By Asghar Ali Mubarak
In a candid address to the National Ulema Conference in Islamabad, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir, painted a stark picture of the security challenges confronting the country. He revealed that a significant majority of the fighters infiltrating Pakistan under the banner of the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) are not native to Pakistan but hail from Afghanistan. According to the army chief, roughly seventy percent of these armed militants are Afghans, a statistic that underscores the regional dimensions of Pakistan’s struggle against terrorism. Field Marshal Munir’s remarks came amid growing concerns over cross-border militancy and the persistent use of Afghan territory as a staging ground for attacks on Pakistani soil.
While Pakistan has repeatedly urged Kabul to take responsibility and prevent its territory from being exploited for acts of terror, the Afghan government, according to Munir, has consistently denied these allegations. The army chief framed the issue in stark terms, questioning whether Afghanistan’s inaction effectively amounts to shedding the blood of Pakistani children. He recalled that the Afghan Taliban had been explicitly asked to choose between supporting Pakistan or providing sanctuary to the TTP, a decision that remains, in Munir’s view, unresolved. The army chief did not confine his address to internal security alone but also touched upon the volatile dynamics along the subcontinent’s eastern borders.
He recalled the tense four-day standoff with India in May, a confrontation triggered by an attack on tourists in the Pahalgam area of occupied Kashmir, which claimed 26 lives. India, without providing substantive evidence, accused Pakistan of involvement, a charge Islamabad rejected as fabricated and unreliable. During those fraught days, Munir said, Pakistan’s armed forces launched counter-offensive operations, codenamed Operation Banyan Marsus, which provided “unseen support” to the military’s frontline efforts. Involving warplanes, drones, artillery, and missiles, the skirmish was the most intense exchange between the two nuclear-armed neighbors in decades, leaving dozens dead before a ceasefire was eventually brokered. Through his address, Munir sought to draw a broader historical and ideological context for Pakistan’s role in the Islamic world.
He highlighted the country’s custodial role over the Two Holy Mosques in Saudi Arabia, framing this as a unique honor among the 57 Islamic nations. Drawing parallels with the early Islamic state established in the Arabian Peninsula over 1,400 years ago, Munir observed that Pakistan shares foundational similarities with that state: both were founded in the month of Ramadan, both emerged from the principle of migration, and both were guided by the imperative of establishing justice under divine law. By invoking these historical parallels, Munir positioned Pakistan not merely as a modern nation grappling with security challenges but as a state with a broader religious and civilizational responsibility.
Central to his address was a firm assertion about the nature of legitimate authority in Islamic governance, particularly regarding matters of armed conflict. Munir stressed that in an Islamic state, the decision to declare jihad rests exclusively with the state, under the authority of those in official power. He warned that no individual or group possesses the legitimacy to issue religious edicts authorizing combat without the explicit consent of the governing authority. This assertion, reinforced with quotations from the Holy Quran, was a deliberate reminder of the state’s primacy in matters of security, countering narratives that seek to delegitimize official institutions or exploit religion for violent ends. The army chief’s speech was layered with both a sense of urgency and a moral framing of Pakistan’s contemporary challenges.
By highlighting the foreign origin of the majority of TTP fighters, he underscored that Pakistan’s fight against terrorism cannot be viewed in isolation; it is intrinsically linked to the policies and actions of neighboring states. The Afghan dimension, Munir suggested, remains a critical factor in shaping Pakistan’s internal security landscape. The repeated denials from Kabul, he argued, not only complicate bilateral ties but also perpetuate a cycle of violence that threatens the lives of ordinary citizens, particularly children in border regions.
Simultaneously, Munir’s reflections on the confrontation with India conveyed a narrative of resilience and preparedness. By recounting the rapid mobilization and coordinated response of the Pakistani military during the May standoff, he portrayed the armed forces as both vigilant and capable, ready to defend the nation under extreme pressure. The reference to Operation Bunyan-ul-Marsoos and the use of sophisticated military assets such as drones, missiles, and artillery was intended to reassure a domestic audience of the state’s ability to respond to existential threats while signaling to external actors that Pakistan’s strategic resolve remains undiminished.
If a claim in Washington can unsettle public perception at home, it is because it touches a deeper truth: that the gap between principle and practice is real, and that silence, over decades, carries consequences. History will judge not just what Pakistan said about Palestine, but what it did—or chose not to do—when the lives of millions hung in the balance.
(The writer is a senior journalist covering various beats, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
