The secretary general of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Liaqat Baloch, was one
of several politicians at a recent report launch on peace and conflict
in Pakistan. High-level representatives of several political parties
were present, along with noted commentators and representatives of NGOs
and embassies. As the conversation veered to a discussion of war, Baloch
tried to bring the crowd home. "See the behaviour of the powerful, the
feudals, the government in this country. We need to talk about the daily
problems of the common man — health, food prices, income."
Baloch was the only one to turn a conversation about peace in
Pakistan, to one about social justice. He may have been trying to divert
the conversation away from one about militancy, but the idea was
relevant. It coincided more with the findings of the report, "Understanding the Dynamics of Conflict and Peacebuilding in Pakistan: A Perception Survey",
by Search for Common Ground (SCFG) and the Sustainable Development
Policy Institute (SDPI), than the conversation at its launch at Serena.
For urban and rural Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) and Fata, the report
states, "On average, political parties, religious groups, and feudals
combined were perceived as the main actors in conflict by about half the
respondents, followed by militant and extremist groups at 30 per cent."
In the national urban survey, "Social inequities between the rich and
the poor (34 per cent), the powerful and powerless … were amongst the
highest ranked reasons for conflict in all districts."
When asked how to define conflict, survey respondents had a
sophisticated view. The majority defined conflict as a difference in
perspectives or opinion. In K-P and Fata, only some respondents — just
35 per cent in Peshawar — included the presence of violence or war in
their definition. However, people in other urban areas, and especially
in Gilgit, included violence at a high rate.
Underdevelopment may or may not lead to war, but the idea that social injustice in itself is a form of violence is supported by political philosophy.
When Johan Galtung, founder of the discipline of peace and conflict
studies, expounds on the meaning of violence he writes, "‘War' is only
one particular form of orchestrated violence … how narrow it is to see
peace as the opposite of war …". Instead, he talks about social,
structural violence, which often has "exploitation as a centrepiece." In
a violent structure, he writes, "some, the top dogs, get much more out
of the interaction in the structure, than others, the underdogs".
The result is that a category of society experiences daily violence as an inability to fulfill basic human needs.
When faced with the term 'conflict', we see the violence that
threatens us, physically and socially. Overwhelmingly, the SFCG/SDPI
survey respondents understood the term to mean social conflicts and
indirect violence. The discussion among societal top dogs, at Serena in
Islamabad, reflects a much narrower view. Their discussion quickly
assumed that these terms referred to militancy and overt violence. In
her closing remarks, former ambassador Sherry Rehman related the
discussion to violent intolerance and the threats she receives.
The point is a natural one: we should not escape a discussion on
conflict in Pakistan without addressing violence as most citizens
experience it on a daily basis. The SFCG/SDPI report tells us that most
Pakistanis see 'conflict' as intricately tied to an unfulfilled demand
for social justice and peace as more than the absence of war. In Quetta,
for example, the major causes of conflict were identified as weak
governance, exacerbated by a lack of accountability and leading to
corruption in service delivery.
The rhetoric of the religious right heavily employs the language of
social justice and welfare. For them, it is not just political language.
Since its advent, Islam has always spoken to the underdogs of society.
Peace and justice are mutually reinforcing concepts. The state of peace,
for individuals and society, is seen as a state where justice is in
abundance.
Like most rebel movements, which challenge the authority of a
perceived 'unjust' state, insurgent groups in Pakistan survive not only
on fear, but also on a mix of popular support and a demonstrated ability
to co-opt power and resources for its followers. They deploy violence
in the name of justice, while governments respond with violence in the
name of peace. People may suffer war in hopes of a more equitable
future. They may not subscribe to the promise of peace from a cocktail
of ruling powers perceived to be unjust.
The international community, which drives the discourse about
Pakistan even within Pakistan, also defines conflict in relation to
itself. It is largely concerned with manifest, overt violence that has
the potential to extend beyond Pakistan's borders. But Pakistanis must
decide if building peace in Pakistan means a more equitable distribution
of power and resources, and giving equal importance to the daily
violence that we have learned not to see.
|
