Pakistan: The 'Romanticised-Reality', we, live in
When a country comes into being. It's authoritativeness is judged by its authority, writ and the power to control the territory of the land which it governs and the unquestioning obedience of its authoritarian; including all living in that territory. An authority is a person or group having a right to do or to demand something, including the right to demand that other people do something and defends the life and interests of the authoritarian. Power is typically a causal notion: its application produces results. Hobbes supposed that an all-powerful sovereign would produce such order as to make life better for all. But without power, the sovereign would be of no value to those who want order. Historically, power has been invoked most by conflict theorists. In the view of these theorists, there is usually someone or some group who are thought to have power and to use it for some purpose.
As Ted Honderich puts it, "Political violence; Resort to force for political ends, outside its normal use in international warfare or in the internal administration of justice. Political violence covers a wide spectrum from stone-throwing to revolution and civil war. Violence is conventionally distinguished from force in general as unlawful; thus political violence oversteps the limits placed upon the lawful pursuit of political purposes. Indeed the breaking of laws is sometimes part of the point of violent protests, as it is in civil disobedience; for political violence is characteristically expressive of its political purposes ( e.g. by challenging the authority of the state to enforce its laws) rather than simply instrumental in achieving them (e.g. by undermining the power of the state).
Terrorism is the paradigm of political violence, but it eludes easy definition. One type of analysis views it as political killing rendered illegitimate, in contrast to tyrannicide, either by the availability of peaceful alternatives or by its targeting of innocent citizens rather than responsible politicians. Another type regards terrorism as low-level warfare directed, contrary to the principles of the just war, against harmless civilians, often owing to the terrorists' lack of adequate resources to defeat a military force.
Characterizing terrorism in these terms we can sensibly ask: When, if ever, is terrorism justified? On some theories of deontological ethics it is never justified, either because it inevitably involves the death of innocents, or because it is in breach of political obligations; it certainly, is a crime against humanity."
The recent election campaign and the brutal attacks on certain parties take one to think about the chaotic situation of Pakistan at the time of elections, and make him/her believe that he is trying to survive in a "no man's land". This situation, certainly, does not go in favor of the authorities that be and the whole establishment of the state. It was a one sided election campaign and will not be considered a fair election in the history of mankind; it is not!
In which category, of the above, do we fit now? How can we say that there is a government or an army in this country? Can we still think so? If we do, will that be a realistic approach? People, who are against extremism and fundamentalism, have started to say that the government should give the reign of power to the PTI or JUI or JI. Some lives will be spared because the TTP will have/ or has no objection on their governments. At least, they are in the position of saying that they have the power to do whatever they want and there is no one potent to stop them. Some lives will be saved that way. As We are not able to handle anything else than branding common man of being secular, blasphemous and infidel and not illegible to contest the elections on the ground of being not "righteous enough", one day and then the next day another judge decides otherwise and he is illegible. This institutional chaos and indifference, indeed, confuses the common man's thinking and takes him to a state of mind where he starts to think that something unnatural and bad is going on against him and everyone is part of it. The other and off-course bigger setback to the state's institutions is that they are losing their credibility and 'sovereign position', even, in the eyes of the common man.
If the situation comes to that, and it's right around the corner, believe me, then we will have no choice but, to dance to the harp which these leaders play. Leaders, who with all their cowardice and shamelessness, still advocate the goal which they believe in; not to criticize the terrorists. Their noble or ignoble goal is to perish, anyone, who supports secularism and is against bombing innocent people for this ignoble cause. They will be the actual actors on the stage of "Government-cum-dictatorship-cum-chaotic state-cum-theocracy" ; who are in favor of killing everyone who opposes them. Sirs, you win and we lose. Are they really more sophisticated than the army of this country? And what massage is, all these acts of terrorism and the upper-handedness of these terrorists, giving to the whole world about our army and the sovereignty of our state? Where do we stand? I will not say that this is the question which needs to be answered. I will answer it. The answer is that we have lost our credibility as a "sovereign state", because our sovereignty does not fit in the meaning, decided for this word in all the civilized world and dictionaries, theories and ideologies.
The day is not far when the leaders, who are defending the extremism, will become the 'inevitable choice' of the people for the job of governing with no alternate leadership in sight. That will be drastic for everyone. And this should be taken seriously and be countered 'actually' before it becomes a reality and reaches a stage where it is out of reach of the powers that be of this country. History never pardons, it does do on one condition; "Be, what you are supposed to be; the sovereign".