Pakistan: The Taliban takeover
Pakistan is reverberating with the call of jihad. Taliban-style militias are spreading rapidly out f
By Ziauddin Sardar Published 30 April 2007"You must understand," says Maulana Sami ul-Haq, "that Pakistan and Islam are synonymous." The principal of Darul Uloom Haqqania, a seminary in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), is a tall and jovial man. He grabs my hand as he takes me round the seminary. Maulana ul-Haq laughs when I ask his views on jihad. "It is the duty of all Muslims to support those groups fighting against oppression," he says.
The Haqqania is one of the largest madrasas in Pakistan. It produces about 3,000 graduates, most from exceptionally poor backgrounds, every year. The walls of the student dormitory are decorated with tanks and Kalashnikovs. A group of students, all with black beards, white turbans and grey dresses, surrounds me. They are curious and extremely polite. We chat under the watchful eye of two officers from Pakistan's intelligence services. What would they do after they graduate, I ask. "Serve Islam," they reply in unison. "We will dedicate our lives to jihad."
Pakistan is reverberating with the call of jihad. For more than two months, the capital, Islamabad, has been held hostage by a group of burqa-clad women, armed with sticks and shouting: "Al-jihad, al-jihad." These female students belong to two madrasas attached to the Lal Masjid, a large mosque near one of the city's main supermarkets. I found the atmosphere around the masjid tense, with heavily armed police surrounding the building. Though the students were allowed to go in and out freely, no one else could enter the mosque. The women are demanding the imposition of sharia law and the instant abolition of all "dens of vice". Away from the masjid, Islamabad looked like a city under siege.
A new generation of militants is emerging in Pakistan. Although they are generally referred to as "Taliban", they are a recent phenomenon. The original Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan briefly during the 1990s, were Afghan fighters, a product of the Soviet invasion of their country. They were created and moulded by the Pakistani army, with the active support of the United States and Saudi money, and the deliberate use of madrasas to prop up religious leaders. Many Taliban leaders were educated at Haqqania by Maulana Sami ul-Haq. The new generation of militants are all Pakistani; they emerged after the US invasion of Afghanistan and represent a revolt against the government's support for the US. Mostly unemployed, not all of them are madrasa-educated. They are led by young mullahs who, unlike the original Taliban, are technology- and media-savvy, and are also influenced by various indigenous tribal nationalisms, honouring the tribal codes that govern social life in Pakistan's rural areas. "They are Taliban in the sense that they share the same ideology as the Taliban in Afghanistan," says Rahimullah Yusufzai, Peshawar-based columnist on the News. "But they are totally Pakistani, with a better understanding of how the world works." Their jihad is aimed not just at "infidels occupying Afghanistan", but also the "infidels" who are ruling and running Pakistan and maintaining the secular values of Pakistani society. "They aim at nothing less than to cleanse Pakistan and turn it into a pure Islamic state," says Rashed Rahman, executive editor of the Lahore-based Post newspaper.
The Pakistani Taliban now dominate the northern province of Waziristan, adjacent to Afghan istan. "They are de facto rulers of the province," says Yusufzai. Waziristan is a tribal area that has historically been ruled by the tribes themselves. Pakistan has followed the policy of British Raj in the region. The British allowed tribal leaders, known as maliks, semi-autonomous powers in exchange for loyalty to the crown. Pakistan gives them the same power but demands loyalty to the federal government. They have been sidelined by the Taliban, however. Pro-government maliks who resisted the onslaught of the Taliban have been brutally killed and had their bodies hung from poles as a lesson to others. The Taliban have declared Waziristan an "Islamic emirate" and are trying to establish a parallel administration, complete with sharia courts and tax system.
