Faith Matters Attended an Interfaith Gathering in the US

In March, 2014, I got an opportunity to attend an interfaith gathering arranged by DC Interfaith Network in Bethesda (just outside the US capital, Washington DC). The gathering was arranged at the house of Peter Kovach, a senior diplomat who has previously held a number of key positions in government, including the director of International Religious Freedom at the U.S Department of State and a counsellor for public affairs in the American Embassy in Islamabad. Numbered among the other attendees were Rebecca Cataldi from the International Center for Religion & Diplomacy (ICRD), Anjum Ali, president at Speaking Unites and Shama Farooq from the 9/11 Unity Walk.

The discussion started with an update of the wonderful work being carried out by ICRD in Pakistan. This has focused on engaging with the religious schools (madrasas), carrying out teacher training and educating the young people on the ideas of human rights, conflict resolution and religious tolerance. We’ve previously gone on about the importance of education in interfaith work, and so it was really heartening to hear about other groups active in this field.

Rehman Anwer, Project Manager Faith Matters Meeting with the American Civil Society Activists

One of the key issues that was raised in the discussion was that of ‘identity’, specifically the issue of American Muslim identity, and its meaning for many living in the US. Some participants shared how they encountered some difficulty when trying to balance the two, or putting their national/cultural affiliation first, with some even reporting hostility from others in their own community. We discussed various dimensions of this issue, as well as broader tensions around identity, including what happens when people feel their identity is under threat. The debate also included Islamophobia in the West today, and how is it fuelling tensions between different communities. I got the opportunity to discuss some of our work around Islamophobia and anti-Muslim attacks in Britain, and it was really fascinating to compare this to the trends and tendencies of anti-Muslim hate crime identified in the US.

Since many of the participants had some Pakistani background - and some have on going social projects in Pakistan – there was also a big discussion around the interfaith challenges in Pakistan. This also touched on the history of the country – many participants traced much of the damage to majority-minority faith relations, and the current culture of restrictions on freedom of religion and belief, to the country’s past of military dictatorship. Those present discussed how discrimination against the minority communities had become institutionalized in Pakistan, thus contributing to the rise of the contemporary environment of violent extremism in the country.   I got the opportunity to discuss my experiences of working on countering violent extremism and interfaith related projects in Pakistan. There was a broad consensus that the way forward is to counter the extremist narratives at every front, and to promote a culture of interreligious dialogue in Pakistan. Through this, many affirmed, Pakistanis can promote a sense of shared values and respect for each other’s religious beliefs.

This was a unique experience, and I felt privileged and honoured to take part in it. Interfaith dialogue can sometimes be a grim and endless experience, with every day bringing a new depressing story about sectarian violence and conflict. But gatherings like this gave me a great sense of trust and confidence in the interfaith dialogue. The commitment of all the participants to promote interfaith relations was outstanding, and gave me hope for the future.

Rehman Anwer

A Negotiated Settlement with the Taliban – Can it Be Achieved?

It won’t be wrong to state that today Pakistan’s society is extremely polarized, divided and confused over what is going to happen between the state and the terrorists – The Pakistani Taliban.

Looking at the print, electronic and social media, one finds that Pakistanis have been visibly divided into two camps on the potential relationship between the state and Taliban. One camp suggests that negotiated settlement is the only way out to bring peace and stability to Pakistan. And the other camp is of the view that peace negotiations with Taliban have been tried and tested before and its time when the state needs to take action against them. They argue that the Taliban have been attacking the innocent civilians in Pakistan and have killed more than 40,000 Pakistanis; hence they are ‘unforgivable enemies’. This is a very strong argument and any concerned Pakistani would agree with the fact that Taliban have almost changed the social fabric of Pakistani society because of their terrorist activities in Pakistan.

