Terrorism in Pakistan

Horror in Lahore

Soldiers and politicians have looked the other way during Pakistan’s slide into chaos

See article

Readers' comments



Regarding the first posts on Pakistan and Democracy, why is that if the British brought democracy to the subcontinent, they gave it only to the Hindus? That shows that it democracy cannot be brought from outside, it has be grown from within. That's why I predict that countries like Pakistan and Iraq will always be ruled by a dictator.

Why is that? The only difference between Pakistan and India is religion. Islam is an abrahamic faith, with a King as a template for God. God made in the image of a King. Consider this "god" who passes rules, orders and judgements. There can be only one King, if you dare belong to another faith, he will give you hell. In those days most Kings were men, so "god" had to be a man. To a King, loyalty is the highest virtue, even if you are a very good person, if you do not support the King, he will have you either killed or kicked out of his kingdom. Hence this "god" runs segregated heavens limited to members of his faith only! You can be a Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln but they would have no place in a muslim heaven.

The closer you move to a king religion, the farther away you get to democracy. Europe discovered democracy when they came up with the seperation of church and state. As you see the countries that mix religion with state affairs find democracy out of reach. The only two muslim countries that can be called free democracies are Turkey and Indonesia, and we know how islam is treated in those countries.


Redhab..............WWII was regular warfare....this is asymmetrical. Different ballgame.


What disappoints is the capitulation to the terrorists; the tour was canceled and the cricketers went home. The terrorists created terror. The terrorists won.

When London was bombed in the second world war and by the IRA, people put on a brave face and continued with their lives as best as possible.

Canceling a cricket tour, or canceling all flights for three days post 9/11 means giving in to the terrorists.

Were our parents made of sterner stuff than we are now?

Don't run away. Don't be terrorised.

Sufi Munir

It is, indeed, shameful for all of us, that this happened despite assurances given for the safety of the guest players. We should now realize that the terrorists are far better trained than those responsible for their security and that we must not invite foreign teams unless we are sure that they would be safe here.


There was one aspect of this article that dissapointed me greatly. This was the passage at the end regarding the war in Sri Lanka.

That subject is a valid one and has been well covered in another article. But by juxtaposing that point in this article the Economist seems to be suggesting that somehow violence against the Sri Lankan team is somehow a lesser crime because of events in that country.

I am afraid that the Economist, like all liberal think tanks that try too hard to prove their credentials, succumbs to the notion that fair reporting necessarily means apportioning some blame to all parties.

A pity, since it tends to obscure the only cogent response to terror - that it is unacceptable no matter who the perpetrator, who the victim and what the perceived sense of injustice.


Pakistan and Sri Lanka are two countries with similar economic situations. Both have domestic problems and amintain huge armies to support the rulers.
The rank and file are just being neglected.
The moral question is is such expensive sports justified in these circumstances?
There is obviuosly, supprt among the rank and file to what is happenning in both countries and unfortunately, the cricketers had been made the targets of their greivances.
The policemaen who died and their families, paid an expensive price


What is the end game for Pakistan? I have a feeling that is is coming soon. Either it will start healing it self or the bottom will come off and it will go the way of Afghanistan.


While I am glad the players survived, I am saddened by the death of law enforcement officials. Its a shame.BUT, how did that happened! why did the players survive and only police personnel get killed. It is obvious from the video that terrorists had plenty of time and training to execute what they were there to do and they were not far from their target either. The buses carrying foreign nationals just stood there in front of the terrorists. It seems highly unlikely that they actually came there with the intention to kill the players or their managers. Terrorists had weapons- guns, hand grenades, RPGs, they had everything they needed to do a lot of damage, but why did that not happen? To me it seems like the objective was to kill the cops, kill them to inflict damage to the ruling party. Do not forget, terrorists practically had a free pass out of the place. They just strolled right out of town. How is that possible? I think the policemen who got killed were scapegoats and high-level officials knew about this attack and either pulled their people away or did not react promptly to address the issue. The fact that none of the foreigners got killed gives Pak the leverage to keep international pressure and international investigation out.To me all this says that some one, possibly opposition (especially after their ban from running in elections) or the military may have masterminded this. All this in an effort to oust Zardari. I will not be surprised if the army launches a coup within the year to. The low death toll and the death of only government officials undoubtedly raises many questions. Interestingly, this has similarities with allegations that the opposition may have had a role to play in Bangladesh after BDRs mutiny. My prayers go out to families of those killed.

Peter Sellers

It is easy to blame Islamist extremists for this latest bloody episode in Pakistan. Chances are they had nothing to do with it.The explanation is probably simpler. The incident took place in Lahore in Punjab, the home province of Zardari's rival for the Presidency, Nawaz Sharif. Last week Mr Sharif and his brother Shabhaz, Chief Minister of Punjab, were barred by the Supreme Court from holding elected office. The Punjab government was then sacked and central government rule imposed on the province. It is obvious that this bloody ambush was engineered by those out to discredit the Zardari government. The ones most likely to have an axe to grind are those in the recently sacked government. Is it any wonder that the police in Lahore (capital of Punjab province) looked the other way while the shooting took place?


I'm reminded of a story in Kipling's Jungle Book about the 'bandar log'. They are shunned or ignored by everyone and yet their maxim is "We are free, we are the most wonderful people in the jungle. We all say so, so it must be true."

Divine rights, anyone?



