Appeasement is a failed strategy as part of diplomacy: theoretically, historically, externally, and internally. Theoretically, because there are no permanent friends or foes in the international relations, and it is not practicable to keep everyone happy without compromising on one’s own interests. Historically, Britain’s strategy of appeasement failed to stop Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, and Germany’s takeover of Austria in 1938. Pakistan also made the same mistake during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Pakistan welcomed over three million Afghan refugees and allowed them to settle anywhere in the country, whereas Iran made sure that they stay in the designated camps. President Zia Ul Haq gave latitude to the religious parties and groups to freely move across Pakistani borders and carry arms in the cities including capital Islamabad. To appease the United States which was supporting the Afghan struggle against Soviet Union, President Zia did not impose any restrictions on the activities of Afghan Mujahideen inside Pakistan. Unfortunately, this freedom of movement led to the introduction of guns and drugs in the otherwise peaceful society of Pakistan. The history repeated itself when President Musharraf let the religious parties and groups loose in the second Afghan Jihad, this time against the US in the post-9/11 environment. However, the situation was a little different. This time Pakistan was supporting the US against Afghan Taliban, which led to the creation of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Musharraf was unable to distinguish between good Taliban and bad Taliban, and this led to antagonizing both, the US, and the Taliban. TTP started to react against Musharraf’s policy and caried out at least three assassination attempts on him, but Musharraf did not change his strategy and let an alliance of religious parties Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) form the provincial government in an all-important North West Frontier Province (NWPF) which helped TTP breath freely and continue its activities unhindered. The hooliganism must never be allowed because it encourages the Non-State Actors (NSAs) to blackmail the state. The state must never give in to demands which are against the national interests Likewise, successive military and democratic governments in Pakistan let erstwhile Mohajir Qaumi Movement (MQM), now Muttahida Qaumi Movement, leader Altaf Hussain speak against the state and its institutions, and engage in urban terrorism in Karachi for too long due to its popularity amongst a particular ethnic group. Altaf was finally silenced by the courts for appearing on national electronic media. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is also guilty of adopting the strategy of appeasement for the religious parties and groups. Sharif gave a free hand to several religious groups including Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an off-shoot of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), which were engaged in sectarian killings. Also, Sharif did not rope in the Khadim Hussain Rizvi’s Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), which was founded in 2015, and paralysed the capital Islamabad more than once through forced sit in (Dharna). Presently too, strategy of appeasement is in vogue selectively. Internally, sometimes for the lawyers and sometimes for certain religious groups. Externally, softer approach towards our ‘Gulf partners’ and as usual towards the US Administration, particularly on matters related to Afghanistan. Although it is much lesser than the yester years. Let me advice the Khan government on the Policy of Productive Engagement which is equally viable internally and externally. First internally, do not ignore the violations of law and order, no matter how bad the domestic political environment is. Engage the groups on multiple fronts: politically, legally, psycho-socially, and if required forcefully also. This engagement should be productive and not for the dispute deferment but for the dispute resolution. The doors of dialogue must never be shut because it gives the protesters an opportunity to mobilize the public which makes the government adopt a softer approach. The hooliganism must never be allowed because it encourages the Non-State Actors (NSAs) to blackmail the state. The state must never give in to demands which are against the national interests. However, this does not mean that government is free to make anti-people policies and does not pay heed to peoples’ legal and logical demands. One can see Khan government making the same mistake of adopting a softer approach towards powerful political families. While PM insists that there will be no NRO for the corrupt elite but the prosecution against the influential criminals is painfully slow. The judiciary and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) may not be under the government but there are several government functionaries (FIA, IB, Anti-corruption), which can be tasked to nab the criminals and prosecuted under different laws. Foul language and extremely abhorrent criticism against state institutions (senior judiciary, military establishments, NAB, IB, FIA), and the government has become a norm by senior leadership of the opposition parties. This is where Khan government is failing and needs to show some spine, particularly in Punjab. Externally too, peace in Afghanistan and peace with India with relief to the people of Kashmir should be Pakistan’s utmost priority. Same can be achieved through the policy of productive engagement with all stakeholders and not through the strategy of appeasement towards any of the sponsors, including US. Pakistan may decide to walk slowly but straight, instead of tumbling hurriedly towards the resolution of protracted conflicts with India. Dr Zia Ul Haque Shamsi is the author of the book ‘Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan’ published by Peter Lang, New York