IT is deeply unfortunate that the security of millions is potentially being put at stake over the persistent antipathy between the PTI and the government. And yet, instead of resolving their differences and setting some rules of engagement, both sides continue to cross lines that should not be crossed. In jail and with the walls seemingly closing in, former prime minister Imran Khan has taken an increasingly combative position against the authorities. It appears that the recent arrest of his nephews, who have since been released on bail, has greatly provoked him. In statements attributed to him and shared from his X account on Thursday, the jailed PTI leader has directed the KP government as well as provincial lawmakers to resist the military operations being conducted in the province to clear it of terrorists. This is a dangerous and problematic position to take, especially given the social sensitivities involved.

Mr Khan seems to believe that the military operations are merely a tool to politically hurt his party, which rules the province. He has also asserted that they are being conducted `merely to please foreign powers`. However, these positions are contradicted by the ground realities in KP, where militancy is visibly resurgent and repeated attacks by terrorists have claimed many lives and spoilt what hard-fought peace had been achieved in previous years. There is, indeed, strong local opposition to security operations as well, because kinetic operations invariably entail the displacement of civilian populations and subsequent economic losses due to disrupted livelihoods. However, the citizenry seems equally wary of the growing influence of terrorists and other violent actors and does not want them to gain a foothold either. In such a situation, a national leader should propose a middle-ground solution that protects citizens` interests while recognising national security imperatives. Unfortunately, Mr Khan seems to be letting anger get the better of his judgement.

It would be amiss not to point out the failings on the other side as well. Perhaps due to the way politics, justice and governance have shaped up under the present regime, the powerful seem to be operating under the assumption that their will can be imposed on the people without consequences. This is a dangerous presumption. Decisions that can drastically affect citizens` lives cannot be taken behind closed doors. There needs to be political ownership of such choices, which can only happen if those who are to be affected by them have been adequately heard and their concerns accommodated. Pressing ahead without public consent can prove disastrous in case unforeseen challenges end up complicating operational aims. Hence, there should be a much greater focus on attaining political buy-in, and if making certain concessions can help achieve it, they should be considered. There needs to be some give and take.