Perhaps you are right. I certainly cannot flaw your reasoning. The problems that Pakistan faces today certainly resulted from decades of flawed priorities and policies. So there is no reason to think that resolving them will take any less energy and time than creating them took. And if democracy is the route to that resolution then it certainly fits the bill in terms of taking time and effort.

However, I do not believe that time is a luxury that the fledling Pakistani democracy has. Because of the urgency of the crisis confronting it.

I don't think democracy tends to emerge from a state of strife and chaos. Not because it is not the better solution, but because when confronted with a here-and-now threat people are rarely willing to look at a 20-years-later solution.

When stability is restored, when more 'mundane' matters like education, health and trade become important to people, that is when deomocracy becomes more palatable to people. Then the bickering, venality and philandering of politicians (which is not specific to Pakistan, but seems to be a definition of politicians everywhere)doesn't appear to be as catastrophic as it does in the present situation.

I am not saying that absolute rule assures a satisfactory outcome to an emergency. Your one horse analogy is apt. Rather that the emergency needs resolution (through chance rather than design perhaps) before conditions are suitable for democracy to take root and provide its more intangible benefits.


@tellasitisBeg to differ, but India took a different road a long time back with the change in economic policies in the 1990's and a focus on higher education - especially in engineering and IT. You only have to look at the profile of key people in the government: Prime Minister has a Doctorate in Economics from Oxford and the Ex - Finance minister (the present home minister) is an MBA from Harvard..


@ Gandalf the GreyYou make a very strong argument. I don't mean to place naive expectations on what democracy can do for Pakistan and I take your points on the challenges it presents for emerging countries in general. But is it also not true that today's developed nations were yesterday's developing countries? America has seen its share of turmoil, civil war, and social injustices over its lifespan. It took time but democracy did see them through in the end."After all the dictatorship we all wish for is our theories, beliefs and interests imposed on the rest, not somebody else's on ours, and things rarely work out that way!" -- this is a brilliant way to put it. And yes, there are rare cases where it all worked out reasonably well (Ataturk, Lee Kuan Yew). But authoritarianism is a high risk game since you are betting on just one horse. Democracy, by contrast, can be staid, boring, conservative, painfully slow, but the rewards do manifest in due course. Witness India -- no black stallion that. Seen over it's 60 years of independence, it doesn't seem all too dynamic. But at least it is moving in the right direction. A few decades is not that bad in terms of nation-building though of course it seems like a yawn for us mortals. Democracy needs a steady application and a longer term perspective. Otherwise you can keep betting on race-horses but so far Pakistan doesn't seem to have won any jackpots.


Pakistan is running out of time. The country is literaly coming apart at the seams, and no one is taking charge or responsibility.
Even though the Politicians (most of them) have been unable to tackle the myraid of problems, it's the Millitary & the Security establishment that deserves the majority of the Blame.
Something must be done, and it must be done soon. Pakistan is starting to look like Afghanistan used to.

In the past, Pakistan has seemed much more eager to Kick the Ass of Lawyers & Activists, instead of the Terrorists & Fanatics!

Peace, Love & Respect.



I agree that trashing democracy and wishing for an autocratic form of governance as a panacea to deep rooted social problems is wishful thinking. After all the dictatorship we all wish for is our theories, beliefs and interests imposed on the rest, not somebody else's on ours, and things rarely work out that way!

That said I do think that democracy is also deeply flawed as well, especially in developing countries, as democracy by its very nature tilts heavily in the direction of preserving the status quo. That is probably fine in a rich country where the status quo is pleasant, but a developing country needs change ... the faster and more the better! I think this especially true for Pakistan where the change needed is greater, more complex in nature and to be made in the face of huge obstacles.

Take the 'megalomaniacal' Musharraf as a case in point. I agree with your characterization of him, and would even add in buffoonish to boot. But give the man credit for his acheivements. During his term he managed the economy very well, started reversing a decades long ruinous policy of confrontation with India (against his own instincts I am sure) and started purging the military and administration of extremists. Inperfectly, yes, and he went hugely off course at the end, but which democratic government (Pakistani or otherwise) could have managed half of that?

A long post and no solution in it - but I don't think I know of one. Just a very hard time for all concerned. Only the bus driver comes out looking good from this whole sorry mess.


India can not capture and likewise Pakistan cannot do the same to India. The sad commentary is that both theirs socio, economic, political, and military policies are focused on putting each other down. Resulting in miseries to people of their countries.


@falsafayg & MurkywarIn desperate times, it is tempting to presume that the alternative would be better. I agree that the present government in Pakistan is inept, but let's not jump to the conclusion that democracy is inept. Pakistan has never given democracy a fair chance. What they have going on now is some form of anarchy/theocracy/lunacy/??? I'm afraid you put too much faith in the fanciful notion that a benevolent dictator will solve all their problems. The megalomaniacal Musharraf is the best they could come up with -- that's not saying much. Their problems arise from 60 years of focus on all the wrong topics.


Why wouldyou want the army to to take over the country , when it is itself so corrupt - it takes 43% of the budget , with very little left over for education and health,Take away the companies and the monopolie they run , and you might start to solve your problems.It seems to me , that more and more , the lack of security here , and the forewarning only to the Pakistani team , the army is complicit in all this . This seems , almost to have been planned by a higher authority


It is obvious thatb the army , and the ISI is complicit in this , since they provided warning to the Pakistani team , but not to the SRI Lankan team . The security provided by the forces to the SRI LAnkan team , seems to be almost delibertely lax - once again leading to some suspicious thoughts about the army.Oh America ! how are you going to solve this problem , where the patient is totally uncooperative



Products and events



