“No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism.”
– Barack Obama.
Terrorism is a complicated global phenomenon that has come to stay, and we all shall, as we do now and in the future as well, bear witness to continuing carnage and seemingly mindless destruction. As States propagate wars to resolve political conflicts, belligerents will continue to search for new means to overpower one another. However, with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their intensity, volume, and extended distances of application, the pendulum of conflict has begun to swing towards total war as opposed to limited war, more by default rather than by design. Total war, here, would imply the unrealistic proposition of the complete annihilation of the enemy. In contrast, a limited war would compel the enemy to capitulate because of limited hostile actions spread over a large spectrum: a more cost-effective method to madness war. This shifting nature of warfare underscores the urgent need for robust anti-terrorism strategies in Pakistan and beyond, as nations grapple with the challenge of mitigating extremist threats while preventing the escalation of conflicts into full-scale destruction.
In the event of a regular war, weapons of mass destruction may also exist equally with the enemy, who could subsequently retaliate if or when brought to a state of desperation, thus leading to irreversible losses. Thus, with the full cognizance of the ensuing volume of destruction over a large expanse of spaces and the consequences of such irreversible damage, a kind of reluctant deterrence has been imposed upon warring states who have now begun to search for and perfect new ways to continue the war by other means under the shadow of unconventional capacities.
Nations now prefer to project their political objectives and power potential through Low-Intensity Conflictual Events, causing enough pain to realize their objective but not enough to trigger chaotic responses. In these scenarios, the application of hostilities is gradual and incremental, forcing the other side to capitulate, who, having been brought to their culmination point at some moment in time and having exhausted their responses, have no other alternative but to give in. This kind of war is much more all-encompassing and far bigger than a military conflict.
Military analysts have started labelling every new application of low-intensity war by allocating progressive generations to them or by fancy titles, such as ‘hybrid wars’, etc. They are all the same, and if they qualify as a war by any means or terms, they would have to be the product of the tell-tale Clausewitzian Trinity, “Chance, Policy, and Violence.”
Such conflict can invariably spread to include the disruption of economic activity, infrastructure, communication, trade, and hostile diplomacy. They are also characterized by the exploitation of aggrieved communities and distressed societies that feel disenfranchised or are made to feel so, thus easily being manipulated into rebelling. For such a manoeuvre to succeed, a combination of activities must be undertaken in synergy.
A popular course of action is where deceptive international financial regulatory agencies misuse the space they are given and, under the pretext of monetary assistance to the target nations, bankrupt them into some sort of compliance. Fomenting unrest and social polarization are pursued through creating notions of and structuring disruptive narratives, making a case for deprived peoples, human rights, and democracy. Internal divisions are manipulated to facilitate a regime change to create a more flexible regime that is more amiable to direction and dictation, not of their people, but of other nations.
This method has now become the alternative to annihilating the opposing side by the entirety of destruction imposed upon humanity through the weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of warring belligerents. Thus, war continues but in other ways. The conflict now has expanded to events executed by proxies, sometimes violent as in protests and riots, and at different times by the deliberate misuse and calibrated mishandling of governance, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies.
These events are supplemented by hostile powers who can apply a literal siege through sanctions and embargoes as well as other financial pressures. The assertions of such hostile nations lead to catastrophic events and remain a deniable act in the larger context of global political propriety. Such is the method and a preferred way to continue the war by other means. This is a method to browbeat financially weak nations that are technically challenged, have security problems, and are hugely vulnerable to such tactics.
These nations can be manipulated, coerced, and press-ganged into supporting international events they never wished to participate in. However, having lost all autonomy and complete sovereignty, they are compelled to reluctantly support some higher power in their endeavours.
Thus, an environment needs to be created to undertake such hostile activity in its full spectrum and for external influence to take root. Such an environment is established best through chaos, lawlessness, destroying the writ of the government, corruption, narco-trade, smuggling, and a complete breakdown in governance. The primary method to such chaos lies in terrorism or insurgency – terminologies that have a different meaning for different people, depending on where they stand. Freedom struggles, for one, are insurgencies for others; liberation movements, for some, are acts of terrorism to others.
