"The chorus of voices demanding the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan's (TTP's) offer of talks be taken up seems to be growing louder. Whereas Imran Khan is feeling vindicated by Nawaz Sharif's endorsement of talking to the TTP, politicians in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) are pushing for a peace deal with the militants, partly or wholly because they fear violence during the election campaign.

"The TTP, in the US's analysis, represents hardline extremists who used peace agreements with Pakistan in 2011 to join hands with the Afghan Taliban and ratchet up sensational attacks against the Western forces, penetrating into the heart of the security establishment in Kabul itself. Washington recognizes the TTP's objective as overthrowing the Pakistani state and imposing its rigid interpretation of Islam on Pakistani society. This is a nightmare scenario for the Americans, since it threatens to undo their plans in Afghanistan. Given all these contradictory views on the TTP offer, it does not appear as though the peace offer will take off any time soon, and perhaps too late to ensure the elections, at least in KP, are not affected by the TTP's attacks."

"What is particularly striking about Mr Sharif's statement is how it contained not a word of condemnation of the TTP's violence or its agenda. Instead, the PML-N supremo saw fit to throw in several digs at the government for its "track record" of unreliability. Since Mr Sharif has raised the issue of a track record, it would make sense to examine the track record of the Taliban themselves in both honoring previous peace agreements and in carrying out ugly and savage attacks against both state and society repeatedly.

"Which peace agreement have the Taliban ever adhered to? Have they evicted the foreign terrorists operating among them on Pakistani soil? Have they renounced ties with al-Qaeda? Have they laid down their arms and accepted the democratic system? Have they exhibited any tolerance for the basic principles of the Pakistani constitution? The answer to each of those questions is no - so perhaps the more relevant question for Mr Sharif, and others advocating peace deals with the TTP at this stage, is: who will guarantee that the TTP will abide by the terms of an acceptable peace deal, and how?"

"In 2012, militants killed around 325 people from the Shia sect, shot a student Malala Yousafzai, apart from torching over a hundred schools in different areas of Pakistan. This is not all, as there are countless other incidents where shrines have been attacked, apart from the ruthless targeting of the Pakistani police … And now they want to hold talks with the government and have chosen guarantors, whose selection does not come as a surprise either.

"What is surprising, however, is the meek response of the state. For years our country has been dangling in the middle about how to properly negotiate with the Taliban. But the question that arises after what our society has gone through over the decade is: do we really need to negotiate with the Taliban? If yes, then on what basis? It would be better for the state to acknowledge once and for all that we are at war with militants and work towards eliminating the menace, rather than appeasing them."

"The fact of the matter is that those who think that the militants will lay down their arms and blend in with mainstream society once the Americans leave Afghanistan or if there are talks, are sadly mistaken. The past has shown that this is unlikely to happen because the overarching aim of the militants, while fighting the Americans and Western forces in Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world, is to impose their own version of Sharia [Islamic law]. This is something that those pushing for talks needs to understand and perhaps they are either being na?ve or are sympathetic to the cause of the Taliban.

"The Taliban is a force that must be defeated, not accommodated. That will only be possible if there is unity among political parties on this issue."