The recent phone call between Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, in which Singh accused Pakistan of being a “safe haven” for internationally banned terrorists, reflects a persistent narrative India promotes on global forums. Singh claimed that Pakistan provides immunity to proscribed individuals and emphasized India’s right to carry out pre-emptive strikes, as seen in Operation Sindoor. While such statements may serve India’s diplomatic and domestic aims, they present an incomplete and politically motivated version of complex regional dynamics.
Since 2001, Pakistan has suffered immensely from terrorism. It is not an enabler; it is a victim. With over 83,000 lives lost, including civilians, soldiers, teachers, journalists, and tribal elders, the human cost is enormous. The economic toll, meanwhile, has surpassed $150 billion. Cities such as Peshawar, Quetta, Lahore, and Karachi have been hit repeatedly by suicide bombings and coordinated attacks.
These are not statistics to be dismissed, they represent the daily trauma that ordinary Pakistanis have endured for decades. The memory of the 2014 APS Peshawar school massacre, which killed over 140 children, still haunts the national conscience. For India to suggest that Pakistan is complicit in terrorism ignores the overwhelming evidence of its own neighbor’s sacrifices and battles against extremist violence.
Contrary to claims of inaction, Pakistan’s security apparatus has conducted some of the largest counterterrorism operations in the region. Operations such as Zarb-e-Azb, Radd-ul-Fasaad, and now Azm-e-Istehkam have involved tens of thousands of intelligence-based raids, dismantled hundreds of sleeper cells, and led to the arrest or elimination of key operatives from various banned outfits.
Most notably, Pakistan’s work with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) led to sweeping reforms in financial monitoring, legal frameworks, and enforcement mechanisms. In October 2022, FATF removed Pakistan from its grey list, recognizing full compliance with its 34-point action plan. This achievement was not symbolic, it required changes to hundreds of laws and systems, overseen by international observers. It is ironic that the same country being applauded by global watchdogs for clamping down on terror financing is simultaneously being blamed in political conversations without substantiation or context.
While India levels accusations of harboring terrorists, Pakistan is still bleeding from fresh wounds. In the last year alone, regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have seen attacks on police convoys, mosques, polio teams, and even Chinese nationals working on CPEC infrastructure. The Hangu mosque bombing, Machh attack, and Gwadar suicide blast are only a few examples of the persistent domestic threat.
To suggest that Pakistan provides “safe haven” for the same groups it is actively fighting and losing lives to is not only disingenuous, it is an insult to the thousands of families who have paid the ultimate price.
Pakistan’s approach to regional security has been consistent: cooperation over confrontation. Time and again, Islamabad has offered joint investigations, intelligence sharing, and third-party forensic analysis after regional terror incidents. These offers are rarely accepted by New Delhi, which prefers to assign blame via media headlines before evidence is properly gathered or evaluated. This posture does not foster trust, it erodes it.
Furthermore, Pakistan has responded with restraint in moments of provocation. After unilateral Indian airstrikes following the Pulwama incident in 2019 and recent episodes like Operation Sindoor, Pakistan chose diplomacy over escalation. It has repeatedly upheld the Simla Agreement, called for bilateral dialogue on Kashmir and security, and shown respect for international law. In contrast, India has pursued a policy of pre-emptive strikes outside its borders, justified as necessary counterterrorism but viewed by many analysts as violations of sovereignty and international norms.
Rajnath Singh’s statement about Pakistan offering immunity to banned militants does not withstand scrutiny. Individuals like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar, often cited in Indian accusations, have been arrested, banned, or under financial and movement restrictions. Pakistan’s courts have issued multiple sentences against Saeed, while the state has frozen his assets and barred his access to public spaces. Azhar, meanwhile, remains a contested figure, and Pakistan has publicly requested additional evidence to proceed further, offers India has routinely declined. Accusations without actionable cooperation suggest that India’s interest lies more in optics than outcomes.
When India accuses Pakistan of supporting terror, it often fails to mention its own role in fuelling insurgencies in Balochistan, where Pakistani security forces have apprehended individuals linked to Indian intelligence networks, including the high-profile case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, a serving Indian naval officer arrested on espionage charges. Moreover, Indian spy agency RAW also supports local insurgencies in Pakistan. Militants organizations like TTP and BLA are logistically backed by RAW.
The global community has taken notice of India’s own transnational repression campaigns, such as the assassination of Canadian Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June 2023, and a foiled U.S. plot against Sikh activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, allegedly orchestrated by an Indian intelligence officer. These incidents undermine India’s moral high ground and reveal a dangerous pattern of extraterritorial coercion.
If peace is to prevail in South Asia, all nations must recognize the complex reality of counterterrorism. Pakistan is not flawless, but it is committed. Its institutions continue to reform, its military continues to fight, and its people continue to suffer.
The international community, including allies like the U.S., must reject one-sided narratives. A balanced view requires acknowledging Pakistan’s immense sacrifices, verifiable actions, and repeated calls for cooperation. Diplomacy must not be guided by convenience or political expediency; it must be guided by truth.
The fight against terrorism is not a propaganda contest, it is a shared burden. Instead of echoing unverified accusations, global partners should support Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts and encourage genuine regional dialogue. The way forward lies not in rhetorical strikes, but in collaborative solutions. Let us honor the victims of terror, on all sides, by telling the full story.
Author