Global Definitions of Terrorism
We begin a further examination of “Terrorism” as the world sees it and describes it. However, one is at wit’s end to arrive at a common definition acceptable to all, and no such designation that satisfies everyone exists.
The United Nations does not officially define terrorism and only ‘elaborates’ it through the Security Council Resolution 1566, 2004, that terrorist acts are “Criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking hostages, with a purpose to provoke a state of terror……for political purposes.”
The European Union attempted to define it as well in June 2002. It produced a vague statement “about offences under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organization and be committed with the aim of …..” They pointedly added “that actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict and actions of the armed forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties are governed by this framework…”
Find more statistics at Statista
Both statements are benign, ambiguous, and have an air of plausible deniability. This is a classic example of the refined art of first situating a definition to fit a preconceived accusation and then exploiting that for political gains through a preconceived judgment in selecting the guilty country. This remains the product of adroit narrative manufacturing and creates a suitable casus belli to censure a state that does not conform to what the power-that-be is demanding.
Rosalyn Higgins, President of the International Court for Justice 2006-9, stated, “Terrorism is a term without legal significance. It is merely a convenient way of alluding to activities, whether of States or individuals, widely disapproved of and in which either the methods used are unlawful, or the targets are protected, or both.”
Fatalities and Terrorism
So, having so far confirmed that there is no legal framework or a universally acceptable definition for ‘terrorism’, one goes on to examine what it is about terrorism, which infatuates the world at large. The fatalities that violence causes annually at a global level should be a serious cause for concern, and apparently, it is. Yet, each day, there are also 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, who die from hunger and related causes. Some 854 million people worldwide are estimated to be undernourished, and high food prices may drive another 100 million into poverty and hunger (United Nations).
Worldwide, about 0.5 million deaths are attributable to drug use. More than 70% of these deaths are related to opioids. It is estimated that alcohol contributes to around three million deaths worldwide per year (Statista). Each year, 1.35 million people are killed in road accidents around the world (CDC).
Yet, terrorism, over the past decade, killed an average of 26,000 people worldwide each year. The global death toll from terrorism over the past decade ranged from 8,200 in 2011 to a high of 44,600 in 2014. In 2017, terrorism was responsible for 0.05% of global deaths (Our World in Data).
So, having first established that the term “terrorism” is more of a political tool to beat one’s opponents with rather than a phenomenon driven by concern for human lives, we can safely conclude that deaths all over the world, caused by other factors, really do not matter. In reality, the causes of people being killed for reasons other than terrorism are much more than those caused by terrorism. Nevertheless, it does not matter since such fatalities do not provide the political mileage some countries seek. Is it thus safe to conclude that terrorism, as a phenomenon, is a product of international politics and an extension of regular war by other means in pursuit of respective interests?
Terrorism Threats and National Security of Pakistan
Pakistan is a weak country with extremely poor regulations. Far-flung areas have little or no writ of the government and are always susceptible to external influence. The law enforcement elements are incompetent, the bureaucracy is highly corrupt, the justice system is in a near-collapse situation and lacks credibility, the politics do not evolve around the people or the constitution but on individual and personal benefits, and society is divided by sectarianism, parochialism, and nepotism, merit is not recognized, equal opportunity does not exist, the economy is mismanaged and depends on international handouts. In contrast, the education system is a total farce.
These matters create an environment open to intrusion by external elements who can easily establish their respective influence in ideology, politics, narco-trade, smuggling, and crime. Grave anomalies relevant to insurgency and terrorism related to border management, immigration, national digital data about individual citizenship/identity, and terror financing. With such an environment in place, Pakistan’s self-created homegrown vulnerabilities are exacerbated because of its geopolitical potential and its nuclear capacity, commonly perceived to be an Islamic Bomb (now a product of Islamophobia), the former being a quest for international Big-Power Politics to control, influence and manipulate.
