For long, I have observed the discourse on the war on terror from the sidelines, but this needs to be said. (Excuse my insistence on using an inaccurate catchal. David Miliband being the first and perhaps the last notable observed that the idea of war on terror implied a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. However my impression is that such a perception has not structurally changed, hence its fallacious use here.)

A very interesting dialogue seems to be going on in Pakistan today. There are those who support the war on terror in Pakistan, and then those who do not. The most recent contention has been the Kerry Lugar bill, with its most pervasive clauses, that irked Pakistanis, the bone of contention being the following (mostly):a detailed description of Pakistan's efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear-related material and expertise; an assessment of whether assistance provided to Pakistan has directly or indirectly aided the expansion of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, whether by the diversion of United States assistance or the reallocation of Pakistan's financial resources that would otherwise be spent for programs and activities unrelated to its nuclear weapons program; an assessment of the extent to which the Government of Pakistan exercises effective civilian control of the military, including a description of the extent to which civilian executive leaders and parliament exercise oversight and approval of military budgets, the chain of command, the process of promotion for senior military leaders, civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning, and military involvement in civil administration.

I am tempted to point out the limitations in the outsiders' view as to why Pakistanis have been clamoring over the bill which provides 1.5 billion per year for atleast 5 years. However, I will refrain from that pointless exercise. To intelligent observers, it should appear self - explanatory that when you attempt to transform the political landscape of a country, you are bound to experience natural opposition.

Instead, my attention is riveted by the dialogue between different sections of society over the role of Americans in Pakistan's state of affairs. Increasingly, there are opinions that castigate Taliban, sometimes voicing pro-American sentiments, sometimes not. Take for example this view, or this one on the angry response by protesters at the tragic attack on Islamic University students in Islamabad:

"In times of unimaginable tragedy, it is hard to judge outpourings of grief. The mind is freckled by floods of angry emotion. After having said this, I still feel disappointed that right after the International Islamic University (IIU) bombings one of the pictures I saw in the press was of a demonstration by the boys of the university upholding banners that were against the Kerry-Lugar bill. It seemed to me the significance of what had happened to these hapless students hadn't yet dawned on them.
The International Islamic University has absolutely nothing to do with the bill, and in any case the Taliban didn't bomb the university because they were convinced that the IIU had drafted it for John Kerry. Even at that time, in the aftermath of a senseless act it was difficult to acknowledge for people that the Taliban were utterly nihilistic in their aims. It was a lost opportunity to honour the lives of the people lost, to say that Islam just doesn't allow any semblance of what the Taliban are doing."

Then there are those who charge American intervention as the reason behind the bloody wave of attacks all over the country. In between, throw in the term of liberal fascists, and Westernized sellers of motherland, and you have a dialogue that is divisive and vicious. Such divisions are manifesting not just in the media, but also social networking forums as facebook. Take for example, the picture of the rickshaw that I borrowed from facebook with all due respect for the photographer's copyrights (please dont sue me). The image is circulating as a self deprecating joke that captures the irony of the situation in Pakistan at present. The doggeral at the back of the rickshaw, capturing the essence of prevalent frustration, states:  

Pakistan is thinking:  nothing to do, nothing being done, bribery is causing a traffic jam, we have become America's slaves, we have been made notorious the world over. what will become of us? that is what Pakistan is thinking.

For visual reference, watch also the New York Times video feature about how Pakistani musicians perceive the situation. So? Should we castigate Taliban? Are American drone attacks that cause massive 'collateral damage' in the form of innocent deaths spiking violence in Pakistan? These are no-brainers. The answers are yes and yes on both counts.

Why are we not asking these questions: what will the political landscape be of Pakistan in the face of pervasive American involvement in the political landscape?(for reference, Kerry Lugar bill's clauses:  support for voter education and civil society training as well as appropriate support for political party capacity building ; support for strengthening the capacity of the civilian Government of Pakistan to carry out its responsibilities at the national, provincial, and local levels;support for the implementation of legal and political reforms in the FATA;strengthening civil society and nongovernmental organizations working in the area of internationally recognized human rights). Who will the political elite be responsible to for indefinite future? the people of Pakistan or moneybags? Are we ready to part with the security oriented model of a state for Pakistan, where security trumps everything, or is this an eyewash? What is the alternate agenda, if any at all, and what are the civilian politicians doing about it? Why are these not up for debate rather than the issue of nuclear weapons? What is the agenda of the government in addressing the dire economic situation of the country (one fifth of Pakistanis live below the poverty line according to UNDP)? What is being done about the energy crisis that cripples the country at the moment? Are energy projects going to be set up, and if so, will the political grievances of the regions where they will be set up, be addressed? What is being done about Balochi demands? There are many questions like these that seem to have been lost in gunfire. Furthermore, why are the debating sides considering each other less Pakistani than the other side? Surely, a dialogue ought to bridge differences rather than fanning them. I hope some nice rickshaw driver attempts to draw our attention to some of these questions too.