The ‘pro-peace talks’ camp, however, contends that it is important to look back and fix the root causes of the terrorism in Pakistan rather than treating the symptoms. They argue that the present chaotic situation in Pakistan is because of the disastrous domestic and international policies in region that started during the Afghan Jihad time and deteriorated after 9/11. Pakistan was dragged into the war against terrorism, the Pakistan Army started an operation in Waziristan and Taliban, who never posed a direct threat to Pakistan, called for a ‘Jihad’ against the state of Pakistan. Increased Army operations by Pakistan’s security forces coupled with the notorious US drone strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan escalated the situation and eventually Pakistani people had to pay the price of this ‘Forced Marriage’ between US and Pakistan and a ‘Forced Divorce’ between Pakistan and Taliban. This is their narrative

Both sides have some truths and I think I will be one of those few people who will agree with both. However, I need a solution as well. I want to look beyond the ‘point-scoring’ debate because I know that winning any debate will not bring a workable solution to the problems faced by my country. To find a solution, we must find answers to the following questions:

• Are we aware of the realistic connection between Pakistani Taliban and Afghani Taliban?

• Is it sensible to talk about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban? Do we have to move on from stagnant positions to ones which bear risk though which can yield rewards?

• Can we institute confidence-building measures for a workable negotiated settlement?

The first and foremost element for strategizing a practical road map of peace negotiation with Pakistani Taliban is to understand the complex relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan based Taliban. Any negotiated settlement with Pakistani Taliban cannot be advanced in a vacuum – without taking the reconciliation process with Taliban in Afghanistan into context in which the Afghan Government, US, ISAF and especially Pakistan are the stakeholders. According to a recent report by Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS), in the ‘Peace Process Roadmap 2015’ ( A strategy paper by the Afghan Government), Pakistan is considered as a key facilitator of direct contact between the Afghan Government and Taliban leaders.

The popular narrative about Taliban is that the state of Pakistan gets along with the Afghani Taliban but take Pakistani Taliban as public enemy number one. Apparently, the founder of the Tahreek e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Baitullah Mehsud, was dismissed by Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Omar because of his continued attacks on Pakistan. However, Baitullah Mehsud always took Mullah Omar as his leader. It is interesting to see that often the talks with Pakistani Taliban are viewed by many analysts as a completely separate subject without realizing the ideological bond they have with Afghani Taliban. Members of both the groups cross the Durand line on a daily basis and are hosted and protected by each other. One must not forget that the narrative of Pakistani Taliban only varies from Afghani Taliban in their stance against the state of Pakistan. Undermining any negotiated settlement with Pakistani Taliban will have an impact on the global efforts for reconciliation with Afghani Taliban.

Perhaps, the most ridiculed idea in Pakistan is considered to be a discourse around the ‘Good and Bad Taliban’. In principle, I also agree that there are no good Taliban because those who justify violence and kill people to popularize their ideology can’t be ‘good’. However, our sense of history tells us that this idea can actually work to isolate more radical members of the extremist groups from those who are interested in a dialogue to end the conflict. The peace deal between the IRA and the British government is a perfect example by which to understand it when the more extreme elements within the radical republican wing were isolated from the IRA. Pakistani Taliban has no structured organization. Various media and research reports suggest that Pakistani Taliban are splintered into dozens of smaller factions. Even the TTP (Tahreek e Taliban Pakistan) does not represent all of those groups. This situation has pros and cons but a major opportunity in it for Pakistan is that the state can devise a strategy to start getting on board all those groups who envisage that peace process is worth negotiating.

Lastly, can the stakeholders sustain the peace process by developing the right confidence building measures? There is another common narrative in Pakistan that no negotiation with Taliban can be successful because all such previous efforts were failed. Indeed there were serious efforts made for negotiation in 2004, 2005 and 2008 but it must be noted that there has never been a formal peace agreement or a structured dialogue between the government of Pakistan and the Pakistani Taliban. A strong anti-drone policy with some sort of agreement from the US government is central to build confidence for a successful negotiated settlement with Taliban. However, what is the realistic likelihood of this when US foreign policy in Pakistan relies heavily on the use of drone technology.

In the wake of the recent killing of TTP leader, Hakimullah Mehsud by a US drone strike, once again the negotiation process is in danger. Although Pakistan has officially condemned and denounced the attack, the situation over the coming days will unfold if the Pakistani Taliban are still interested to settle down the conflict through a dialogue or they will prefer continuing their violent movement. I hope the coming days will bring the message of a real peace to Pakistan but that entirely depends on devising a right strategy to end the conflict with Pakistani Taliban and then sustain the peace process without compromising our national interest and our core democratic values. Peace is required but not at a price that throttles the future of Pakistan. 

These views are the personal views of Rehman Anwer and are not necessarily reflective of positions taken by Faith Matters.