The international community has, for too long, accepted Pakistan’s victim narrative at face value. The reasoning has often been geopolitical.

Every time the world confronts Pakistan with evidence of its support for terrorism, it responds with the same script. It is a victim of terrorism, not a sponsor. Its neighbours are out to defame it. The groups operating from its soil are rogue actors, beyond state control. The script has worn thin. Operation Sindoor, in May 2025, demolished it.

The Indian airstrikes on the night of May 6 to 7, 2025, did not target shadowy hideouts in remote tribal regions. They targeted Bahawalpur, a city of nearly a million people in central Punjab, well within Pakistan’s settled and policed heartland. They targeted Muridke, the sprawling Lashkar-e-Taiba complex on the outskirts of Lahore. They struck nine sites in total, four in Pakistan proper and five in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The locations told their own story. These were not camps that Pakistan had failed to find. These were camps that Pakistan had built.

The Family Business of Terror

Consider the case of Jaish-e-Mohammed, the group whose Bahawalpur headquarters India struck on May 7. Jaish was founded in 2000 by Masood Azhar, a man Pakistan released from Indian custody in December 1999 in exchange for hostages on a hijacked plane. According to multiple accounts cited by Pakistani journalists and Western researchers, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate paraded Azhar through Pakistan after his release on a fundraising tour, and helped him stand up the new outfit.

Pervez Musharraf, who served as Pakistan’s president from 2001 to 2008, admitted in a 2019 interview that Jaish-e-Mohammed had carried out attacks in India on the instructions of Pakistani intelligence. This was not an Indian allegation. This was the former military ruler of Pakistan acknowledging that Pakistan’s spy agency had directed terror operations against a neighbouring country.

Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group whose Muridke complex India also struck, has a similar profile. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies has documented that Lashkar conducts its attacks, including the 2008 Mumbai siege, with the consent and support of the ISI. David Coleman Headley, the Pakistani-American operative who scouted the Mumbai targets, testified that he met with six different ISI officers during his time with Lashkar. American investigators identified one of them, known only as Major Iqbal, as having provided 25,000 dollars in cash and direct operational guidance for the attack that killed 166 people.

What the Strikes Revealed

If Jaish and Lashkar were really rogue outfits operating outside Pakistani state control, the strikes of May 7 should have produced confused and uncertain reactions. Pakistan should have struggled to identify what had been hit, who had died, and why. Instead, the response was immediate and revealing. Pakistan’s military leadership knew exactly what had been targeted, because the targets were on Pakistan’s books in all but name.

In September 2025, a senior Jaish commander named Masood Ilyas Kashmiri appeared at the group’s annual Mission Mustafa conference and openly admitted that Masood Azhar’s family had been killed in the Bahawalpur strikes. Ten members of the family died, including Azhar’s sister, her husband, a nephew, a niece, and five children. Four close aides also died. The location of the strike was Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah, the headquarters of Jaish-e-Mohammed, sitting comfortably inside Pakistani territory, with a UN-designated terrorist living openly within its walls.

The picture this paints is unambiguous. Masood Azhar, listed as a global terrorist by the United Nations Security Council since May 2019, was not in hiding. He was at home, with his family, in a complex protected by the Pakistani state. His brother Abdul Rauf Asghar, also a UN-designated terrorist and the operational head of Jaish, was reportedly killed in the same strike. Pakistan’s posture of plausible deniability has rested for decades on the fiction that men like these are difficult to find. India’s strikes proved that the only people who found them difficult to find were Pakistan’s own authorities.

The Cost of the Charade

The international community has, for too long, accepted Pakistan’s victim narrative at face value. The reasoning has often been geopolitical. Pakistan was a frontline state in the Cold War. Pakistan was a partner in the war on terror. Pakistan held nuclear weapons that demanded careful handling. Each of these arguments contained a fragment of strategic logic. None of them justified the systematic protection of men who killed civilians in Indian cities and villages.

The cost of this charade has been borne by India and by the broader region. Pakistan’s continued sponsorship of terror groups has poisoned the entire South Asian neighbourhood. It has prevented the development of normal trade and travel relations. It has consumed resources that could have built schools and hospitals on both sides of the border. And, most tragically, it has cost thousands of innocent lives across decades of attacks that Pakistan’s intelligence services helped plan, fund, and execute.

Operation Sindoor changed the equation. By striking Bahawalpur and Muridke, India made plain what had always been true. The terrorist infrastructure attacking India operates from inside Pakistan, with the protection of the Pakistani state. The terrorist leadership lives in Pakistani cities, raises families in Pakistani neighbourhoods, and runs operations from Pakistani buildings. The fiction of state distance from these activities has collapsed.