Taliban-type militias have also taken control of parts of the adjacent NWFP. In Peshawar, one of the most open and accessible areas of the province, one can feel the tension on the streets. There are hardly any women out in public. The city, which has suffered numerous suicide attacks, is crowded with intelligence officers. Within an hour of my arrival in Peshawar, I was approached by a secret service official who warned that I was being watched. It is practically impossible for outsiders to enter other NWFP towns such as Tank, Darra Adam Khel and Dera Ismail Khan. In Dera Ismail Khan, outsiders - that is, Pakistanis from other parts of the country - need police escorts to travel around. You are allowed in only if you can prove you have business or relatives there. Girls' schools have been closed, video and music shops bombed, and barbers forbidden from shaving beards. The religious parties have passed a public morality law that gives them powers to prosecute anyone who does not follow their strict moral code. Legislation to ban dance and music is being planned. Even administration of polio vaccination campaigns has been halted amid claims that it is a US plot to sterilise future generations.
Why is the ostensibly secular government of President Pervez Musharraf not taking any action against the Taliban militants and the parties that support them? Part of the answer lies in the militants and religious parties having served the military regime well. After coming to power in 1999, Musharraf used them to neutralise the mainstream political parties - Benazir Bhutto's People's Party and the Muslim League, led by Nawaz Sharif. "The military and mullahs have been traditional allies," says the Islamabad-based security analyst Dr Ayesha Siddiqa. "The alliance of religious parties that rules NWFP came into power through his support." Musharraf also used the religious militants to destabilise Indian-held Kashmir by proxy. He encouraged extremists preaching jihad to infiltrate India for acts of sabotage.
The same is true of the Taliban. The Afghan Taliban have been a useful ally against unfriendly governments in Kabul. Even though Musharraf has been forced to go against them under pressure from the Americans, his strategy has been to try to contain them, rather than defeat them. He tried to regulate the madrasas in NWFP and elsewhere in Pakistan that provide recruits for the Taliban, seized their funds and banned them from admitting foreign students. But that's about as far as he wanted to go. Constant US pressure has forced him to send in the army, with grave consequences. Every time the Pakistani army enters Waziristan, it takes heavy casualties. Since 2003, when Pakistani troops first entered the tribal regions, more than 700 soldiers have been killed. Not surprisingly, Musharraf signed a hasty peace agreement on 5 September 2006 allowing the Afghan Taliban to get on with their business. "The military regards the Taliban as an asset," says Siddiqa. "So why destroy an asset? Particularly when the asset could be useful in the future."
That future may not be too far off. Pakistan's foreign policy towards Afghanistan is based on the assumption that the Nato forces there will withdraw sooner rather than later, leaving Hamid Karzai's regime to fend for itself. The Karzai government is strongly anti-Pakistani. But the Pakistani army needs friendly rulers in Kabul who would be willing to run the oil and gas pipelines that will serve the newly established port at Gwadar through Afghanistan's provinces (see page 32). So Pakistan needs the Afghan Taliban to exist as a force strong enough to establish the next government in Afghanistan.
Moreover, a pro-Islamabad Taliban-type government in Afghanistan would help establish peace in the northern tribal regions of Pakistan. Although Karzai himself is a Pashtun, most of the people in power in Kabul are Tajiks, a minority tribe. A sizeable majority of Afghans belong to the Pashtun ethnic group, which ruled Afghanistan for centuries. The position of Pakistan's military is that this imbalance "against the political history and tribal culture of Afghan istan", as one army officer told me, is not going to last. Most of the Pakistani Taliban - that is, the vast majority of people in Waziristan - are also Pashtun. And they will not rest until their brothers across the border hold the reins of power. As such, peace in this part of Pakistan depends on who rules Afghanistan.
Musharraf's strategy is to contain the Taliban of Afghan and Pakistani varieties alike, while weeding out al-Qaeda jihadis, or "foreign elements", as they are known in Pakistani military circles. The foreigners are a legacy of the Soviet-Afghan war. When the war ended, many of the central Asians who came to fight the Soviets were not welcomed back in their countries. For want of an alternative, they settled in Pakistan. Most of these foreign jihadis are Uzbek. Musharraf has simply bribed the local tribes to attack and eradicate the Uzbek jihadis. The battle between Pashtun tribesmen and al-Qaeda in Wana, southern Waziristan, in which more than 200 al-Qaeda fighters and some 50 tribal fighters were killed a fortnight ago was a product of this policy.
