The Black Rainbow Page 2

  “Do you expect anything special?” Ali asked.

  “Not really.” There’s no option for the government but to go all out against terrorists and extremists. Hence, the premier’s announcement will be more or less a formal statement of what the government is already doing.”

  “Father, forgive me, but do you really think we can win this war on terror? Should we not engage the militants and thrash the matter out? After all they are our own people; misguided souls though they may be.”

  “Well son, the government in the past has tried to engage them but without success. These people are not amenable to reason. I have personally interviewed some of their leaders and the message was loud and clear: that it is a war between Islam and kufr and they’ll not set at rest unless they win.”

  “But they are partly right. We are fighting America’s war. Aren’t we?”

  “No, I’m afraid this popular perception isn’t correct. It might be America’s war to begin with but now it’s our own as our people are being killed and our assets destroyed. While Americans are safe in their country, our people are in the line of fire.”

  “But father, can a nation win by conquering its own people. When the victorious and the vanquished are the same people, success becomes meaningless.”

  “Your question is interesting,” Mr Naqvi responded, “but I’m afraid I have to hurry. So we leave the discussion here.”

  Terrorism and the war against it was the question which agitated the mind of every Pakistani man and woman, young and old. The country was in the grip of terrorism of the worst kind. Hardly a day passed when a suicide blast did not occur. While every one was alive to the repercussions of the menace, opinion was divided as to who was responsible for the malady and how it was to be treated.

  There were people who believed that the war on terror was essentially America’s war and that Pakistan was being used merely as a pawn on the chessboard of America’s counter-terrorism strategy. These people would call upon the government to quit the American alliance, announce a unilateral ceasefire with the militants and initiate a dialogue with them even if it were on their terms. Then there were people, like Mr Naqvi, who were of the view that the war on terror was very much Pakistan’s own war as it was being waged on Pakistan’s soil and it was Pakistanis who were being targeted. Therefore, the war should be taken to its logical conclusion. These people weren’t against a dialogue with the militants but only with those who laid down their arms.

  Having taken breakfast, Ali switched on the TV. During the last few years, the government had allowed private TV channels to go on air and at present some three dozen of them were operating. Most of them were news channels, which fully exploited the volatile situation in the country.

  By the afternoon, most of the channels were telecasting the prime minister’s press conference live. As Mr Naqvi had hinted at, the PM announced to wipe out terrorism and ruled out any compromise with terrorists unless they surrendered. “Either we or they”, was his concluding remark.

  Chapter 2

  Dr Junaid parked his car in the vast compound of a villa on the outskirts of the city and walked towards the entrance. The armed security guards standing at the entrance saluted him.

  “Hello,” said Dr Junaid to the young beautiful woman named Rubina, who was there to receive him. “Is Zia sahib in?”

  “Yes sir,” Rubina replied with a professional smile.

  Dr Junaid gently knocked at the door on the left and without waiting for an answer entered the room. He was received by a tall, bearded man in his 50s wearing colored glasses.

  “Assalam-o-alaikum! Brother, how are you?” Maulvi Zia asked Dr Junaid.

  “By the grace of Allah I am fine,” he replied.

  Zia mentioned him to a sofa in the exquisitely furnished spacious room.

  “How was your stay abroad?” Dr Junaid asked Zia.

  “Very comfortable and equally rewarding,” he replied in a powerful voice. “In the circles I moved,” Zia continued, “I found a lot of support for our noble cause in terms of both men and matter and God willing the support will get stronger and stronger. But how are your new recruits? Any potential soldiers for our army?”

  “Well it’s too early to say. I have yet to get myself familiar with them. Presently they are being given doses of skepticism,” said Dr Junaid in an off-hand manner.

  “Faith is the only effective antidote to doubt,” said Maulvi Zia with a sinister smile, “Let’s have something to drink.” In a few moments, Rubina entered with a bottle of wine and glasses.

  “Alcohol is an equally effective antidote to all our doubts,” said Dr Junaid as he sipped his drink.

  “And beauty as well,” added Zia, as he threw a glance at Rubina’s big breasts. Then laughter broke out. Rubina was first to laugh.

  Mr Naqvi was a seasoned journalist, who commanded respect of his colleagues for his professionalism and personal integrity. He worked with a prestigious media group and was credited with covering several important events and filing many investigating stories. Presently, he was assigned political beat and covered VVIP activities.

