When Pakistan’s security forces conducted their intelligence-based operation in Panjgur on 25 January, they did more than neutralise three terrorists. They delivered a message: the nation’s defenders never sleep. The men eliminated were part of what our security apparatus identifies as Fitna al-Hindustan, a proxy network backed by hostile external forces that have long used insurgency as a tool against Pakistan’s stability.
In an era when geopolitics is raw power and not polite rhetoric, Pakistan’s Army remains the bulwark of national security. The Panjgur operation was, therefore, a calculated strike against violent agents of disruption who kill innocents on behalf of adversaries. The professionalism shown by our forces in Balochistan came against a backdrop of rising militancy and is testimony to a security doctrine that refuses to compromise on national integrity.
Just days before Panjgur, a suicide bomber struck a wedding in Dera Ismail Khan, slaughtering civilians who were celebrating life and union. At least seven people were killed and dozens wounded when the bomber struck inside a home where peaceful festivities were underway. Investigators have identified the attacker as an Afghan national, confirming what Pakistan’s leadership has been saying for years: that sanctuaries across the Afghan border have become staging grounds for militants who seek to export terror into our towns and villages.
Pakistan’s counterterrorism challenge is not merely about chasing shadows. On the Afghan side of the border, powerful militant networks – notably the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan – have taken shelter under the benign neglect of Kabul’s rulers. Since the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan in 2021, these groups have grown emboldened, finding safe havens to plot attacks unlike anything Kabul’s leadership seems willing or able to restrain.
What makes the Dera Ismail Khan attack especially galling is that it targeted not just civilians but peace committee members–local volunteers who risk their lives to aid Pakistan’s security agencies. These committees, established to deny militants space and intelligence, have been clear targets precisely because they thwart the cross-border insurgent infrastructure. That an Afghan national carried out this carnage is a stain on any claim from Kabul that it is serious about combating terrorism.
There is no room for half-measures or political expedience in the face of existential threats.
Meanwhile, India’s long-term strategic game remains unchanged: weaken Pakistan by fomenting instability, especially in Balochistan. Islamabad has repeatedly documented Indian political and covert engagement to bolster separatist elements in the province. The Panjgur operation was as much a fight against entrenched militant networks as it was a rebuttal to those who nurture them from across the border.
Inside Pakistan, the ambiguity and strategic drift that once defined the PTI’s insincere flirtation with militancy are now unmistakable. In earlier years, certain political voices in PTI propagated the idea that militant negotiations without leverage could deliver peace. That was not peace. It was an illusion that emboldened extremists and exacerbated suffering. The Dera Ismail Khan wedding attack is a grim reminder of how that illusion played out in real terms: loss of life, shattered families, tragedy that no slogan can reverse.
The contrast in Pakistan’s approach today is stark. Our security institutions do not romanticise militants, nor do they confuse temporary tactical pauses with strategic victories. They have learned the hard way that appeasing militants or blurring ideological boundaries only empowers them. Pakistan’s Army and allied agencies have refined their counterterrorism doctrine over two decades of conflict.
Yet for all the success on the ground, Pakistan’s people should not be lulled by official pronouncements into thinking the threat has dissipated. Afghanistan’s current regime may offer rhetoric of cooperation, but its tolerance of militant sanctuaries speaks louder.
Pakistan’s counterterrorism narrative is not about aggression. It is about survival. Our security forces operate with clarity of purpose while those in Kabul and New Delhi manoeuvre in shadows. This nation’s soldiers, paramilitary units and intelligence personnel are not seeking conflict. To be clear, they are defending Pakistan from the consequences of others’ choices. Their vigilance in Panjgur, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, in Balochistan and along every vulnerable point of our geography is an expression of that defence.
Pakistan’s political leadership must match this resolve. Wholesale condemnation of external threats must be paired with unity in policy and action at home. The wounds of 23 January in Dera Ismail Khan, the sacrifices in Panjgur, and the larger strategic dynamics involving Afghanistan and India are interconnected, and Pakistan’s response must be equally comprehensive. That means diplomatic pressure on Kabul to act decisively against Taliban-sanctioned militant havens and a tough strategic posture towards Indian interference that benefits no nation in South Asia except instability itself.
Above all, Pakistan must not allow internal political narratives to dilute its strategic focus. There is no room for half-measures or political expedience in the face of existential threats.
The writer is OpEd Editor (Daily Times) and can be reached at durenayab786 @gmail.com. She tweets @DureAkram.