WE are at war, whether we admit it or not. We are at war physically, economically and politically. There was the 1965 war, the 1971 war and now we are in the midst of the 2008 war.

The so-called war on terror (a glib phrase crafted by White House speechwriters) started off as the US war and imperceptibly became our war.

There have been blasts in every large city of Pakistan, the latest being at the Marriott in Islamabad. Each time we are shocked, surprised and depressed. These reactions are based on our `ostrich approach` that a war is going on in a faraway land, on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we have nothing to do with it, nor should we be affected by it. We are shocked when the smell of explosives wafts over our homes in Lahore, Karachi or Islamabad.

The sooner we realise that it is a total war, like the ones in the 60s and the 70s, the more mentally prepared we will be to cope with it. In wars, blasts and casualties are normal. In this insurgency by Islamists, who disagree with the form of Islam being practised by a majority of Pakistanis, the militants want to capture the whole of Pakistan. After having tasted power in neighbouring Afghanistan, they will not be content with wresting control of only a part of the country. The engine of their `Trojan horse` army is driven by madressah-trained manpower.

Most countries in their history have faced insurgencies of various kinds. India faced the Khalsas in Punjab, faces the movement for freedom in Kashmir, the Naxalites in the north-east, etc. Sri Lanka is locked in battle with the LTTE. Russia faced the Chechens, the British the Irish. But most of these countries came out of it unscathed, because they confronted the threat with unity, self-confidence and patience. We, on the other hand, are getting unnerved by each bomb blast or assassination attempt. Are we displaying a fickle national character, a lack of confidence in the state? Or a state where our nerves have been shaken by the repeated presentation of the negatives by the media? While a lack of confidence in the competence of the government prevails throughout the land, the role of the media in spreading despondency cannot be overstated.

Is it necessary for the media to repeat, ad nauseam, only the bad news and discuss the negatives of the situation ad infinitum? It seems the electronic media has yet to recognise its own power. Getting rid of an unpopular government is one thing, but when the future of the country is at stake self-restraint should be a top priority. British, American and even Indian television is far more circumspect when it comes to reporting on nationally sensitive issues.

I`ve heard TV viewers wonder as to what was the need to run tickers, for hours on end, of the news that the British government had asked the children and wives of their staff posted in Pakistan to leave. Through extensive publicity, news that was of hardly any interest to the general public came to have an adverse impact on the reputation of the country and the morale of the public.

As for the state, where is the sense in publicising, for the benefit of the public, that so many suicide bombers have entered such and such city? That information ought to be meant for the law enforcement apparatus which should be eliminating such threats without creating undue panic. The `I told you so` policy is not necessary because our interior adviser has an explanation for every situation anyway. Like the `positive` side of the Marriott incident highlighted by him — his success in fooling the terrorists into thinking that the president was dining at the hotel!

The leadership of the country, both the president and the PM, has a role to play in leading the country by example and instilling confidence in the nation by its words, actions and deeds. Leaving everything to the COAS is tantamount to abdicating responsibility at this crucial juncture.

The main aim of the terrorists is to shatter the morale of their `enemy`. If they succeed in that objective we will fall into their lap. Why, in the wars of 1965 and 1971, was the damage caused to the other side always exaggerated and personal casualties always minimised by both sides? To keep the morale of the nation and the troops high. This is exactly what is required in this war too.

The current run on foreign exchange deposits, among other factors, is a measure of the confidence the rich have in the country. Leave aside the super-rich, even run-of-the-mill owners of modest assets are thinking of safeguarding their resources to secure the future of their children. They need to be engaged and their confidence must be restored by the leadership.

While the Pakistan Army is fighting the insurgents valiantly, the president and the PM should back it up instead of leaving everything to the COAS. Why can`t the president or the PM visit the war-torn tribal areas? Why can`t our media do their duty without sensationalising the issue? Why can`t our intelligence agencies trace and expose the source of the money and weapons the insurgents receive instead of informing the public about how many suicide bombers have entered a city? A group of mullahs can`t fight a full army for so long without external assistance in the form of men, material and training.

Unless the government takes on its responsibility of stemming the despondency being spread by the acts and propaganda of the terrorists, we will be making their task very easy. n

tasneem.m.noorani@gmail.com