THE recent Pahalgam terror attack has reignited a wave of allegations aimed at Pakistan, rekindling narratives that have historically sought to link Islamabad with unrest in the region.
However, an objective analysis reveals that such accusations lack empirical grounding and serve more as geopolitical rhetoric than fact-based discourse.
It is imperative to assess Pakistan’s role in this context through the lens of international law, counterterrorism efforts and its long-standing commitment to peace and regional stability.
Firstly, Pakistan has consistently condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.
As a frontline state in the global war on terror, Pakistan has borne the brunt of extremism, both in terms of human casualties and economic disruption.
Over the past two decades, the country has conducted some of the world’s largest counterinsurgency operations, including Zarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad, aimed at dismantling terrorist networks across its territory.
These operations were widely recognized by international observers as instrumental in reducing militant threats, not just within Pakistan, but across South Asia.
Secondly, the narrative that positions Pakistan as a sponsor of cross-border militancy overlooks the complex dynamics of the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir, where local grievances have persisted for decades.
Rather than acknowledging the indigenous nature of unrest in the valley, some stakeholders opt to externalize the conflict for political mileage.
This approach not only obfuscates the underlying issues but also undermines prospects for genuine dialogue.
Pakistan maintains that the resolution of the Kashmir dispute, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions, is essential for sustainable peace in South Asia.
Moreover, Pakistan has consistently offered cooperation in investigations into cross-border incidents, including mechanisms for joint inquiry and intelligence sharing.
Unfortunately, such overtures are often met with politicized responses rather than constructive engagement.
The lack of transparent, evidence-based inquiry into attacks such as Pahalgam reflects a broader pattern of deflecting internal security lapses onto external actors.
This not only hampers regional counterterrorism coordination but also raises questions about the motivation behind such one-sided narratives.
It is equally important to scrutinize the timing and media framing of the Pahalgam attack.
History has shown that incidents in sensitive areas are often used to shift public attention from pressing domestic challenges.
By casting blame without due process, the risk of inflaming regional tensions increases, thereby undermining the very objective of collective security.
In conclusion, Pakistan reiterates its principled position against terrorism and its commitment to peace and regional cooperation.
Constructive engagement, rather than accusatory posturing, remains the need of the hour.
If regional actors genuinely seek stability and prosperity, they must prioritize dialogue over discord, evidence over innuendo and cooperation over confrontation.
—The writer is contributing columnist.
