Zuhaib_article_image

Whenever a terrorist attack occurs anywhere in the world, people in Pakistan hope and pray that the perpetrator isn’t from Pakistan. After every such incident, Pakistan is among the first to condemn the attack and assure the world that Pakistan does not support terrorism in any shape or form.

Even then, on a number of occasions when such an incident has taken place, Pakistan has directly or indirectly been blamed for the attack. This happened in Mumbai, New York Times Square, Pathankot, Uri, and the recent incident of Pulwama. The fingers began immediately pointing at Pakistan, and the world media jumped to the conclusion that the culpability must have been Pakistani. A frenzy always ensues in the search for a Pakistani connection. Perhaps the perpetrator had traveled to Pakistan’s tribal areas for training. Perhaps he was of Pakistani descent.

Moreover, both global and regional powers once again ask Pakistan to take strict measures against terrorist hideouts as well as against personalities inside Pakistan. Likewise, the “do more and do more” tune starts ringing again. As a result, Pakistan is compelled to reassert that it is just as much a peace-loving nation as any other and that it has suffered a heavier toll (if only the international media cared) from terrorism.

The gears continue to turn beyond the media. In the economic sphere, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has put Pakistan in the grey list on the pretext of terror financing and further seeks to look to place Pakistan on its blacklist. If Pakistan is placed on the blacklist, it will have a negative impact on the economy of Pakistan.

The FATF is an intergovernmental organization founded by the G7 in 1989 to combat money laundering but has since morphed into a global financial watchdog. Moreover, the United Nations Security Council 1617 (2005) urges all member states to implement the FATF recommendations on money laundering and terror financing. But the resolution does not empower the FATF to penalize countries by blacklisting them.

Moreover, Pakistan is not a member of FATF but is only a voluntary member of the Asia-Pacific Group (APG) i.e. a subcommittee of FATF. The APG that is reviewing the case of Pakistan is to be co-chaired by India. If a hostile nation such as India co-chairs the meeting of APG, it is simply not possible that the review of Pakistan’s case will be done in a fair, unbiased and objective manner. Therefore, Pakistan should take a stand against the dubious action of the FATF/ APG when India co-chairs the meeting of APG and the chances of Pakistan being treated fairly are next to none.

Moreover, in 1999 the UN Security Council through resolution 1267 setup the al-Qaeda/Taliban sanctions committee to impose sanctions on those parties that deal with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Subsequently, in 2011, the Security Council made it the al-Qaeda sanction committee and in 2015 it was made ISIL and al-Qaeda sanction committee. Now, this committee is looking into the case of Masood Azhar since India has requested the committee to add Azhar’s name to the global list of terrorists.

This committee was mandated to look into ISIL, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, and it has no mandate to investigate any other case. The case of Masood Azhar is fundamentally different from that any of the above-mentioned groups. Pakistan must clarify to the United Nations that the case of Masood Azhar does not fall under the mandate of the committee set up under UNSCR 1267. Pakistan must thus question the mandate of the committee before it even moves to justify the actions taken by Pakistan.

Now the time has come that the world recognizes the efforts made by Pakistan against terrorism. In order to make the world recognize Pakistan’s efforts, we will have to make some serious effort. The role of leadership is very important in this context, as proactive leadership from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Office and other institutions can spearhead this drive to reassert the legitimate perspective of Pakistan as a crucial champion against radicalism around the world.

Recent white supremacist acts around the world corroborate Pakistan’s point that no country has a monopoly on vice or virtue, and through great national sacrifice, Pakistan has already done more than virtually any other country to defeat the scourge of extremist thought. Pakistan should reassure the world that we are the victims of terrorism and not sponsor. In this context, the government needs to tell the world about the involvement of hostile intelligence agencies’ activities in Pakistan, particularly India’s RAW.

In essence, we must change our apologetic approach towards the world. We must stop feeling guilty and let ourselves be thought of as the trouble makers in the community of nations. We must stand up with dignity and defend our homeland, both as a state and as a symbol.

Zuhaib Anwar is a Researcher at Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS). He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »