BEFORE the TTP ended its ceasefire with the state last week, many, including this paper, had felt that the terrorist group was using negotiations simply to buy time and re-energise itself before it returned to its violent ways.

A recent document authored by the National Counter-Terrorism Authority has proved these fears correct. As reported on Friday, Nacta’s analysis, presented to the Senate Committee on Interior, says that the peace process initiated by the then PTI-led government last year had “emboldened” the TTP, and that the group used the period to expand its footprint.

Moreover, the authority says that the banned group was testing the waters in Swat, to see how the public and the state would react to its presence. It termed the massive pro-peace rallies by KP’s people as a positive development, adding that at present the militants were lying low due to action taken by the security forces.

The PTI administration, as well as the security establishment, apparently wanted to give peace a chance by talking to the militants. The process continued when the PDM government took power in April, but clearly, due to the TTP’s untenable demands — such as the reversal of ex-Fata’s merger with KP, and the release of hardened militants — the negotiations were destined to fail. It had been rightly argued that the TTP were not genuinely interested in peace, and that the demands they had set amounted to the surrender of the state before an armed group. Nacta’s findings have only confirmed these concerns.

Now it is back to the battlefield for the militants as well as the state. In a related development, the US has said it will not let Afghan soil be used against Pakistan, as the TTP have found shelter in Afghan Taliban-ruled territory. But just how Washington intends to do this is unclear, unless this means more ‘over-the-horizon’ attacks on the TTP and IS-K in Afghanistan.

The foremost challenge before the state is, of course, keeping the peace, and ensuring that a new TTP-inspired reign of terror does not engulf the country in these times of multiple crises. Yet more long-term thinking is needed to formulate a plan to deal with diverse militant threats. Beyond the immediate — but short-term — reactions such as kinetic operations, how should the nation deal with armed groups, whether it is religious extremists like the TTP or Baloch separatists? A constant state of war is unsustainable, and dialogue is ideally the solution.

There should, of course, be critical red lines. For example, demands such as dismemberment of the state or upending of the constitutional order cannot be met, while terrorists responsible for the massacre of innocents must be brought to justice. But beyond this, a mix of talks with those ready to renounce violence, countering violent extremism, rehabilitation and social justice delivery seems to be a plausible way forward.

Published in Dawn, December 11th, 2022