PAKISTAN’S military leadership has said it is resolved not to spare any terrorist sanctuaries in the ongoing military operations. There are, however, two kinds of sanctuaries and while the military operation can destroy one it cannot dismantle the other.

The first kind came into being as a result of Pakistan’s reliance on proxy forces as a security-enhancing tool. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, by 1989 we not only mastered the art of asymmetric warfare but our American friends ensured we were left with trained manpower and material resources to use throughout the 1990s and beyond.

As Pakistan has learnt the hard way the strategy can lead to multiple militant groups with numerous agendas and sources of external support. Unlike a formal alliance, this arrangement lacks specific enforcement and oversight mechanisms; while its covert nature facilitates plausible deniability it simultaneously undermines state influence on proxy groups allowing them to become increasingly independent.

The concurrent power-enhancement and financial rewards often make perpetual conflict a lucrative enterprise for non-state actors, rendering them uninterested in peaceful resolutions. More importantly, since militants do not wear uniforms and often live among the population, ordinary people are subjected to human rights abuses at the hands of both proxies and state agencies as has happened in militant-controlled areas of Fata and in India-held Kashmir.

Terrorist sanctuaries are also located in hearts and minds.

It is high time that all such networks, whether in Fata or urban Pakistan, were eliminated. Pakistanis deserve a permanent break from terrorist attacks and sectarian violence. It is, however, the second type of sanctuaries that constitutes the most devastating blowback reflected in societal radicalisation.

The second type of terrorist sanctuaries tends to take root within the minds and hearts of the people. These robust sanctuaries harbour ideological proxies that feed on an obscurantist imported version of Islam which emphasises overt ritualistic conformity and shuns tolerance of diversity. These sanctuaries cannot be dismantled by aerial bombardment or artillery fire.

Events — big and small — continue to reflect the absence of a sorely needed counter-narrative. Cold-blooded murders in the name of blasphemy and honour, misogynistic policy prescriptions of the Council of Islamic Ideology and, more alarmingly, the plot to hijack a navy frigate are reminders that radical elements are alive and well in Pakistan.

Similarly, self-righteous indignation at the setting up of an Israel stall at the Model UN event in the Islamic University followed by the HEC’s warning to universities to respect Pakistan’s ideological principles (read clergy-inspired narratives) are a testament to the robustness of radical quarters.

The IIU was quick to take punitive action and the HEC was no less prompt in issuing its edict. Their actions were primarily aimed at escaping the wrath of right-wing groups whose hearts bleed for Palestine while blissfully ignoring human rights abuses right under their nose.

The ILU-HEC actions were clearly meant to appease the self-proclaimed custodians of the ‘Muslim sentiment’ — that amorphous emotion that keeps getting hurt all the time except when it comes to minorities and women.

Such knee-jerk reactions play right into the hands of the terrorist who is successful as long he can create a ‘we’ and ‘them’ narrative by inducing people to spurn religious and cultural diversity in favour of uniformity.

Allowing students the freedom to think independently goes against the grain of the militant agenda because open minds have the capacity to listen to competing arguments and challenge the jihadist storyline. Free thinking is the greatest threat to ideological sanctuaries.

Surprisingly, there is no serious effort to challenge the terrorist on the ideological front. The political leadership must counter the jihadist narrative by treating it as the greatest internal threat. It should revise educational curricula, encourage open debate, revisit the madressah system and audit its funding sources, find the sagacity to reclaim control of foreign policy, employ proactive diplomacy to settle outstanding issues with India and Afghanistan.

It should call for judicial reforms, uphold human rights, de-politicise the bureaucracy and law-enforcement agencies, provide economic opportunities and you name it. The problem is not that it is a hundred years’ journey; the problem is that there is no sign of any political will to take the first step.

The lack of such determination on the part of the elite, however, does not absolve educated and resourceful Pakistani citizens from their responsibility to exert pressure. The day the passive majority will find the moral courage to collectively protest social injustice, extra-judicial killings, sectarian violence, quashing of freedom of expression; the day we unequivocally uphold religion to be a matter of personal preference — on that day alone will all terrorist sanctuaries come crashing down.

The writer is a post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for Conflict, Cooperation and Security, Birmingham University.

Published in Dawn, November 25th , 2014