To Chain a Spectre

The tussle between a clutch of jehadi groups and the Pakistan government took a new and serious turn when the authorities in 'Azad' Kashmir asked four little-known Kashmiri militant groups—Mujahideen Jammu and Kashmir, Karwan-e-Khalid, Zarb-e-Momin and Zarb-e-Islami—to close their offices. This order came after the Musharraf regime made public its plan to take tough measures against militant groups, including a proposed ban on display of arms and restrictions on raising funds for jehad.

Though none of the four groups is part of the Muttahida Jehad Council (mjc), the 18-party alliance of mujahideen groups, the decision to curb their activities is perhaps aimed at preparing the more important militant outfits for an increasingly restrictive environment for their future operations. But jehadi leaders are not going to acquiesce easily. Says chief of Mujahideen Jammu and Kashmir, Zahoor Ahmad Butt, "I can't understand the government's decision. I am not going to accept it and we'll defy the ban. No one can stop us from waging a jehad against usurpers in the occupied Valley." Indeed, the government has belatedly realised the inimical influence of jehadi outfits on the country. The ball was set rolling on February 12, when interior minister Lt Gen (retd) Moinuddin Haider declared, "I've already ordered that banners on jehad fund-raising be removed. No one will be allowed to force people into giving donations for purchase of weapons in the name of jehad. There's no jehad going on in Pakistan."

Initially, many doubted the military regime's seriousness and thought it was yet another instance of playing to the international gallery. But the ministry of interior is already drafting a code of conduct to regularise the activities of Islamic militant outfits in the country. The draft code of conduct, which all militant outfits will have to sign, reportedly states that the jehadi outfits will not be allowed to openly display arms nor set up camps to collect funds on streets and outside mosques. More importantly, the groups will have to submit their accounts for periodic auditing. Convinced of the government's intentions, the militant groups have been quick to throw the gauntlet, hoping to push the Musharraf regime on to the backfoot. Demanding Haider's resignation, Jamaat-i-Islami chief Ameer Qazi Hussain Ahmad declared, "Jehad is a way of life for Muslims and part of religious practices so it cannot be abandoned. The military regime is promoting the cause of the Americans by discouraging jehadi activities". Adds Lashkar-e-Toiba ameer Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, "People give funds or take part in jehad according to their own will. They do this deeming it as an order from Allah. The collection of donations will continue. We neither force anyone to donate money nor create impediments in the enforcement of laws."

That the government means business this time round can also be discerned from the immediate backdrop to the announcement of tough measures against jehadi outfits. For one, Haider made his observations on his return from Kabul where, in talks with the Taliban, he discussed the nagging problem of rabid sectarian elements taking shelter in Afghanistan after committing terrorist acts in Pakistan. Subsequently, Haider asked the National Crisis Management Cell (ncmc) to compile data on all organisations involved in raising funds for jehad, and what their precise source of funds are.Military sources say that before the government declared its intention of imposing a ban on fund-raising, a study was conducted which revealed that around 13,000 to 15,000 religious schools (deeni madaris) were graduating 35,000 to 40,000 students every year. The total budget of these institutions was estimated to be a whopping Rs 1.5 billion, more than the combined expenditure of all of Pakistan's universities. The study identified Saudi Arabia and Iran as principal donors among a clutch of other Muslim countries.

Massive foreign funds have given a fillip to sectarianism, especially as Iran and Saudi Arabia endorse a more obscurantist version of Islam. No wonder some policy-makers see the foreign funding of jehadi groups as outside interference in Pakistan's affairs. Says a former diplomat, "By allowing Iran and Saudi Arabia to fund, influence and use sectarian organisations of their liking, successive governments have virtually encouraged Teheran and Riyadh to fight a proxy war on Pakistan's soil."

But so emboldened have these groups become that they are now openly defiant of the proposed curbs. Says Jaish-e-Mohammad's Maulana Masood Azhar, who was released by the Indian government after the Kandahar hijack drama, "Civil wars broke out in Algeria and Egypt when their governments tried to put restrictions on jehad. In Pakistan, too, some foreign powers want a confrontation between the military regime and jehadi groups." The jehadi outfits are convinced that the government's proposal of a ban on fund-raising emanates from the US. While this could be a case of gross exaggeration, many experts believe Islamabad can't ignore Washington's growing concern about Pakistan emerging as a breeding ground of terrorism. They point out that the US state department's annual report on the patterns of global terrorism has severely criticised Pakistan, among other things, for its failure to persuade the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden; its continued support of militant groups; and its refusal to close down certain Pakistani religious schools which provide footsoldiers for waging jehad in Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya and other hotspots. Sources in military circles say the decision to contain the jehadis was taken after Musharraf directed government officials to change Pakistan's image from that of a fundamentalist state to a moderate Muslim state.

The jehadis, though, want to portray the military regime's measures as anti-Islamic. The central ameer of Harkatul Mujahideen, Maulana Muhammad Farooq Kashmiri, thinks the government is violating Islamic injunctions by barring people from donating money to militant outfits. "On the one hand, the regime is making lofty claims of enforcing an Islamic system in the country while, on the other, it is bent upon damaging jehad in Kashmir. The man who has described jehad as extortion has no right to remain the interior minister of an Islamic state." Such rhetoric forced Gen Pervez Musharraf to clarify that the proposed ban will encompass only open display of arms and not donations to jehadi groups. However, soon afterwards, Haider reiterated the regime's intention of banning fund collection and controlling the jehadis. But until the code of conduct is made public, the precise nature of the curbs on these groups will remain a matter of speculation.

But many restrictions certainly seem to be in the offing.And some militant groups have started evolving a strategy to deal with the emerging situation. The Jamaat-e-Islami has already challenged the proposed ban in the Lahore High Court, terming it a violation of Islamic injunctions, basic human rights and the Constitution of Pakistan. It is likely that some mujahideen leaders will join the Jamaat-e-Islami petition in which the court has called for a report from the military government. The country's liberal circles, however, are enthused at the regime's belated rethinking about the impact of jehadi groups on civil society. They contend that it isn't a healthy sign to witness the mushrooming of groups whose origins are never documented, whose operations conflict with the larger good of the citizens, and who forcefully dictate their agendas on others.

Says Imtiaz Alam, editor, current affairs, The News International, "There is a clear distinction between jehad and terrorism. Islam explicitly prohibits terrorism and defines jehad as a struggle against injustice of any kind. But, over the years, the activities of some militant religious groups have become indistinguishable from terrorism, thereby damaging Pakistan's reputation as a stable, moderate and forward-looking Islamic country." And that's something Pakistan can't afford to be perceived as, what with its creaking economy and recurring sectarian strife.