IF the priority being given to it by the security apparatus is any indication, terrorism seems to be metastasising rapidly into a major existential threat for Pakistan. Addressing the Azadi Parade at PMA Kakul on the eve of Independence Day celebrations, army chief Gen Asim Munir saw it necessary to utilise the occasion to reiterate his institution’s resolve to wipe out, both physically and ideologically, the threat posed by the banned TTP. Asking Kabul to choose Islamabad over any obligations it felt it owed to the terrorist outfit, Gen Munir underlined that Pakistan desires good relations with Afghanistan, “its long-standing and brotherly neighbour to the east”. Referring to terrorist groups as ‘Fitna-al-Khawarij’, a new label that has been introduced in recent days to officially refer to outfits involved in terrorist activities, Gen Munir said the country “does not consider them Pakistani” because they do not accept the Sharia or the Constitution. The army chief identified KP specifically as an area of concern for the authorities because the ‘Fitna-al-Khawarij’ has reared its head in that province.

There are many things to unpack from his statement. For starters, it is encouraging to note that the security establishment is clearly taking the TTP threat very seriously. Experts have pointed out that the banned group has been able to regroup and marshal its resources because the Pakistani authorities not too long ago were still hoping to ‘rehabilitate’ its hard-core militants and ‘reintegrate’ them into society. Now, the Pakistani state is once again attempting to tackle the TTP threat in what it believes is a more ‘holistic’ way, which includes giving it a new name. But is slapping on a new label on a hard-core terrorist outfit the right strategy, especially when the label in question is also imbued with religious meaning? The decision to mix faith and militancy is, after all, how this problem started. And will the state really be able to implement its new policy vis-à-vis the TTP without first addressing where it originally went wrong? It seems that unless the authorities are more open about their own role in the genesis of this problem, it will remain difficult for them to ensure clarity of purpose. The strong dissonance between past and present policies can only be resolved by adopting a single, clear stance.

Published in Dawn, August 15th, 2024