They both have chosen the same man. Samiul Haq, nicknamed ‘The father of the Taliban’, famous within his social circle as ‘Maulana sandwich’. Now that we have learned to accept our Maulana’s religious disorder with equanimity, the reputation can be conveniently kicked aside for the greater cause, so to say. Samiul Haq is considered to have the clout that can exert pressure on the Taliban to compromise and put their guns down that they have taken up against the state of Pakistan. Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif have indicated their desire to seek the assistance of the author of the Taliban to reach out to the splintered and autonomous leadership of the Taliban. Will this route serve the purpose is a big question. Khan’s burning desire to project to the world his leadership acumen by bringing order in the war-torn province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) is understandable. So is Sharif’s yearning to show to his people that he is the man who could tackle terrorism. People want to know how Sharif and Khan would go about this path of dialogue and negotiations, considering that the enemy who has killed our people mercilessly is cynical, decentralised and desirous of following a violent path to ‘Islamise’ Pakistan. Will Sharif Islamise Pakistan the way the Taliban want? Is Khan ready to accept that secularism is anathema and the time has arrived to replace it with theocratic rule in Pakistan? Crises abound in Pakistan. Two issues however have ground the system to a halt: the energy crisis and terrorism. Though both have been the result of adventurism and mismanagement, the latter nevertheless takes the cake. Terrorism struck Pakistan with vengeance in 2007 when the skeletons in the cupboard of the secret agencies came out and the jihadis bit the hand that once fed them. The episode of Laal Masjid was the tipping point. The jihadis’ critical mass that had gathered in the mountainous region of the country spilt over, which we now have to fight tooth and nail. Terrorism is an expression given to extremism, insurgency, the struggle to impose by force a narrow, literalist view of Islam. Since annihilation is considered vital to strike fear in the hearts of those differing with the terror groups’ ideology, violence is used as the means to achieve this agenda. Violence we have seen in abundance throughout these years in Pakistan. Saying that the country has been ripped apart economically, morally and emotionally by violence would not be an exaggeration. This is how we have degenerated from a country to a motley crowd that is prepared to tear into each other’s flesh at any given time and opportunity; indeed, we are now known for intolerance, impatience and religious chauvinism. The US/NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan can give more strength to the militants, and if the new government in Kabul, due next year, gives the Taliban a bigger share, this bloated sense of achievement would become uncontrollable. The US agenda of fighting militancy could be different from ours, but when a common enemy is involved, coming together makes sense and may bring better results. Since 2008, the US has been warning Pakistan to watch its step in colluding too closely with the Taliban and that the war might spill over into Pakistan. The counsel was ignored. We chose to allow the US to drone the militants we did not want on our soil, but refused to support its argument for weeding out the menace altogether. This selective policy of pick and choose amongst the extremists-cum-militants has now criminalised our society. It is not only the Taliban, it is now other criminal groups too that utilise the garb of the militants to make the best of extortion, kidnapping, ransom money, smuggling, rent seeking, you name it. Therefore, the test bar for the next government is already set too high. Any miscalculation can give democracy a run for its life. The west supports democratic government because it considers it important for its security. Unfortunately, mere elections are not democracy. They can be a facet of it. Democracy is more about shared interests achieved not through conflict but compromise. So are we saying that our shared interests lie with the Taliban or the militants that we are trying to talk to? Or are we implying converging with them to step into another stage of anti-democracy? This type of this thinking could explode in our face. It will isolate Pakistan. Not only will there be a financial crisis as the doors of foreign aid will be closed, the country itself would get sharply divided into the secular and non-secular forces. Before venturing into a peace talks process with the Taliban it would be vital for the government to establish and implement its ability to fight terrorism and militancy. In the case of a failed dialogue the outcome could be disastrous. Our intelligence failures, conspicuous by the absence of any concerted and shared intelligence system across the country, have been at the vortex of the crisis. As we have refused to be wiser on militancy, ignoring many sane voices, we did not bother to heed an offer made by the European Union (EU) to have a smart intelligence gathering and counter-terrorism system. While the monster was roaring full throatedly, the EU agreed to finance the development of a National Counter-Terrorism Authority (NACTA) in Pakistan. The objective was to develop a centrally coordinated body that would gather and analyse information based on intelligence about terrorists and their whereabouts and disseminating it to the security and law enforcement agencies for actions. The baseline was to get to the splintered groups that the terrorist organisations had slithered into and to keep everyone on the same page on the mechanism to clamp down on terrorism. NACTA, however, fell prey to turf and other problems. Rehman Malik, the former interior minister, was not accepted as the head of the organisation, neither by the army nor the intelligence agencies. The curtain was virtually drawn on the proposal, and the EU had to withdraw in the face of procrastination and lack of engagement shown by the Pakistan government. However, the former government at the fag end of its tenure had passed the NACTA Act 2013. According to Razza Rabbani, who had opposed the Act, the law was not worth the objective, as the bureaucracy and army would be the leading decision makers. Negotiations, a strong and reliable intelligence system, the right combat tools and the will to fight the militants need to be girded together; only then will there be any reasonable success in pursuing these enemies for a peaceful settlement. The realisation that the state is invariably incompetent to fight back is driven in the psyche of the militants. We have allowed them to carry out successful attacks in all the major cities of Pakistan. Talking from this weak position may backfire and give a new lease of life to the militants. The writer is an Assistant Editor at Daily Times and can be reached at durdananajam1@gmail.com