Some system could have been devised to contain migration within the NWFP and, if necessary, to seek cooperation of other provinces to channel some of the migrants to those areas. The situation that has arisen in Sindh could have been easily avoided.

The government had no choice but to undertake this measure against the insurgency as it was clearly a challenge to the writ of the state. But along with the military action, it was necessary to embark upon a battle to win the hearts and minds of the people, to boost the morale of the citizens. As far as the refugee problem is concerned, the stakes are very high, because any failure to promptly resolve the issue would give rise to alienation, and defeat the objective.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani has been doing his duty by keeping the people informed about the progress in this matter. People, however, are quite perceptive and they know that the power lies elsewhere. It is the president who has to make an effort to reach the citizens directly and as often as necessary, and assure them of his concern for their freedom and welfare. What is needed is to be visible, not for photo-op opportunities with foreign dignitaries, but for communication with people.

The situation that the country is facing today is the product of years of military rule and military-oriented strategies. For General Musharraf, running with the

hare and hunting with the hounds was an important policy in the context of disbursement of the US assistance. He also managed to distort the constitution and bend other national institutions including judiciary to suit his goals. The national elections held in February 2008 conducted under his regime could not have produced better results, because his plan was to carry on at least for another five-year term. The PCO along with the 17th Amendment are the legacy which is the constant reminder to people about what has come to pass in the country.

For Mr Zardari to hold on to these powers does not give a sense of confidence to people that in fact the system has changed. He should take advantage of the current special circumstances to have the parliament promptly restore the 1973 Constitution, a matter which needs no committees to examine.

It is in this context that the PPP government has to conduct their business according to the rules of democracy, and as a majority party to make decisions and be prepared to be counted for them. Taking refuge behind the so-called ‘consensus’ and ‘all-parties conference’ is to shirk responsibility. For example, when a party in alliance with them happens to oppose their decision, it puts a shadow on the writ of the state against the insurgents. Nizam-i-Adl, the main source where the trouble started is another example of the zigzagging alliance that Mr Zardari had put together to consolidate his power.

Pakistan is facing domestic enemies, with militants spread across Punjab and the Taliban in the tribal areas. It is Pakistan’s own problem. The US has direct interest in this situation as part of its Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy and it was underlined during the recent visit of Mr Zardari to Washington. To implement this policy, it was necessary to build a viable political machinery in Islamabad. And to promote a home-grown solution, the Zardari government was duly recognised as the legitimate civilian government in Pakistan. In that respect the visit was successful.

But to give it a spin and to suggest that success of Mr Zardari’s visit should be measured by the fact that he made the world accept Pakistan’s stance on the war on terrorism and that he was able to collect a large sum for this purpose would be stretching the point. Obama administration nevertheless is trying to depart from the previous US policies of patronising dictators in Pakistan, as reconfirmed by the US Secretary of State in her recent speech.

Admitting, as Mrs Clinton did, that the US policy towards countries such as Pakistan was ‘incoherent’, was not to suggest that foreign policy objectives of the US have changed. There is a remarkable continuity about American concerns regarding national security and foreign interventions prompted by these concerns. In some respects 9/11 serves as a watershed which was used by President Bush to ignore international law in dealing with ‘suspects’ in his war against terror. For Iraq, for example, it was the weapons of mass destruction which were never found. In Afghanistan, it has been a relentless pursuit of Osama bin Laden.

Intervention abroad has a long history in the US. From Cuba, Puerto Rico and Hawaii to the Philippines armies were sent to fulfil ‘humanitarian’ missions. Hans Morgenthau in his theory of international relations suggests a standard view that the US had a ‘transcendent purpose’ to establish peace and freedom at home and abroad. He does recognise, however, that there had been lapses from this standard criterion, the ‘abuse of reality’. But as Noam Chomsky reminds us, the purpose may be more related to how the imperial power operates.

In the new world reality of Barrack Obama, then, the lapses from the pursuit of reality during the Bush administration are being discarded but the purpose remains, that 9/11 should never happen again. This is the main objective of the new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. The tribal area has been the breeding ground for terrorists who have managed to destabilise societies on both sides of the Durand Line and therefore it requires a holistic approach to resolve it. By itself it is a plausible approach. It would work if Pakistan was situated somewhere between Iran and Afghanistan. As it is, the country in its geo-political configuration belongs to South Asia.

During the Ziaul Haq regime, the Wahabi sectarian influence managed to distort the situation. The Taliban are the product of this worldview. As late Tahir Mirza, former editor of Dawn, said in an opinion piece (June 11, 2006), the so-called ‘war on terror has confused the real fundamentalist challenge…..A kind of hypocritical piety has come to dominate our lives….may have a far more invidious effect than the activities of the militants…There is also the practice that has lately become popular of saying ‘Allah Hafiz’ instead of Khuda Hafiz…..Or, there is this obsession with repeated umras by the well-to-do.’

A very important factor which plays its part in this hypocritical piety is the India-centric view which was fostered mainly by the military and their civilian associates, parading ideology of Islam. The school textbooks have been thoroughly revised to reflect this bias. The paradox is that even the political parties that claim to be secular manage to pander to religious groups for their support.

The reality about Pakistan is that Partition has left some important unfinished business including Kashmir and distribution of water resources. A meaningful revisit to ‘transcendent purpose’ should include recognition of this fact by the Obama administration. For India as an emerging power, it would be quite becoming to loosen some of its old clichés about Pakistan. The importance of this factor must be fully understood by those who had organised the Mumbai attack last year.

There should be no surprise, however, that not only some religious leaders but also some religiously conservative Pakistanis oppose the military action against the insurgents — a kind of hypocritical piety, to quote Tahir Mirza again. Negotiation and dialogue is usually part of any settlement of conflicts, but it has to be from the position of strength, to save the writ of the state. The situation, however, is very critical for Pakistan. First, if the war becomes prolonged or is caught in guerilla tactics by Taliban, then there is bound to be an effect on public opinion. Second, the refugee problem will become a minefield unless it is handled promptly and efficiently. The memories of the 2005 earthquake related miseries are still fresh in public mind.

No conflict, war or an insurgency, can be resolved by military action alone. There has to be an appeal to the hearts and minds of people, as mentioned above. One doesn’t need to be a Winston Churchill or Charles de Gaulle to fulfil this role. It would be just lucky to have a Tunku Abdul Rahman who played an important part in resolving the post-insurgency transition to create a peaceful and a prosperous Malaysia.

An important part of post-insurgency planning is to prepare for the reconstruction simultaneously with the military action. During the last eight months of its rule the Zardari government has been seriously guilty of ad hocism, to improvise as the situations arise — to deal with the challenges that can no longer be ignored. It is following the same policy about insurgency. Also, it does not have a good track record of initiating legislation for consideration of parliament. In the present case it needs to wake up and proceed by integrating the tribal areas with the rest of Pakistan through an appropriate constitutional amendment, and make the areas an essential part of national reconstruction.

The writer taught economics before his retirement.