Terrorism, in every form and in every part of the world, is an assault on our shared humanity. No civilisation, religion, or moral tradition condones the killing of innocents. To associate this evil with any single faith is to ignore both history and reality. Terrorism has struck schools in Pakistan, concerts in Europe, shopping centres in America, the streets of Gaza, and public spaces across Africa and Asia. The grief it inflicts is universal—and so must be the condemnation it receives.
Pakistan’s experience with terrorism has been especially severe. Over the past two decades, the nation has lost more than seventy thousand lives—civilians and security personnel alike—while suffering economic losses running into hundreds of billions of dollars. Entire regions saw development pushed back by years.
Major cities—Lahore, Karachi, Quetta, Peshawar—and even remote towns across the north and south have endured the relentless violence of extremist groups. This sustained pattern reflects a deliberate strategy: weaken Pakistan internally and tarnish it globally.
For years, Pakistan has presented evidence to the international community regarding the origins of these attacks. It has consistently highlighted the presence of organised militant groups operating from Afghan territory.
Pakistan has repeatedly pointed out that while Afghan soil is the immediate launchpad, the planning, funding, and direction of many attacks stem from networks linked to India. Numerous dossiers—detailing financial flows, communication intercepts, and the identities of handlers—have been shared with global institutions.
Yet, despite sympathetic statements, practical action against the perpetrators or their sponsors has remained minimal. Diplomatic caution and geopolitical interests continue to outweigh moral responsibility.
This pattern becomes even more visible during high-profile events inside Pakistan. Whenever foreign sports teams visit—most notably international cricket tours—terror threats and attempts mysteriously escalate.
These attacks aim not only to cause casualties but to undermine Pakistan’s stability, deter foreign engagement, and damage its international reputation. Such patterns are not coincidences; they represent a strategic intent to ensure Pakistan remains isolated, insecure, and globally pressured.
In response, Pakistan has taken difficult but necessary internal steps. The repatriation of Afghans living illegally in Pakistan was not a rash decision—it was guided by security concerns and the international principle that undocumented residents must either legalise their stay or return home. Several recent attacks involved individuals who crossed borders unlawfully or used refugee movement as a cover.
While Pakistan acted within the law, India exploited this sensitive moment to fuel disinformation campaigns and support anti-Pakistan activities through covert means. Yet again, the global response remained limited to polite expressions of regret.
Amid this environment, another alarming development has surfaced. Reports indicate that Afghanistan has attacked a Chinese camp in Tajikistan, reportedly killing three Chinese nationals. Disturbingly, the attack is believed to have been carried out using a drone—echoing the increasingly sophisticated tactics deployed across the region.
It is worth recalling that India, with Israeli collaboration, used drone technology to strike Pakistan in May 2025. When non-state or quasi-state actors begin replicating such tactics, they open the door to an uncontrollable cycle of escalation—one that threatens the stability of the entire region.
The consequences of global inaction are not confined to South Asia. When the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, it left behind large quantities of military equipment—ranging from rifles and night-vision gear to armoured vehicles. This arsenal now fuels extremist networks across borders.
Just days ago, an Afghan national allegedly carried out an attack outside the White House, injuring two security personnel. For decades, Western capitals perceived terrorism as a distant threat affecting “other” parts of the world. Now, as violence reaches the doorsteps of major global powers, it serves as a stark reminder: terrorism recognises no boundaries.
In response, Washington has announced a review of its policies on Afghan arrivals, with increased scrutiny of background checks—measures comparable to what Pakistan has implemented regarding undocumented Afghans. This incident underscores a fundamental truth: instability cannot be geographically quarantined.
If the world continues to dismiss Pakistan’s long-standing concerns, reacting only when violence reaches Western shores, the global counterterrorism effort will remain fragmented and ineffective.
The world today needs a serious, structured, and enforceable counterterrorism framework. There must be an international dialogue—transparent and unpoliticised—on proxy warfare, state-sponsored militancy, and the financial systems sustaining extremist groups. Nations that weaponise terrorism as an extension of foreign policy must be named, confronted, and sanctioned.
The current model—rooted largely in symbolic gestures and periodic condemnations—is no longer sufficient. Without accountability, the cycle of violence will continue.
Pakistan’s stance has remained consistent and principled. It condemns terrorism in all forms—whether committed in the West or the East, by individuals or organised networks. It has cooperated with global counterterrorism bodies, shared intelligence, and extended support whenever required.
Its sacrifices are not mere statistics; they represent shattered families, orphaned children, and generations scarred by conflict.
The global community must now recognise that Pakistan’s struggle is part of a wider battle in which every nation has a stake. Terrorism anywhere is a threat everywhere. Only through honesty, unity, and collective resolve can the world hope to secure a peaceful and stable future.
Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal serves as the Director General (Research) at the National Assembly Secretariat, Parliament House, Islamabad. With extensive experience in legislative research and policy analysis.
