The publication of a controversial report by the London School of Economics that accuses the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of having complicity with the Afghan Taliban, should be viewed vis--vis the ongoing tussle between different players to secure "strategic influence" in the post-exit Afghanistan. The worldwide recognition of Pakistan's successful counter-insurgency operations in Swat and South Waziristan, has caused a major setback to the Indian ambitions in Afghanistan. During the London Conference 2010, it was agreed that Afghanistan needed the support of Pakistan (being an immediate neighbour) to establish peace and security after reduction in foreign troops by early 2011. Pakistan, being the most affected country due to the perpetual instability and violence that have unfortunately been the fate of Afghanistan, wants a peaceful Afghanistan best suited to serve its interest. Nevertheless, India wants a greater role in managing the country's security affairs as and when the ISAF troops pull out. By wishing so, India would be in a position to exert pressure on the western border of Pakistan by fuelling dissenting forces in Balochistan and FATA. Pakistan is a victim of terrorism - its northern borders devastated by US-led counter insurgency campaign, its heartlands wracked by the growing wave of Talibanisation and economy sliding down. How can a nation allow militants to create violence Even a man of mean understanding can see the incongruence between ISI and Taliban who are carrying out macabre attacks on civilian population every other day throughout Pakistan. While the report praised the services of the US and NATO troops deployed in Afghanistan, it did not find any space to applaud the selfless devotion of over 3,000 Pakistan troops and 35,000 to 40,000 civilians, who have laid down their precious lives since the US-led war on terror was launched in 2001. After all, Pakistan is also fighting the same war with a nomenclature of a non-NATO ally of the US. Pakistan's economy undoubtedly has been in tatters due to this war, even then its contributions are seen with scepticism. The report does not reveal the names of nine Taliban field commanders that have alleged relationship between the ISI and the militants. This clearly exposes the uncorroborated conjectures in the LSE study. Besides, the allegations of providing funding, training and sanctuary to the Taliban in Afghanistan has a conspicuous tinge of the Indian rhetoric of linking ISI's with the militants in Mumbai terror attacks in 2008. Reading between the lines, it becomes clear that Matt Waldman, the author of the report, wants Pakistan to bust the Haqqani network in North Waziristan. The study has a potential of igniting mistrust between the US and Pakistan that was built after a lot of struggle. All this indicates that the main purpose behind LSE's fib was to again bring Pakistan into global limelight as a terrorist state. It fails to understand that these tactics will weaken the common cause of fighting terrorism. The writer is a freelance columnist