Musharraf's problem is that the Taliban cannot be contained. The Pakistani Taliban have now acquired enough confidence to break out of Wazi ristan and NWFP into other parts of the country. "What's happening at the Lal Masjid in Islamabad is a trial run for the rest of the country," says Rahman. "If the Taliban succeed in Islamabad, they will turn Pakistan into Talibistan."
Lawyers in uproar
While Musharraf continues to placate the Taliban, the rest of Pakistan is standing up against Talibanisation. Huge demonstrations have been held in Lahore, Karachi and other cities throughout Pakistan. To begin with, the protests were held to support Chief Justice Iftikhar Moham med Chaudhry, who was sacked by Musharraf in March. Chaudhry, who has become a national hero, tried to prevent the army from selling the national steel mill for a song. The affair was the latest in a long list of scandals involving the military. The openly unconstitutional act caused uproar, leading to countrywide protests by lawyers. But the lawyers have now acquired a broader agenda. They have become a national resistance movement, supported by all sections of society, against military rule and the Taliban.
Musharraf's response to the demonstrations and the Taliban challenge is to try to entrench himself even more deeply. While the country buckles under the pressure of suicide bombings, kidnappings and acts of sabotage, his main concern is his own survival. Constitutionally, he must hold elections some time this year - something he has promised to do, but the whole exercise will be designed to ensure that he continues as president for another five years.
His plan to get "re-elected" has two strands. The simple option is to get the current hand-picked parliament to endorse him for a second term and try to manipulate this vote, which the present sham constitution dictates, to ensure a healthy two-thirds majority. The heads of intelligence, the security services and the police have already been primed to ensure "positive results".
Bhutto to the rescue?
The other option is a bit messy. It involves making a deal with the former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, head of the Pakistan People's Party. Bhutto, who has been ousted from power by the military twice, is desperate to get back into power. She has a great deal in common with the general. She runs the People's Party as her personal property, and her social and economic policies - rooted as they are in feudalism and opportunism - are not far removed from those of the army. Her foreign policy would be the same as that of Musharraf; indeed, she is even more pro-American than the general.
So Bhutto and Musharraf, who have been negotiating with each other for almost three years, are an ideal couple. "The problem," says Rahman, "is that Musharraf does not want to give up his military uniform. It is the source of his strength. And the idea of Musharraf remaining military chief is anathema to Bhutto."
But the state of the nation, on the verge of political and religious collapse, may force Musharraf's hand. A deal between the general and the self-proclaimed "Daughter of the East" in which Musharraf retains most of his power as civilian president and Bhutto serves as prime minister may be acceptable to both. Rumours abound in Islamabad that a deal is imminent.
Bhutto's return from the cold would do little to stop Pakistan's slide into anarchy, however. The Taliban sense victory and will not be easily satisfied with anything less than a Pakistan under sharia law, or wide-ranging bloodshed. As Asma Jahangir, chairwoman of Pakistan's Human Rights Commission, makes clear, the country cannot survive its "deep-seated rot" unless the "unrepresentative organs of the state - the military, the mullahs and the all-consuming intelligence agencies - are brought under control". It is hard to disagree with her assessment. But it is even harder to see how these "unrepresen tative organs" can be stopped from dragging Pakistan further towards the abyss - with dire consequences for the rest of the world.