At the same time, the latter is seen as an existential threat that needs to be dismantled as soon as possible, especially to facilitate the former. Pakistan’s location makes it a place of interest to various competing powers who wish to establish their presence and influence. Its geopolitical position makes it central to the Middle East, China, Central Asia, and the Indian Ocean, allowing easy access to these regions. Though its location makes it highly important in the area, it also makes it greatly vulnerable, as greater powers pull it and push it to establish a foothold to extend its respective power potential, economic activity, and political presence in the region.
Being a weak state, as already mentioned, Pakistan’s sovereignty is severely compromised as it suffers from a lack of autonomy due to its dependence on economic support and aid from the international community. Thus, Pakistan is easily open to dictation, direction, and demands as expressed by the national interests of other nations. Over the past decades, anti-terrorism strategies in Pakistan have evolved from kinetic military actions to intelligence-based operations, but challenges such as radicalization and cross-border terrorism persist.
Some of the major issues that are listed as Pakistan’s vulnerabilities are:
CPEC
With a continental shelf that extends deep into the Indian Ocean, Pakistan has the potential to control, manage, and regulate sea-faring traffic in the Persian Gulf. However, when seen in the context of the Gwadar Port, a natural deep sea port that, when completed, may be one of the largest in the world, the whole geopolitical framework takes on another dimension. If and when completed by 2030, Gwadar Port will be able to accommodate twice the amount of 200,000 tons of tankers simultaneously, an unprecedented capacity.
It has the potential to handle cargo that will exceed 80 million tons, thus establishing greater capacity than all Indian ports put together. It is in a position to provide a Victualling Port, greatly facilitating international shipping.
Because of its cargo handling capacity and all the ports around it, it would make it the largest transhipment port in the region and thus may well be the preferred destination for large cargo vessels. The problem is that Gwadar is also crucial to Chinese interests, who find it a strategic alternative to the Malacca Straits, commonly viewed as the Malacca Dilemma. The straits can easily be closed down through a US-led initiative by the consortium of hostile nations and naval agreements such as the Quad. This sea route has 16 million barrels of oil passing through daily and 100,000 ships carrying cargo annually through it.
However, what is far more important to the world in general and the United States in particular, is that when Gwadar is ready with its inland connectivity, it becomes part of the Belt-and-Road-Initiative (BRI), a Chinese initiative to connect Europe, Africa, and Asia by land and sea. It implies connecting 2/3rd of the world with about 33 % of the GDP, and the US sees this as a threat to the economic ascendency it enjoys today. With its infrastructural development and inland connectivity, Gwadar is known as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). It is a strategic alternative for China to the Malacca Straits and equally important for the US to ensure it does not become operational.
India
Pakistan and India are belligerent States that are likely to remain hostile for some time to come. Whereas Kashmir is the core issue, other disputes would have to be resolved before bilateral relations can ever improve. India considers itself a regional power with global pretensions and competes in the region with China. With Pakistan and China developing strategic commonality, India finds Pakistan may be a Chinese vulnerability. Therefore, engaging Pakistan can disrupt Chinese progress in the region, especially along the CPEC route. On the other hand, India has signed a strategic partnership agreement with the US and is becoming more and more aligned with the US’s interests. Since disrupting CPEC has a commonality of interests for India and the US, Pakistan becomes a common enemy to both.
Afghanistan
On Pakistan’s western border, Afghanistan has continually demanded that the Durand Line be revisited and the border be realigned. Regardless of the unrealistic demand, the matter remains a bone of contention that can be exploited. Afghanistan is a landlocked country that depends upon Pakistani access to the sea for trade. However, any trade transit arrangement is regularly exploited by smugglers, which, when cracked down, causes disruption and breakdown in law and order while, if allowed to perpetuate, begins to challenge the writ of the government.
