PESHAWAR: Much before the current peace talks between the government and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan commenced, the state`s future policy prefer-ences became visibly clear back in May.

The election results set the course for cobbling together a complete co-existence between the state and the militants, with or without harmony.

A complete co-existence became a possibility in a sense that while the state has been living in agreement with the good Taliban for years, the May 11 election results brightenedthe chances to loop in the bad Taliban as well.

Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz came in power at the centre and Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf was elected to rule Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The two parties` political opponents were hit with impunity by TTP while they remained unscathed throughout the election campaign.

However, what saved them from the TTP`s bloodletting was their avoidance to come in direct clash with the militant outfit. It is clearly reflective from their election manifestoes.

Among a host of election promises, they pledged to counter jihadi rhetoric, if voted to power, through: economic development and mainstreaming of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in the case of PML-N, and `a comprehensive approach aimed towards abolishing the narrative of jihad so as to reduce the size of the force to be tackled` in the case of PTI as mentioned in its election manifesto.

So, if today the state is reluctant to use force against TTP it should not surprise those who think the militant organisation should be punished for killing 55,000 countrymen. They never openly promised to use force against TTP.

The use of force to restore peace was not an option for the two parties. That is why they refrained from putting emphasis on it in their election manifestoes.

However, how much they have been able to fulfil their election campaign promises vis-à-vis countering jihadi rhetoric without using the force might betoo early to critically analyse for many among their sympathisers at this point of time when the two parties have spentless than a yearin the office.

However, what is troublesome for many among those opposed to PML-N and PTPs approach is their willingness to share the space with the militants.

The country has been through this experience earlier. The space created for `Mujahideen` during the Afghan jihad has expanded exponentially with the resultant implications known to all.

The government`s agreement to repeat the past has become an obvious amidst the evolving situation. Though the willingness of decision-makers (at thefederaland provinciallevel) to accept TTP as a reality to live with has not many takers, the citizens are being compelled to live with the growing threat that the TTP entails for their civil liberties and fundamental freedom.

Had it not been the case, the government would not have chosen to negotiate with TTP through its appointed messengers instead of making it to talk directly with the official negotiators.

The vibes coming from the TTP`s messengers, including the self-proclaimed father of Taliban Maulana Samiul Haq and Prof Ibrahim of Jamaat-iIslami, are interesting if not hilarious.

The Maulana is representing a body of militants whose leaders he has never met. What influence he holds on them if he has not met them before or has not talked to them ever? Is not he as much ignorant about TTP`s lack of seriousness to accept peace as is the case with the four-member official negotiating team?The answer to this question became clear on Saturday. After an Ulema Convention at Lahore the elderly Maulana said that ceasefire was a prerequisite to the success of the talks. Does not it smell his lack of clarity about the party he is representing at the negotiations table? The Maulana and the government appear to be on the same page as far as achieving the ceasefire is concerned. What is less clear is the TTP`s seriousness to halt violence. Even Maulana is not sure about his abilities to convince TTP to shun violence.

Similarly, he is not sure about the TTP`s capacity to rein in all the armed groups pursuing their independent agendas under its flag. The mere expression that `forces opposed to the peace talks` are involved in the latest spree of violence would not help to resolve people`s agonies.

TTP has spoken its mind by accepting its involvement in some of the latest terrorist acts. It wants concessions before agreeing to a ceasefire. Had it not been the case, the violence would not have escalated.

Some describe it the result of the weak position from where the government is negotiating. It is evident: the government is talking peace whereas the militants are striking unabashedly.

This makes one to assume with sadness that peace stands a 50:50 chance with the government is in agreement to give peace a chance and the latter appears to be in no hurry to take a chance with peace without dictating its terms for the co-existence.