The Battle Of Ideas

By Amir Zia
Monthly Hilal
March 2014

The state institutions have the national duty and international responsibility to ensure that Pakistani territory is not being used by the non-state actors to foment terrorism within the country or across the globe. Let there be no ambiguity on this count... The policy of appeasing terrorists and violent non-state actors has not worked in the past. It is not going to lead us anywhere now. 

A leading English-language monthly magazine carried Pakistan’s founding father Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s caricature on the cover of its February issue, showing him espousing a beard instead of the familiar clean-shaven face we all know and love. The shocking cover attempted to symbolize efforts made by
handful of extremists and violent non-state actors to distort and tarnish our revered leader’s vision of a prosperous, moderate and progressive Pakistan.
The alteration of Quaid-e-Azam’s image ignited some intense debate on the social media and concerned circles, but perhaps it’s a topic for a different forum where values and ethics of journalism are under the microscope. In the larger scheme of things, the cover is just another small manifestation of the ideological chasms in our society that remains caught in the vortex of unabated incidents of terrorism and violence for the past many years.
The vital question, however, is whether these ideological differences have seeped into the hearts and minds of majority of Pakistanis or confined to the small and organized minority, holding our entire country hostage to their extremist views? What are the aspirations and dreams of majority of Pakistanis, who are proud of
their Muslim identity and want to carry on with their lives holding both modernity and tradition hand-in-hand? Equally important are Pakistani Christians, Parsis, Hindus and other religious groups that have as much stake in the country as Pakistani Muslims.
As a whole, this Pakistani majority today is pitted against the organised and violent parochial forces, which stand against the tide of times and want to push the country into strife and discord on narrow sectarian and religious lines and international isolation.
This is more or less a similar challenge Sir Syed Ahmed Khan faced when he tried to introduce modern education and rational thinking among Muslims following the demise of Mughal Empire in the subcontinent in the 19th the challenge which Sir Allama Muhammad Iqbal had to confront when he wrote “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam” and tried to mobilize and rejuvenate Muslims through his splendid Urdu and Persian poetry. And this was the monumental task Quaid-e-Azam found at hand when he was tirelessly leading the struggle for an Independent homeland to ensure the political and economic rights of the South Asian Muslims.
All these icons of our freedom struggle were rejected, ridiculed, attacked and even branded “infidels” by the small bands of fundamentalists, who remained opposed to the very idea of Pakistan. But the Muslim masses rejected this fundamentalist minority and followed the modern and moderate Muslim leaders of their times.
Unfortunately today again in the sacred name of Islam, heirs of the same dark anti-Pakistan forces are trying to shake the foundations of the world’s lone nuclear-armed Muslim state. Ideologically, this internal enemy is no different than what the founding fathers of this nation were pitted against. It is the proverbial tussle --
tolerance versus intolerance, moderation versus extremism, order versus disorder, progress versus regression and true Islam versus the narrow-minded religious beliefs flaunted by the misguided ones.
Leaders of the Pakistan Movement overcame this challenge with flying colours. The mark of their achievement is Pakistan itself. Now it is up to this generation to keep our crescent and star studded flag fluttering high when it is being attacked by the similar internal, but a more lethal enemy.
A small, fringe minority of al-Qaeda-infected extremists have imposed a deadly war on Pakistan, its key state institutions, including the armed forces, and the people. To justify all their barbaric killings and cowardly acts of terrorism, they present a hotchpotch ideology which is an amalgamation of a highly flawed interpretation of Islam, a confrontationist worldview and regional and global political ambitions presented in the garb of religion. The bitter fact is that these forces are incompatible with the modern age and times.
Some of the fundamentalist and rightwing parties that historically fared poorly in electoral politics and represent the same forces opposed to the creation of Pakistan have emerged as their main apologist and cheerleaders.
They are trying to confuse the issue of terrorism and extremist violence in Pakistan by linking it to the US/NATO presence in Afghanistan and opposing the legitimate efforts by the state to establish writ on its territory. The heart of the conflict remains that militants and their supporters are trying to undermine the state and its institutions, establish a state within state, impose a controversial ideology that has few takers in the country and use our territory for global terrorism. Can any modern state allow this? The answer is a firm ‘no.’