Afghanistan has been in perpetual civil war for the last 46 years and has lost all State-related cohesion where governance is concerned. Therefore, Afghanistan has become a host to militants, terrorists, and global non-state actors. With the very porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, these militant groups can infiltrate and ex-filtrate at will into the neighbouring Pakistani Provinces of KPK and Balochistan. These companies are available on hire and can be exploited based on ideology.
Iran
Though Iran has a conservative Islamic outlook, its brand of ideology conflicts with Saudi Islamic thought. Thus, there remains a sectarian divide that is exploited by both Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both nations, at times, contest for space through their proxies in Pakistan, creating an internal sectarian conflict.
Pakistan: Susceptible to Terrorism
Pakistan has been labelled as a soft country in the sense that it accommodates people open to terrorist activity. So why does Pakistan stand out in this phenomenon where it is accused of looking the other way? One needs to go back in time and critically examine events such as the proceedings of the Nuremberg Trials after WW2. There is so much substance in them and even more that explains human behaviour.
Yet, what stands out most is the plea by the German General Staff, which stated that their only crime was that they were guilty of being defeated. Had they won the war, had they stood where the victors were, it would be them questioning the allies on the atrocities that they had committed on their people. Outrages such as the extermination of the native American Indian, slavery of the black negro, and the brutal colonization of Asia and Africa. But Germany had lost the war and having lost it were now guilty of any accusation thrown at them or that they could be blamed for.
Pakistan, today, similarly, is ‘weak’, vulnerable, and susceptible to any kind of accusation – terrorism, narcotics, child labour, human smuggling, and a host of things. It is an easy target for coercion, bullying, and intimidation – forced to comply with any demands made upon it. This explanation has not been generated to create sympathy, nor is it a justification. Pakistan is where it is because of its omissions and commissions, and it can never be excused for being in the position that it is. Pakistan has never taken governance seriously and lacks the capacity, competence, and will to implement the law as it should, thus creating a dilemma related to the credibility of its sovereignty and autonomous capacity as a state. This environment is highly conducive to intrusion and provides a breeding ground for disruptive, violent activity as a political expression.
Pakistan – A Nuclear State
Pakistan has developed an indigenous nuclear capability in response to India’s nuclear capacity. With a far smaller conventional military capability and a relatively limited defence budget, the situation becomes asymmetric in favour of India. With a continued Indian threat that is to be seen in the historical context of India’s role in East Pakistan, Pakistan can’t let its guard down. Thus, Pakistan’s nuclear assets are seen as a deterrent, essential for its existence and survival. This becomes a national red line in keeping with its national security imperatives.
Evolution of Terrorism in Pakistan
The damning evidence that stares one in the face, pointing toward Pakistan’s guilt, is its history of violence. Yet, in Pakistan, there is a general perception that terrorism was invented after 9/11, a skewed and false perception. Pakistan, from its very inception, was borne of violence itself – death and destruction. Where in 1947, an estimated 200,000 people lost their lives to realize a dream that still lies in wait.
People like to equate this to some novel and romantic idea of sacrifice for liberty and independence of one’s motherland. For the best part, leaving aside some exceptions, this is not true; these unfortunate people were migrating and had left their homes to improve their sorry lot in exchange for a place that had a future and hope for them. The killings were made by people known to one another, fellow human beings, neighbours, community dwellers, business associates, friends, acquaintances, and colleagues, all of who were bent on wanton carnage, loot, rape, and murder.
It was the first instance of an administrative collapse, total lack of organization, and the State apparatus missing in provisioning or extending basic protection to the people and establishing law or order. Later, Liaquat Ali Khan, one of the founding fathers of the country, was shot dead in a public rally in 1951. Similar assassinations continued throughout Pakistan’s history from time to time.
Thus, Pakistan is recognized the world over as a violent country. It has, at times, been accused of being a terrorist state and that a Low-Intensity Conflict is being administered through state-sponsored violence all around Pakistan and within. Pakistan never rebuts these accusations through any sophisticated diplomatic counter-offensive but instead takes it on the chin – its silence is generally accepted as validation of guilt.
