By Syed Shamim Akhtar
In the wake of the recent suicide attack that shook Islamabad, Pakistan finds itself once again grappling with a familiar yet evolving threat: violent extremism that exploits both local vulnerabilities and international indifference. Addressing the nation and the world via the social platform X, President Asif Ali Zardari expressed gratitude for the outpouring of solidarity from governments and international organizations. Yet his message went beyond thanks, carrying a stark reminder that terrorism is not a challenge any single country can face in isolation. The tragedy in Pakistan’s capital, he insisted, underscores a fundamental truth: when extremist networks are empowered by external support, geopolitical disputes are converted into human suffering, and innocent lives become collateral in proxy conflicts.
Zardari’s remarks were pointed in both their diagnosis and prescription. He highlighted the regional dimensions of the threat, accusing certain neighboring states of facilitating anti-Pakistan operations through safe havens, financial support, and military or technical assistance. The president singled out Afghanistan, warning that conditions under the Taliban bear chilling similarities to—or in some respects, exceed—the pre-9/11 environment. Such conditions, he argued, allow extremist groups to operate with impunity, posing renewed dangers not only to Pakistan but to global security. For Zardari, the lesson is clear: instability does not respect borders, and the negligence or complicity of neighboring authorities amplifies the scale of the threat.
Pakistan has borne the human and economic cost of terrorism for more than two decades. Thousands of lives lost, cities destabilized, development disrupted, and societies traumatized—these are not abstract statistics but lived realities. As a frontline state in the post-9/11 global war on terror, Pakistan accepted responsibilities that were imposed rather than chosen, offering cooperation to the international community even as attacks rained down on its citizens. Zardari stressed that many terrorist operations inside Pakistan have roots beyond its borders, citing persistent instability in Afghanistan and the existence of sanctuaries for extremist groups as enduring challenges. Yet he also pointed to Pakistan’s constructive engagement with Kabul, noting repeated offers of cooperation in a fraternal spirit to support peace and stability in the region.
India, Zardari argued, has contributed to the problem in parallel ways. He cited the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav as illustrative of Indian intelligence operations—through the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)—to support militant networks in Pakistan, particularly in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. While these allegations are contentious, they are corroborated by numerous media and independent reports and even acknowledged indirectly by voices within India. Figures such as parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor have criticized strategies treating Pakistan as a perpetual adversary, noting that such policies have failed to foster security or stability and have, in fact, weakened the prospects for regional peace.
Zardari’s point is less about finger-pointing and more about highlighting the transnational character of the threat: when state actors provide material or logistical support to violent groups, terrorism is no longer merely domestic—it becomes a regional, even global, concern. The international response, Zardari observed, has been supportive in tone but uneven in substance. Allies such as China and Turkey issued statements condemning the Islamabad attack and reaffirming solidarity. Beijing, in particular, underscored its commitment to Pakistan’s security and well-being, while Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan expressed condolences and emphasized cooperation against terrorism. While these gestures are welcome, Zardari stressed that sympathy alone cannot substitute for action, and that enduring solutions require coordinated, enforceable measures to prevent state-sponsored terrorism.
Operations such as Rah-e-Nijat, Rah-e-Rast, Zarb-e-Azb, and Radd-ul-Fasaad have dismantled entrenched terrorist networks, eliminated safe havens, and restored government authority in previously contested areas. These campaigns came at significant cost: thousands of military personnel and law enforcement officers lost their lives, and countless civilians were caught in the crossfire of a protracted struggle. Beyond kinetic operations, Pakistan has advanced its fight against extremism through structural and institutional reforms. The National Action Plan, the overhaul of religious seminaries, enforcement of anti-terror finance regulations, and compliance with Financial Action Task Force standards collectively reflect a multifaceted strategy designed to address not only the symptoms of terrorism but its underlying support structures.
(The writer has diverse in knowledge and has a good omen in politics, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
#Kashmir #KashmirFreedom #HumanRights #PeaceInKashmir #Demilitarization #KashmiriVoices #ConflictResolution #CivilLiberties #JusticeAndDignity #RegionalPeace