The state institutions have the national duty and international responsibility to ensure that Pakistani territory is not being used by any group of non-state actor to foment terrorism within the country or across the globe. Let there be no ambiguity on this count.
One silver-lining in this tussle remains that all the extremist forces and their supporters even if put together do not represent the real Pakistan and the aspirations and dreams of majority of Pakistanis, who want peace, education, economic development, order and rule of the law.
A close scrutiny of these violent and radical religious forces shows that they are not a cohesive and integrated ideological force as they might appear or want us to believe. They suffer from inherent contradictions in their narrative, unbridgeable theological differences and remain divided because of their narrow vested interests.
This means that they may have the near to mid-term ability to continue carry on their deadly acts in the absence of a decisive action against them, but can never emerge as a force that can bring down the state, let alone ambitions to fulfill their pipe-dream of creating a new system – for better or for worse.
After the withdrawal of the former Soviet Union’s forces from Afghanistan, the Afghan insurgents brandishing more or less similar ideology resorted to infighting as they miserably failed to create a system for peace and stability in their war-ravaged country. They could not raise themselves above the level of mere proxies against the backdrop of complex great game being played among the regional and global forces to emerge as a unifying force in their country. The few years of the Afghan Taliban rule (1996-2001) was mainly at the back of foreign support, but it too failed to bring unity and peace in Afghanistan. Luckily, Pakistan, despite its set of some grave problem and challenges, is not Afghanistan. As a state, Pakistan’s socio-economic structure and strong institutions -- in which the armed forces remain the mainstay -- are far more advanced and strong than its landlocked neighbour. The drag of the archaic feudal and tribal pockets gets offset by Pakistan’s large urban-base, vibrant trade, commerce and industry, mid-level farmers and strong educated middle and lower middle classes.
Whatever the prophets of doom might say, we as a nation have the capacity and ability to overcome the challenge posed by the violent extremist forces. Whenever our armed forces have been called into action against militants -- responsible for more than 50,000 deaths of our civilians and security personnel -- over the last 12 years or so, they have managed to contain and put them on the ropes.
Then what is the reason that this challenge continue to stay as a festering wound?
One main reason is the absence of a holistic approach, especially since 2008, in confronting these terrorist organisations and smashing their infrastructure.
The first and foremost task remains creating a political and ideological narrative that squeezes space for the extremist mindset on which terrorists thrive, breed and multiply. Unfortunately this is one important front where the country is found lacking the most. The onus of producing such a counter-narrative -- which celebrates and advances moderation, modernity, tolerance, writ of the state, pluralism of our society and the constitution -- lies collectively on the mainstream political parties and the civilian leadership.
They have to show the vision and take initiative in the battle of ideas and create space in which the armed forces can do their job. They need not reinvent the wheel. The ethos of Pakistani society, our freedom struggle and the values and dreams of the country’s founding fathers provide its basis. Our leadership only has to articulate, restate and reassert this vision in clear-cut terms and align it with the modern-day challenges and realities.
This vision of a modern, strong and forward-looking Pakistan has no space for religious bigotry, intolerance and sectarian hatred in line with the golden humanitarian tenets of Islam. It rejects any discrimination on the basis of sex, sect and religious or ethnic identity. It calls for universal education. It guarantees to protect the life, honour, liberty and property to each and every citizen of Pakistan.It envisions pro-people governance and the rule of law.
Blowing up of schools, hunting down polio vaccinators, killing civilians, bombing markets and places of worship and targeting the armed forces and sensitive defence installations have no justification in the religious or any other ideological narrative.
The policy of appeasing terrorists and violent non-state actors has not worked in the past. It is not going to lead us anywhere now. It is time to be a little self-critical. It is time to explore where we have been lacking so far in countering the twin ghost of terrorism and religious extremism. It is time to come on the front-foot and concentrate on winning the battle of ideas first in which the civilian leadership, the civil society and the media all have to play their role and assist the armed forces so that they combat the extremists effectively and decisively.
Tied to this battle of ideas are the tasks of reforming the education system, including seminaries, promoting literacy and working for the social and economic uplift of the poor.
The administrative measures such as drying up the funding resources of terrorist groups and rehabilitation programmes for their militants also need to go hand-in-hand in a more comprehensive manner and of course at a larger scale. Effective prosecution of the accused and lifting of the moratorium on death penalty, which is
only benefiting convicts involved in heinous crimes and acts of terror, also remain an important aspect in fighting terrorism and extremist mindset.
These are some of the vital measures which the leadership needs to support and initiate. The operational aspect of containing and fighting militants is the job of the security forces in which the Pakistan Army remains the vanguard. The security institutions know their job. It is the civilian leaders who need to create conducive atmosphere in which our soldiers can perform their national duty in an effective manner. And the first step to eliminate this internal threat starts with the presence of political will. The will to transform Pakistan according to the dream envisioned by Pakistan’s founding fathers. The gauntlet is there. Someone has to accept this challenge.

