When hawks coo

Maulana Fazl-ul Rahman, the chief of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam and secretary general of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), the major opposition party in Pakistan’s National Assembly has said all the right things that appeal to the Indian heart and mind short of criticising the Taliban and the phenomenon they represent. The Maulana has supported the need for peace, of dialogue as the means of achieving it, and believes that bilateralism is the only way out since any external player would inevitably bring its own interests to bear on the issues. These are unexceptionable sentiments and contain the potential for re-ordering the nature of relationship between Pakistan and India.

Knowing the position taken in the past by hardliners like him and the role of jihadis in and from Pakistan, the question uppermost in our minds is why this change of viewpoint. This is even more relevant since the head of MMA is a political figure of consequence in Pakistan. The simplest answer may be that the Maulana is seeking increasing political space and legitimacy for the MMA, at home and abroad. After all, Pakistan has once again started to become engaged in electoral politics, albeit within the framework of the legitimisation of the army’s dominant share in the domestic power structure. At the same time, if what we are hearing from the MMA leader was taken along with recent articulation in public and private by prominent Pakistanis, it would be difficult to escape the impression that the Pakistani leadership is under pressure. The fear is that after Iraq, it may be Pakistan’s turn. But a recognition that the earlier policies are no longer acceptable to a world that has declared war against terror may take time to acquire permanency.

Jihad of the type preached and promoted by many religious hardliners today stands de-valued, if not totally discredited. Even Saudi Wahhabism has retracted from the earlier ideological underpinnings which spawned extremist violence of the 9/11 variety. Jihadi infrastructure —including funding and sanctuaries — is under attack. Madrassas, the traditional institutions of learning so valuable for the poor, have come under severe pressure because many of them became the training ground for ethno-religious separatists. Because of these and a host of other reasons, Pakistani elites are in search of opportunities to get out from the cul-de-sac they had driven themselves into. This may be a temporary phenomenon to escape short-term pressures, but we should take advantage of the situation and move forward to build long-term interdependence and new stakeholders in a bilateral relationship with Pakistan. Such a process should be pragmatic and free from both the rancour and the euphoria of the past.