The upcoming 80th United Nations General Assembly offers yet another moment for states to speak about global peace and stability, but for Pakistan, the challenge is more existential than rhetorical. While the world gathers to make commitments against extremism, Pakistan continues to grapple with terrorism that is neither homegrown in isolation nor detached from external sponsorship.
Militant organizations inside the country have adapted rather than disappeared, transforming their narratives to survive under pressure, often with direct or indirect support from across the border. This reality makes Pakistan both a victim of terrorism and a frontline state in combating it, yet its plight is often overlooked in international forums where the politics of power outweigh the principles of justice.
“Terrorism in Pakistan is not static but constantly evolving.”
Recent transformations in groups like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) illustrate this challenge vividly. Once known primarily for indiscriminate violence, the TTP has attempted to rebrand itself as a “societal guardian.” Reports show militant commanders addressing community gatherings and seeking legitimacy not through theology alone, but through appeals to ethnic identity and local grievances. This shift did not happen in a vacuum. Three converging pressures pushed the group in this direction: delegitimization by Pakistan’s state and religious figures, competition from rival militant factions, and the rising salience of ethnic grievances in the region’s broader political landscape. While this rebranding may look like a retreat, in reality it is a survival tactic—a way for militants to embed themselves deeper within society while avoiding the same scrutiny their earlier violence attracted.
For Pakistan, the implications are stark. A militant group that can wrap itself in the cloak of local identity becomes harder to isolate and dismantle. Recruitment then draws not only from radical ideology but also from ethnic grievances, allowing militants to present themselves as defenders of communities rather than enemies of the state. This rebranding complicates counterterrorism policy, which has long been oriented toward dismantling armed networks rather than addressing their social entrenchment. The lesson is clear: terrorism in Pakistan is not a static threat but a constantly evolving one, and strategies that do not adapt quickly enough risk falling behind.
What makes this situation even more difficult is the undeniable role of external actors in sustaining these networks. India has long been accused of backing groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army, a designated terrorist organization whose attacks have targeted civilians, infrastructure, and Pakistan’s security forces. Funding, training, and propaganda flow across borders with the intent of weakening Pakistan internally. Afghanistan too has failed to curb the presence of militant safe havens on its soil, despite repeated assurances that its territory would not be used for attacks against neighbors. Cross-border terrorism continues to claim Pakistani lives, and the inability or unwillingness of Afghan authorities to dismantle these sanctuaries has only deepened mistrust. In both cases, Pakistan’s security is directly undermined by state support or negligence beyond its borders.
“Militants now cloak themselves in ethnic identity to evade scrutiny.”
The broader concern, however, is how these transformations in militant strategies intersect with external sponsorship. Groups that once relied on ideology now increasingly adopt ethnonationalist narratives, which are then amplified by hostile states to delegitimize Pakistan. This convergence of internal adaptation and external manipulation produces a more resilient form of terrorism. It becomes harder for Pakistan to expose the enemy when militants pose as protectors of ethnic rights, and it becomes easier for adversaries to shield them diplomatically by portraying their actions as political resistance. This is precisely why Pakistan’s case deserves more attention at the UNGA: the terrorism it faces is not just a domestic issue but part of a deliberate strategy by other states to destabilize it.
Unfortunately, the world’s response has been selective at best. Global forums readily condemn terrorism when it strikes in Western capitals, but when Pakistan presents evidence of cross-border sponsorship and proxy wars, the reaction is muted. This silence emboldens aggressors and leaves Pakistan to shoulder the burden largely on its own. Yet Pakistan has not remained passive. It has presented dossiers, disrupted networks, and sacrificed thousands of lives in the war against terror. Its counterterrorism strategies have had to remain flexible, regionally aligned, and adaptive, because militants themselves evolve constantly. But Pakistan cannot and should not fight this battle in isolation.
“External sponsorship, from India and Afghanistan, sustains militant sanctuaries.”
At the 80th UNGA, Pakistan’s message must be firm: terrorism in the country is fueled by external sponsorship, sustained by militant transformations, and is dangerous not only for Pakistan but for the entire region. The world cannot claim to fight terrorism universally while ignoring the case of a state that has paid one of the heaviest prices for global security.
Recognizing Pakistan’s sacrifices, exposing the double standards in global discourse, and calling out state complicity in terrorism are essential steps if peace is to be more than just a theme in speeches. Pakistan stands at a crossroads, confronting a threat that adapts every time it is pushed back. Silence at the UNGA would only legitimize the aggressors. Breaking that silence would reaffirm the principle that terrorism, in all its forms and guises, must be condemned, no matter where it happens or who sponsors it.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