Pakistan’s Hard Realities

By Amir Zia
July 11, 2012

The religious and other rightwing parties want Pakistan to disregard international will and consensus against the violent non-state actors operating under the influence of al Qaeda


ONE can call it ironic that the government’s decision to reopen the Nato supply routes to Afghanistan is getting flak from both sides of the national divide.
Many of the liberals are calling it the tragedy of delay and rightly asking why it took so long for our brilliant minds in the civil and military establishment to accept the “soft apology” which was there on the platter by Washington since February this year. What Islamabad gained by prolonging the standoff with the United States if the result had to be a timid climb-down on all the key demands. From the US drone attacks on Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants hiding on Pakistani soil to that of the CIA network operating independently of Pakistani authorities, it will be business as usual as far as Washington is concerned. Pakistani authorities remain free to keep the window of discussion open on these issues under the true spirit of democracy.
Pakistan’s attempts to extract more money from the United States by raising the tariff on each Nato container to $5,000 from $250 also resulted in a firm no. Our government graciously dropped this bizarre demand which, in the first place, should not even be linked to US assault on the military check-post at Salala in November last which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. This sensitive issue was mismanaged from day one by the civil and military leaders, who made it more complex by playing to the gallery with their bombastic rhetoric of national honour and sovereignty. Precious time was lost by the government in the long-winded parliamentary debate on the so-called attempts to redefine Pakistan-US ties and tagging the important with unimportant rather than a swift and realistic handling of the issue keeping in view the country’s hard political and economic realities and the international mood.
The religious and other rightwing political parties – the self-proclaimed guardians of the country’s yet unclear and porous ideological frontiers – are furious for all the different reasons. They want Pakistan to disregard international will and consensus against violent non-state actors operating under the banner of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and a host of other shadowy extremist groups and drag it to the dead-end of becoming a rogue and pariah state. Their agenda, as articulated by the Defence of Pakistan (Difa-e-Pakistan) Council, now encompasses the ouster of the US-led Nato forces from the region, ending Pakistan’s cooperation in the UN-mandated war on terrorism, blocking Nato supplies passing through the country to Afghanistan and of course the demand of halting the controversial drone strikes in the country’s militant-infested northern tribal region.
As thousands of supporters of Defence of Pakistan, an umbrella of around 40 religious groups, many of which are banned, displayed their teeth, muscle and emotions in Islamabad at the conclusion of their “long ride” from Lahore, there are clear signs that the national discord over the issue is all set to intensify against the backdrop of growing political instability in the run-up to the general elections, clash of institutions and unbridled monster of terrorism that has consumed more than 36,000 lives since the end of 2001 when Pakistan joined hands with the United States and its allies in the war against Al-Qaeda and its Afghan and local allies.
In this pro- and anti-Nato divide, the all important subject which does not figure prominently on the national narrative is how to rein in the foreign and local extremists who continue to operate here, targeting not just Pakistani civilian and law enforcement agencies, but also using the country as a base to plot and execute terrorist plots against neighbours and other parts of the world.
The international community and the majority of Pakistanis stand justified when they ask the state institutions to establish their writ effectively and ensure that Pakistani soil is not used against other nations as well as Pakistan. The all-important question of why our country has become a fertile ground for suicide bombers, terrorists and extremists and considered a safe haven by similar foreign elements including Arabs, Afghans, Uzbeks, Chechens, and even Indonesians is often ignored as we focus more on symptoms rather than the real causes of our predicament.
The continued self-denial will cost us even more than what we have already suffered in terms of loss of human lives, the country’s image and negative fallout on the battered economy. Monday’s gun attack on an army camp near Gujrat by militants in which seven soldiers and a policeman were killed should serve as the latest stark reminder of the rotten state of affairs in this land of the pure. As the rightwing continues to whip up anti-US emotions, militants would certainly try to intensify attacks on soft and hard targets in an attempt punish the country for its renewed cooperation with Nato.
The absence of a comprehensive counter terrorism strategy, the lack of trust within key state institutions and concerns of Pakistani military establishment regarding the endgame in Afghanistan in which they do not see eye-to-eye with Washington on fundamental issues, will make it more difficult for the authorities to effectively handle the scourge of extremism that has been a major destabilising factor for the country on both its internal and external fronts.
The tragic Salala episode that had plunged the Pakistan-US ties to a new low should be seen more as a symptom rather than the cause which will continue to test the diplomatic skills of leaders of both countries. The source of tension remains, which is graver than the drone attacks. These strikes should also be taken as an outcome of the larger problem.
If the Americans continue to remain wary of Pakistan because of its selective handling of militant groups and lack of political will and capacity in establishing its writ on many parts of its territory, Pakistanis are worried about the enhanced Indian role in Afghanistan and prospects of a hostile government in Kabul. Washington has failed to calm Pakistan’s nerves regarding its exit strategy and give any assurance that Pakistan-friendly elements will get a role in any future setup in Afghanistan. Pakistan has suffered the most due to the protracted Afghan conflict since the invasion by the former Soviet Union there in 1979 and is justified if it wants a friendly government in Kabul, which does not serve as a destabilising factor here.
But Islamabad also needs to unburden itself from many of its Cold War-era baggage in its own enlightened self-interest and curb the violent non-state actors that have agendas clashing its vital, long term goals.
With the trust gap continuing to haunt Pakistan-US relations, our troubles are far from over even after the restoration of Nato supplies, though the decision will help in lowering tensions. A politically embattled government here, which is desperate to complete its five-year term and eyeing the next elections, has limited time and choices at its disposal. The US presidential race has also squeezed options for Washington which means relations between the two countries will remain on a rocky path in the months to come – at least until the hurly burly of elections are over. Even after that it will be a steep climb.

