January  2003 
Year 9    No.83
Cover Story


Violence begets violence

Violence is an overriding theme and an underlying assumption in much of the world, especially these days with the all-pervasive ‘war on terror’ and its accompanying rhetoric. South Asia is no exception, and Pakistan is no different

BY BEENA SARWAR

Violence pervades all aspects of life here. It is manifested in the aggression witnessed daily on the streets and in homes. And it tends to overshadow the positive aspects of our lives – the generosity (material and spiritual), hospitality, tolerance and good humour that are also part of our tradition and that our people continue to demonstrate in the face of all odds.

Where does this violence come from?

The argument that poverty is the greatest form of violence has resonance in a region where palatial private homes overlook shanty towns in which human beings live an inhuman existence. It exists in the state’s glorification of war, and in the monuments it has erected to war and nuclear bombs in our cantonments and public parks – the Chaghi hills replicas, tanks and F-16s. It is there in some of the traditions that we are so reluctant to shed – concepts of ‘honour’ and greed for land, which can provoke blood feuds lasting for generations in tribal areas. It is there in the easy availability of arms and drugs, legacies of Pakistan’s decades-long involvement in the Afghan conflict.

The most dangerous form of violence in South Asia is arguably the threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan, which has the potential to annihilate millions of lives and scar the region for generations to come. It colours the statements of our politicians and leaders and underlines the fanaticism of non-state actors, who feed off each other’s thirst for the blood of ‘the other’. This threat cannot be dismissed as just so much rhetoric, all sound and fury signifying nothing. In fact, it plays a major role in the escalation of tensions and violence between our countries and within our countries.

When violence becomes part of the daily discourse, it is internalised and becomes more acceptable. Talk of war eventually gives the impression that war is inevitable, that there are no other options, thus reducing the pressure to seek other options. The discourse of violence dictates terms in our region, justifying increased military spending, and diverting finances from vital areas like poverty alleviation,food, housing, health care, education and social infrastructures – the real issues that our people face.

Besides finances, attention is also conveniently diverted from these issues. Also forced to digress from their work are those who are engaged in the fight for social justice — the fight against big dams and evictions, the fight for the rights of landless peasants, the fight for equality and human dignity, as Arundhati Roy put it last year in Karachi.

The rhetoric of war, whether it is by George Bush, Ariel Sharon, Atal Behari Vajpayee or Pervez Musharraf, gives non-state actors the cue to indulge in the other form of violence that we have all become so familiar with, using the rhetoric of religion, patriotism, or nationalism to justify their actions.

There is no religion that preaches violence, or justifies taking innocent lives. Yet, religion is routinely invoked by extremists on either side of the border who justify their violence on some righteous pretext or other. A recent horrific example is that of a serial killer who targeted sex workers in Gujranwala, near Lahore. In prison now, he was interviewed by Geo TV and showed no remorse. His justification was that he was following "Allah’s orders" in order to stop their immorality. "I did not aim to kill. If I had, I would have aimed at their heads, not their bodies. I was only trying to disable them," he said, "If any of them died, that was fate - their time had come."

This may be a single example, but it illustrates a particular mindset. Those who raped and killed in Gujarat also found some way to justify their violence, and place the onus on the victims. Those who threw hand grenades in Pakistani churches and targeted westerners with bombs similarly must have some kind of mental justification to enable them to live with themselves after taking innocent lives – or die, in the case of the suicide bombers among them.

Violence here is not exclusively directed at women and religious minorities or westerners, although these communities are undoubtedly more vulnerable – as the recent spate of attacks on churches and even a missionary school, demonstrate. We in Pakistan cannot afford to console ourselves with the thought that there has never been an attack like the one in India which claimed the life of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his three sons, or that a Gujarat-like carnage has never taken place here. Anything is possible in this climate of fear and intimidation, where self-righteous frenzy can take any form.

Violence is something that everyone lives with on a daily basis. Some are targeted because they belong to one or other ethnic group (although ethnic based violence has decreased over the last few years). Some are vulnerable because they belong to the ‘wrong’ sect of the majority religion and are considered ‘kafir’ (infidel) by some extremists. Dozens of doctors have been killed over the past decade just because they happened to be born into the Shi’a faith; several others have been killed for alleged blasphemy since the ‘blasphemy laws’ were enacted here.

These laws, along with the other so-called Islamic laws like the Hudood laws which blur the distinction between rape and adultery, need serious review, as recommended by human rights groups as well as Islamic scholars. They illustrate only too clearly the perils of using religion for political purposes. The results are far-reaching and horrific.

But there has been little serious attempt to address the issue of violence and its impact on society, particularly on the state or government level. The human rights conference convened by Gen. Pervez Musharraf proved to be just what human rights groups had predicted: a lot of lip service. Such debates at the legislative level have only served to reinforce negative stereotypes and beat back the voices of reason.