Pakistan: a short history
1947 Muslim state of Pakistan created by partition of India at the end of British rule
1948 First war with India over disputed territory of Kashmir
1965 Second war with India over Kashmir
1971 East Pakistan attempts to secede, triggering civil war. Third war between Pakistan and India. East Pakistan breaks away to become Bangladesh
1980 US pledges military assistance following Soviet intervention in Afghanistan
1988 Benazir Bhutto elected prime minister
1996 Bhutto dismissed, for the second time, on charges of corruption
1998 Country conducts nuclear tests
1999 General Pervez Musharraf seizes power in military coup
2001 Musharraf backs US in war on terror and supports invasion of Afghanistan
2002 Musharraf given another five years in office in criticised referendum
2003 Pakistan declares latest Kashmir ceasefire. India does likewise
2004 Musharraf stays head of army, having promised in 2003 to relinquish role
2005 Earthquake in Pakistan-administered Kashmir kills tens of thousands of people
2007 Musharraf suspends Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, triggering nationwide protests
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

18 comments
Just wait for it, a Talibainsed Pakistani, which is entirely an historical product of its 'secular' military, in cahoots with successive American and British governments, and their Sino-Korean-American (Cf. Richard Barlow) sponsored nukes. And of course hatred for a sexually degenerate West. The chickens are yet to come home to roost. A very loud bang and an entire city borough or district uninhabitable is surely on the cards? But of course Blair, the self-obsessed, money-grabbing war criminal, is proposing to preside over some rubbish Europeans call inter-faith dialogue. Oswald Moseley at least had good looks and breeding! And, alas, not even the serenity of a few ounces of truth on the verge of death en masse.
This is an excellent article written by someone who knows what is going on in Pakistan.
People in Pakistan needs to hang few generals of the corrupt pak (na ppak) army to remind army that they are accountable to the peole of Pakistan.
Pak army rule is the only and the only reason for the current state of Pakistan.
Cut the head of this monster (Pak army) rest (Mullah and intelegence agencies) will fizzle out in no time.
Cyber Age/ND Batra/24 October
What can India do for Pakistan?
From The Statesman (India)
Benazir Bhutto represents a future that must happen: a progressive, liberal and secular Pakistan that should become a model for rest of the Islamic world. That is in India’s national interest. Weak and unstable neighbors cannot make India strong. Pakistan’s problems are India’s problems too because the patterns of behavior of the two people are not dissimilar.
"The attack was not on me. The attack was on what I represent. It was an attack on democracy and it was an attack on the very unity and integrity of Pakistan," Bhutto told the global news media after the dastardly bombings that turned her triumphant return into an unmitigated tragedy. "We believe democracy alone can save Pakistan from disintegration and a militant takeover," she said with firm conviction even when others were wondering, Whodunit?
Pakistan is undergoing political and cultural turmoil that has of course not gone unnoticed by rest of the world. People opposing the authoritarianism of President Pervez Musharraf have been lawyers, journalists and other open-minded moderate groups trying to bring Pakistan under the rule of secular law. But the situation is much more complex; religious extremists’ attempt at keeping the country under siege, for example, is certainly not without the support of some strata of the all pervasive military.
The “pattern of ad-hoc deal-making between the Pakistan government and pro-Taliban militants along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border,” according to Dawn’s publisher Haroon Hameed, the CEO of the Dawn Group of newspapers, has been destroying the internal security of Pakistan. The solution to the problems does not lie in the imposition of emergency or martial law, but rather reviving the moribund democratic processes. Unlike most other Muslim countries, Pakistan is no stranger to democracy. It has a vibrant press, free and bold judiciary, and an intellectual class that is envy of the Muslim world. It is unfortunate that Pakistan is caught up between democratic aspirations at the top and religious obtuseness at the bottom.
Instead of depending upon the questionable political strength and commitment of Musharraf alone for war against terrorism, the United States has been reaching out to a wide variety of constituencies in Pakistan including the media, universities, businesses, non-profit organizations, tribal leaders and intelligence communities. Bringing Bhutto and Musharraf together to share power in a democratic framework has been so far the Bush Administration’s great diplomatic achievement. The democratic initiative will succeed if Bhutto and Musharraf accept each other as co-equals and co-dependents and realize that the enemy of Pakistan is embedded within the country and must be eliminated whatever it takes.