City under siege

By Amir Zia

The News on Sunday
August 8, 2010

Presence of ethnic fault lines, sectarian and religious divide, political rivalries or bad governance -- what ails Karachi?

As being feared for the past several months, Karachi has again burst into violence and chaos. The killings of workers of various rival political and religious groups, which gained a fresh momentum over the last two months, finally led to the assassination of a Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) veteran Syed Raza Haider on August 2. The killing triggered a new wave of violence that claimed nearly 80 lives in just three days and left dozens of others wounded.

Armed bands of youngsters went on rampage setting ablaze vehicles, attacking shops and fuel stations and enforcing an unannounced strike in the city on the barrel of the gun. Most victims were ordinary citizens, who had no political affiliations, but targeted because of ethnic background. These victims were mostly daily-wage labourers, drivers, conductors and people doing small, odd jobs. Then there were those low-income group families, which were terrorised and some even saw their houses burnt because they lived in those parts where the other ethnic group remains in majority.

The focused media coverage, chain SMS messages, the word of mouth, propaganda of the rival parties, rumours as well as exaggerated accounts of brutalities -- as often happens in such cases -- only added fuel to the fire, plunging the city in a state of uncertainty and bringing its trade, business and industrial activity to a grinding halt.

The MQM had been quick to blame the Awami National Party (ANP) for the murder of its MPA. The ANP denied the charge and accused the MQM of fanning violence. Interior Minister Rehman Malik saw the outlawed Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan responsible for the murder of MQM's Shiite Muslim MPA. And amidst this overflow of information, claims and counter claims, Karachi continued to suffer. There was no sense of urgency seen on the part of the government to put an end to the lawlessness, while no political party took initiative to push the peace agenda and offer a healing touch. However, even the rivals agree that volatile Karachi needs immediate attention.

Faisal Sabzwari, a senior MQM leader and a provincial minister, called the situation "delicate". "The MQM hierarchy has not reacted to this assassination. We want to maintain peace, despite provocations, attacks and burning the houses of our people," he said. "But the problem is that the people who suffer violence do not listen to the local leadership. They just react. We are trying to contain the situation."

Shahi Syed, Sindh ANP chief, said that terrorism had never been part of his party's creed. "We know one thing, that among those dozens of people who died, there were only three or four ANP members. The rest were ordinary Pukhtoons."

The MQM says its slain leader Haider was an easy target because of the thin security cover. Haider represented one of the most volatile areas of the city -- Orangi Town -- where he also served as the sector in-charge, a key position in MQM's structure. Ethnically diverse and divided Orangi remains one of the biggest slums of Karachi. Both the MQM and ANP are at loggerheads in parts of this town to get an upper hand. Both accuse one another of trying to bring demographic changes not just in parts of Orangi, but also at other places as their preparations for the future elections.

