Is this war of narratives?

[Man Jaanbazam]

"THIS is a war of narratives. There is a dire need to come up with counter-narratives. The menace of terrorism cannot be dealt with without countering the extremist, militant ideologies. Apparently, the debate on extremism has been stuck somewhere in the fold of narratives."

What you people think? Is this war of narratives? If yes, what should be counter narratives and how should be they implied?

P.S: These lines are from the article published in Dawn on last Sunday.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I fail to understand all this hullabaloo regarding narratives nowadays. To me, all this 'narrative talk' by the so-called 'analysts' and 'opinion-leaders' seems to assume common people to be half-wits.

This nation has been gradually shaped such that it became conducive to militancy. The venom of extremist ideologies hasn't been injected into the veins of this nation out of the blue. The socio-political conditions are to be blamed, and I believe our own successive governments are responsible for creating those conditions. Militancy of such a scale as we see around us doesn't arise out of some vacuum, some of our people consciously chose it as their only option in face of increasing hopelessness and alienation.

When charlatans shout on the TV and in the newspapers that a counter-narrative is needed to get rid of this rampant militancy/extremism, I can only shake my head. Do we actually believe that doings of years of bad governance and poor policy-making can be undone by a well-crafted counter-narrative? Do we actually think that we can simply practice mind-control in the form of so-called 'counter-narratives' on the dispossessed and marginalized communities and "hypnotize them out of their deprivations"--which in the first place made them vulnerable to extremist ideologies? I think it is utterly a manifestation of our (the ones who are relatively privileged) intellectual arrogance that we are considering our under-privileged people zombies who have no brains of their own and need our carefully engineered "narratives" to lead their lives accordingly.

I think this narrative-counter narrative approach is counter-productive and dangerous. We need to address real issues that concern our people and reverse those conditions that are at the root of this militancy problem. These discussions, at best, can only fetch temporary solutions (in fact, just distractions). Actual work needs to be done to bring everything back to normal.

[kingfalcon]

The counter narrative was there from the very beginning, it is Jinnah's Pakistan not Zia ul Haq's Pakistan.

[Xing Lee]

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

I fail to understand all this hullabaloo regarding narratives nowadays. To me, all this 'narrative talk' by the so-called 'analysts' and 'opinion-leaders' seems to assume common people to be half-wits.

This nation has been gradually shaped such that it became conducive to militancy. The venom of extremist ideologies hasn't been injected into the veins of this nation out of the blue. The socio-political conditions are to be blamed, and I believe our own successive governments are responsible for creating those conditions. Militancy of such a scale as we see around us doesn't arise out of some vacuum, some of our people consciously chose it as their only option in face of increasing hopelessness and alienation.

When charlatans shout on the TV and in the newspapers that a counter-narrative is needed to get rid of this rampant militancy/extremism, I can only shake my head. Do we actually believe that doings of years of bad governance and poor policy-making can be undone by a well-crafted counter-narrative? Do we actually think that we can simply practice mind-control in the form of so-called 'counter-narratives' on the dispossessed and marginalized communities and "hypnotize them out of their deprivations"--which in the first place made them vulnerable to extremist ideologies? I think it is utterly a manifestation of our (the ones who are relatively privileged) intellectual arrogance that we are considering our under-privileged people zombies who have no brains of their own and need our carefully engineered "narratives" to lead their lives accordingly.

I think this narrative-counter narrative approach is counter-productive and dangerous. We need to address real issues that concern our people and reverse those conditions that are at the root of this militancy problem. These discussions, at best, can only fetch temporary solutions (in fact, just distractions). Actual work needs to be done to bring everything back to normal.

I personally think that narratives are very important. Majority of the population of the world is "half witted", to borrow your terminology. If that wasn't the case, the world would have been a much better place to live in.

I do agree that addressing the root causes of a problem is a imperative for finding a solution for it, but what if one of the root causes is a propaganda narrative crafted by a hostile country through paid media, politicians and clergymen? Nothing but a counter narrative can work against that.

For example, terrorists in Pakistan and their sympathizers have long peddled the narrative that attacking the state of Pakistan and its security forces is jihad because Pakistan and its army is a stooge of USA and are taking dollars for killing their own brother Muslims. It is only through the constant repetition of this narrative in religious and other under privileged circles that potential terrorist sympathizers are produced who get involved in things like giving logistic or financial support to terrorist activities, or simply turning a blind eye towards their activities. They use the love of Islam in the hearts of our simple minded people and turn it into a plus point for their nefarious plans just with a power of an apparently strong and often repeated narrative.

If this kind of a narrative is not countered with an equally powerful and often repeated counter narrative, you can't expect to see the end of terrorism in Pakistan no matter how much terrorists you kill or how much you try to change the socioeconomic conditions of the people. We have had many reports of well educated people with a good income either financially/logistically supporting terrorism or directly being involved in terrorist activities just because of being influenced by this narrative. A narrative appealing to the religious sentiments of simple minded people can be such a powerful tool that it can only be countered with a counter narrative appealing to the same religious sentiments. Using their love for Islam for our benefit is the name of the game, and our enemy has proven to be far superior at it than us despite not being Muslim itself.

So how could a counter narrative to this be formed? Simple:

1. Make it mandatory for the print and electronic media to call the terrorists by no name or title other than khwarij or kharji terrorists. This constant hammering of the term would make sure that it enters the minds of everyone and they start calling them khwarij even in their private thoughts. The natural reaction of everyone would then be to find the meaning of the term khwarij. That's where step 2 comes in.

2. Gather the dozens of clear hadiths regarding the origin of khwarij, their vile nature, their suggested punishment by the Prophet i.e "death where ever you see them", and the Prophet's prediction of appearance of khwarij till the day of judgement under various names and banners etc. Once gathered, use the electronic and print media to proliferate them to the masses. Spend money to get discussions done about them on TV programs and newspaper columns etc. Get them incorporated in secular and madrasah education syllabuses. Even kids aged 5 should know this detail by heart.

Expected result? Hopefully, a clear reduction in sympathies for terrorists and their financial/logistical support by the public at large.

Another example, India is peddling a narrative among the members of US Senate these days that the US should not sell F-16s to Pakistan because instead of being used against terrorists, they will be used against India. Instead of simply saying that we are surprised by India's assertions, as our Foreign Office did, we could have peddled a counter narrative suggesting that India is objecting to the sale of more F-16s to Pakistan because they have proven to be so effective against terrorists in Pakistan that the ones supported by India are finding it very hard to operate. For the safety of their proxies, India has been forced to object to this deal because clearly 8 additional F-16s cannot alter the current balance of military power between India and Pakistan.

This would have been like killing two bird with one stone. You not only counter India's negative propaganda but also counter attack by implying that it is supporting terrorism in Pakistan.

Power of a simple narrative.