
Pakistan suffers violence of its own making. West's refusal to learn is even more tragic
Claimed by the suicide bomber wing of the Hafiz Gul Bahadur faction of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the attack, at first glance, is but another episode in the grim ledger of the subcontinent's senseless bloodletting; yet to treat it as such is to miss the deeper, tragic direction of Pakistan's politics. This is the latest manifestation of a fatal logic that has long guided Pakistan's suicidal statecraft and self-delusion
In the arid valleys of North Waziristan, where the dust hangs heavy and silence is often broken by the thud of helicopter blades or the distant crackle of gunfire, a convoy of Pakistani soldiers met their tragic end. Sixteen men, extinguished in a single assault by a suicide bomber's calculated violence.
Despite repeated counterinsurgency operations and government pledges to restore peace, the area remains a flashpoint for insurgent violence. The latest assault reflects not only the resilience and adaptability of these militant networks but also the enduring challenges faced by Pakistan's security apparatus since the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan.
Also read: India didn't create Bangladesh. Shehbaz Sharif forgets how Pakistan sowed the seeds
Pakistan: a study in contradiction
The cycle of militant violence in North Waziristan is the reverberation of a deeper, historical dissonance – snowballing because of strategic miscalculations and unresolved grievances – that continues to shape, and perhaps distort, Pakistan's trajectory.
Pakistan has always been a study in contradiction – a nation forged in the fires of British India's Partition, steeped in trauma and displacement, yet perpetually seeking coherence through the manipulation of identity and enmity. It is a militarised polity defined less by what it is than by what it is not – not India, not secular, not reconciled. In this desperate search for national cohesion, the architects of the state turned to the expedient tools of religious fundamentalism and proxy warfare. The attack in North Waziristan is thus the harvest of seeds sown over decades: a policy of nurturing militant groups as instruments of strategic depth, first against the Soviets in Afghanistan, then against India in Kashmir.
Once tactically useful, these groups now turn upon their erstwhile patron in Rawalpindi with the cold logic of history's recurring ironies.
Folly in governance is not merely an error; it is the deliberate pursuit of policies contrary to self-interest, even when their consequences are manifest and mounting. The Pakistani military's double game – proclaiming itself a victim of terror while abetting its architects – has produced a landscape where the boundaries between state and non-state, between friend and foe, have been blurred to the point of absurdity.
The North Waziristan suicide bombing is thus not a rupture, but a fulfilment. The Pakistani state's own monsters, having tasted blood, now feast upon their creators without any shame or restraint.
If Pakistan's duplicity is the proximate cause of its turmoil, the West's strategic myopia is its indispensable enabler. The American embrace of the Pakistani military during the Cold War and again during the War on Terror was animated not by trust, but by expedience – a willingness to overlook Islamabad's flirtations with jihadist ideology so long as those ideologies bled in directions favourable to Washington.
Western diplomacy often operates on the dangerous assumption that alliances of convenience can be sustained without moral or strategic cost. It is this blindness – this transactional hubris – that allowed the Pakistani military to thrive in duplicity, to wear the mask of an ally while undermining the very goals it pretended to pursue.
Also read: Pakistan's attempt to mobilise anti-Taliban leaders is misguided, dangerous
Confront the monsters within
The March 2025 attack by the Baloch Liberation Army on Jaffar Express, killing scores of innocent passengers, also offers a grim counterpoint to the North Waziristan carnage – a reminder that Pakistan's crisis is not merely religious or ideological. It is also ethnic, economic, and political. Long marginalised and brutalised, the Baloch have found in violence the only language Rawalpindi seems to understand. The grievances are not obscure: decades of resource extraction without benefit, political exclusion from the corridors of power, and the suffocating embrace of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which transforms Balochistan into a logistical backyard for Beijing while its people remain dispossessed.
