The death of Hakeemullah Mehsud in a drone strike has resulted in a state of confusion across the country. By and large, the political class is unhappy about the incident, terming it the ‘death of the peace process’. A majority of people are of the view that the killing of the Taliban leader has dealt a severe blow to the peace efforts initiated by the federal government over the past two months. On the other hand, some liberal sections of society have taken such kind of reaction very hard. They are accusing the conservative sections of society, and some political parties, of ‘mourning a villain’. The divergence of opinion on this issue has given rise to a state of confusion across Pakistan. The federal government also seems beset by uncertainty and confusion. But the attitude of uncertainty and inability to present a coherent message on the part of the PML-N government can be best explained by its efforts to appease its main political rival, Imran Khan’s PTI, and also refraining from taking any step that may add to strains between Pakistan and the US. In the opinion of this writer, this state of confusion and wide divergence of opinion on the situation emerging after the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) leader’s death will only result in further weakening the position of Pakistan at a critical juncture when convincing the Taliban to sit at the negotiating table is very important to adopting any kind of future plan of action. Changing horses in the middle of a stream and abandoning the peace process at the current point will only strengthen the viewpoint of the extremist elements. There is no gainsaying the fact that the TTP, under the leadership of Hakeemullah Mehsud, waged war against the Pakistani state, and was responsible for the slaughtering of thousands of innocent people. To state the obvious, Mehsud was also declared public enemy number one by the government of Pakistan. But why must the option of talks with the Taliban be pursued? Why must the government exploit every opportunity for a peaceful solution before a military operation? We must not turn a blind eye to a few hard facts in order to adopt a more pragmatic view towards this issue. It is in the interest of the Pakistan government to establish peace in the country, not that of the Taliban. The power of the militants is gradually increasing, and the lukewarm response of successive governments has only resulted in ceding further ground to the extremists. Another reality not to forget is that our armed forces are already present in all seven Agencies of FATA for the past many years, but the militants are still planning all activities from their bases in the tribal agencies. What if a military operation against the Taliban fails to achieve the desired results? Last week, this writer got an opportunity to visit some areas of South Waziristan with a few friends. According to the local people in FATA, the Taliban have more than 70 factions of varying strengths, which are operating in all the Agencies of FATA. Out of these 70 militant groups, almost 20 to 25 groups are very powerful, with manpower of many hundreds. Almost all these groups pledged allegiance to Hakeemullah Mehsud and respected him as their main leader. After the All Parties Conference (APC) in September endorsed the government’s initiative to hold peace talks, the federal government was trying its best to convince Mehsud to come to the negotiating table. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan did extensive work to make it possible. All hopes were pinned on these efforts because the success of any peace deal with Mehsud would have meant a peace deal with almost 80 percent of the Taliban factions. This would have brought a great respite for Pakistan. But the death of Mehsud in a drone strike has not only scuttled all those peace efforts but also provided a justification to the Taliban to continue the bloody war against Pakistan. Some hardcore elements within the Taliban will seize the moment to spread their propaganda that the government is not serious about holding peace talks. The killing of Mehsud at a time when he was reportedly toying with starting peace negotiations with the government would only further strengthen the impression in Pakistan that the US does not want to facilitate the establishment of peace in Pakistan, and that every Taliban leader who has showed the willingness to talk with Pakistani government since 2004 was killed in a drone strike. This has provided a much sought after opportunity to some political parties to pressurise the Sharif government to review relations with the US and even think about stopping the NATO supplies. The statement of Munawar Hasan, the Ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami, terming Hakeemullah Mehsud a ‘martyr’, shows how some political parties are readily available to cash in on anti-US feelings in order to gain the sympathies of militants. The Taliban leadership is also divided after the killing of Mehsud on the issue of peace talks. There is no common leadership. So even if they agree to start talks with the federal government, which in itself is a distant possibility, the government will have to approach all the militant groups separately. This will make the success of any peace effort highly unlikely. All these problems are further compounded by the fact that in a familiar pattern, the government is showing it is clueless and not laying out any concrete approach to tackle such eventualities. Angry rhetoric and boring platitudes characterise the statements of some federal ministers. This approach may earn them some political favour at the moment, but it should be understood that the problem of militancy cannot be solved until concrete steps are taken to make the Taliban agree to the peace talks again. The incoherent reaction of the political parties in the aftermath of Hakeemullah Mehsud’s killing has made one thing clear that they are highly incapable of fulfilling their responsibilities. Pakistan, at the moment, is like a headless ship with no one to show the required strength to resolve all the problems faced by the nation. We are hypocritical about what our responsibilities are and we always try to indulge in the practice of buck-passing in difficult times. The writer is a research scholar and a former visiting fellow at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, California. He can be reached at rizwanasghar7@hotmail.com