Reported by a renowned journalist, Cyril Almeida, and published in a reputable newspaper, Dawn, the story tells us the insider account of a high level meeting held in Islamabad convened to discuss the international isolation faced by Pakistan today. Realising our lack of influence on our neighbors after we failed to host the 19th annual SAARC summit as the majority of members boycotted it the meeting was attended both by civilian and military leadership. At least, the administration realises that we are internationally isolated, a fact that has been denied in the past at every level, but it now seems to have broken some ice behind closed doors while the public refutation continues. Except for the conspiracy theorists who live in their own imaginary world, everyone knows why Pakistan encounters global indifference; why our protests on Kashmir are not taken seriously; and why our legitimate national security concerns fall on deaf ears. It is an open secret. Through our relentless policy of sponsoring and exporting ‘non-state actors’ as proxies, we stand where we stand now. To remove any confusion, let me say the term non-state actors is euphuism for state-sponsored international terrorism. And our heavy reliance on it has irked our friends, stirred international conflicts, and caused us global shame. It is as bad for us as was reliance on Saudi oil for the USA. Both the countries had to cut down their dependence on products whose outcome is almost always catastrophic. The US has already done that; can we say the same about ourselves? Even China, our close ally, has raised concerns about our dangerous and self-destructive strategies. The Chinese do not understand why we have to resort to such means when our fears hold ground. What to talk about other countries and their governments, friendly or not, when it comes to foreign policy, we cannot satisfy our own people. More so, we lack the capability to describe the objectives in simple terms and justify them reasonably. Coming back to the meeting: no one would have expected anything exciting from it, it was a routine exercise — the prime minister heading the meeting perturbed by upcoming protests in Islamabad, and the chief minister of Punjab occupied with the Orange Train line project in Lahore, the sword of Panama leaks hanging atop their heads. It was supposed to be a meeting brimmed with a long, dull and sleep-inducing presentation, peppered with unintelligent questions, mirrored by even more unintelligent explanations, and followed by of course tea and refreshments. To put it another way, the forum had only one objective: ascertain that no change in the fundamental policy takes place. Life, as usual, goes on, the double game remains untouched. Even if we suppose the meeting had ignited some excitement, kept the prime minster involved, the chief minster interested, and even if the purpose of the meeting was to bring a fundamental change in policy, what we could not have imagined was that the civilian leadership would ever challenge the military and compel the military to adopt a defensive position. In our history, we have not seen many instances like that. Left without an exit strategy or counter-accusation, it seems the military agreed to support the provincial government in its crackdown against militants promising the administration no future interference. Almost like a fairy tale, unrealistic and out of this world, based on the laws of a different universe where gravitation pull ceases to exist and the quantum mechanics fail, the story depicts the confidence and the determination of the Sharif brothers to eradicate religious extremism and terrorism from the country. But contrary to the popular belief, was Pakistan military found to be on the same page? The other question is: what kind of suspects captured by the police are later released by the intervention of the intelligence agencies? Why do we not talk about that on television? How has this interference crippled our ability to combat extremism? Of course, we expected that the story would be denied, as it has been by the prime minister’s office. Indeed, the leak has been regarded as a breach in national security, an investigation has been launched to expose the culprit, and the journalist has put on the exit control list, as if he is the reason for our international isolation. We all know who is doing it and why. Any incident in which the civilian government seems to have an upper hand can yield various consequences for everyone standing on the other side of the fence. It can lead to the dissolution of parliament and its constitutional structures, the annulment of the constitution including, but not limited to the removal of judges. For the prime minister, it can result in losing his job, his freedom, and his support. The question when playing with fire is not if you will get burnt, it is how extensively and how deep. The show has just begun! The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com