The effectiveness of anti-terrorism strategies in Pakistan has been widely debated, with some arguing that military operations have reduced insurgency while others emphasize the need for long-term socio-political reforms.
Chronology of Terrorism in the Country
In Pakistan’s case, historical data and statistics stand out as glaring evidence indicating Pakistan is a land that is soft on terrorists. The world, in general, and India, in particular, never let a moment go by to accuse Pakistan of this violence at every tier, plane, and corner of the Globe. The image over the years has developed, making Pakistan look like an extremely intense country plagued with separatism, sectarianism, and terrorism. In Pakistan’s case, most of the violence was because of a tentative administration and lack of political will. Weak governments created a vacuum by their absence from administrating the country. This vacuum was then filled up by criminal gangs and self-appointed religious groups who started to wield more and more influence.
The record of violence and militancy stands as a damning testimony are listed below:
- Blasphemy cases: 189 killed and 30 injured over the years.
- The Language Riots in East Pakistan, 1952.
- Civil War in East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, 1971.
- Mob violence by Bengalis on non-Bengalis in 1970.
- The Baluch Ethno-nationalist Movement, 1948-2007.
- The Civil War in Balochistan, 1973-77.
- The Sindhis-Muhajirs Conflict since 1970.
- The Sindhis-Muhajirs Language Riots, 1971-72.
- The Pathans-Muhajirs Riots in Sindh, 1985-86.
- December 12 to 17, 1986.The Karachi Riots.
- The MQM Versus the Pakistani State and the MQM-Haqiqi 1990.
- The Anti-Ahmadi Movement and Riots from 1953 March to date.
- 1974: May 22-29, The Rabwah incident.
- Persecutions against Christians since the 1950s.
- The Great Anti-Hindu Pogrom of 1950.
- The Hazratbal-inspired Anti-Hindu Pogrom, 1964
- 1988: May 17, The Gilgit Massacre.
- 1992: July: A three-day riot occurred in the NWFP.
- Kurram Agency 1996 September, to date.
- 1997: August 1-10: More than 100 people, mostly Shias, died in sectarian riots for ten days throughout Punjab in an unprecedented wave of sectarian strife, a few days before the anniversary of the 50th year of independence.
- 1998: January 11, The Mominpura Graveyard Massacre: Twenty-five Shias were killed and 50 others injured in Lahore. This event propelled a new wave of sectarian violence, resulting in 78 dead and some 80 wounded in Punjab and an estimated 150 in all of Pakistan.
- 1998: March: Twenty-one Shias were killed in Hangu, NWFP, during an attack by Sunni militant organizations.
- 1999: January: Seventeen Shias were killed in Karamdad Qureshi, a small village near Multan. Punjab.
- 2004, March, sunni-shia killings on 10th of Muharram in Quetta, 40 dead.
These are only some incidents to illustrate the state of violence. Many more such occurrences have taken place of a smaller nature on a routine basis. The matter of violence, terrorism, and insurgency was aggravated over time by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and then the US occupation of Afghanistan from 1979-2021. This resulted in an influx of refugees as well as militants and the ideology of Jihad.
Kashmir: An Illustration of Deceit and Terrorism
The world has numerous flashpoints that can easily escalate into full-fledged conflicts. While the list of such flashpoints exists, we will take Kashmir alone as an illustration. Amongst many other such volatile issues, one of the most potentially dangerous ones is Kashmir, and it should have been a priority in the international scene and the United Nations, but it is not.
The priority that it should have been accorded is on account of the unprecedented potential of war breaking out between two nuclear-capable neighbours, India and Pakistan. Despite being one of the longest unresolved resolutions, the world has not attached the importance to the matter it deserves. This is a case of illegal occupation in violation of the 1947 Partition Accords by India.
Over the years, changes to the environment, some natural, others manufactured, have led to arguments justifying India and Pakistan’s respective positions in the conflict. Despite numerous wars for the ‘liberation’ of Kashmir, Pakistan has lost moral ground for not pursuing the matter with a determined effort. In contrast, India has lost legal justification for its unauthorized land occupation. Nevertheless, regardless of the arguments, the people of Kashmir still await their right to self-determination and a plebiscite that was promised to them by the world in general and India in particular.
