Saturday, January 18, 2014
Tableeghi Markaz bombing
THURSDAY’S blast at Peshawar’s Tableeghi Markaz throws up a number of questions. The atrocity is particularly puzzling not because of what happened, but because of where it happened. There is nothing new about terrorist bombings targeting mosques, imambargahs, other houses of worship or public places as Pakistan has been witnessing such events for over a decade. Instead, it is surprising that the militants would choose to strike a target that represents conservative religious thought. Perhaps this, yet again, shows that in the militants’ holy war, nothing is sacred. Tableeghi centres have been bombed in the past, most notably in Swat last January. While the TTP has been quick to distance itself from the Peshawar blast, we should remember that the Pakistani Taliban are not a homogenous group, as numerous outfits are functioning under the militants’ umbrella. So while the ‘official’ TTP spokesman may have denied responsibility, there is a distinct possibility that hardliners within the militants’ ranks carried out the bombing.
But why target the Tableeghi Jamaat, an apolitical, largely peaceful group that concentrates on preaching? After all, the group and many in the militant movement are ideologically linked, pledging allegiance to the Deobandi school of thought, even though the Tableeghis stress peaceful preaching, while the militants wish to spread faith by fire and the sword. There are a number of possibilities; some observers feel the militants are not happy with the movement, criticising the Tableeghis for emphasising preaching over jihad. Some Al Qaeda-linked Takfiri groups have actually issued fatwas against the Tableeghi Jamaat. So the bombing possibly was carried out to ‘teach’ the Tableeghis a ‘lesson’. Sectarian militants may also be responsible, while the role of foreign elements cannot be ruled out.
Of course, only a scientific investigation can help identify the perpetrators. But conducting such a probe will be difficult as, according to reports, volunteers washed the crime scene soon after the attack, while police and the media were initially barred from accessing the site. If such tragedies are to be prevented in future, organisers of religious events and administrators of mosques and other places of worship where large numbers of people gather need to cooperate with the authorities. Hundreds of people were in the mosque and fatalities could have been much higher had bomb disposal unit officials not defused a number of similar devices in the building after the bombing. When such large gatherings are taking place, it is essential that the participants are thoroughly checked, especially in cities like Peshawar which have seen a high level of terrorist violence. Meanwhile, elements within the state and political parties who are eager to talk to the militants must consider that if the Taliban are not willing to spare those who are ideologically close to them, what they can be expected to do to ideological ‘opponents’.
Wrong move by US
IT may not amount to a real tightening of the screws yet, but the palpable hostility towards Pakistan in the US Congress is a problem that can snowball suddenly unless it is dealt with soon. The latest anti-Pakistan — and what other way is there to describe it really? — measure on Capitol Hill is a thoroughly inappropriate attempt to tie economic assistance to Pakistan to yet another pet peeve of the US. Release Shakil Afridi, the doctor in prison who is linked to the attempt to verify Osama bin Laden’s presence in the Abbottabad compound, or forego some $33m in US aid, Congress has demanded. That is a bad idea. And so poorly thought out is Congress’s move that the other demand — to drop all charges against Mr Afridi relating to the American attempt to track down Osama bin Laden — is just factually incorrect. Mr Afridi’s legal woes stem from charges that have nothing to do with Osama bin Laden.
To be sure, the Pakistani state’s — or to be more direct, the security establishment’s — treatment of Mr Afridi is utterly deplorable and wrong-headed. Trying to essentially lock him up in prison and throw away the key on the most dubious charge of aiding militants is a thinly veiled attempt to punish him for the perceived embarrassment he caused to Pakistan by taking part in a sophisticated and enormous manhunt that ultimately found Osama bin Laden stashed away in Abbottabad. But a prosecution in bad faith in Pakistan does not automatically equate to the US Congress acting in good faith, or even being cognisant of a wider relationship between Pakistan and the US that both sides need to keep afloat. The congressional move — the most recent one in a string of new conditions being attached to aid to Pakistan — will invariably be seen in this country as an attempt to browbeat and intimidate policymakers here. That never has and never will work to either side’s advantage. But there is something that can be done on the Pakistani side that can help salvage an increasingly difficult situation: the new ambassador to the US must urgently attend to rebuilding ties with Congress and create a modicum of goodwill there towards Pakistan.
How far is too far?
IF the line between vigilance and vigilantism is thin, so too is the one delineating investigation from harassment. Television news channels need to pay more attention to these distinctions. There are too many instances where, in the headlong rush to get the scoop, the ethics that make the media a responsible fourth estate have been breached. Into this category falls the current trend, as highlighted by a recent feature in this paper, of non-fictional crime shows. Here presenters ‘investigate’ some practice they consider reprehensible, expose the supposed perpetrators and frequently prompt police action. There are many examples: a presenter demanding that couples out walking in a park prove they are married to each other, another accusing college students of visiting a brothel, a third asking inappropriate questions of transgender people who already live on the fringes of society.
That such material is considered suitable for putting on the country’s television screens is a sad indictment of the mindset of the electronic news media. While this can be blamed on misconceptions of what audiences prefer (for the data from which popularity is gleaned is sketchy, at best), this is also because of the way the electronic news industry mushroomed and people were able to get positions that they were under-qualified to serve. But the gravity of the issue is much deeper than the farce passing off as investigative journalism. This is about citizens’ most basic rights, and violations. Through such shows, many television channels have started behaving like judge, jury and executioner. Private spaces have been invaded without warrants, private business interfered with, private information has been splashed across the television screens — all without the media having the legitimacy to ask questions that, say, the police do. Meanwhile, in airing such fare and asking people to report wrongdoing to them, these shows stoke Pakistani society’s worst, most indecent, instincts. Surely there’s no need to go to such lengths.