The 8th of May 2002 was a dark day; one of the darkest in Pakistan’s chequered history. The killing of French citizens was shocking for those of us---which means most of us---who value peace, believe in the sanctity of human life and hospitality. I am writing this article on 10th May and today’s newspapers suggest that the groups which targeted innocent people in churches are the likely perpetrators of this heinous act. However, as there is not enough proof, one should avoid labelling people or jumping to conclusions.
Let me say, however, that I had the misfortune to predict that if the United States reacts with violence to the violence of 9/11 the world will become a nightmare for all concerned. I had advocated a non-violent phase of intelligence-gathering and judicial punishments for actual perpetrators of the violent crime of 9/11 rather than an all-out war in Afghanistan. It is no satisfaction to me to be proved right this time---indeed I have started dreading being proved right since most of what I predict is so terrible---but the fact is that I had predicted a rise in covert terrorist activities by people who feel wronged and oppressed. If this is happening---and I hope it is not---then we might be in for an Algerian or Egyption style of low intensity internal guerrilla warfare in which innocent people will be the worst sufferers. The French people, for instance, were innocent and if they have died because of the resentment of some people against ‘white’ people then we should really hand our heads with shame. No religion, as we all know, allows the killing of innocent people but saying this will not be credible for those who have lost their near and dear ones nor will Pakistan or Islam get a good image in the world.
Such actions have several kinds of costs. First, there are the psychological costs. Second, the political costs and third, the economic costs. The psychological cost is that a sense of insecurity is created. People are afraid to go out; to be social; to travel. Reports tell me that anxiety neurosis, depression and other mental illnesses always increase in times of war. They have increased in Karachi and survivors of wars and massacres report that they are subject to nightmares, sleeplessness, headaches and bouts of depression. If one counts the social-psychological cost, we get a callous society in which people apparently do not care. They want not to hear about suffering because they see too much of it and they want not to be assaulted by it. So, what we get eventually is a hard, callous, non-caring, violent society in which many are insecure and mentally ill.
Then there is the political cost. Internationally, despite the fact that this violence is probably (probably but not certainly since we do not have irrefutable proof) because certain groups against the United States are taking vengeance from the Pakistani state, the world will see it as evidence of Pakistan being a refuge of terrorists. This image will hurt us despite our having risked exactly this kind of reaction in the so-called ‘war against terrorism’. On the domestic front this will create more political instability. Even if governments do start functioning as a consequence of elections in October, they will lose the confidence of the people if there is this kind of violence. They may be removed but, beyond-making prime ministers weak and dispensable, the problem will not be solved. Moreover, violence breeds its own logic. It makes its practitioners so defiant and desperate that they go to great lengths not to allow peace to be established. This means that, politically, Pakistan will be an unstable state unless the violence can be controlled.
The economic cost of instability and violence has been very ably demonstrated by Dr. Azhar Hassan Nadeem in his recent book Pakistan: The Political Economy of Lawlessness (Oxford UP, 2002). In this book the author brings a vast array of figures to prove that whenever there has been peace and stability in Pakistan the GDP growth rate has increased and the unemployment has gone down. In periods of instability, on the other hand, GDP has gone down and people lose jobs. He has also calculated how economically devastating strikes and violent crimes have been in Karachi. This being so, we should expect more economic deprivation in the long run unless things change for the better. Even if the French do not withdraw their government-level cooperation, private businesspersons will be shy of investing in Pakistan. How can one blame them, after all, if their investment and lives are not safe. This will means less jobs which in turn means that there will be more desperate, hungry young men ready to join armies of terrorists working in the name of ethnic grievances, national honour or religious sensitivities. Thus the vicious circle will continue and we will always keep sowing the dragons’ teeth and reaping---we know what!
It is difficult to suggest what should be done because things have such deep and complicated roots that nothing really significant can be done unless one changes certain very deep and basic realities. For instance, it would be useless to start by asking the United States to change its policies so as to give less grounds of complaints to those who oppose them. It would also be unrealistic to suggest that our own government should pour in massive investment into social services, education and industry so as to rehabilitate those who are unemployed, bitter and alienated from past policies. Such suggestions are likely to be shrugged off as being idealistic and academic. Moreover, they will have effects in so many years that present decision-makers will be prone to dismiss them as inanities which utopian philosophers churn out because they have little else to do.
Maybe if I suggest such short-term measures such as not alienating the tribal areas by allowing foreigners to operate there; improving policing by making the police better equipped and less prone to be misused or dictated to by powerful people or institutions; making the police more polite, better behaved and constitutional in its working which means not resorting to third degree methods to extracts information; awarding punishments without fear or favour but only after due process of law---then maybe these short-term measures might find a hearing. I would also suggest that any foreigner assisting the defence forces should be lodged in a military mess which is presumably safer than any hotel (and less costly to boot). Other foreigners too should be protected adquately but not by humiliating Pakistanis as the police often does because that simply makes some Pakistanis transfer their anger from their own police to the innocent foreigners. The bottom line, as far as short-term measures is concerned, is that the government should take steps to end the alienation of sections of the people from the government, state institutions and official functionaries without, however, allowing criminals to feel that they can go scot free if they serve any cause of the state however necessary it appears at that time.