Terrorism has long been a dark shadow over Pakistan, a country grappling with its complex geopolitical realities, internal instability, and fragile governance structures. Despite numerous counterterrorism initiatives and international pressure, terrorism remains a persistent and growing threat in the region. The roots of this menace are deeply entrenched in Pakistan’s history, socio-political landscape, and strategic decisions.

Pakistan's reliance on the concept of "strategic depth" in its foreign policy, particularly in Afghanistan, has had far-reaching consequences. This strategy, rooted in the Cold War era, aimed to ensure that Afghanistan remained friendly or at least under Pakistan's influence, serving as a buffer against India. During the Soviet-Afghan war (1979–1989), Pakistan, with extensive backing from the United States and Saudi Arabia, supported the Mujahideen to counter Soviet forces. Billions of dollars flowed into Pakistan, funding arms, training, and ideological indoctrination.
While this strategy succeeded in driving out Soviet forces, it also gave rise to a robust network of militant organizations such as Al-Qaeda and factions that later evolved into the Taliban. The Taliban, which Pakistan actively supported during the 1990s to secure influence in Kabul, became a double-edged sword. While initially a strategic ally, the Taliban's resurgence after 2001 contributed to regional instability, creating havoc on both sides of the Durand Line.
This policy backfired further with the emergence of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan which openly declared war against the Pakistani state. The 2007 Red Mosque siege in Islamabad, where extremists openly challenged the government, symbolized how these policies had spiraled out of control. Today, TTP attacks, such as the 2023 Peshawar Mosque bombing, continue to claim hundreds of lives, underscoring the fallout of nurturing extremist proxies. Pakistan’s pursuit of "strategic depth" has ultimately led to its internal destabilization, with terrorism threatening its social fabric and international credibility. Chronic political instability and weak governance have left Pakistan vulnerable to extremist ideologies, allowing militant groups to thrive in a fractured system. Successive governments, whether civilian or military, have consistently failed to implement comprehensive reforms to address the socio-economic and ideological roots of extremism. Instead of prioritizing long-term stability, Pakistan's political elite have often resorted to short-sighted policies, focusing on consolidating power rather than addressing deep-rooted issues.
Corruption within government institutions exacerbates the problem. Misappropriation of funds and lack of accountability divert resources meant for development and counterterrorism efforts. For instance, despite billions allocated for education reform, extremist ideologies persist in many unregulated madrassas, which continue to serve as breeding grounds for radicalization. This failure has left many youth with limited options, making them easy recruits for extremist groups. Moreover, the absence of a consistent and unified policy to counter extremism creates a vacuum exploited by militant groups. For example, while military operations like Zarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad have temporarily weakened militant strongholds, they have failed to eliminate the ideological infrastructure that fuels extremism. Groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), which operates openly in parts of Pakistan, continue to exploit this inconsistency to rebuild their networks and carry out attacks.
The lack of governance is particularly evident in areas like Balochistan and the tribal districts, where the state has minimal presence. In these regions, extremist groups fill the void, providing rudimentary services and security to win local support, often at the cost of further radicalization. Pakistan's education system, particularly its network of unregulated madrassas, plays a pivotal role in perpetuating extremist ideologies. These madrassas, often funded by external sources such as wealthy individuals from Gulf countries, operate with little oversight from the state. Many of them propagate a narrow interpretation of religion, glorifying violence and jihad as a means of achieving religious and political objectives. This indoctrination fosters intolerance and prepares fertile ground for radicalization among the youth.
Despite this, the state's response to extremist rhetoric has been inconsistent. Successive governments have either ignored or tacitly supported these institutions due to political expediency or fear of backlash from religious groups. For example, clerics associated with organizations like Jamaat-ud-Dawa the charitable front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, have often used madrassas to spread their ideology, operating freely under the guise of educational or humanitarian work.This ambivalence allows radical narratives to permeate Pakistani society. The result is an environment where extremism becomes normalized, with madrassa alumni often forming the backbone of extremist groups. Reforming these institutions and integrating modern education with religious teachings is critical to countering the spread of extremist ideologies and breaking the cycle of radicalization.
Pakistan’s struggling economy has created fertile ground for terrorist organizations to recruit and expand their influence. With high unemployment rates, widespread poverty, and limited opportunities, many young people find themselves trapped in a cycle of despair. Extremist groups exploit this vulnerability by offering financial incentives, a sense of purpose, and even basic necessities, making their ideology appealing to disenfranchised individuals. For example, in regions like South Punjab and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, militant groups have successfully recruited disillusioned youth by providing stipends, food, and the promise of belonging. In the absence of stable employment or education, these groups become an alternative source of livelihood for many.
Economic instability also hampers the government’s ability to counter extremism effectively. With limited fiscal space, investments in counterterrorism initiatives and development programs are often insufficient. For instance, the rehabilitation programs for former militants, such as those in Swat Valley, have faced funding shortages, limiting their impact. Additionally, poverty-stricken regions like Balochistan remain neglected, allowing terrorist networks to thrive by exploiting local grievances against the state. Furthermore, Pakistan's economic dependence on external aid, including loans from the IMF and other international institutions, restricts long-term planning to address the socio-economic roots of extremism. With resources diverted to servicing debt, there is little left for job creation, infrastructure development, or educational reforms that could curb radicalization.