Having been deprived of any legal space, political grounds, or administrative procedure, the people of Kashmir have been forced to resort to an armed resistance that is now projected as a freedom struggle by one party and terrorism by the other.
Indian leaders accuse Kashmiris of terrorism, but the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, and other UN declarations permit people to fight for their right to self-determination. Therefore, the freedom movement of Kashmiris can’t be dubbed terrorism, but that is how the world chooses to see it rather than resolve it. However, as the conflict continues, Pakistan, being a natural beneficiary of the conflict if it is concluded successfully, stands accused, wrongly or rightly, of facilitating, aiding, and abetting this freedom struggle.
In Pakistan, it is widely considered by the public to be a moral right to support the freedom struggle. As such, Kashmir remains an important political agenda in domestic politics. India, in response to what it sees as Pak-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir, carries out clandestine activities in Balochistan as a separatist movement and in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) as a kind of religiously motivated movement to impose Sharia. In both cases, the pattern of violence is reciprocal and considered to be state-sponsored. In all cases, militancy would not be possible without an aggrieved populace in Kashmir, Balochistan, or some playing the victim card in KPK.
Historically, India, with greater resources and better institutional cohesion, managed to separate East Pakistan, primarily through what Pakistan sees as terrorism and what Bangladesh calls a War of Liberation, thus setting a precedent in the region. However, the conflict in East Pakistan would never have erupted had it not been for the people of the land who felt deprived, disenfranchised, and exploited. Thus, the first and foremost component of militancy, terrorism, insurgency, etc., always revolves around dissatisfied people who provide the ‘means’ to the ‘ways’ for such conflicts in search of the ‘ends’ that are someone else’s national interests.
The matter of Kashmir stands as testimony to the global indifference towards terrorism or human catastrophe and where such animosities, instead, are exploited and become bargaining chips in multilateral relations, all at the altar of respective national interests but always at a great human cost in lives, limb, and property.
Role of Intelligence Agencies in Counterterrorism
Thus, terrorism as a phenomenon must never be simplified in its explanation as a home-grown-based method to madness but should be seen as an exploitation of real or perceived grievances only to fulfil political objectives.
As illustrated above, Kashmir remains unresolved, as are many other such conflicts, like Ireland and Palestine. After all, a very good example of the contradiction in labelling anyone a terrorist lies in the American War of Independence (1775-1783), which, at that time, was a product of terrorism and insurgency against the British authorities.
Thus, the first step to creating an environment conducive to insurgency or terrorism is by establishing firm positions over the difference created or perceived based on ideology, political disenchantment, economic deprivation, missing equal opportunities, or a failed justice system, in fact, always, a product of poor governance and maladministration, before it’s anything else. For any exploitation to take place, something as an issue must exist in the first place before such exploitation can happen. The problem is discovered, expanded, and developed into a movement of sorts, and gradually, it becomes an all-out insurgency or an act of terrorism. Thus, terrorism can very easily be contained and eliminated at its very embryonic stage simply through good governance.
Dissatisfied people exist in far-flung areas, and external hostile agencies recognize them as an opportunity. States with a national interest in manipulating the security, foreign, or economic policies of another State gradually apply pressure on the target government by creating instability, breakdown in law and order, and chaos on an incremental pattern, thus eroding the government’s writ. This dilemma forces the target government to negotiate and eventually acquiesce to the demands put before it, finding this an easier solution to the crisis.
Any state vulnerable to such tactics then develops its capacity in response to project similar activities into other states. Thus, a strategy is developed to achieve a level of deterrence and containment by extending equitable terrorism to the different states, and this evolves into acquired expertise by intelligence agencies over time. Intelligence agencies thus compete with one another in the application of chaos and violence, all in the interests best served towards their respective national objectives, goals, and purposes. It would be unrealistic to expect any state to restrict and limit its agencies in pursuing or protecting their national interests. As such, it is equally unlikely that terrorism will ever go away if this is how wars will continue to be prosecuted in the future, especially when each agency endeavours to outdo the other. The fact is that militancy is never a homegrown phenomenon but always an existing grievance exploited by a hostile agency.