One example is the uproar created by an attempt in the Senate (upper house of parliament) during Nawaz Sharif’s tenure, to move a motion condemning the cold-blooded ‘honour killing’ of a young woman in a lawyer’s office in Lahore – at the behest of her parents who were against her attempts at obtaining a divorce. The senators moving the motion were shouted down abusively by those who felt that this was a ‘private’ matter. Almost four years after the act, her father — a businessman and former office holder of the Peshawar Chamber of Commerce and Industry – and mother – a medical doctor — have still not been arrested.

It is such incidents that are far more terrifying than the crude intolerance of rightwing fanatic outfits, which every now and then go on the rampage, smashing television sets and destroying satellite dishes, particularly in the NWFP and Balochistan provinces, or take out processions against ‘vulgarity’. Their justification for doing so is that cable television spreads ‘immorality’ because of the ‘provocative’ images of women that they broadcast – an argument that some feminists might agree with, ironically.

The threat of violence also targets ‘real’ women, out on the streets, or in their homes. When a section of society believes that women should look, dress and behave in a certain way and is willing to resort to violence to enforce this ethos, any woman perceived of ‘transgression’ is vulnerable.

A couple of years ago, Karachi was gripped by news of fanatics in shopping malls, using razor blades or knives to slash at the bare arms of women wearing sleeveless outfits – the sleeveless fashion had just made a comeback here (and is still very much evident in the big cities, at least). There was no truth to this rumour, which was apparently intended to intimidate women into ‘covering up’. In South India and Sri Lanka, women wearing the shalwar kameez feel threatened and intimidated because of a pervasive belief that this is a ‘Muslim’ dress, and that they should stick to saris. In the Kashmir valley, women risk being physically attacked, disfigured by acid or even killed if they ignore warnings by militant groups to wear a burqa. Ironically, the perpetuators of these threats and violence are not just men, but also women who subscribe to that particular world-view.

The underlying lesson is that dissent is dangerous, even in such personal matters as dress. Dress codes, particularly for women, have been made into a matter of national and religious honour and identity. Naturally, dissent on other, ‘more important’ issues, provokes equally unpleasant responses. On either side of the border, those protesting India and Pakistan’s nuclear policies and demanding that the two governments dialogue instead of threatening each other are routinely threatened.

Members of the Pakistan India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy were verbally abused at a press conference in Islamabad some years ago, by some ‘patriotic’ journalists of all people. This provoked a physical attack on the PIPFPD members by some religious extremists who were also present. Government functionaries react similarly. Last August, several hundred demonstrators marching to the Wagah border to stress the need for peace and friendship with India, were baton-charged by para-military troops posted there, despite the fact that they had permission from the Punjab government to proceed. Earlier, the Karachi police brutally dispersed a peaceful demonstration by members of the Joint Action Committee for Peace.

It speaks volumes for the State’s lack of commitment to peace that peaceful demonstrations by law-abiding citizens are intimidated and attacked, while the violent demonstrations held by extremist groups, at which effigies and flags are burnt and hate-filled speeches made, are allowed to be held undisturbed.

There is, on the whole, little effort to deal with the issue of violence and intolerance. Interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly, it is women-led groups (sometimes including men) that have taken up the issue of violence. In one instance, members of the Women’s Action Forum in Karachi tried to address the issue of ethnic violence in their city. They managed to make contact with women who had lost husbands, sons and brothers to the violence that had been holding the city hostage. Support group sessions were held, some of them very intense and emotional, with women speaking out for the first time about their fear and sense of loss.

Most such efforts focus on violence as it affects women — domestic violence, rape and child abuse, in Karachi, Lahore or Islamabad. Inroads have been made in rural areas through workshops and discussion groups led by non-government organisations. The Sindhiani Tehrik, a rural-based women’s movement associated with the political party Awami Tehrik, has managed to reach out to many women in the smaller towns and villages. Often their efforts have been directed at providing support to victims of domestic violence.

Other efforts, by peace groups and human rights organisations, aim to raise awareness on issues which address violence from a wider perspective — like poverty, skewed development priorities, the nuclear threat, India-Pakistan tensions, sectarianism and communalism, and so on.

These are just a few positive initiatives that address the issue of violence in society, although they do not address all facets of the issue and are clearly inadequate given the magnitude of the problem. It has to be addressed on a larger scale – ideally, by the governments of our countries, which should take the lead in scaling down on their rhetoric of violence for a start. Their policies provide tacit support to the non-state actors who have terrorised the lives of millions with their militant fanaticism. These groups need to be urgently curbed as well – but this will not happen until the governments change their policies.

It is a vicious cycle, which contributes to the phenomenon of aggression and depression in society, continues the pattern of poverty and illiteracy which in turn breed further violence. 

(The writer is a senior journalist and peace activist)


[ Subscribe | Contact Us | Archives | Khoj | Aman ]
[ Letter to editor  ]

Copyrights © 2002, Sabrang Communications & Publishing Pvt. Ltd.