Osama bin Laden died a global death in Pakistan. Even in a world like ours, full of tearing dilemmas, some positions must be taken. The passing of evil must relieve humanity. That quick moment when many of us paused, realised what had happened and prepared ourselves for the ethical stance that was necessary, even if avoidable, brought us on the single plane of universal humanity. There is nothing apart from biology that makes us humans equal in our times; ironical that the death of an infamous man would. How deeply tied to a negation our most cherished goal – of a common humanity – is.

It would be uncharitable, perhaps even uncivil, to pinch this global mood. One risks being called a traitor to humanity. But for deeply realistic reasons, some awkward notes must be shared. I state three that are likely to be lost in the frenzy that will follow.

The first concerns the United States. There is little to doubt the ethicality of the act. It represented that rare moment when a state fused its ethics of conviction with its ethics of responsibility. Kill acts such as these are very important. Hence President Obama took the responsibility for the decision: “at my direction,” he said. But there is a tragic side to it, which can only surface when cultural frames are cast on it. For the US, targeted killings have been a secular tradition that Presidents direct and take ownership for. They are considered outside the ambit of cultural contexts in which they are executed.

But neither bin Laden nor Saddam Hussein belonged to the world where that secular intent would be accepted without contest. A damaging strand of thought in this world would very likely interpret an act of humanity as an act against itself and its belief. The decision to bury bin Laden at sea for the fear his piece of earth would have turned into a shrine displays an expected western trust (or mistrust) of matter. Neither shrines nor martyrs need be materially present for rage to reproduce. Memories, because they are fleeting, can be more potent. Especially when the idea of such ‘martyrs’ and their organisations has overgrown their corporeal origins.

The US executed a certain act in an amorphous world. End of a man could become the beginning of an idea. The tragedy surfaces when we press for clarity: there was no other option for the United States. Political decisions are always difficult, but they must be taken. It would be ideal if tactics were more attuned to cultural contexts. Made flesh, South Asia has ceased to be the place of ideals.

The second concerns Pakistan. Indications are the Pakistan establishment understands its security does not neatly coincide with the US’security. The American act will most likely make Pakistan more insecure. Immensely symbolic moments produce great clarity in the life of nations. In a twisted way, this may be one for Pakistan. Politics and not strategy makes nations secure. The sooner the establishment realises that strategy and politics cannot compete and hollow each other out, the better it will be for Pakistan. Pakistan needs its strategy to become less schizophrenic and its politics to become more substantial. If they meet, the love affair between them would be a true national reconciliation.

Democracy deepens with practice; it never advances with performance. Pakistan has some robust agents of democracy that many postcolonial societies, India included, lack. Media and civil society are the two most prominent, but enthusiasm is not enough. However popular and desirable, democracy needs resources, both material and abstract, to make authority authorial. Power in Pakistan needs to be in service of politics and not strategy. But chances are bleak. Look east, young man, I would be told.

The third concerns India. There is a remarkable disconnect between India’s capitalist elite media and its democratic population. It could be difficult for Pakistani readers to believe, especially since it comes from an Indian citizen, but the official Indian position on Pakistan has seldom been as nonsensical as the shriek sessions in its electronic media and borrowed verbiage in its print. They have already fantasised about a US-type response to nab Dawood Ibrahim; and despaired.

The establishment here understands a weak Pakistan is a bleak sign for India. Sincere intent notwithstanding, it is difficult for Pakistan to become an “other” for India in the same sense as say, China. This natural intimacy often allows Indian politics to moderate the ambition of its security establishment which is, relative to Pakistan, substantially well endowed. Again, it would be ideal if India could re-envision its role, not in but for Pakistan. Democracy promotion has gradually become an important component of India’s international role. Would it not be useful if the experience behind some of the more complex gains of Indian democracy, which are still unknown to many in urban and impatient India, could be shared with Pakistan?

As nations, just as peoples, we are invested in each other’s present and future. The paucity of our political imagination leads us to think of policy in non-existent categories of real and ideal. It is time we realised idealist sounding notes such as these are realistic tools for survival. What has happened is not an end but a beginning of a crisis. It is an opportunity too; which we are likely to ignore. If only.

  Atul Mishra teaches politics and international relations at the School of International Studies, Central University of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, India.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.