The Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Khan has called out on those ‘spreading alarm and despondency because of isolated incidents of terrorism’ as playing in the hands of enemies. His words were meant to create calm, but they just come off as callous and insensitive, especially at the heels of previous statements that suggested that the state had no grievance with Maulana Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid fame.

Additionally, the one week closure of schools in the Punjab, ostensibly for the cold, probably because of protests by Mumtaz Qadri supporters, has led to wide scale speculation of even more terrorist threats like those as APS and Bacha Khan University. People can hardly keep calm and carry on in such circumstances.

In his first public statement since the attack in Charsadda, he has said that some political parties and individuals were hell bent on scoring political points at the cost of national interest. “Statements and analysis by certain political leaders and their cohorts send a message of weakness and cowardice.” He might be correct in this assessment at least. In the face of another attack we have disintegrated into a mob of anti-state critics, when a show of force to terrorist organisations is in order. The extent to which the attack could have been prevented is all speculation, and we can only argue that it could have been avoided. But can a groups hell bent on murder really be deterred, especially when members see themselves as expendable for their cause?

The Interior Minister has agued that people spreading pessimism and cynicism  were mistaken as terror-related graphs were down and at the lowest since 2006, “giving hope for a secure Pakistan free from the menace of terror”, but we can be excused for not taking this at face value.

The Interior Ministry instead of taking responsibility for its failures, has chosen to blame previous governments, claiming that there was no internal security policy or framework. Why it hasn’t been created in three years is a question Chaudhry Nisar needs to answer. The past gives us all a raw deal, but we elect leaders to make it better.

Nisar’s thinly veiled sympathies for extremist groups that often surface, like the tears he shed on the death of Tehreek-i-Taliban leader Hakeemullah Mehsud or in his strong opposition to taking military action against extremist groups. These statements rather than appeasing the public will only rile them more – reassuring their qualms over the inefficiency of the protectors of the nation.