Key Points
- Resurgence of terrorism in Pakistan is both external and internal in origin
- Martyrdom of officers like Major Adnan reflects Pakistan Army’s unmatched courage
- Political choices and appeasement policies have weakened the fight against militancy
The soil of Pakistan has once again been stained with the blood of its defenders. In Bannu, Major Adnan embraced martyrdom while leading an operation against militants, shielding his comrades with his own life. This is what the Pakistan Army has always stood for: a tradition where men in uniform willingly risk their lives not for personal glory, but to ensure that their fellow soldiers and their homeland remain safe.
Yet, amid the tributes and eulogies, an unsettling truth emerges: while the military bleeds on the frontlines, the political leadership has often faltered in clarity, unity, and will. The reappearance of terrorism is not an accident of fate; it is the result of choices some made in Kabul, others in Islamabad and Peshawar. The real question before us is not just how militancy revived, but why the state repeatedly hesitates to respond with the consistency required.
Safe havens
The most immediate explanation lies beyond Pakistan’s western border. Since the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has been gifted not only a sanctuary but also legitimacy. Dozens of training camps have been reactivated, infiltration routes have reopened, and Afghan cadres now bolster the TTP’s ranks. In the past year alone, more than a hundred Afghan nationals have been killed fighting on Pakistani soil alongside the TTP, underscoring Kabul’s silent complicity.
Despite pledges of cooperation, the Afghan Taliban have allowed these sanctuaries to fester, strengthening the hand of militants determined to destabilise Pakistan. Yet, it would be simplistic to pin the blame entirely across the border. The deeper malaise lies within our own political landscape. Instead of presenting an unbending front, Pakistan’s leadership has too often reached for expediency, treating hardened terrorists as though they were estranged brothers with grievances to be pacified. This miscalculation has not only emboldened militants but has also left the state divided at a moment when it can least afford confusion.
No political figure represented this approach more clearly than Imran Khan. Even before assuming power, his rhetoric was filled with calls for dialogue, understanding the militants’ perspective, and reintegrating their thousands of fighters into society. Once in office, these ideas crystallised into policy negotiations were pursued, concessions floated, and reconciliation presented as the preferred path. The results were both predictable and tragic. Instead of disarming hostility, these moves were read as weakness. Violence escalated, and when attacks mounted, PTI, governing Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, doubled down on its position, clinging to the illusion that dialogue might still achieve what years of bloodshed had proven impossible. This was not just a political misjudgement; it was a distortion of reality. The TTP had never negotiated in good faith, and their ideology left no space for compromise. By extending their legitimacy, Pakistan’s leaders handed them time and space to regroup, effectively breathing oxygen into embers that should have been extinguished.
Appeasement has not been confined to political elites alone. Groups like the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) have framed counterterrorism through the lens of civilian suffering, often dismissing military operations as oppression. While the human toll is undeniable, equating it with illegitimacy is dangerous—it blurs the line between victims and perpetrators. Such rhetoric has indirectly legitimised militants and undermined soldiers who fight, bleed, and die in unforgiving terrain. This distortion weakens national resolve and strengthens those who exploit division.
Cross-border terrorism
The numbers speak for themselves: 70–80 per cent of militants crossing into Pakistan are Afghan nationals, trained in dozens of camps across Afghanistan. In 2025 alone, Pakistani forces have eliminated at least 126 Afghan militants, exposing Kabul’s empty denials. Yet instead of forging unity, Pakistan remains divided. Some demand accountability, while others call for dialogue. This disarray not only emboldens militants but also weakens Pakistan’s case before the world. A nation that cannot agree on its enemy risks standing alone in a battle that demands collective resolve.
History’s verdict is clear. Dialogue with the TTP brought only massacres like APS, Sehwan, Mastung, proving that the illusion of “good” and “bad” militants collapsed in blood. Every act of leniency was met with betrayal, yet political expediency keeps reviving failed formulas. Honouring Major Adnan and countless martyrs means rejecting ambiguity once and for all. A terrorist is a terrorist anywhere in Pakistan. Anything less dishonours their sacrifice.
Zero-tolerance doctrine
What Pakistan requires now is more than resolve; it requires clarity that is unflinching, uncompromising, and shared across the political spectrum. A zero-tolerance doctrine must define the state’s approach, not only against the TTP and ISKP but also against their enablers across the border. Kabul’s duplicity must be confronted with honesty, not brushed aside for short-term calm. At home, political leaders must abandon the corrosive habit of scoring points at the expense of national security. Pakistan’s narrative must be singular: it will not be terrorised into submission, nor will its sovereignty be mortgaged to expediency. The country’s survival since 1947 has been built on resilience. India once predicted Pakistan would not last six months, yet it has endured wars, insurgencies, and economic turmoil. That endurance has always come from the sacrifices of its soldiers and the will of its people. Today, as terrorism resurges, the choice before Pakistan is stark: waver and risk collapse, or unite and secure the future. The path of survival demands unity and the courage to act with the same clarity as those who fight and fall on the frontlines.
