Beyond protests and politics

2026-02-09 - 00:06

RECENT terrorist attacks in Pakistan have once again exposed an uncomfortable reality: the fight against terrorism cannot be treated as a security operation alone. It is a collective national responsibility that requires political maturity, institutional coherence, and social unity. At a time when violence is resurging across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, and the capital, the instinct to retreat into protests, partisan confrontation, and political point-scoring risks weakening the very foundations needed to confront this threat. The scale and persistence of recent attacks, which have claimed the lives of civilians and members of the security forces alike, have plunged the country into mourning and unease. Each incident revives the same questions: how long will this cycle of violence continue, and when will the state and society succeed in containing it? Terrorism in Pakistan is no longer merely a law-and-order problem. It has evolved into a multidimensional crisis, intertwining security failures with political instability, social fragmentation, and ideological manipulation. Any attempt to address it through force alone, while ignoring these broader dynamics, is unlikely to endure. Militancy in Pakistan has deep and complex roots. Over decades, shifting regional geopolitics, global conflicts, and flawed domestic policies have all contributed to the rise of extremist violence. Acknowledging this history is essential, not to apportion blame, but to understand the present moment. In recent years, however, the state has sought to correct the course. Through initiatives such as the National Action Plan, improved intelligence coordination, and sustained operations against militant networks, a more consistent and non-discriminatory approach to counterterrorism has begun to take shape. Yet this clarity has provoked a response. Militant groups, aided by internal facilitators and external actors, have adapted their strategies. Violence today is accompanied by a parallel campaign of disinformation and ideological influence. Social media has become a crucial battleground where false narratives are amplified and grievances, real or perceived, are weaponised. Young people in Pakistan’s most vulnerable regions are deliberately targeted, with efforts to convert frustration and political alienation into radicalisation. The regional context further complicates the challenge. Cross-border dynamics, particularly in areas adjacent to Afghanistan, have allowed militant groups to regroup, finance operations, and challenge the writ of the state. In Balochistan, long-standing political and economic grievances intersect with organised militancy and separatist violence. These developments are not isolated; they form part of a sustained attempt to keep Pakistan trapped in instability and perpetual crisis management. In such circumstances, responsibility cannot rest solely with the security services. While soldiers and police officers continue to pay a heavy price, national unity remains fragile. Political polarisation has deepened, and moments of national crisis are too often treated as opportunities for mobilisation rather than collective restraint. When political actors prioritise short-term advantage over long-term stability, they weaken the conditions required for democratic politics itself to survive. This is not an argument against dissent or democratic expression. Legitimate grievances exist, and addressing them is essential for lasting stability. But there is a critical distinction between constructive engagement and destabilising confrontation. Street protests, institutional paralysis, and rhetorical escalation may generate attention, but they do little to weaken extremism. On the contrary, internal conflict provides militant groups with precisely the divisions they seek to exploit. What is needed instead is dialogue, within parliament, across political divides, and between the state and society. Both government and opposition bear responsibility for placing national interest above partisan rivalry. Negotiated solutions, institutional reform, and inclusive political processes are far more effective tools against extremism than perpetual confrontation. Stability is not the enemy of democracy; it is its prerequisite. Pakistan’s political class knows this well. Nearly every major party has governed at some point, and none can claim immunity from the constraints and failures that accompany power. Yet the tendency to adopt one narrative in government and another in opposition persists, eroding public trust and diluting the national response to terrorism. A more consistent, principled approach is long overdue. Terrorist groups thrive on division. They have no loyalty to ideology, ethnicity, or faith; their objective is fear and chaos. Countering them therefore requires more than weapons. It requires confronting the ideological ecosystems that sustain violence, including online spaces where extremism is normalised or even celebrated. Freedom of expression cannot be allowed to serve as a shield for glorifying violence or dehumanising its victims. Ultimately, Pakistan’s success against terrorism will depend on its ability to act as a cohesive society. Unity does not mean uniformity, nor does it require the suppression of dissent. It demands a shared recognition that internal fragmentation serves only those who seek to destabilise the state. This is a decisive moment. Pakistan can either remain locked in cycles of political conflict that weaken its collective response, or it can choose dialogue, restraint, and cooperation as the foundations of a sustainable strategy against extremism. History shows that nations confronting prolonged violence do not prevail through force alone, nor through denial of internal divisions. They succeed when political leadership rises above immediate gain, institutions function coherently, and societies refuse to be divided. Pakistan’s challenge today is not merely to defeat terrorism, but to decide whether it can do so together. —The writer is Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public, Usman Law Professional Corporation, based in Canada.