In the shadow of South Asia’s mountains and deserts, terrorism and insurgency have become daily realities for millions in Pakistan. On September 17, 2025, the country’s complex struggle with militancy, regional politics, and human rights abuses was cast into stark relief by a series of events that underscored both the depth of the crisis and the competing narratives that swirl around it.
For families in Peshawar, the pain is all too personal. The memory of school attacks lingers, with parents mourning children lost to violence that seems to erupt without warning. In Quetta, shopkeepers eye their markets warily, knowing that peace is always precarious. And in the former tribal areas, the threat of roadside bombs is never far from mind. According to Intellectual Policy Digest, this isn’t just a security issue—it’s a reflection of deep political, social, and economic fragilities that run through the fabric of Pakistani society.
Unlike Afghanistan, where militancy has thrived amid state collapse, or Iraq, where violence is driven by sectarian divisions, Pakistan’s brand of militancy is both homegrown and a product of decades of calculated statecraft. For years, Islamabad openly supported insurgents fighting in Kashmir, casting them as freedom fighters resisting Indian occupation. This stance, while resonating with many Pakistanis as a gesture of solidarity with those seeking self-determination, has blurred the lines between legitimate resistance and transnational militancy. Groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, once focused on Kashmir, have expanded their reach, sometimes threatening Pakistan itself.
The “freedom fighter” narrative remains powerful at home, yet, as Intellectual Policy Digest notes, it entrenches militancy as a tool of policy, complicating Pakistan’s international standing and paradoxically undermining its own internal security. Nowhere is this paradox more evident than with the Pakistani Taliban, or Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, which targets the Pakistani state—soldiers, police, and civilians alike. Their operations have been amplified by safe havens in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, allowing them to regroup and strike with impunity. The result is a cycle of uncertainty and fear: Will the next attack strike a neighborhood street, a market, or a school?
Pakistan’s terrorism dilemma is unusually layered. The country faces not just the Pakistani Taliban, but also nationalist insurgencies in Balochistan, Kashmir-oriented jihadists, transnational networks, and other homegrown outfits. Militancy is rooted in local grievances but is tightly knotted into regional and global geopolitics. Few nations contend with terrorism that functions both as a foreign policy instrument and an existential domestic threat.
Weak governance, chronic political instability, civil-military imbalances, and economic distress only deepen the problem. Schools are disrupted, businesses shuttered, and a pervasive sense of anxiety colors everyday life. Terrorism both preys upon and reinforces weak governance, hardening the structural deficiencies that no quick security operation can fix.
International debates often reduce Pakistan’s challenges to caricature. Critics label all non-state actors as terrorists, while defenders invoke the Kashmir cause as a moral justification for supporting some groups. Both sides miss the central paradox: a state that once used militancy for strategic ends now faces blowback from the very groups it enabled, struggling to suppress dangers without abandoning tools it once considered useful.
On the same day, in Islamabad, these tensions played out in the political arena. An All Parties Conference (APC) convened at Jammu Kashmir House under Prime Minister Chaudhry Anwar ul Haq, bringing together leaders from all major political parties of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), including the Pakistan Peoples Party, Pakistan Muslim League (N), and Jamaat-e-Islami, among others. According to Parliament Times, the joint declaration, read by former Prime Minister Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan, asserted, “India is in a state of shock after the success of Operation Bunyan-al-Marsoos. This successful operation has boosted the morale of those associated with the Kashmir freedom movement and has given the Kashmir issue a new lease of life in the global arena.”
The declaration accused India of “hatching conspiracies to destabilize Azad Kashmir and create unrest, as it has done in Balochistan.” All parties expressed full support for the ongoing freedom movement in occupied Kashmir and solidarity with Pakistan’s armed forces. A recently revealed cipher was cited as proof of India’s alleged involvement in destabilizing Azad Kashmir, with the APC vowing to resist any such attempt. From September 21, a public relations campaign will launch to express solidarity with the people of occupied Kashmir and the armed forces, beginning with public meetings in Rawalakot and Pir Bagh.
Speakers at the APC emphasized unity and warned against foreign agendas undermining the freedom movement. “We all agree that no one can be allowed to undermine our sacrifices. This cipher is clear evidence of India’s attempt to destabilize Azad Kashmir,” said Chaudhry Muhammad Yasin, President of the People’s Party Azad Kashmir. Former Prime Minister Sardar Tanveer Ilyas added, “The emergence of this cipher is alarming. Our eternal enemy is involved in destabilizing this base camp.” The message was clear: political differences aside, unity on the identity and security of the state is paramount.
But the spotlight on Balochistan was not limited to Pakistan’s internal debates. In Geneva, British MP John McDonnell addressed the 7th Global Balochistan Conference, organized by the Baloch National Movement. As reported by IANS, McDonnell called for an end to human rights abuses in Balochistan by Pakistani forces and reaffirmed his commitment to supporting the Baloch people’s right to self-determination. “Our strategy has been to work with Baloch organizations in the UK to provide members of Parliament with as much information as possible, enabling them to apply pressure on government ministers,” McDonnell stated.
He highlighted the exploitation of Balochistan’s natural resources by the Pakistani government in collusion with China, resulting in poverty and suffering for the Baloch people. McDonnell urged the UK government to recognize its responsibilities—both due to Britain’s historical involvement and its current neglect—placing particular responsibility on the present Labour government. “The UK government has tools at its disposal: it provides aid to Pakistan and maintains trade relations. Therefore, the questions we raise in Parliament are straightforward—what action can be taken, whether through aid conditionality or trade pressure, to protect the human rights of the Baloch people and their right to self-determination?” he asked.
McDonnell also pointed to plans for bilateral and European partner meetings to build international pressure on Pakistan, emphasizing the need to defend the right to life, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the freedom to determine Balochistan’s future. He stressed that the names of those arrested, detained, or killed are being placed directly before ministers, ensuring that the human reality of abuses cannot be ignored.
Pakistan’s terrorism and insurgency problems are not easily untangled. They are rooted in decades of strategic calculation, regional rivalry, and weak governance, producing a landscape where violence is both a tool and a threat. The human toll is immense: traumatized children, depressed economies, and communities forced to normalize fear. Breaking the cycle will require reconciling strategic priorities with internal security, restricting cross-border sanctuaries through diplomacy, and strengthening state capacity to address grievances before they become recruitment pipelines. International partners, meanwhile, must grapple with the legacy of state-backed militancy even as they press for reforms that enhance political accountability, economic opportunity, and credible conflict resolution. Until these intertwined dynamics are addressed, terrorism will remain a persistent feature of national life—shaping the fate of millions who simply want safety, stability, and the chance to live without fear.