If ever there were a time for us to realise that the battle against extremism is an ongoing process and an everyday struggle, this would be it. After much tiptoeing around the idea of a military operation to counter the militants, we were finally slapped awake by the horrible attack on the Army Public School (APS) in Peshawar in 2014. Post-APS, a lot of lost ground has been regained in our struggle against terrorism but the possibility of violence remained. That possibility materialised at the Baccha Khan University (BKU) in Charsadda a few days ago, where armed militants took the lives of 20 people, including students, teachers and other administrative staff. Just days after the anniversary of APS, terror has revisited Pakistan in its vicious entirety. The nation has been left reeling from the shock and our days of complacency are over. The question on everyone’s mind these days is how many lives do we have to lose before anything can be done to tackle the genie of religious extremism? It is important to note that militancy in Pakistan has morphed into something far removed from religious extremism in recent years. Even though it is still very much rooted in the religious traditions, the militants and terrorists are acting like strategic actors these days, bent on forcing the government’s hand into meeting their demands. This much is evident when we see how the places and the people that have been targeted have changed from religious places of other religions and sects to government installations and, most regrettably, educational institutions. In a similar vein, the national narrative around terrorism has shifted its course many a time. Initially, there was this idea that the violence was just a reaction to the grievances caused by the ‘western’ presence in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But that view quickly changed when the drawback of NATO forces from Afghanistan did nothing to impact the extremist views and, more importantly, the attacks that resulted from it. Soon afterwards, we were faced with another idea: that the violence, though deplorable, was somehow justified, since the cause behind it was just. A lot of disagreement ensued and we are still experiencing the outfall of that debate, but before we could ever hope to resolve the argument, there was another even more vicious strand of thought presented by the sympathisers. This view is quite prevalent and it actually informs the general consensus on a national level today in Pakistan on terrorism. The consensus these days goes something like this: the militants and terrorists are not followers of Islam. Rather, they are using their own interpretations of the texts to justify committing acts of violence and terror. So, they are only bad apples and that does not necessarily mean that the entire tree can be blamed or has to be cut down. If we could only find a way to separate the bad eggs from the bunch — and ensure that their overall number stays as close to zero as possible — there really is nothing that needs to be done in order to tackle extremism. Multiple groups around the world have used the same argument across many traditions to justify a lot of horrendous misdemeanours. Be it the revolutionaries in post-Soviet countries or the child molesters within the Catholic Church, bad apples are supposed to be everywhere, bound by the aggrandising tendencies of humankind. Humans are fallible and they make mistakes, so what if some people are just temporarily in the wrong? The same argument, in an extremely malicious form, has been perpetrated to empathise with the terrorists that have wreaked havoc in Pakistan too. But here is how the bad apples argument does not lead us anywhere, and is even potentially dangerous to any idea of reform. The entire idea of reform is centered on interpretations, which as a priority demands taking some interpretations as true. That, of course, is a slippery slope, because then we get into endless arguments as to whose interpretation is correct and which interpretations need to be reformed. Moreover, we have to understand that there is some exclusivity integrated into all socio-cultural and religious traditions around the world. This necessarily creates an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ binary/divide, a binary that can then be used towards malevolent ends. But if the binary is potentially dangerous, we could just do away with it. But, doing away with the binary is not desirable, since we stand to lose crucial elements like a sense of identity and community. So, as long as the binary is present, there will always be apples, both of a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ kind, thereby leading us nowhere. However, there is some scope for reform within the bounds of that binary. The only reform that can ever come about has to be from within the Muslim community, not reform focused on ostracising particular interpretations but rather a consensus that matters of faith and morality are better left for individuals to ponder upon and be comfortable with. In such a context, there would be no need to correct the behaviour of other individuals because their faith becomes their own domain, immune from external influence. That, of course, is easier said than done. The way religious traditions are imbued in individuals in countries like Pakistan do not leave a lot of room for us to doubt, question, or possibly alter our views based on their own lived experience. The world we inhabit, the feelings we have and the way we conduct ourselves in this life are extremely important, and we have to understand that demonising others will always breed hate. So, if co-existence is the ultimate goal — which it should be — then we have to think outside the bounds of organised traditions and embrace a much more universal outlook, one that breeds compassion towards others, irrespective of their histories and identities. The author is a freelance columnist with degrees in political science and international relations