The world now has a choice. It can continue to accept the Pakistani script of victimhood, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Or it can finally treat Pakistan as what it has long been: a state that uses terrorism as an instrument of policy, and that pays a price every time it does. India has decided which path it will follow. The international community must now decide which path it can credibly continue to ignore.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The discussion, which focused on Pakistan’s role as a global hub for jihadist activities, shed light on the historical, geopolitical, and ideological factors enabling this menace and explored strategies to counter its spread.

Pakistan: The Epicenter of Global Terror

Dr. Chaulia opened the episode by framing Pakistan as “Terroristan,” a nation that has become a global menace due to its long-standing habit of nurturing terrorism. Highlighting India’s recent military operation, Operation Sindoor, which destroyed nine terrorist training camps in Pakistan using precision-guided munitions, he emphasized the operation’s dual role as a military strike and a global exposé of Pakistan’s terrorist infrastructure.

“The scale of destruction and the videos of funerals and smashed buildings showed the extent of the problem festering in that country,” Chaulia noted, setting the stage for a deep dive into why Pakistan has become the epicenter of global terror.

Zahack Tanvir, introduced as a peace activist and director of Milli Chronicle, a platform dedicated to monitoring jihadist propaganda, provided a comprehensive historical perspective. He traced Pakistan’s trajectory back to its founding in 1946 by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, noting that the country was established on religious bigotry rather than ethnicity or language.

“Pakistan was called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, purely based on religious identity,” Tanvir explained. He pointed to key historical moments, including the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which emboldened Islamists globally, and the 1980s Afghan jihad against the Soviets, during which Pakistan became a hub for global mujahideen, supported by the United States and Gulf countries.

Tanvir highlighted how Pakistan redirected these militias toward Kashmir after the Soviet conflict, with groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba wreaking havoc. “Pakistan has a history of nurturing militancy,” he asserted, citing its footprints in major terrorist attacks, including 9/11, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and the recent Pulwama and Pahalgam attacks.

He also referenced the discovery of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and admissions by Pakistan’s defense minister about funding terrorists on behalf of Western powers.

The Role of ISI and Radical Madrassas

Tanvir identified four key factors sustaining Pakistan’s terrorist ecosystem. First, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has extensive experience training not only Kashmiri insurgents but also Chechen, Bosnian, and Taliban fighters, including the Haqqani network. “ISI sustains this whole ecosystem,” he said, noting Pakistan’s policy of “bleeding India with a thousand cuts” as revenge for the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.

Second, he pointed to the role of radical madrassas in Pakistan, where impoverished and illiterate youth are recruited and given military training, unlike madrassas in India, which do not engage in such activities.

Tanvir shared an anecdote from his interactions with Pakistanis from Peshawar and Waziristan, describing their extreme illiteracy and vulnerability to exploitation by groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed, backed by the state and ISI.

Third, Pakistan’s strategic location, sharing borders with Afghanistan and the Line of Control, facilitates the smuggling of drugs and weapons into India. Tanvir recounted his 2023 visit to the Suchetgarh border, where India uncovered and sealed tunnels used by Pakistan for smuggling.

Finally, he addressed the role of foreign powers, particularly the United States, which historically financed and armed jihadist groups via Pakistan, and China, which has turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s jihadist activities to counter India.

“China vetoed UN sanctions against Jaish-e-Mohammed’s Masood Azhar until 2019,” Tanvir noted, highlighting China’s strategic support for Pakistan’s military capabilities, including supplying drones and bombs.

Complicity of Regional Powers

The discussion also explored the role of regional powers like Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Malaysia in enabling Pakistan’s jihadist agenda. Tanvir explained that Turkey’s support is driven by its ambition to revive an Ottoman-style caliphate, with initiatives like training Pakistan’s Dolphin police unit and promoting propaganda through dramas like Ertugrul, which was broadcast on Pakistan’s national television in 2020.

Azerbaijan’s support, though less pronounced, stems from Pakistan’s backing during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict against Armenia, influenced by Turkey and Israel.

Dr. Chaulia emphasized the need to “name and shame” these countries for indirectly sponsoring terrorism by supporting Pakistan. He noted that 81% of Pakistan’s military imports over the past five years have come from China, with Turkey supplying offensive weapons, including drones used against India post-Operation Sindoor.

Countering the Jihadist Narrative

A significant portion of the discussion focused on countering the jihadist ideology propagated by Pakistan, which thrives on a victimhood narrative claiming that Muslims are persecuted and must fight to defend Islam.

