There is huge debate going in Pakistan about militant parties participating in democratic and electoral process. Many in Pakistan and other countries are concerned about what will happen and what the state will do in such political shift. Many believe its unelected institutions which are making this happen so that the ruling political party cannot have a strong political lead in the next parliament and at the same time can get rid of liabilities. Although in the NA 120 Lahore elections PML N complained about this perspective that a huge number of candidates were fielded against them, so they might lose votes. This is the first-time militants want to mainstream themselves. Hafiz Saeed, is the head of Jamat Ud Dawa which has been under discussion locally and globally as he wants to join politics now by registering his party Milli Muslim League to which the Interior ministry has not given a clearance certificate after the party filed for registration in the Election Commission of Pakistan. The Interior ministry says that Lashker-e-Taiba (LET), JUD and Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation (FIF) are the same in ideology so they can’t be recommended for parties. But the interior ministry did not stop candidate Sheikh Yaqoob by using the name of Hafiz Saeed and social welfare work of FIF in Lahore election in NA 120. FIF which is soft face of Hafiz Saeed and his party failed to achieve legitimisation from the international community but has huge domestic support because of its social welfare. That is why they are turning to politics for constitutional cover. Hafiz Saeed and Milli Muslim League are joining politics but they need to have a serious dialogue with state authorities. Punjab’s Law Minster Rana Sanaullah said we cannot punish those who worked for the state. The state already has a soft corner for them or he was embarrassing unelected institutions. The question is why is the parliament silent and did Hafiz Saeed really ask for mainstreaming of his party? If not, how can we talk to him about what he has to do for mainstreaming. Will Hafiz Saeed approach the state authorities and agree that he will abandon his militant ideology if the UN Security Council resolutions against him and his organisation are restored. Will the state fight Hafiz Saeed’s case at an international forum? These are serious questions because the ruling party believes Lahore is also a strong base for Hafiz Saeed so he can cause political damage to PML-N although they cannot win any seat but can go for seat adjustment with opposition or PML N can lose votes which has actually happened in NA-120. The international community must be made aware of such developments. No behind-the-closed-doors adjustments can be allowed to give legitimacy to any militant outfit Interior ministry did not clear Hafiz Saeed and his organisations which means they have not stopped preaching and practicing militant activities. Under the National Action Plan Parliament and other state institutions must have devised a plan and policy to encourage parties to shun violence and get them mainstreamed. But so far, the state lacks blue print and the ways and means for such groups and at the same time the international community must be made aware of such developments. These groups may think that any behind the door adjustment can give them legitimacy as this may not be appropriate way to deal with such groups. Parliament needs to active on this issue as it is an issue of national significance and state must develop a narrative about the future but the way parliament has ignored this issue also shows lack of interest of national political elite on this issue. Hafiz Saeed has not done any good service to Pakistan and he must correct his course for future survival in the system. But he belongs in the society so he and his associates must be penalised for their wrongdoings but at the same time they should be mainstreamed by actually giving them legal cover and their past must be made an example so that others don’t dare to challenge the writ of the state. There have been international examples where states have mainstreamed elements that violated state law and remained outside the state’s ambit. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar a notorious warlord of Afghanistan who was known as butcher of Kabul was pardoned by Afghan government and is now part of the state in Afghanistan. UNSC took back resolutions against him as the peace deal has been signed between him and the state and he actually has been taken in fold of state. Rights bodies have protested and claimed that it is inhumane to let him off but in the broader national interest of state he has been mainstreamed. Similarly, the Indian government has been asking freedom fighters in Indian occupied Kashmir to shun violence and get mainstreamed. Although India has occupied Kashmir, and the people of Kashmir ha legitimate rights to protest and get back their territory without using violence as a tool for obtaining their objectives. Mehbooba Mufti, who runs the government in Indian occupied Kashmir has been given a green signal by the central government in New Delhi to mainstream youngers involved in freedom fighting. We have two examples in region and there are many examples in Latin America and Africa where groups which violated state laws have been mainstreamed. The state would have to devise mechanisms to mainstream outlawed groups the way Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) was being mainstreamed when incumbent government took charge but they refused to shun violence and fought with the state and fled from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Deredaclisation at all levels is needed. The writer is a Strategic and Political analyst. He teaches international politics in NUML Islamabad Published in Daily Times, October 11th 2017.