And yet, the state responds not with reform, but repression; not with dialogue, but with drone strikes and disinformation. The narrative of external enemies – India, the West, Zionists – is cultivated like a national crop, while the internal rot deepens.
Amid this maelstrom, the promotion of anti-India hatred remains the Pakistani elite's most dependable tool of social control. As exemplified by the Pahalgam attack, proxy terror against India is not merely a matter of policy – it is the glue that binds a fractured polity, the narcotic that numbs the masses to their own dispossession. A nation that defines itself by perpetual grievance can never know peace, only escalation.
What emerges from this picture is not simply chaos, but folly – of a state that, in seeking security through duplicity, has rendered itself insecure; of a society manipulated into perpetual mobilisation against imagined enemies, while the real threats fester within.
Instead of confronting the internal rot, Islamabad went to ridiculous lengths to accuse New Delhi of orchestrating the attack through a proxy outfit – a claim India swiftly and contemptuously rejected. Pakistan's persistent attempts to externalise blame on every internal security failure only serve to expose its duplicity in combating terrorism. And as demonstrated by India's refusal to sign the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) joint statement after Pakistan and China blocked strong language on terrorism, the world remains complicit through its silence and convenience. India, ever the target, is vindicated in its warnings.
Pakistan's tragedy is not that it suffers violence, but that it suffers violence of its own making. And more tragically, the West – having seen this play before – refuses to learn anything. The ghosts of past alliances, broken promises, and abandoned morals now haunt the corridors of global power, yet the lessons remain unread. Pakistan's present agony is the fruit of choices made in defiance of prudence and morality. For the West, especially the United States, the refusal to confront this duplicity will haunt them still – as surely as the ghosts of Kabul now haunt Washington.
India, for its part, must remain vigilant. It faces not merely a hostile neighbour, but a neighbour at war with itself – a far more unpredictable, unreasonable, and dangerous adversary. The reckoning, when it comes, will not be confined to the mountains of Waziristan or the treacherous passes of the Hindu Kush. It will echo through the capitals of the world, a thunderclap of warning. In geopolitics, as in life, the wages of folly are always paid with interest.
Vinay Kaura is Assistant Professor, Department of International Affairs and Security Studies, at the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice in Rajasthan. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India.com
25 minutes ago
- India.com
Balochistan people are not terrorists...: Baloch leader slams US over BLA terror designation, warns not to trust Pak Army chief Munir because...
Baloch leader Mir Yar Baloch (L) slammed the US for designating the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) as a terrorist organization. (File) Baloch leader Mir Yar Baloch lashed out at the United States for designating the Balochistan Liberation Army as a terrorist organization, asserting that the people of Balochistan are not terrorists, but victims of Pakistan-sponsored terror outfits that have brutalized the region at Islamabad's behest. What did Mir Yar Baloch say? In a post on X, Mir Yar Baloch warned the US against trusting Pakistan, stating the Balochistan rebel movement has had good faith towards the US, while Islamabad has historically been a backstabber who sheltered America's enemies, including Osama bin Laden. 'The people of Balochistan are not terrorists. They are a nation that has suffered 78 years of state terrorism, economic plunder, radioactive poisoning caused by Pakistan's nuclear tests, foreign invasion and occupation by Pakistan's extremist and artificial state,' he wrote. Mir Yar said that Baloch people have been victimized by the IS-Khorasan, an offshoot of the notorious Islamic State terror group allegedly sponsored by Pakistan's ISI and deep state. 'IS-K is a branch of the terrorist organization ISIS, which is being allowed to flourish by Pakistan's intelligence agency ISI,' he alleged, adding that the group recently issued a fatwa (decree) calling for violence against Baloch political activists. 'Baloch are friends of US' The Baloch leader accused Islamabad of supporting radical armed groups to 'crush legitimate political voices, stifle democratic aspirations, and destabilize the region'. 