WHO in our young nation’s often traumatic life has learned a lesson from history? Surprised at not finding an example? Don’t be. Nobody else has been successful either.

That is why as an existential threat casts a dark shadow over the fate of this 180 million-strong country, there is no energy of response(s) in evidence, neither is the cohesion necessitated by the monster that does not merely lie in wait but is actually accelerating towards us.

Each one of us is culpable for the disaster confronting us even if we choose to point the finger of blame elsewhere. Yes, each one of us has either opted to remain silent or simply lacked the integrity to say it like it actually is.

Even when the wholly insignificant exceptions may have cried themselves hoarse, it seems nobody was prepared to pay heed, to see sense, to even be willing to act on the most basic of human instincts: self-preservation.

Isn’t this why an academic cannot be appointed to a seat of learning because vested interests make an issue of her faith today? You can ask any number of times how, in this case, faith would interfere in someone’s ability to function as the head of a biochemistry and technology institute at a premier university in the country but don’t expect an answer.

It is becoming a weekly ritual to lament the latest spate of faith-based killings or other crimes such as those against women in the name of religion but the situation seems to turn graver with each passing day with the state abjectly failing to even ensure a citizen’s most basic right, that to life.

We have got to where we are because of suicidal policies followed decade after decade especially as the bloodshed of Partition and a number of bloody conflicts with India since the country came into being (often with far from desired consequences) informed our security policies.

The US arms embargo was a watershed. The embargo, due to concerns over Pakistan’s nuclear programme, followed a very cosy alliance between Rawalpindi and Washington to oust the Soviet Union from neighbouring Afghanistan.

Feeling isolated, insecure and rather like a jilted lover and having seen its wonders in bringing the Soviet presence in Afghanistan to an end, Rawalpindi found strength in forging a new alliance and the so-called military-mullah axis was created.

This was supposed to be a ‘low-cost’ second line of defence where small arms, a bit of training and lots of ideological indoctrination would make up for the loss of sophisticated weaponry that was now being denied to Pakistan.

Funnily enough conversations at different points in time over the past decade and more so with senior army officers more recently have given one the sense that many in the forces understand how double-edged this sword, which they forged and honed to a fault, is turning out to be.

However, it has also been evidenced whenever the forces’ leadership has felt unloved or wanted to leverage a desire, how readily it has been prepared to rely on it. Recent examples are too many to quote but just look at the spurt in Difa-i-Pakistan Council’s activities when the Raymond Davis affair was being played out.

Coming as it did during a period of civil-military tension reportedly over retired general Pervez Musharraf’s fate, the prime minister’s visit to India for the inauguration of Narendra Modi as head of government was accompanied by a rising cacophony of protests by Jamaatud Dawa.

Reprehensible as any curbs on media freedom are, one suspects the 15-day ban on Geo is part of the government’s efforts to rebuild somewhat damaged relations with the military. The prime minister’s decision to attend the funeral prayers of the two intelligence officers killed near Rawalpindi this week also appeared to be part of the same effort, through creating the right optics.

On a point of principle one would support the trial of Gen Musharraf for acting extra-constitutionally (but definitely not for his action against militants who had taken over the capital’s Lal Masjid).

At the same time, one would also like to see a distraction removed from the scene as the fight against terrorism needs focus. I know many friends will attack me for saying so and perhaps rightly but the government should consider agreeing to bail for the former military ruler.

The trial could proceed as normal and reach its logical conclusion. That would help the elected government drive home the point it seeks to about those contemplating subverting the Constitution and popular will. But we will do well to remember how military rule ended in the country.

The teeming millions didn’t take to the streets (like they did to oust Marcos in the Philippines) and force the men in khaki to retreat. It was negotiations that saw the troops returning to the barracks. Therefore, compromises are inherent in what we have today.

Also, if anyone packs the punch to contain the monster of militancy, intolerance and bigotry, it is the military. The government would do well do reassure the military of its love. That is the only likely scenario GHQ will be weaned away from its default reliance on religious groups whenever it perceives to be under threat.

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.

abbas.nasir@hotmail.com

Published in Dawn, June 6th, 2014