31.01.2002

Fight imperialism, fight fundamentalism

Mark Fischer spoke to Farooq Tariq after his public meeting in London

You mentioned in your speech that your organisation has learned through experience that collaboration with islamic fundamentalists is wrong. Could you explain why? We have actually been clear from the very formation of our party that we will never have any sort of alliance with these people. They represent a new form of fascism. It is more a matter of smashing them than having any of sort alliance with them or illusions about them. After September 11, these forces called for more jihad, more holy war. This didn't mean bringing masses of people into the street, but rather trying to destroy imperialism by terrorist force. This obviously has had the opposite effect - imperialism has been made stronger. So these fundamentalist forces looked like a type of 'anti-imperialism', but this was an illusion. At the core of their philosophy, these forces have the same type of ideology as imperialism itself: they defend private property; they have no regard for women's rights, for minority rights; they despise democracy; they are aspirant dictators. Have they specifically targeted your party for attack in Pakistan? Yes. About a year and a half ago, we had a lead story in our weekly newspaper entitled 'The terrorist Taliban'. The story was prompted by some public execution organised in Kabul. Islamic fundamentalists called our office, told us that they were coming to get us and that we should close our press and leave Pakistan. We took active measures to defend ourselves for the next few weeks, but they didn't come. These fanatics beat me up personally in the 1970s during my student days. What is the mood of the mass of working people in the aftermath of September 11 and the tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir? The mood is definitely quieter, more depressed at this time. The military regime has tightened its grip. After September 11, I have not met a single person who is not against US aggression. Everyone was totally opposed to the attack in Afghanistan. There was a generalised anti-imperialist mood. That is what the fundamentalists were trying to take advantage of. They were trying to present themselves as the only force opposed to imperialism. But we intervened and challenged that. On the other hand, since the defeat of the Taliban the attacks of the regime on the conditions of the working class have intensified - both on their democratic rights and their living conditions. Specifically on Kashmir, is there a mood for war? I think that generally, there is no enthusiasm for war. Contrary to the claims of the military regime, most people are in favour of peace for the first time. Wherever we speak, the people support us. They don't want war. The military have not been successful in whipping up Pakistan chauvinism. Generally, people are being affected by the tension. After the attack on their parliament, the Indian government closed down the only road and rail links with Pakistan. This only affects ordinary people. I went on a bus to Delhi for a three-day conference in the first week of September. This ran just four times a week - but now that has also been stopped. There is a general anger against these restrictions, but that has not translated into a mood for war with India. And is your party growing? We are having a discussion in our party about which phase we are in organisationally. Some comrades feel that the fundamentalists are defeated and demoralised. This perhaps has opened up some space for the more rapid growth of our party. This is reflected in the fact that recruitment is up. Our earlier perspective was to survive the military regime, to hold on. If we were not smashed by the regime, we would grow as a 'small mass party', in the words of Peter Taaffe! Today, we are optimistic.