'Throughout history, the Baloch people have shown unwavering goodwill towards the US, and never took up arms against any side, even during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,' he said. Showcasing Baloch people as US-friendly, Mir Yar noted there wasn't a single attack on US personnel or convoys by Baloch fighters or civilians, when NATO supply lines passed through Balochistan after 9/11. 'In contrast, the Pakistan Army and the ISI orchestrated anti-US rallies during the time,' he alleged. Why Mir Yar cautioned US against trusting Pakistan? Meanwhile, the Baloch leader also cautioned the US against trusting Pakistan Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, reminding Washington about Islamabad's betrayal when it sheltered Osama bin Laden, who lived in Pakistan's Abbottabad for nearly a decade under the protection of the Pakistani army. 'Pakistani leaders have admitted to waging a fake jihad against US interests, betraying allies and promoting extremism. Yet, these same extremists are being described as 'strategic partners', while the real owners of the land in resource-rich Balochistan are being defamed as terrorists,' he said. Mir urged the US to recognize Balochistan as an independent, sovereign nation, asserting that it would give the US a liberal and stable ally in the region, who is rooted in democratic values. The Baloch leader's comments came after the US on Monday designated the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) as a foreign terrorist organization for carrying terror attacks, including the recent train hijacking, in Pakistan. The US on Monday designated the BLA in the list of foreign terrorist organizations. It has been put on the list of terrorist attacks for carrying out train hijacking and many other attacks in Pakistan recently.


Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
How 6 writers – from Amrita Pritam to Faiz Ahmad Faiz
As India prepares to mark another Independence Day, the Tricolour will fly high, and speeches will recall the triumph of 1947. But the dawn of freedom was shadowed by the Partition, one of history's largest and bloodiest migrations. Millions were uprooted, thousands killed, and countless lives scarred forever. For many who lived through it, the memory never faded and for those who came later its echoes still shape identity, politics, and belonging. Through fiction, poetry, and memoir, writers have given voice to that pain and confusion. Five voices remind us that independence came with both pride and unhealed wounds from the Partition of India: 'Some of the things I saw in Bhiwandi were so similar to what I had experienced in Rawalpindi that I started writing. …I also felt that the conditions that had caused riots in 1947 were still present. The Partition of the country should have put an end to the riots, but it didn't. I started writing. When I began, I had no clearly conceived objective in mind. Perhaps I merely wanted to recollect and relive my past.' – Bhisham Sahni told Alok Bhalla in a conversation in June 1996 Sahni linked the riots in industrial Bhiwandi in the 1970s to the trauma of Partition. For him, the same combustible mix of prejudice, politics, and mistrust still lingered decades after Independence. His words cut through the official narrative of national unity to expose the persistence of old fault lines. 'The Partition of the country and the changes that followed left feelings of revolt in me…when I sat down to write I found my thoughts scattered. Though I tried hard I could not separate India from Pakistan and Pakistan from India…my mind could not resolve the question: what country did we belong to now, India or Pakistan?' – Saadat Hasan Manto, 1950 Manto saw the Partition as an unresolvable rupture in identity. Having moved from Bombay to Lahore, he lived with the ache of separation and the impossibility of mentally dividing two lands bound by shared history, language, and culture. 