On a visit to Pakistan sometime ago, Vice President Dick Chaney urged Musharraf to do a lot more to curb the growing influence of Al Qaeda and Taliban and prevent them from rebuilding and strengthening the infrastructure of terrorism in the safety of tribal areas from where they have been operating to carry out terrorist attacks against Afghan and NATO troops. As the recent Karachi bombings show, Al Qaeda-Taliban groups have spread their tentacles more pervasively in the country. It is tragic that Pakistan has turned itself into a country warring against the very elements, Islamic extremism and militancy, that its super intelligence agency, Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), nurtured as tools of foreign policy.
Musharraf has not been to make a total break from the forces that have supported him in his hold on power and hence the reluctant approach for fighting terrorism. Since Musharraf cut the deal with tribal leaders relinquishing sovereign authority over the tribal territory, Pakistan has become a safe haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. John D. Negroponte, Deputy US Secretary of State, observed before a Congress Committee in February that Al Qaeda was “cultivating stronger operational connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders’ secure hide-out in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.”
Since Musharraf is not in full control of the forces operating in the divided country, what can be done? First of all, the United States forces should cross into the tribal territories in pursuit of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Bhutto, once she assumes political power, may be open to this idea since these forces threaten the integrity of Pakistan.
Bhutto-Musharraf must break the nexus between ISI and the Taliban and other sectarian extremist groups. ISI works like a powerful state within a weak state and it is necessary for the United States intelligence to penetrate its hierarchy with the ultimate goal of subduing this monster that terrorizes the country.
India should join hands with the United States and do a well-planned public and business diplomacy in Pakistan to reach out to the intelligentsia and middle classes, who have the same global aspirations as other countries with growing economies. The prospects of rapid economic growth and rising prosperity would present Pakistanis with an alternative future that is founded on science and technology and globalization, the future that Benazir Bhutto has come to symbolize.
(ND Batra who teaches communications and diplomacy at Norwich University is the author of Digital Freedom and is working on a new book, This is the America Way)
It is certainly true "that Pakistan and Islam are synonymous". This is because aside from its islamic identity Pakistan has no history - in sharp contrast to Afghanistan whose history goes back some 6000 years. For most Afghans their Muslim identity struggles to equal that of National- that is to say being Afghan is far more powerful a sentiment than being a Muslim. This has been the case for centuries. Even today the Pakhtunwali code at least rivals the concept of Jihad. And this is why every foreign force intent on controlling Afghanistan has only succeeded in kicking its own teeth. This nationalistic sentiment gets into bloodthirsty mode when there's a common enemy and there's no greater or more resented enemy than that against Afghan independence. Pakistani dictators have certainly capitalised on the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets: channeling hunderds of millions of C.I.A anti-russian aid thropugh I.S.I was just one example. In the post 9/11 world Pakistan was quicke to make a case for 'the lawless tribal belt' and soon deployed 80.000 troops into the area for the first time since its emergence on the political map some 60 years ago. Afghanistan does recognize the Durand Line and will not regardless of who is power in Kabul. In the last year not a week passes by that a Pakistani stooge is appearing in the US congress or US think-tanks begging America to pressure Karzai for a border-sttlement - the argument is always the same-to curb the emerging threat from the Pan-Talibanism. The creation of yet another proxy- the recently anounced Afghan National Front- this time as a joint conspiracy by Pakistan-Iran and Russia is yet another attempt to enter Afghan politics. But Afghanistan's neighbours should know that any Afghanisan has learned many lessons over the last 4 decades. It is a gross misinterpretation by Pakistan to believe that the US/NATO will be forced to leave. While sporadic violence remains a problem it is nowhere near the levels of Iraqi resistence. Afghans do not see ISAF as an occupying force, and the Taliban do not have grassroot support in Kabul, Central or northern Afghanistan. The I.S.I has succeeded in instigating violence in the South where literacy remains a very big problem. Also the al-Qaida factor is present. To put it short: if the Taliban wish to do Jihad they should first bring about a democratically elected government in Islamabaad. Afghanistan will rebuild its army and security forces- the Kabul security for example rests entirely on KHAD and its human-intelligence. Do not be in doubt: if the Afghans saw the ISAF as an occupying force they would be far less friendly.