  Mr Naqvi believed that a journalist shouldn’t be affiliated with any political party or any religious or ethnic outfit and report and analyze events with utmost objectivity transcending his personal preferences and biases—a belief that he had practiced as conscientiously as possible but for which he had paid considerable price. Many of his colleagues had obtained substantial monetary and other benefits by serving political and ethnic interests. But Mr Naqvi was content with what he had and took pride in his work.

  One afternoon, he was summoned by his editor. “You know Hassan the prime minister announced the anti-terrorism policy a few days back and in fact you covered the event for us.”

  The editor paused for a moment and then continued, “Can you do a detailed story for our monthly magazine on the new policy incorporating views of the leading political and religious parties as well those of human right organizations?”

  “Yes, why not. I was also thinking on these lines,” said Mr Naqvi.

  ”Ok, then please go ahead. As usual, pending the completion of the story, you wouldn’t be required to cover routine activities,” said the editor.

  “Thanks,” said Mr Naqvi and took leave of the editor.

  Mr Naqvi had the habit of sharing his professional engagements with his family. Therefore, he told his wife and Ali about his new assignment.

  “Do you think the government’s policy on terrorism will succeed?” Mrs Naqvi asked her husband.

  “Well, it’s too early to say but the fact that the government has a clear-cut policy on the problem in itself is a welcome development.”

  “Father, is the government capable of carrying out the policy?” Ali asked.

  “There are certain constraints within which the government is working and these also apply to the war against terror,” Mr Naqvi replied vaguely.

  “And what are those constraints?” asked Mrs Naqvi, who was religiously interested in all that her husband did.

  “The biggest constraint is the economy. The government will have to commit tremendous resources at a time when the economy is already in a bad shape. The other constraint is political as some of the government’s allies as well as opposition parties don’t see eye to eye with it on how to handle the situation,” Mr Naqvi explained.

  “But aren’t the armed forces behind the government?” Ali enquired.

  “The army is never behind a government unless it’s their own. They have their own agenda. But you’re right. On the war on terror, they are at one with the govt. Now, you’ll excuse me as I have some work to do.”

  Mr Naqvi made a list of political and religious figures he was supposed to interview. Though personally he was in full support of the efforts to stamp out terrorism, professionalism dictated that he reached out to a cross-section of society.

  Most of the persons he interviewed expressed their disagreement with the argument that force was th
e solution to terrorism and stressed the need for a dialogue with militant outfits without any preconditions. Some of the religious leaders went to the extent of eulogizing the militants for fighting the war of Islam.

  Mr Naqvi had almost completed his write-up when he received an e-mail message from a jihadi organization called Al Fateh inviting him to interview their supreme commander. Mr Naqvi had in the past interviewed many militant organizations so he accepted the offer and at the appointed hour reported at a pre-designated place. From there he was taken blind folded in a jeep to an unknown place after a few hours’ drive. When the blind was removed, he found himself in a small windowless room with scarcely any furniture except a rugged carpet. He was asked to wait and after quarter of an hour, entered the supremo of Al Fateh surrounded by four gun-totting guards.

  “Assalam-o-Alaikum,” the supremo welcomed Mr Naqvi. “Thank you for coming here. I’m sorry for the manner you were brought here. But I hope you understand the problems we face,” he began as he himself seated on the carpet and also mentioned Mr Naqvi to sit.

  “No problem,” Mr Naqvi replied politely.

  “I was told you’re doing a story on militancy and I think it in order to express the views of my organization,” the supremo said in a sharp tone.”

  “I thank you for this opportunity. Since your organization is a major player on the scene, your views on the subject are welcome.”

  “You’re our guest and our culture dictates us to extend you warm hospitality. So have tea and some dry fruit with us before we talk,” the supremo said.

  After the light refreshment was over, Mr Naqvi switched on his small cassette player and started the interview.

  “Why are you fighting this war?” he put the first question.

  “This war has been imposed on us by this government, which is a stooge of western infidels. This country was created in the name of Islam but unfortunately it slipped into the hands of the forces of secularism and liberalism. However, the people want the supremacy of Islamic values and enforcement of the Islamic system. Our only fault, if you call it so, was to enforce the Islamic system in this part of the country. We created law and order in a place where government writ had hardly existed ever before. We gave security and justice to the people, which they had never before and ensured honor and dignity to the women. But the government instead of appreciating our work declared war on us. But you’ll agree that everyone has the right to self-defense. So we are merely exercising this right. Does this make us outlaws?” The supremo spoke in a voice brimming with emotions and self-assurance.