Matters of International Interests
Thus, Pakistan has many sticking points that affect other countries and can cause animosity and conflict. These are listed below:
● The US wants Pakistan to distance itself from China and stop promoting the CPEC project.
● India wants Pakistan to give up its demands on Kashmir and to settle the matter on a status quo basis or to India’s advantage.
● Both India and the US want Pakistan to cap its nuclear capability.
● Iran has shown interest in Balochistan. It has also attempted to promote its ideology through proxies.
● Afghanistan is interested in securing areas along the erstwhile FATA region and relocating the international boundary well within what is now established Pakistani territory.
● Smaller issues involve the US wanting to see Pakistan improve relations with India, but not at the cost of China.
Also, the US expects Pakistan to project hostility towards Afghanistan and provide facilities to the US armed forces to extend military activity into Afghanistan whenever needed. The US also wants Pakistan to be more friendly towards Ukraine at the expense of Russia (currently a developing scenario).
Method to the Madness: Pursuing Political Agendas in Pakistan
To force Pakistan to agree with their own goals, the countries already mentioned pursue their agenda by actions short of war but hostile. Illustrations of these activities are as follows:
● Create sectarian polarisation and divide the public. Using assassination, violence, blasphemy laws, and street lynching to create chaos and confusion.
● Create space between the public and the armed forces and a divide between the senior leadership and the rank and file. This would weaken the armed forces and their resolve and negatively affect their morale.
● Create fissures between the political leadership and the armed forces, leading to military interference in political affairs, thus halting development and progress.
● Fomenting corruption and narco-trade, thereby destroying the bureaucracy and justice system.
● Dismantling the country’s image worldwide and destroying its reputation.
● Exploiting the lack of investment because of the instability created and reaching out to society’s unemployed and poverty-stricken components.
● Developing grievances amongst communities by exploiting the government’s incompetence. Structuring narratives suggest that the government deliberately intends to disenfranchise the people.
● Organizing aggrieved communities into militant groups. Providing leadership, cultivating politicians, and recruiting fighters for various clusters. These groups could be religious, political bodies, or community members demanding justice.
● Equipping, financing, training, and directing dissident groups into a harmonized armed resistance with international recognition and moral justification as being freedom struggles, separatist movements, or groupings demanding enfranchisement.
The Government Becomes the Cause, Not the Remedy
In nations where there is polarisation amongst the people based on ethnicity, language, provincialism, and sectarianism, it is very easy to create volatile political agendas. The country’s unity is threatened, and security is prioritized over human and individual rights. Laws are twisted to facilitate police action. Democracy is in name only, and people of dubious nature enter the corridors of power. The whole system gradually gets corrupted. High officials get involved in crimes such as smuggling, narco trade, and human trafficking. Corruption becomes a way of life, and the reality of material exchange and benefits suppresses justice. Justice is always a matter of equal dispensation. However, it must be interpreted universally with certainty and an equivalent understanding, regardless of who is dispensing it and who is suffering or benefitting from it.
Also, justice without freedom (real democracy) is tyranny, and people will always resist it. Poverty is another factor that is further exploited to manipulate political support, and eventually, the whole country is held hostage to blackmail intimidation, and lack of a credible justice system. In such an environment, militancy begins to take hold, supported by external agencies that exploit the bad governance in vogue and the opportunities it offers. A comprehensive approach to anti-terrorism strategies in Pakistan must integrate counter-terrorism efforts, improved law enforcement coordination, and diplomatic initiatives to ensure sustainable peace.
The government, therefore, on account of its omissions and commissions, lends itself to providing the enemy with the most opportunity to create instability within Pakistan. The government becomes complicit in the enemy’s manoeuvre by serving as a leading component.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
