Heads of state rarely use the language of strategic alarm lightly. When, on Sunday, President Asif Ali Zardari warned that India had become a threat to global peace, his statement was meant to travel far beyond Islamabad. By linking regional dynamics to conditions “similar to or worse than pre-9/11,” the president framed Pakistan’s security challenge not as an internal failing but as the product of hostile external design. The timing of the remarks–delivered days after a suicide bombing at an Islamabad imambargah killed 36 worshippers–gave them additional weight. Mr Zardari went further, alleging that some neighbouring states had become “partners in crime” by allowing militant elements to operate from their soil.
This unease did not emerge in a vacuum. The December 2014 Army Public School massacre in Peshawar, in which 132 children and nine staff were killed, remains etched in collective memory as the deadliest single terrorist attack on Pakistani soil. Terrorist incidents rose sharply last year, with about 699 attacks recorded nationwide (a 34 per cent increase year-on-year) and terrorism-related fatalities up over 20 per cent, leaving more than 1,000 dead and over 1,300 injured across the country. Those numbers came despite intense counter-terrorism operations, with security forces reportedly killing more than 1,300 militants during clashes and raids.
In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, where groups such as the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Baloch separatist factions remain active, attacks surged, with suicide bombings and assaults on security convoys causing dozens of deaths and injuries. Every incident reinforces a deeply held fear that external manipulation, combined with internal fragility, leaves ordinary Pakistanis dangerously exposed.
India has rejected Islamabad’s allegations, as it has done in the past. But such denials do not negate the seriousness of the concerns being raised, nor the wider regional implications. World leaders and multilateral institutions condemned the mosque bombing unequivocally, offering solidarity with Pakistan and pledging cooperation against extremism. Pakistan has seized on this global support to argue that all facilitators of terrorism must be held accountable. At the same time, it recognises that this support comes with expectations of credible investigation, prosecution, and reform at home. Pakistan is justified in demanding action against any foreign-sponsored militancy. At the expense of sounding repetitive, these pages urge the authorities to take all relevant evidence to international forums and pursue the matter through verifiable legal and diplomatic channels. It goes without saying that Islamabad cannot afford to ignore its own vulnerabilities. Strengthening intelligence coordination, securing soft targets, improving prosecutions, and rebuilding social cohesion are as essential as border defence. Importantly, Pakistan agreed to the 2025 ceasefire on the understanding that structured dialogue with India would follow. Even voices within India, including Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, have argued that refusing engagement with one’s neighbour indefinitely cannot be a sustainable policy. That opening should not be squandered, because in a nuclearised region, the cost of missed diplomacy is always higher than the price of difficult dialogue.
