The recent terrorist attacks in China's Xinjiang and the involvement of terrorist camps operating in Waziristan and nearby areas have raised serious questions about Pakistan's commitment to battle terrorist groups. Although Pakistan's complicity in sustaining and supporting terrorist groups of various hues has not been a secret, Beijing's direct accusation changes the game for Islamabad. Both China and Pakistan are closely allied on strategic terms but the issue of terrorist groups trained in Pakistan carrying out attack in Xinjiang can harm the equation.
Historically, extremism in Pakistan has been inextricably linked to politics and foreign policy. Today, relationships between Pakistan's political parties and militant jihad groups remain elusive. Is Pakistan's position on the 'war on terror' simply another tool of expediency, to be changed and manipulated as respective political benefits shift?
Ostensibly, the federal government has a tough stance on terrorism and militancy. The legal system boasts a barrage of anti-terrorism legislation and much of Pakistan's relationship with the US, albeit currently strained, is underpinned by commitments to eradicate non-state militant groups. Last month India's outgoing foreign secretary Nirupama Rao talked of a 'concrete development' in the resolve of the Pakistani government to tackle all forms of terrorism. On one level Jihad groups which advocate violence to achieve their aims are viewed as a force directly oppositional to political dialogue and maneuverings.
In reality the dichotomy between politics and militancy in Pakistan is a false one. The relatively new transition of Islam as a faith to Islamism as a political ideology has proved an irresistible resource to state actors. In Pakistan jihadism and an aggressive nationalism based on religious identity have historically been cultivated by both civilian governments and the military for foreign policy designs in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Similarly political parties negotiate the 'tightrope' between canvassing votes amongst the disenchanted masses through support rallied by religiously conservative or radical groups while maintaining the semblance of political legitimacy.
No group illustrates this more than the Jamaat-ud-Dawa. The JuD has been sanctioned by the UN as a Global Terrorist group and is banned by Pakistan's government. The group is widely viewed as the front for the militant group, the LeT, believed to be responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. After the LeT was proscribed, the JuD distanced itself from the group claiming there was no official link beyond the fact that they used to be 'like-minded'. The JuD's remit is much wider than that of the LeT. As a group they are involved in charity work, humanitarian aid (as seen during the 2010 floods) and political rallies. Not only has their work provided funding for the LeT, but they play an essential part in winning the hearts and minds of potential radicals. In an interview with Myra Macdonald JuD spokesman, Muhammad Yahya Mujahid spoke of his commitment to 'preaching through welfare' and denied any political agenda, elsewhere calling politics a 'dirty' business.
However this is not compatible with the warning issued to India in June at a seminary in Karachi not to 'strike' Pakistan where senior leader Abdur Rehman Makki also praised Osama Bin Laden and made inflammatory comments about the US. Similarly the JuD was supportive of the assassination of Salmaan Taseer based on his political stance regarding blasphemy laws. The JuD also holds political opinions on issues ranging from Kashmir to Indian Dams hindering Pakistan's water supply. Despite not being a 'political party' the group has a clear political agenda and considerable political sway. Instead of being reigned in by the government, last year Punjab's Chief Minister allocated Rs 86m to what has been termed the 'terror nursery' of the JuD, at the same time cutting funds for culture and youth affairs. Despite international censorship the group continues to operate unchecked, and even supported, by the PML-N.
Pakistan may continue to profess a commitment to tackling terrorism. However the gap between rhetoric and reality will continue to exist until secular and moderate political parties find a way to carve their own identity, one which resonates with the wider population. Until such time, the murky, mercurial relationship between politics, religion and terrorism in Pakistan will continue, rendering claims of a tough anti-terror stance disingenuous.
Katie Trim is Research Intern, ORF
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
