is not a weekend project; it requires deep understanding of historical forces which have pushed Pakistan into the cycle of violence and fiercely independent and sincere minds which can come up with a blueprint for a different future for Pakistan. In the absence of such an exercise, the default would be the continuation, even escalation, of violence which now grips Pakistan.
Courtesy: The News