Tanvir debunked this narrative, contrasting the treatment of minorities in Pakistan and India. “In 1946, Hindus made up 30% of Pakistan’s population; now they have vanished,” he said, noting the dwindling Christian minority as well. In contrast, India’s Muslim population has grown from 9% to 15-18%, with diverse Muslim sects enjoying freedom to practice their faith.

Tanvir, a proud Muslim, emphasized that Indian Muslims are safe and thriving, with the ability to travel freely from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. He contrasted this with Pakistan, where ethnic groups like Pashtuns and Punjabis face restrictions, and celebratory gunfire with AK-47s during events like Eid or cricket matches often leads to civilian casualties.

“Indian Muslims are educated and respected globally as engineers, doctors, and AI experts,” he said, lamenting the lack of such recognition for Pakistani Muslims.

To counter Pakistan’s propaganda, Tanvir advocated amplifying the voices of Indian Muslims who refute claims of persecution. He cited instances where Indian Muslims, including himself, used social media to challenge false narratives propagated by figures like UK-based Islamist Mohammed Hijab, who urged Indian Muslims to support Pakistan.

“Indian Muslims came forward and said, ‘We are safe, and your narrative is not true,’” Tanvir recounted.

A Call for Global Action

Dr. Chaulia concluded the episode by underscoring that Pakistan’s use of religion for geopolitical gain, driven by its military and clerical establishment, is the root of its “Terroristan” status. He praised India’s military response but stressed the need for a broader ideological struggle to win the hearts and minds of young people, particularly moderate Muslims.

“The voices of moderate Muslims from India must show that faith and nationalism can coexist,” he said, rejecting Pakistan’s “fake nationalism” based on hatred and violence.

Tanvir’s appearance on Doordarshan was hailed as a significant moment for raising global awareness about Pakistan’s role in terrorism. “His courageous work with Milli Chronicle, often at personal risk”, was lauded by Dr. Chaulia, who thanked him for his insights and activism.

As the episode wrapped up, Chaulia called for concerted action by like-minded countries and social movements to wage a “long counter-jihad” in the ideological sphere.

“This is not a clash of civilizations but a challenge to show that Muslims and non-Muslims can coexist,” he said, urging a generational transformation to dismantle Pakistan’s jihadist mentality.

The discussion, broadcast on India’s national television, underscored the urgency of addressing Pakistan’s role as a global terror hub and highlighted the pivotal role of informed voices like Zahack Tanvir in shaping a counternarrative to foster peace and coexistence.

The Indian Air Force carried out the strike in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), targeting a known Jaish safehouse believed to be harboring senior militant leadership. According to senior defense officials, Rauf Azhar was confirmed to be present at the location at the time of the strike and was neutralized in the attack.

A Symbolic and Strategic Blow

Rauf Azhar, the younger brother of JeM’s founder Masood Azhar, had long evaded justice. He was internationally wanted not only for his role in Daniel Pearl’s brutal murder but also for orchestrating multiple terror attacks against Indian civilians and security personnel.

His death marks a significant blow to the Jaish-e-Mohammed network, which has been responsible for numerous terror incidents, including the 2019 Pulwama attack that killed 40 Indian paramilitary troops.

The Legacy of Daniel Pearl’s Case

Daniel Pearl, the South Asia bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal, was abducted in Karachi, Pakistan, while investigating links between British extremist Richard Reid and Al-Qaeda. Days later, a gruesome video of his beheading was released by his captors.

While Omar Saeed Sheikh was arrested and convicted in the case, global intelligence agencies consistently pointed to Abdul Rauf Azhar as the shadow figure who coordinated Pearl’s kidnapping and death from behind the scenes.

Despite multiple requests from the United States and Interpol for his arrest, Rauf Azhar remained shielded under Pakistan ISI’s “strategic depth” policy—where certain terrorist elements are quietly tolerated.

Global Implications

The operation comes at a time of heightened tension between India and Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 civilians. It is also a stark reminder of the lingering impunity enjoyed by some terror masterminds within Pakistan’s borders.

India’s strike and the death of Rauf Azhar has drawn attention globally. Human rights activists and observers of counterterrorism policy have long criticized Pakistan for not doing enough to curb terrorism emanating from its soil. With this operation, India has filled that vacuum of accountability.

The Broader Message

By targeting one of the key orchestrators of one of the most heinous crimes against journalism in recent history, India has signaled a shift toward assertive counter-terror operations across borders when provoked.

While Islamabad has yet to issue an official statement, intelligence sources suggest that security has been beefed up around JeM installations and family members of Masood Azhar.

This operation is being viewed not only as a military success but also as a moral reckoning. Daniel Pearl’s memory—and the legacy of free press—has found a measure of long-overdue justice.