The flat rate is a hundred thousand for the dead and fifty thousand (plus hospitalization) for the seriously injured. In case you loose the bread earner of the family in a terrorist attack, you can buy around 25,000 breads, or a little less, depending on the flour prices. Cakes or pizzas you may calculate yourself. How many bread consumers you have in the family is none of my concern, and rest assured, not even that of the concerned authorities. The State has been constantly persuading you to downsize the family but you seldom register sincere advice.
Everything including the price of human blood is rising except in compensation. How do we compensate the loss of life is not a regulated business. There is no law and the compensation depends much on the media attention to a tragedy. You have no choice about death and it means all the same whether you die in a train or road accident or brave an unwarranted terrorist attack without being the prime target.
At a time when the pragmatists are on the campaign trail and the idealists on a passive boycott, I don’t see much wisdom in discussing who is wise. Instead I called your attention to a phenomenon which may continue to cost blood regardless of the result of the election. The polls would definitely sharpen the conflict between the players, the non-players and the non-silent spectators. This moment much of the attention is focused on the electoral arena where three main contenders are claiming their shares of the cake. Since you are not reading an opinion poll, you can attend some related questions. The boycotting players, you may have noted, are avoiding a head on collision before the ballot count. Tactically, they have decided to hold public meetings than marches and rallies. They can preferably afford to wait till the looser joins them. Obviously, the looser will have no political or even moral option but to rally with all those who intelligently refused to step onto the tilted playfield. They will definitely owe an apology to the boycotting band and will have to take a back seat in the agitation caravan after they abandon the backseats in the Parliament. But if the opponents of President Musharraf some how jointly manage to secure majority in the National Assembly, they will have no inclination to sympathize with the boycotters. In that eventuality the latter will have to find their allies among the masked terrorists than the lawyer community which has been somewhat pacified. The lawyers seem too tired and they are paying for an unaffordable professional boycott that is extending beyond their stamina. Their professional associations are literally clueless as to how to block the boneless judiciary. This seems a replay of the tactics they applied when they announced not to take any constitutional petition before the Supreme Court. The adamant lawyers and the idealists have taken a difficult route which forced the chicken livered democrats to part ways and board the electoral bus at the eleventh hour. Until the bus breaks down, there are few chances that all of Musharraf’s opponents can find a common cause before January 8. But while many have to wait for the iron to get red, the terrorists can strike at the first opportunity. Luckily, unlike political parties, they have no compulsion to evolve consensus about their strategy as far the timing. Decision to strike is taken by individuals and remains unknown to friend and foe. The strike at the Eid congregation at the family mosque of the ex-Interior Minister shows how ruthless is the game and how pitiless is the enemy. The second attack on the person within a short span shows the enemy is too desperate to wait for the appropriate moment. And this enemy can’t be engaged in any political exercise which is rejected by the idealists. The religious alliance called MMA stands split this moment but the decision by the mullah wing of the alliance to herd their supporters to the polling station is fairly difficult to be implemented. The voter would be psychologically suffering a higher risk than those who went for the Eid prayers. The gulf is widening and the religious elements are not one voice. Their diverse strategies will have a direct fall out on extremism which is bound to rise if political agitation does not make the required headway this hour. An organized agitation would steam out the extremists and many may be on the streets unarmed than on the hills in Swat where they have found it rather hard. The radicals do have the energy and they seek a meaningful political expression than just go for the kill. The decision to boycott is a radical step and if it gets translated as per desire, the radicals would be leading the democrats than getting isolated as they may appear this moment. Extremism is the last resort and it is applied with all other options fail to materialize.
When the general elections are barely a fortnight, we may not find terrorism a priority but the issue is sending constant reminders to political forces. Two key pro-Musharraf politicians in the Frontier who could be asked to cobble a coalition in the Province are facing the cross hair and no less than three suicide attacks have been futile. The attackers have been conveniently pronounced non-Muslims by the state controlled media which does not bother to see the ruthless punitive actions by cobra helicopters. Who is flying these gunship helicopters, Muslims or non-Muslims? Pronouncing the rival as an infidel will not be the triumph and a realist approach would be much different than mere condemnation. The fact is that the suicide attacks are on the rise and unilateral fatwas can’t win this war.
Now, if you have any chance to hear the campaign speeches, you would not find any serious mention of extremism or terrorism. Of course the bloodshed is frequently mentioned but often without a remedy. The crisis is that not a single political party is ideologically or intellectually equipped to tackle the menace.
Instead of issuing colorful manifestos, the political parties need to collectively focus on the principal question: How to counter extremism? The global interest in this election shall be properly acknowledged by all participants in its proper context. The world is not concerned about our domestic governance as much as the over spilling threat of extremism.
The moderates must jointly shoulder the responsibility. They have to unite against extremists than split over petty issue in lust for power. The burden of this war shall not be transferred to the Armed Forces. We have to find a bloodless than a bloody solution. The major political parties shall sit around the table to evolve a common strategy against extremism. Every political party shall give her diagnosis and prescribe the therapy it plans to follow in case returned to power.
