Sufi Muhammad, the leader of the defunct religious outfit, has been invited by the NWFP government, apparently with the assent of Islamabad, to play his role to end violence in Swat by accepting his long standing demand to impose Islamic law in the Malakand division, which Swat makes a part. The decision of NWFP government restive region has generated intensive debate within the country and earned unfavourable response from major powers. The worst fear is that what is being projected Pakistan as truce must not turn up into its surrender to Taliban. Sufi Muhammad, a jihadi par excellence, is on the forefront while the government strives to restore peace in the Swat region. His profile and motto needs to be investigated before reaching to any conclusion or making him a champion of peace. Sufi Muhammad founded TNSM in 1989, when he had conflicts of interest on the ideology with Jamaat-e-Islami and had become independent with his private army. Sufi's first adventure was in 1994 when he blocked the Mingora-Peshawar road for several days; on February 12, 1994, when the Supreme Court gave its verdict declaring PATA regulation, this episode took many casualties of security personal, followed by the kidnapping of many people. After this dreadful event the government signed a deal with Sufi Muhammad to establish its writ. During the same period Mullah Umar was gaining strength in Afghanistan and had captured Kandahar. Both were aligned with each other. In 1998 when America fired missiles on Afghanistan to destroy Al-Qaeda training camps, TNSM threatened to attack the American property and personnel based in Pakistan; it demanded an apology from the US for its conduct. In November 2001 Sufi Muhammad led about 10,000 Pakistani innocent youngsters to fight against the coalition forces in Afghanistan. Further more, TNSM kept attacking government installations, security agencies and was also involved in suicide bombings. On January 12, 2002 Musharraf regime banned TNSM, against the charges of anti-state activities. He was convicted on April 24, 2002 along with his other fellows for ten years imprisonment. The religious outfit remained inactive till October 2005 till the time an earthquake took place in the northern areas of the country and TNSM GOT engaged in relief work. The coalition government of NWFP signed Six-point accord with the TNSM on April 20, 2008. The document bounded the religious outfit to stop militancy and refrain from suicide attacks on the army and government officials. Moreover after signing the accord TNSM also allowed girls to continue their education. The government was supposed to withdraw all criminal cases against Sufi Muhammad and his followers. The deal did not gain any result beyond his freedom. On May 21, 2008 the coalition government of NWFP entered into another peace deal with Maulana Fazlullah, in which both the parties worked out a Sixteen-point accord which in its nature was quite comprehensive. The central point of agreement was the enforcement of shariah in Swat and Malakand division. Fazlullah promised to shun the path of militancy, allow girls' education and respect the government's writ. He gave a pledge to disband his private militia and not to attack security personnel and state installations. On the other, he was permitted to run his madrassa along with his FM radio service within the limits of his village. This deal, too, could not materialise and he continued with everything he had. Now, whose shariah will be implemented in the Malakand division? What would be the format of Nizam-e-Adl? Is there any mechanism to evaluate the progress or to counter the deceptive moves? What if the deal fails to achieve its objectives and militants resume the warpath? Will the peace not encourage the obscurantist elements to extend their writ to other parts of the country as well? Or are the militants taking time to reorganise themselves before their next mission? Therefore the people on the helm of affairs duly need to keep in mind these crucial aspects before striking any deal. To stabilise Pakistan and to counter terrorism and militancy the role of the coalition forces based in Afghanistan is vital. It is essential for the US and Pakistan to counter the elements that are providing logistic, finance, weapons and also facilitating for the training of guerrilla warfare to the illegitimate militant organisations. According to the UN more than $4 billion worth opium exports per year take place from Afghanistan. A big chunk of it is being used to strengthen the militants and anti-state elements based in FATA and NWFP and having links with the warlords of Afghanistan. This particular source is lifeline to the militants, active on both sides of the Durand Line. Beside that many other actors are playing their role to destabilise Pakistan, and are also not in favour of the US presence in Afghanistan. Islamabad's desire for peace sounds attractive and need of the hour but doing so on terms of the militant groups constitutes the real problem. Needless to say, the deals impact, complications and implications should be evaluated in the context of the US/NATO policies and the concerns of regional powers. The Obama Administration has appointed envoys to resolve the ongoing conflicts in the two parts of the world. George Mitchell is the envoy for Middle East and Richard Holbrooke for Pakistan and Afghanistan. "We will change the world," stated President Obama. Is it a new agenda or the step two of the old strategy - just as old wine in a new bottle. This development needs to be rigorously analysed because both are interlinked and would impact our policies in future. Richard Holbrooke during his maiden trip to South Asia said: "The Taliban were a common enemy of Pakistan, India and the US." Holbrooke's statement is a clear indication of the US administration's rejection of the peace deal between the Government of Pakistan and the militants. According to him, the deal is an "interim arrangement" since the president has not signed it yet. The NATO spokesman James Appathurai said: "We would all be concerned by a situation in which extremist would have safe havens." He added: "I don't know if the pact would make NATO's task more difficult and that it was certainly a reason for concern." The situation on ground is quite crucial for Pakistan. It has to confront militants for the sake of its territorial integrity; the areas captured by Taliban have to be retrieved. State within the state or threat to the writ of government cannot be tolerated. Short-term gains would not protect the interest of the state. Political consensus with futuristic vision on the issue is vital to eradicate extremism and sectarian divide. Constitutional and political infrastructure needs to be reorganised to tackle the situation effectively. The government has to be vigilant, honest and bold while implementing the policies, particularly in the restive regions. Interactive coordination, with relevant institutions and departments is essential to make a difference. Policy formulation mechanism needs to be research-based. A liberal, moderate and progressive approach is the only option to put the state in harmony internally and externally. Pakistan cannot tackle the problem of militancy on its own. To undertake such a gigantic task, it needs the support of the global as well as regional powers. It has to enhance diplomatic interaction through regional forums on the issue of insurgency. Regional alignment for harmonising interest with the stakeholders in regional and global politics is the ideal path for the future. Synchronisation of both, internal and external efforts will help Pakistan to meet the challenge effectively. Such an approach will earn international support and project soft image of the country making it an acceptable state on the world canvas. The writer is a freelance columnist