Tuesday's twin suicide bombings at the Naval War College in Lahore, which killed four naval personnel and injured 21 others, two of them critically, have come close on the heels of a spate of three suicide attacks in NWFP during the last one week. Clearly, there is escalation in this brand of terrorism. And there is also a method in the madness of those behind it.
The perpetrators do not appear to be individuals or autonomous groups, as some commentators have suggested. In all likelihood, they owe allegiance to some sort of a central authority which offers infrastructure support, identifies targets and decides the timings of attacks in order to have maximum impact.
Interior Ministry spokesman Brigadier Javed Iqbal Cheema (Retd) seemed to suggest as much when he told journalists at a press briefing following the attack in Lahore that these suicide bombings were an attempt by terrorists to pressurise the next government.
The motive behind these acts, though, maybe different from the one described by Brigadier Cheema. He also said that Taliban leader Biatullah Mehsud might have been involved in the Lahore incident, and further that a foreign hand could not be ruled out, either.
Mehsud, it may be recalled, had extended an olive branch to the political leadership soon after the elections. He might want to give the new government a chance to respond with its own peace proposals. So far as the foreign hand is concerned, a few days ago Interior Minister Lieutenant General Hamid Nawaz (Retd) had even named names as he spoke of a public perception that India or America might have a hand in the recent suicide bombings. Given the long history of mistrust between India and this country, most people would readily agree with his assessment so far as India is concerned.
Nonetheless, despite all the ill-will in this country against the US, many would be reluctant to accept the line about its involvement in view of Washington's self-interest in discouraging such violence in Pakistan, where it needs stability in order to fight its own war right next door in Afghanistan.
Sceptics, though, could argue that since most Pakistanis tend to see the so-called war on terror as America's war rather than their own, this could be the latter's way of convincing them otherwise. Such unsubstantiated assertions, though, help no one.
Notably, the Interior Ministry spokesman also asserted, "now it has been realised that there is no use of dialogue with militants, and the government has to go for a major offensive to crush them." It would not be surprising if the current escalation is a response to a proposed or active 'major offensive'.
As it is, the leaders of the parties that gained the largest public support in the elections have been expressing the need to talk to the militants, and to use force only sparingly.
Now that an elected government is just about ready to take over power, it would be only appropriate if the powers-that-be leave the decisions on what to do about the all too important question of war and peace to the new broad-based dispensation. The expectation is that it would take the people into confidence, telling them who is behind this ruthless violence and what would be the best way to quell it.