BY MUHAMMAD MOHSIN IQBAL
History reminds us that even hostility, when exercised between states, has traditionally been restrained by certain moral and strategic conventions. A worthy adversary confronts openly, declares intent, and accepts consequences. There is an austere dignity in such conflict, however regrettable it may be. In stark contrast stands the conduct of a cowardly enemy—one that avoids direct engagement, shuns accountability, and wages war through deception, proxies, and terror. It is this degraded and dangerous form of hostility that Pakistan is compelled to confront today.
Following its unmistakable setback in May 2025, India appears to have abandoned any remaining commitment to responsible statecraft. Unable to absorb defeat or recalibrate its approach, it has instead reverted to indirect warfare, employing subversive tactics designed to destabilise Pakistan from within. Sponsorship of separatist violence in Balochistan and the facilitation of terrorist infiltration across Pakistan’s western borders are not isolated incidents, but elements of a coherent strategy rooted in frustration and desperation. Such conduct does not reflect strength; it betrays strategic exhaustion.
Pakistan’s assertions in this regard are grounded in evidence, not rhetoric. Detailed intelligence, material links, and operational trails pointing to Indian involvement and facilitation have repeatedly been placed before the international community. The use of Afghan territory by terrorist elements targeting Pakistan is equally well-documented. These militants neither operate independently nor represent spontaneous local resistance. They function within a broader architecture of proxy warfare, nurtured, guided, and sustained by external handlers pursuing objectives alien to regional peace.
While India occupies a central position in this hostile design, it has not acted in isolation. Certain external actors that aligned themselves with India during the events of May 2025, and whose technological capabilities were displayed before a global audience, cannot dissociate themselves from responsibility. Yet that same episode also reaffirmed a deeper and more enduring reality. Under the resolute command of Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, the Pakistan Army demonstrated not only operational superiority but also strategic maturity. Hostile designs were decisively crushed, deterrence was restored, and the nation’s defensive credibility was reinforced.
The challenge confronting Pakistan today is not conventional war, but a form of cowardly terrorism that deliberately avoids military confrontation and instead seeks to terrorise civilians. Labourers, passengers, and unarmed citizens have become preferred targets, revealing the moral emptiness of those who claim political purpose yet resort to indiscriminate violence. Such tactics are not born of ideology, but of fear and failure. They are designed to sow panic, provoke reaction, and create an illusion of relevance where none exists.
Against this threat, Pakistan’s response has been firm, coordinated, and measured. The armed forces, law enforcement agencies, and intelligence services remain vigilant and proactive, while the people themselves have demonstrated remarkable resilience. The sacrifices rendered by soldiers and civilians alike stand as solemn testimony to a nation’s refusal to be coerced. There is a collective understanding that compromise on national security is neither prudent nor permissible.
At the centre of this proxy architecture lies the so-called Balochistan Liberation Army. Claiming to act in the name of Baloch rights, it has in reality become an instrument of external manipulation. Misguided by distant handlers and driven by agendas detached from the genuine aspirations of the Baloch people, this group has steadily degenerated into criminality. In the vast and sparsely populated terrain of Balochistan, its militants increasingly resemble bandits rather than insurgents, relying on ambushes, extortion, and attacks on soft targets to mask their strategic irrelevance.
Recent security operations have exposed the hollowness of the group’s planning and execution. Poor coordination, lack of popular support, and growing operational pressure have resulted in rapid attrition. Their ranks are thinning, their networks unraveling, and their leadership increasingly isolated. These outcomes reflect not only the incompetence of the terrorists but also the professional excellence of Pakistan’s law enforcement agencies, who have once again demonstrated discipline, precision, and resolve in upholding the writ of the state.
The message for the handlers of such proxies is unambiguous. Continued investment in these entities is futile. Their consistent failure delivers no strategic gain, only exposure, embarrassment, and eventual collapse. Proxy warfare may generate temporary disruption, but it cannot alter realities shaped by geography, history, and national will. Balochistan’s future lies not in externally fuelled violence, but in stability, development, and meaningful integration within a secure and sovereign Pakistan.
In the final analysis, cowardly hostility has never shaped the destiny of nations. History records that those who abandon open engagement in favour of shadow wars ultimately exhaust themselves. Pakistan has faced such challenges before and has emerged stronger each time. Those who strike from behind may inflict wounds, but they cannot determine outcomes. That authority rests with a vigilant state, a professional military, and a resilient people, united in their resolve to defend their homeland and secure their future.