ANP, which for the first time got two of its members elected to the provincial assembly from Karachi, says that this remain the main factor that antagonized the MQM. "The MQM sees ANP as a threat to its hegemony," Syed said. The MQM in its turn accuses ANP of patronising criminals and land grabbers.

In this barrage of allegations, indeed, the story of the unfolding tragedy in Karachi is not an easy one to tell. It is a grim complex situation in which ethnic rivalry remains just one manifestation of a bigger problem that has many grey areas. All these killings and the state of lawlessness, that descend on the city so often, have a pattern that keeps repeating itself. Though there are short and long periods of tense calm as well, the causes of this problem remain unaddressed. They range from the presence of ethnic fault lines in the city to that of sectarian and religious divide as well as political rivalries. The state's inability to resolve vital issues ranging from the long lingering transport problem to that of providing water, power or even a decent sewerage system -- all play their part in intensifying conflicts in Karachi.

A senior police official said requesting anonymity that the presence of the hard-core criminals in the ranks of major political parties remains one of the most troubling factors that emerged in recent years. "It acts as a catalyst in aggravating the situation."

Police in majority of the cases remain unable to take action against criminals because of their political affiliations. "Politicisation of crime and criminalisation of politics -- this has now become the main problem," the official said.

All the political parties do say they won't tolerate criminals in their ranks, but fail when it comes to match their words with action. No wonder, now for grabbing land, party flags are used in Karachi. The Sindh government's anti-encroachment drive crashed soon after takeoff in July because of the sharp differences within the allies of the ruling coalition.

To add to the problem of ethnic polarisation is the fact that many al Qaeda and Taliban operatives have slipped into the city in the wake of the military operation in the northern areas.

The MQM's stance that there has been growing "Talibanisation" in the city also proved a factor that led to sharpening the ethnic divide. ANP maintains that the issue of Taliban is being used to malign and target Pukhtoons in Karachi.

However, while a vast majority of Pukhtoons have nothing to do with extremists, security officials say that Taliban and their associates use Karachi to generate funds. From kidnapping for ransom to robberies and drugs and arms smugglings to extortion, huge amount of money is being raised every month by extremists from Karachi, they said.

In 2009 alone, media reports say that more than 160 militants were arrested in Karachi out of whom most were nabbed from Sohrab Goth and other Pukhtoon-dominated neighbourhoods. Police officials admit that even routine administrative issues have the potential to transform into ethnic confrontation.

Decades of political expediency and compromises by the successive governments have made situation messier in Karachi. Rather than going for rule of the law, institutions have gone for ad hoc measures -- often becoming a party themselves by propping one group against the other. The result has proved disastrous as not just state authority took a blow, but it resulted in complete lawlessness.

In every cycle of violence, the government avoided action against culprits and allowed wounds to fester. The city bounces back to normalcy not because of administrative measures, but by an inbuilt self-healing process, which offers only short-term relief. And between these extremes of temporary peace and bouts of violence, there are genuine fears of balkanisation of this city, which is awash with both illicit and licensed weapons. This remains a possibility because of state's inability to resolve its contradictions and establish its writ and rule of the law. The writing is very much on the wall, but rulers fail to read it. In this land of the pure, political expediency reigns supreme.

Washington’s tough talk

By Amir Zia
The News -- Wednesday, May 12, 2010

The US frustration over Pakistan’s inability to curb militant activities on its soil and counter the scourge of extremist mindset has spilled again in public. This time, the tough-talk came from none other than US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, in an interview with CBS, said that Washington warned Islamabad of "severe consequences" if a successful extremist attack in the United States was traced back to Pakistan. In the interview, Clinton’s praise for Pakistan’s recent role in the war on terrorism comes as an after-thought and a balancing act with an uneasy ally, which appears dragging feet on many issues seen crucial by Washington and its western partners in the fight against Al Qaeda and other militant groups inspired by it.

Although Clinton refrained from explaining what the United States meant by those "severe consequences", the tough overtones of her message to Pakistan’s civil and military leadership came through loud and clear, underlining both the complexity and fragility of relationship between the two countries.

The Obama administration, which so far proved more considerate than its predecessor regarding Islamabad’s difficulties in tackling the problem of terrorism and extremism, slightly deviated from its approach by giving a tough public message. While many Pakistani politicians, analysts and commentators are likely to see Clinton’s statement as yet another opportunity to fan anti-US hysteria in the country and discuss myriad conspiracy theories, there has been hardly any serious soul-searching regarding the fact that why most global and regional acts of terror have their tentacles in Pakistan. Why does Pakistan attract fanatics and extremists of all shades and colours from across the globe? Why does it remain a fertile breeding ground for the local militant and extremist groups?

