New Pakistan Taliban leader: bold moves, widespread influence

The power wielded by Maualana Fazlullah – who plotted the attack on Malala Yousafzai – was evident back in 2007, when the Monitor traveled into Pakistan's Swat Valley to document his rise.

B.K. Bangash/AP
People watch a news report on TV about newly selected leader of Pakistani Taliban leader Maualana Fazlullah at a coffee shop in Islamabad, Pakistan, Thursday, Nov. 7, 2013.

The man who will be the Pakistani Taliban’s next leader is not one to shy away from recklessly bold statements – from riding defiantly by his enemies on a white horse to plotting last year’s assassination attempt on Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai

On Thursday, the Pakistani Taliban announced that they have chosen Maualana Fazlullah to replace Hakimullah Mehsud, who was killed in a US drone strike last week. 

Mr. Fazlullah – a hard-line cleric whose power has been growing since 2007 – has been thought to be in hiding in Afghanistan after the Pakistani military ran his Swat Valley-based Taliban faction out of the region.

By some accounts, Fazlullah is a surprise choice, since the previous leaders of the Pakistani Taliban were both from the Mehsud family. But his influence within the Pakistani Taliban – a loose organization of militant groups that is affiliated with but distinct from the Afghanistan Taliban – has been evident for years. He now has strong ties to Afghan militants, too.

In 2007, Christian Science Monitor correspondent David Montero traveled to the Swat Valley to profile “the rise of a powerful cleric” who “exposes economic and political failures in a government-administered area.” That person? Maualana Fazlullah.

Mr. Montero documented Fazlullah’s first dramatic show of his power, two years before his forces took over the Swat Valley:

In this valley of orchards near Afghanistan, 90 police hid along the banks of a riverbed in March, preparing to arrest the powerful Pakistani cleric Maualana Fazlullah. Informants said the target, charged with terrorism, would soon appear with a modest contingent of followers. Instead, Mr. Fazlullah rode into sight on a white horse, surrounded by hundreds of people.

When the officers advanced, brandishing tear gas and batons, word flew through the town. Thousands more supporters turned out to further protect Fazlullah. The officers backed off in an incident that shocked the country, exposing as it did the state's powerlessness to apprehend a wanted terrorist.

The rise of Fazlullah “signals a dangerous tipping point,” Montero wrote at the time.

Allow him to persist, many observers say, and others will be emboldened to roll back the state's policies of moderation – small but symbolically important gains in women's empowerment, girls' education, and religious tolerance.

"My opinion is, if you take him out today, there will be a reaction," says Asfandiar Amir Zeb, a former mayor of the district of Swat. "Leave it for a month, there will be a bigger reaction. If you leave it for six months, you won't be able to catch him."

Fazlullah’s influence did indeed grow. His Taliban forces overtook the Swat Valley in 2007, but were defeated two years later by Pakistani Army forces. In 2012, Fazlullah helped orchestrate from afar the shooting of activist Malala Yousafzai, a resident of the Swat Valley, on her way to school – and his spokesman said she would be shot again if she returned.

Back in 2007, as Montero’s reporting shows, Fazlullah was sowing the seeds of his message against girls’ education:

Since he began preaching two years ago, Fazlullah has drawn more than 15,000 weekly to his Friday prayers. His vision of militant Islam reaches thousands more in the valley by way of his illegal radio station, which he used until recently to warn parents not to send their girls to school.

"Tell me, what wrong have I done? I am preaching religion, and religion is not terrorism," Fazlullah says in a brick room on the site of his new madrassah, surrounded by bearded aides.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.