What a terrible mess we've made of the world! Partition, the invasion of Afghanistan, backing the dictator Musharraf. The question I always ask myself is is it a case of stopping interfering or that we don't interfere enough? Fascinating article about this equally fascinating country!
"Taliban" style groups not only oppose human rights in general and women's rights and gender equality in particular, they are being allowed to challenge the very writ of the state with impunity. Such groups do not stop at vociferous denouncements and threats; they regularly use acts of violence to intimidate the population so as to forcibly silence any differing point of view. Civil society groups and NGOs working for women's development and rights have been particular targets.
The failure on part of the Pakistani Government to respond appropriately to the propagation of anti-women ideas by the local Taliban-style armed vigilantes is reversing any progress in girls' education and schooling, obstructing the access of girls and women to health facilities; impeding women's job opportunities and women's participation in political processes; and creating an environment that encourages discrimination against women and non-Muslims. Talibanisation seriously obstructs the work of civil society groups who support human rights in general and women's rights in particular.
The capital city, Islamabad, is currently under siege by local Taliban-style leaders who demand that the government enforce their misogynistic 'Islamic revolution' failing which they will take matters into their own hand. They have already done so: kidnapping and holding hostage two policemen, three women and a six month old baby for several days to prevent the authorities from demolishing illegally constructed mosques and religious schools.
Even more disturbing is the government's complete failure to effectively respond to the challenges being mounted by militant, armed, politico-religious elements using the pretext of religion to institute what is now being termed the "Talibanisation" of Pakistan, encouraging increasing numbers of self-styled vigilantes to attack citizens with divergent viewpoints.
In an open expression of outrage, thousands of women rights activists, members of different non-governmental organizations and civil society groups, on 19th April, held rallies across the country to protest against the rapidly growing Talibanisation and increasingly violent and intimidating tactics of the Lal Masjid clerics and Jamia Hafsa girl students and the government’s inaction to curb their illegal activities. Women groups in Pakistan vow to continue their struggle to condemn and protest against the growing phenomena of Talibanisation.
www.shirkatgah.org www.wluml.org.
"Musharraf's problem is that the Taliban cannot be contained. "
In other words, Musharraf's impotent version of Islam is unable to contain the Taliban's problematic version of Islam. And the version of Islam that's neither hasn't shown up to provide any solutions.
So much for the so-called "perfect way of life".
Will the real Islam please stand up? Please? 1400 years should be long enough to have it figured out by now, yah?
Why d'you categorise Pakistan 'Middle East'? Secondly, Talibanisation of Afgganistan during the Carter regime, even before the Soviet intrusion had a catalyst : Benazir Bhutto-government support.
Sankar Ray, Kolkata, India
What I always find pathetic, whether it's religion or politics, is the level to which people fail to have any confidence to make their own decisions. Signing wholeheartedly to any credo is often just another way of avoiding your duty to think/face difficulties. It's true of the fruitcake christians that surround George Bush, the people who ran/run the USSR/Russia, and these zombies in the madrasas. This is an awful era dominated by fools. If you have absolutely certainty about what you think or believe then you're probably wrong! Don't believe me? Think Tony Blair!
The army has been the curse of Pakistan ever since its inception, though you would be hung for saying it in public. It sucks up all the resources- there is a generous welfare state in Pakistan for the army. It is the root of all the current problems. There was no strong raison d’être for the existence of Pakistan, so the army/ bureaucracy had to create one- it found it in Islam. So over the years, the army/ bureaucratic state has emphasised how different we are from India and Indian culture. There has been a conscious effort to stress Pakistan’s affinities with the Middle East. Now an attempt is being made to undo all that. The army has also been a leading purveyor of mischief, the most recent example being the Kargil adventure. At that time, the army was unhappy about Nawaz Sharif’s overtures to India and the détente between the two countries. So it caused trouble in Kargil. As a Pakistani, it gives me no pleasure to say this, but the sooner that people realise that the army is the real curse of Pakistan, the better. Alas I fear people will never realise this.