Faisal Shahzad, belonging to an educated and affluent family, is the latest, but definitely not the last, addition to the long and expanding list of Pakistani extremists -- going international. And even before the US secretary of state appeared on CBS, many Pakistani political pundits started calling this arrest as yet another "American conspiracy" against the Islamic Republic. The fact that this educated gentleman tried to explode a bomb in the heart of New York was conveniently forgotten and so was the information that he was trained to do so in the lawless tribal region of Pakistan.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi seemed to brush aside the attempted terror assault by saying that it was a reaction to drone attacks on Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in the tribal region – a fait accompli. His statement seems to provide justification more on behalf of the Taliban’s actions rather than express Pakistan’s determination to tackle the problem. A couple of days later Qureshi seems to calm his agitated nerves by saying that Faisal is not a Pakistani national, but a naturalised American citizen. As if this fact would help end Pakistan’s responsibility. Pakistan’s powerful military establishment, despite being on the forefront in the war on terrorism, in its initial reaction appeared in self-denial regarding Faisal’s suspected links with the Pakistani terror network. Inter-Services Public Relations’ Director General Major-General Athar Abbas said that it was premature to say that Faisal, son of a retired high-ranking air force official, had any connection with extremists operating in Pakistan.

This casual approach and off-the-cuff statements of civil and military officials are not going to help Pakistan ward off the tremendous pressure by the world and regional powers, which are singling it out for being the hub of terrorist and extremist forces. The world justifiably wants Pakistan to establish the writ of state on its territory. That means putting an end to the private militias, self-styled religious militant groups, their ideological mentors, financiers and abettors. Certainly, the task is easier said than done if one keeps in mind the past role of the state and its western allies, who helped create these very monsters they are being forced to fight now.

The Pakistani state failed to establish its writ on vast stretches of its territory, allowing them to stay lawless, ungoverned and backward. The task of establishing the writ became more complex and difficult due to the fact that religious extremism and fanaticism have countless facets and shades both in the mainstream urban centres as well as rural areas. Small and seemingly innocent ideological, political and financial contributions even by lawful and legal institutions and organisations often contribute in promoting radicalism and militancy in society. And the irony remains that the state institutions themselves played a major role in promoting these groups, which hound them now and refuse to unravel.

The situation is aggravated by the fact that the civil and military leadership failed to see and tackle the issue in its totality. Pakistan’s approach since the Musharraf era has been fire-fighting and managing those broken arrows that failed to follow dictates of the state under the changed post-9/11 circumstances. The thrust of this approach has been more on fighting the symptoms rather than changing the direction of state policy and taking long-term measures for the eradication of religious extremism in all its forms and manifestations.

Even now, Pakistan seems to act under pressure against extremist individuals and groups, but leaving enough space where they can regroup, breathe, rest, revitalise and attack. Pakistan’s lack of will or inability to act in a decisive manner against the terror network and its support structure is bringing more pressure on Islamabad. The message as stated by US Attorney General Eric Holder following the failed New York terror attack remains loud and clear -- either Islamabad acts against these forces or let the other do this task.

But Washington’s tough public talk makes the Pakistan government’s job more difficult. It gives firepower to the opposition and rightwing groups to confuse and scuttle the real issues of extremism and terrorism in the anti-US rhetoric. Yes, public warnings only strengthen the reactionary and extremist forces. The US should be seen as helping Pakistan in coming out of the vortex of terrorism rather than giving an impression that it is being bullied by the superpower. Just as in the case with India, militants will go to any extent to put strains in the Pakistan-US relations if they could with a terror strike, which remains a possibility.

Knee-jerk reactions and public warnings would certainly be counterproductive. On its part, Pakistan in its own enlightened self-interest should take the ownership of the war against extremism and terrorism, which is hurting the country more than any other nation. Along with surgical military operations, there is a need to counter militants and their allies on ideological and political grounds – a front which so far has been ignored.

Pakistani leaders should also ponder as to what the United States means by "severe consequences". As the tidings are, pressure on Islamabad is all set to increase. Will civil and military leaders be able to use this pressure to the country’s advantage? Pakistan needs a proactive approach rather than a reactionary one when it comes to combating terrorism. And most important, Islamabad has to come out straight regarding its efforts and sacrifices and match its words with action.