'You don't know nothing, Mary, the air comes from the north now, and it's full of dying. This independence is for the rich only; the poor are being made to kill each other like flies. In Punjab, in Bengal. Riots riots, poor against poor. It's in the wind.' – Salman Rushdie, Midnight's Children (through the character of Joe D'Costa) Rushdie lays bare a brutal truth that while leaders toasted freedom, ordinary people were manipulated into slaughtering each other. The voice of Joe D'Costa speaks for the forgotten victims, those whose hopes for independence were drowned in bloodshed. Waris Shah mainu aaj vi ton qabar ton bol (Waris Shah, I call out to you today to rise from your grave)Te ik navi kitaab-e-mohabbat da panna khol (Rise and open a new page of the immortal book of love) Ik dhii Punjab di royi si, tu likheya si kai vaar (A daughter of Punjab had wept and you wrote many a dirge) Ajj lakh dhiyan rondiyan, tenu Waris Shah nu pukaar (A million daughters weep today and look at you for solace) Uth o pyaar de dardmand, te aakh apne Punjab nu (Rise, O beloved of the aggrieved, and just look at your Punjab) Ajj laashan vich jungle hansde, te Chenab khoon naal bhar gaya (Today corpses haunt the woods, Chenab overflows with blood) Kise ne Punjab de panj dariyaan vich zahar ghul ditta (Someone has blended poison in the five rivers of Punjab) – Amrita Pritam, Ajj Aakhaan Waris Shah Nu Written in 1948, Pritam's lament is one of the most searing poetic responses to Partition. By invoking Waris Shah, the chronicler of Punjab's tragic romance Heer-Ranjha, she transforms a single love story into the mourning song of an entire land. 'Freedom is for the educated people who fought for it. We were slaves of the English, now we will be slaves of the educated Indians—or the Pakistanis.' – Khushwant Singh, Train to Pakistan (1956) Singh captures the cynicism and resignation of rural voices left out of the promises of Independence. For many in India's villages, the shift from British to Indian rule was less a revolution than a change of masters, leaving deep questions about whose freedom was truly won. Ye daagh-daagh ujala, ye shab-gazida seher (This light, smeared and spotted, this night-bitten dawn) Woh intezaar tha jiska, ye woh seher to nahin (This isn't surely the dawn we waited for so eagerly) Ye woh seher to nahin, jis ki aarzoo lekar (This isn't surely the dawn with whose desire cradled in our hearts) Chale the yaar ki mil jaayegi kahin na kahin (We had set out, friends all, hoping we should somewhere find it) Abhi garaani-e-shab mein kami nahin aayi (The weight of the night hasn't lifted yet) Najat-e-deeda-o-dil ki ghadi nahin aayi (The moment for the emancipation of the eyes and the heart hasn't come yet) Chale chalo ki woh manzil abhi nahin aayi (Let's go on — we haven't reached the destination yet) Faiz's words voice a searing disappointment. The 'dawn' so long awaited had arrived, but stained, incomplete, and far from the dream that had carried millions through the struggle.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Does Pakistan know why India rejects Indus Water Treaty dispute resolution mechanism?
India has rejected the Permanent Court of Arbitration's role in the Indus Waters Treaty dispute, citing procedural flaws in the World Bank's 2022 decision, as Pakistan escalates rhetoric over water rights. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Tuesday said that the 'enemy can't snatch even a single drop of water' as he joined the country's military leadership in ramping up rhetoric over the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). His statement came after India reiterated its decision to hold the treaty's dispute resolution process in abeyance, citing procedural objections that Islamabad has long ignored. At the heart of the disagreement lies India's refusal to recognise the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the ongoing dispute. The Hague-based tribunal has reportedly ruled that India must 'let flow' the waters of the Western Rivers the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab for Pakistan's unrestricted use under the treaty. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD New Delhi has consistently maintained that it never accepted the World Bank's 2022 decision to simultaneously activate two parallel processes, a neutral expert mechanism and at Pakistan's insistence, the Court of Arbitration to adjudicate the same set of technical objections. India argued that such concurrent proceedings pose both practical and legal challenges and formally sought a reconsideration of the treaty's dispute settlement provisions. Despite acknowledging India's concerns, the World Bank in October 2022 appointed both a neutral expert and a Court of Arbitration. This, officials in New Delhi say, undermines the procedural safeguards intended by the 1960 treaty and sets a precedent that could weaken the framework for resolving future differences. With Pakistan signalling it will press ahead with its case at the PCA and India refusing to participate in its proceedings, the stalemate over the IWT's dispute resolution mechanism appears far from over and now, political posturing on both sides threatens to overshadow the complex legal issues at its core.