The region where Pakistan is situated is gripped by strategic and tactical differences that incessantly refuse to be settled amicably. The differences are mostly man-made and followed by institutionalised thinking that appears immune to generational changes. The peace breakthrough in Afghanistan may perhaps become a ray of change though the hard-line taken by participating protagonists was not very encouraging. The tumultuous history of the region is a strong witness to the presence of more than one decisive factors calling shots according to their perceptions and advantages.
There are historical anomalies inherent in the perceptions of actors operating in the area that predominantly distort clear thinking. Unfortunately, all stake-holders consider their perspective as completely justified and are not prepared to brook any opposition. There are clear symptoms of the intense lack of accommodating the point of view of the opposite side and the added difficulty is that the only method to settle differences is through use of force.
The region has faced continuous war-like atmosphere since decades often dissolving in violence causing widespread destruction. It is a historical fact that the region attracted the attention of two global super-powers pushing them to involve in adventures proving very costly in terms of human lives and also in financial terms. The most unnerving aspect of this history is the continuous presence of uncertainty impeding the process of development all round.
The multiplicity of decisive authority has plunged the region in continuous turmoil. One example of this multi-pronged authority levels is that the Taliban do not want to negotiate with Kabul regime as they demand negotiating with occupying forces of America that in turn desire the writ of the Kabul authorities to prevail. This round-about pattern is prevalent in most stake-holders of the region creating an untenable situation. The irony is that all decisive factions of authority recognise this discrepancy but are insistent for maintaining the status quo.
It is now a well-documented fact that social structures perform best in unison and go haywire when exposed to fractional handling. It is not only a sociological fact but also pertains to governance patterns equally. It is no doubt also true that well-entrenched groups resist all attempts to surrender their respective authority and need tremendous social push to abdicate their role. The problem, however, is the knowledge provided to widespread social tentacles to try to unite for bring about unity.
The Pakistani polity is slowly getting aware of the perils of staunch partisan behaviour of dominant groups. On the other hand such groups are also engaged in keeping their grip intact indicating that they will not quit with ease. The best method to apply levers of control on such groups is through organised political efforts aimed at creating consciousness within vast swathes of people about the desirability of a unified national stance. It is easier said than done because the partisan groups have kept in store many issues that appeal to populism and emotional sensitivities of the populace.
The main problem impeding unified socio-political action in a polity is the gullibility of public perceptions. The very nature of public opinion is governed by consistent shifts governing it that are highly amenable to populist sloganeering attracting instant public attention. The problem is exacerbated when such shifts are deliberately designed and publicised according to need. The technique employed by well-heeled groups is perfectly devised and rarely fails to hit the desired objective.
Another problem is that the dominant content of control exercised by power-groups is to highlight subjective substance mostly harmful to general human conduct that is never perfect and this crucial aspect is willingly avoided because it serves their purpose satisfactorily. The other side of the divide is always portrayed as pristine in nature and the difference is repeated ad nauseum. The ploy has worked very well since decades and the absence of counter-narrative has strengthened it beyond measure.
Pakistan is fortunate that it is responding to calls of social awakening though efforts to contain it are equally strong. The vital aspect is the awakening is a continuous affair and it is very rare that it goes dead. History is witness to the process of change being incessant and beneficial to the people and they never fail to recognise its importance. The need to emphasise upon the change in perception is a long-drawn and contentious process and it is required to be persistent and widespread. It is very rare that the process of awakening fails to alter the status quo and the best method is to concede to its relevance and facilitate it for wider general good.