The porous borders with Afghanistan and Iran serve as critical conduits for the movement of militants, arms, and illicit goods, significantly undermining Pakistan's efforts to control insurgency. The 2,600-kilometer-long Durand Line with Afghanistan is particularly challenging to secure due to rugged terrain and limited state presence. This porousness allows groups like the TTP and Islamic State Khorasan Province to operate across borders with ease. The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2021 and the subsequent resurgence of the Taliban further destabilized the region. The Taliban’s return to power emboldened the TTP, which found safe havens in Afghanistan to regroup and intensify its attacks in Pakistan. The surge in the terror attacks from last two years and killing hundreds of innocent civilians in bombings is the glaring example.
External influences exacerbate the situation. Funding from Gulf states, often under the guise of charitable donations, supports extremist madrassas and militant organizations in Pakistan. Groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) have long benefited from such external financial and ideological backing, which fuels terrorism domestically and across the region. Moreover, the attacks in the India by the extremists’ groups of Pakistan further expand it because the former puts pressure on later by carrying airstrikes or surgical strikes which led to the tensions with Former and the diversion of funds takes place. Resources and political will are often channeled toward supporting groups like LeT for operations in Kashmir rather than addressing internal threats. This dual policy undermines counterterrorism efforts, allowing extremism to flourish unchecked.
The Pakistani military, often considered the most influential institution in the country, have always been the frontal force to support the terror networks. Though to show the world that they are aginst terrorism, it has conducted large-scale operations like Zarb-e-Azb (2014) and Radd-ul-Fasaad (2017) to dismantle militant strongholds in regions such as North Waziristan, it is also alleged to provide covert support to certain groups to maintain strategic leverage in regional conflicts. This selective approach stems from Pakistan’s longstanding reliance on militant proxies to achieve foreign policy objectives. Groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, which are primarily focused on Kashmir, have reportedly received state backing in the form of training, funding, and logistical support. For instance, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and the Pulwama attack orchestrated by LeT and JeM, were widely attributed to elements within Pakistan’s security establishment.
At the same time, the military has cracked down on groups like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) that directly threaten domestic stability. However, this dual policy undermines counterterrorism efforts by creating an environment where militancy remains a viable tool for influence. It also emboldens other extremist factions, knowing they might be shielded if their activities align with the state’s strategic interests. This approach has significant repercussions. Domestically, it erodes trust in the military’s commitment to fighting terrorism, as seen in the backlash following incidents like the APS Peshawar attack in 2014, where over 140 people, mostly children, were killed. Internationally, it isolates Pakistan, with global powers increasingly pressing it to act decisively against all forms of terrorism.
Sectarian violence is a deeply entrenched driver of terrorism in Pakistan, exacerbating instability and insecurity across the country. Sunni extremist groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) have long targeted Shia communities, carrying out bombings and assassinations that fuel sectarian tensions. For instance, the Quetta Hazara killings highlight the systematic targeting of Shia Hazaras, where hundreds have been killed in attacks over the years. These atrocities not only devastate the affected communities but also deepen sectarian divisions within society. Ethnic conflicts further compound Pakistan's security challenges, particularly in volatile regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In Balochistan, insurgent groups such as the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) have carried out attacks on government installations and security forces, citing grievances over resource exploitation and lack of political representation. Similarly, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, tribal and ethnic tensions have been exploited by groups like the TTP to gain support and recruit fighters.
The state’s inability to protect minority groups and address these grievances perpetuates cycles of violence. For example, despite numerous promises, successive governments have failed to provide adequate security to the Hazara community, leaving them vulnerable to repeated attacks. Similarly, the neglect of Balochistan’s socio-economic development has allowed insurgent narratives to thrive, portraying the state as an oppressor rather than a protector. Addressing sectarian and ethnic violence requires a multi-faceted approach. This includes stronger enforcement of laws against hate speech, protection of minority communities, and equitable development in marginalized regions. Without tackling these underlying issues, sectarian and ethnic terrorism will continue to erode Pakistan's stability and social cohesion.
Pakistan's perceived complicity in harboring terrorist organizations has significantly contributed to its international isolation, negatively impacting its economic and diplomatic standing. For years, the country has faced global criticism for its inability—or unwillingness—to dismantle militant networks operating within its borders. This perception was a key reason for Pakistan's prolonged placement on the from 2018 to 2022. The FATF, an international watchdog for financial crimes, raised concerns about Pakistan’s failure to curb money laundering and terror financing. Being on the grey list subjected Pakistan to enhanced monitoring and limited its access to international financial markets, exacerbating its already fragile economy. Estimates suggest that this grey listing cost Pakistan billions in lost foreign investment and trade opportunities.
Diplomatically, this isolation undermines Pakistan’s credibility on the global stage. For instance, its repeated denials of harboring militants like Osama bin Laden, who was found and killed in Abbottabad in 2011, have strained relations with allies like the United States. This has also limited Pakistan's ability to secure vital international support to strengthen its counterterrorism framework. To regain global trust, Pakistan needs to demonstrate a genuine commitment to combating terrorism by dismantling all militant networks and ensuring transparency in its financial systems. Failure to do so risks further isolation, economic challenges, and diplomatic setbacks, undermining its long-term stability and development. The rise of terrorism in Pakistan is a product of decades of flawed policies, socio-economic challenges, and geopolitical miscalculations. Addressing this menace requires political will, consistent policies, and a collective effort from the state, civil society, and the international community. Only then can Pakistan hope to break free from the cycle of violence and pave the way for peace and prosperity.