SLOWLY, the pieces may be falling in place — again — for the state to take a clear stance against militancy; for a meaningful and coherent anti-militancy policy to be developed; and for the policy to be implemented to a significant degree. Yesterday, the federal cabinet met and made two key decisions: requiring an unconditional ceasefire by the TTP for talks to progress and approving the National Internal Security Policy. Meanwhile, the military continued its localised pounding of alleged militancy strongholds yesterday and on Monday a senior leader of the TTP, Asmatullah Shaheen Bhittani, was killed in North Waziristan, possibly by a rival faction within the TTP or perhaps even a targeted killing engineered by the security establishment (facts about events in North Waziristan remain as elusive as ever).

Still, perhaps the most relevant change that is again being witnessed is the political leadership taking a strong and clear line. Even the PTI and Imran Khan — long hawking a dangerously simplistic line on the origins and causes of militancy and terrorism in Pakistan — appear to have come around to accepting the inviolability of at least one principle when the state negotiates with insurgent groups — that the insurgents must not be allowed to dictate conditions to the state. In now publicly demanding that an unconditional ceasefire by the TTP be announced before talks can progress, the PTI has added its critical voice to a growing political consensus on the issue. Unhappily, until now the issue of the state standing firm has been debated through the narrow prism of politics and partisanship. Be it the PTI or the PML-N, while they are the elected representatives of the people and between them run three of the five governments in Pakistan, they also have a duty to protect the foundations of the state itself — and nothing could be more fundamental than rejecting the demands of a violent insurgency that wants to change the structural and ideological underpinnings of the state.

Welcome as the change in tone may be however, it will surely not be enough to defeat the militancy threat. For that, a combination of military power in militant strongholds, civilian-led counterterrorism efforts in the cities and towns and a more responsive state when it comes to delivering basic services will be required over the long term. The National Internal Security Policy could be that starting point to a holistic approach — but it will only work if the aims are realistic and are rooted in a gradual strengthening of institutions. Ultimately, a pervasive and complex threat like militancy with roots in the wider public cannot be defeated by fiat. It will only be progressively eliminated if society is nudged along a progressive path and the state is made more responsive to the needs of the citizenry.