  “It is alleged that you forcibly enforced what you call the Islamic system here,” Mr Naqvi asked.

  The supremo shaking his head replied: “The Islamic system was a long-standing demand of the people, because only this system can ensure justice and peace. You know, most of us were poor, landless people. Under the Islamic system, the land was equitably distributed among the people. The West, which you people try to emulate, believes in democracy. I ask you what is democracy but a government based on the consent of the people and which works for their welfare and salvation. But when we tried to establish such a system, we were branded as extremists, terrorists, traitors and what not!”

  “In the West,” said Mr Naqvi, “the will and consent of the people is ascertained through fair and free elections. I wonder you have had such an exercise here?

  “There are various ways of ascertaining the popular will. Ballot is only one of them. Moreover, I am talking about the spirit of democracy and not its form. Anyway, Islam has its own view of democracy based on divine rather than popular sovereignty. In an Islamic state, divine law reigns supreme and we don’t need a referendum or election to decide this.”

  “The debate on what’s Islamic and what’s western democracy is interesting but never ending. Let’s move from conceptual discussion. It is alleged that you want to establish the Islamic system all over the country by force if that be,” Mr Naqvi posed another question.

  “We wish Islam reign supreme all over the world. But force is not our weapon. We resort to force only when pushed to the wall,” the supremo replied keeping his cool.

  “How do you justify suicide terrorism when killing is forbidden in Islam?

  “In Islam, in unavoidable circumstances, haram becomes halal and halal becomes haram. We are facing such circumstances. We are fighting an army much greater in strength and far better equipped. We can’t beat them in traditional warfare. Suicide blasts are our most effective weapon. It’s our atomic bomb, you may call it.”

  “But innocent lives are lost in such attacks,” Mr Naqvi asked.

  “I feel extremely really sorry for these people,” answered the supremo, “who are not our targets. But since it’s difficult to hit people in high places we have to kill ordinary people to create panic in the ranks of the government and society. I said I feel sorry for the people killed in blasts. But we also consider them fortunate, because their blood will contribute to the success of Islam over the forces of evil. In the West, they say, the blood of the martyr is the seed of the revolution. By the grace of Allah, the sacrifices of these people will not go in vain. And why do we make much of innocent people being killed in suicide attacks? Innocent people are also killed in drone strikes and no one speaks against them and the casualties are simply dismissed as collateral damage. Why these double standards?”

  “I myself don’t approve of the drone strikes. Anyway, how do you see the counter militancy policy of the government?

  “The policy is doomed to failure. The government cannot crush our will, because God in the heavens and people on the earth are with us. So sooner or later, the government will be forced to negotiate with us.”

  “So you’re prepared to negotiate?” asked Mr Naqvi

  “Yes, but without preconditions, such as laying down arms.

  “In negotiations, each side has to make some concessions. What concessions you’re going to make?”

  “Short of Islamisation, any concession can be considered depending on the seriousness and earnestness on the other side,” replied the supremo.

  Mr Naqvi (turning off his cassette player) said, “A final off the record question: You seem to be quite an educated person.”

  “Don’t regard militants as savages.”

  Mr Naqvi’s story on terrorism was highly appreciated for its objective presentation and acute analysis of a highly controversial issue. That afternoon he was sitting in his office when he received a call from one Jamshed, who introduced himself to be an official of a spy agency and sought an appointment with him. It was agreed that they would meet in the National Park the same evening.

  As Mr Naqvi came out of his car, he was received by a tall, well-built man in his early forties. “Thanks for coming,” said Jamshed.

  “My pleasure, replied Mr Naqvi. “You told me you wanted to speak about my story?

  “It’s about your interview with the leader of Al-Fateh. Can you tell me where and how you met him?” he asked

  Mr Naqvi gave an account of how he was contacted by the organization but expressed his inability to identify the place of the meeting.

  The spy suspecting that Mr Naqvi was concealing some important information said, “But your story betrays you have a lot of sympathy for the militants. You know how dangerous these people are.”

  Mr Naqvi said somewhat indigently, “If that is the impression then I feel sorry for that. I presented what I saw and heard. I couldn’t suppress the facts of the interview; it’s for the readers to draw their own conclusions.”

  Jamshed didn’t like the answer and said, “In future, if any such organization contacts you, we expect that you would inform us immediately.”

  “Certainly not,” Naqvi replied with the bluntness of a general. “I’m under no such obligation. If you want to hunt down these people, do that on your own. Don’t think for a moment that you can set me up to catch your targets.”