In interviews with foreign media, Nawaz Sharif has delivered himself of his views on diverse but critical issues. First and foremost, he has commented on Musharraf’s plight by saying what the ex-dictator is going through should be an object lesson for all would-be coup makers. Further in the same vein, he has promised that if returned to power he would set up a commission on the Kargil debacle, for which Musharraf bears the sole blame. In line with his well known penchant for Pakistan-India amity, the PML-N chief also promised a commission on the 2008 Mumbai attacks that derailed the Pakistan-India dialogue for ages before better sense prevailed. Perhaps more controversial than these statements, which arguably enjoy wide support amongst the people of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif says Pakistan should reconsider its commitments to the US war against militancy. It may be recalled that this too was an open-ended and one-man (Musharraf) decision that has increasingly, with the passage of time and the difficulties it has produced for Pakistan, become more and more controversial. Nawaz favours negotiations with the Taliban for an end to the spate of terrorism that has the country in its grip, arguing that bombs and bullets (a la the US) are not always the best way to deal with such phenomena. This position brings him disconcertingly close to his immediate challenger Imran Khan’s approach to militancy. While in principle the door should always be left open not only for talks with the militants but even an efficacious rehabilitation programme for former militants who see the error of their ways and wish to come in from the cold, it should not be forgotten that it takes two hands to clap. Both Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan, not without reason, are thought to have a soft corner for the extremists. While both have declared talks to be the way forward in resolving the issue of homegrown terrorism, neither has satisfactorily answered the question whether the other side too is prepared to contemplate meaningful negotiations. Both the track record of peace deals with the fanatics since at least 2004 and their current posture would suggest otherwise. Previously, repeated peace deals were used by the militants to regroup, strengthen themselves and come back even more viciously in their terrorist campaigns. Today, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) says kneel here first before our demands for an Islamic emirate and the imposition of our version of shariah before there can be any talks. If such a ludicrous demand were accepted by some stretch of the imagination, what would be left to talk about? The Taliban would impose their narrow, literalist and oppressive version of Islam to the detriment of enlightened society, women, the minorities and anyone daring to disagree. A dose of reality needs to attend both Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan’s naïve formulations about peace with the fanatics. Nawaz Sharif, stung by Musharraf’s coup, also wants to revisit and correct civil-military relations and the balance of power between the two. Reiterating his view that the civilian elected representatives of the people are supreme and the military and its chief must work as an attached department of the government under civilian leadership, Nawaz Sharif expresses what every right thinking Pakistani wants, not the least because of the disastrous consequences of military interventions in politics with which our history is replete. However, who will bell this particular cat and how remains to be explicated. Therein lies the rub. The Nawaz Sharif of yesteryear was a very different character from the statesmanlike maturity he exudes today. However, the flaws or cracks in his political positions, particularly vis-à-vis the Taliban, are cause for worry. As we are witnessing, while the three secular-leaning parties, the PPP, MQM and ANP were the original targets of the TTP, now even PTI and Jamaat-i-Islami are being targeted, albeit nowhere on the scale of the first three. If anything, this development underscores the perception that the fanatics do not tolerate anyone wedded to the democratic system we are trying to consolidate, not even those who publicly portray themselves as their ‘friends’. With ‘friends’ like the TTP, who needs enemies? *