Flames do not respect borders

2026-02-11 - 02:56

FOR decades, Pakistan has lived under the shadow of violence that does not originate solely within its own society but seeps steadily across its borders, carried by militant networks, geopolitical rivalries and the quiet indifference of those who find advantage in its instability. What is often described abroad as Pakistan’s internal security problem is in fact something far more complex and troubling. Much of the terror that devastates the country is conceived, sheltered and sustained beyond its frontiers, only to be executed on Pakistani soil. For many years India’s covert support for separatist and militant groups defined this external threat. Today that danger has widened, as Afghanistan under Taliban rule has become a permissive sanctuary for organizations that openly target Pakistan. In 2025 alone Pakistan endured one of the bloodiest years in its history, losing more than 3600 lives, including hundreds of civilians and security personnel, while attacks surged dramatically and crossed the thousand-incident mark. These numbers are not the outcome of spontaneous domestic unrest. They are the consequence of cross-border sanctuaries, external sponsorship and calculated geopolitical interference. Since the Taliban’s return to power, Afghanistan has become a permissive sanctuary for groups like the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and the Islamic State Khorasan. From eastern border areas they regroup, recruit and train, then cross into Pakistan to attack civilians and security forces before retreating beyond reach. Taliban officials dismiss the TTP as Pakistan’s internal problem or label its fighters refugees, but such claims lack credibility. When violence is planned in one country and executed in another, neutrality is impossible and inaction becomes complicity. The scale of the threat is clear in the numbers. The TTP accounts for a large share of recent terror deaths, showing both resilience and the ability to move easily across the border. Islamic State Khorasan has added another layer of brutality, staging mass casualty attacks designed to terrorize civilians. Most recent attack on an Imambargah in Islamabad, which killed dozens of worshippers, was not an isolated act but part of a broader pattern of violence rooted beyond Pakistan’s territory. Pakistan’s fight against terrorism cannot be separated from the conduct of its neighbours. India’s role, though different in method, has long deepened this insecurity. Pakistani officials have repeatedly cited logistical and financial backing for separatist groups, especially in Balochistan, where attacks aim not only to cause casualties but to stall development and fracture national unity. What began as sporadic interference has hardened into sustained pressure. Today Pakistan faces a difficult reality, hostility from two directions, militant sanctuaries in Afghanistan and persistent subversion from India, turning geography into a strategic liability rather than an advantage. The human cost of this violence cannot be measured by numbers alone. Every attack shatters families, destroys livelihoods and leaves communities living in constant uncertainty. Markets operate under armed watch, schools rehearse security drills and places of worship are guarded like fortresses. Beyond the loss of life, fear erodes social trust, deters investment and slows development, making terrorism not just a threat to lives but a drag on the nation’s future. Militancy is also evolving. Security assessments of BLA attacks show many operations were less tactical engagements than exercises in narrative construction. Assaults were recorded with high-resolution cameras, drones and thermal lenses, then edited and uploaded via satellite uplinks even when mobile networks were shut down. Terrorists carried sophisticated communications gear and solar backups, functioning as self-contained media units in remote terrain. One captured militant admitted the goal was not territorial gain but creating powerful images for online dissemination. Modern militancy is now fought with bandwidth, software and perception as much as guns and explosives. Propaganda videos for diaspora audiences and social media can turn minor attacks into symbolic victories and transform isolated violence into a global spectacle. As one security expert observed, the battlefield now stretches across mountains, borders and the cloud. For Pakistan, this means that preparedness must extend beyond traditional counterterrorism. Law enforcement agencies must develop technological capabilities to detect satellite transmissions, monitor digital funding channels and counter disinformation as effectively as they intercept weapons. Military strength remains essential, but it must be complemented by digital intelligence and strategic communication. Without this adaptation, the state risks fighting yesterday’s war against adversaries who have already moved into tomorrow’s domain. Ultimately, however, no amount of domestic reform can fully address a problem that originates beyond Pakistan’s boundaries. Afghanistan must recognize that harbouring groups that attack a neighbour is incompatible with responsible governance and India must understand that strategic competition conducted through proxies only deepens regional instability. Pakistan prefers cooperation, but it will not accept a situation in which its citizens become collateral damage for others’ ambitions. Peace is desirable, yet the protection of its people and sovereignty is non-negotiable. Terrorism is not merely an assault on territory but an assault on a nation’s right to live with dignity and order. It thrives on fear and spectacle, hoping to convince ordinary people that the state is powerless and violence is inevitable. Pakistan rejects that premise entirely. A society that has endured decades of sacrifice without surrendering its will cannot be intimidated by proxies or propaganda and those across its borders who continue to enable such forces should understand that instability is never contained. When a fire is lit in a neighbour’s home, the flames rarely stop at the wall and those who fuel it eventually face the consequences themselves. —The writer is PhD in Political Science, and visiting faculty at QAU Islamabad. (zafarkhansafdar@yahoo.com)