Emir Balat, 18, and Ibrahim Kayumi, 19, both from the Philadelphia area, entered their pleas during a brief court appearance following their arrest over an alleged March 7 incident targeting an anti-Islam demonstration outside Gracie Mansion, according to court filings and statements from federal prosecutors.

Authorities allege the two men traveled from Pennsylvania to New York with the intent to carry out an attack on the protest, which was organized by activist Jake Lang, a critic of Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Prosecutors said the defendants deployed two improvised explosive devices containing triacetone triperoxide (TATP) and shrapnel, but the devices failed to detonate.No injuries were reported, and law enforcement officers detained the suspects shortly after the attempted attack.

The mayor and his wife were not present at the residence at the time, officials said.According to a federal complaint, investigators recovered dashcam footage from the suspects’ vehicle in which they allegedly discussed plans to kill as many as 60 people in an effort to “start terror.”

Prosecutors also said the defendants told police they were motivated by the Daesh group.Balat’s legal counsel declined to comment following the hearing, while attorneys representing Kayumi did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case highlights ongoing concerns among U.S. authorities over self-radicalized individuals and the use of easily assembled explosive materials such as TATP, which has been used in several past attacks due to its relative accessibility despite its volatility.

The defendants are scheduled to return to court on June 16.

Deoband’s embrace of the Taliban foreign minister is dangerous — but also offers an opening.

Amir Khan Muttaqi, Foreign Minister of the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan and a senior figure in its political and ideological leadership, has recently completed a six-day visit to India — an episode loaded with meaning.

From his informal ban on female journalists, to the cancellation of his Agra leg, and his carefully choreographed stop at the Vivekananda Foundation. Yet, it is his visit to Dar ul Uloom Deoband, the theological heart of South Asian Deobandi Islam, that has invited sharpest scrutiny.

For years, Indian Muslims — particularly those aligned with the Deobandi school — have tried to draw a distinction between “their Islam,” described as democratic and egalitarian, and the Taliban’s brutal, patriarchal regime. Muttaqi’s pilgrimage to his ideological fountainhead has challenged that narrative.

When the Taliban’s foreign minister visits Deoband, and the seminary receives him with honor, it becomes almost impossible to sustain the claim that the Taliban are merely “misguided” Muslims. Why, then, should men who have subjugated women and silenced dissent be treated as heroes?

What emerges instead is a chilling recognition: the Taliban are not a deviation from Deobandi Islam according to the seminary, but one of its most literal political manifestations.

The confusion within India’s religiously-inclined Muslim intelligentsia over how to respond to this visit is telling — and repetitive. Some rush to rationalize it as “cultural diplomacy” or a gesture of goodwill in the national interest, strangely bringing the Muslim right and the Hindu right onto the same page.

Others recoil in discomfort but stop short of open criticism. Deoband’s endorsement of Muttaqi symbolically affirms the very doctrines that have justified gender apartheid, banned girls from education, and institutionalized moral policing across Afghanistan.

This moment is not merely about Afghanistan; it reflects a moral crisis within Indian muslims as well — a refusal to confront its own regressive solidarities under the pretext of religious kinship. The spectacle of Deoband greeting Muttaqi with reverence reveals the unbroken theological thread linking the 19th seminary to the taliban led theocratic governance.

Deoband’s embrace of the Taliban foreign minister is dangerous — but also offers an opening. If the Taliban truly draw their ideological legitimacy from Deoband, then Deoband carries a moral responsibility: to humanize that ideology, to insist that justice and compassion, not repression, define Islam.

The seminary has a proud history of standing against colonial injustice and for India’s freedom. Can it now stand for Afghan women denied education, or men imprisoned for thought?

If Dar ul Uloom Deoband wishes to remain relevant in a plural democracy, it must decide where it stands — with democracy, gender justice, and education, or with those who burn books, bury dissent, and blind the future of half their population.

Malaysian Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail confirmed that the suspects were not only propagating extremist beliefs but were also involved in establishing clandestine recruitment cells aimed at indoctrinating members of their community with radical ISIS-aligned ideology.

Out of the 36 individuals detained, five have been formally charged under Chapter VIA of Malaysia’s Penal Code, which deals with terrorism-related offenses. Their cases are currently being heard in the Shah Alam and Johor Bahru Sessions Courts. Another 15 were handed deportation orders, while 16 remain under investigation by Malaysian authorities.

Extremist Plot Uncovered

Authorities say the group was collecting funds to support terrorist activities and aimed to destabilize the legitimate government in Bangladesh. The suspects reportedly operated under the guise of migrant workers while covertly pursuing militant objectives.

Minister Saifuddin stressed that Malaysia would not allow itself to be used as a staging ground for extremist plots originating from abroad. “Any attempts to make Malaysia a base for militant operations or a transit centre for extremism movements will be tackled with firm, quick, and effective action,” he said in a press briefing.

This warning comes amid growing concerns that radicalized foreign nationals may exploit Malaysia’s migrant and refugee communities to establish operational footholds.

A Longstanding Battle Against Extremism

The arrests were carried out by the Royal Malaysia Police’s Special Branch in a coordinated intelligence-led operation. Malaysia has a well-documented history of preemptively disrupting terror cells, particularly those with ties to ISIS and other global jihadist networks.

This latest operation reaffirms Malaysia’s zero-tolerance policy toward extremism, while also shining a light on the vulnerabilities within its migrant population. The country, which is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, has come under scrutiny from human rights organizations for its treatment of undocumented migrants and asylum seekers. Many are held in immigration detention centres, often without access to formal refugee status determination procedures.

Balancing Security and Humanitarian Concerns

While Malaysia maintains the right to protect its national security, human rights advocates warn that genuine asylum seekers may be at risk of arbitrary detention or deportation if broader crackdowns conflate refugees with foreign extremists. The Home Minister’s comments indicate an effort to strike a balance between humanitarian concerns and safeguarding the nation from infiltration by extremist groups.

The incident also raises wider regional concerns about the spread of ISIS ideology within Southeast Asia’s migrant corridors, particularly involving vulnerable populations susceptible to radicalization.

As regional governments grapple with the post-ISIS era and the decentralized nature of global jihadist networks, Malaysia’s recent action signals a warning: South and Southeast Asia must remain vigilant against the silent resurgence of extremist ideologies operating under the radar.

Motwani’s remarks come at a time of intense scrutiny over the political radicalization of students across American campuses — particularly following the explosion of pro-Hamas demonstrations in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks in Israel. Drawing from her own experience as a foreign student in the United States, she noted the vulnerability international students often face upon arrival.

“I came to the US as a foreign student. In the first year, most of us were lonely and struggled to find a community,” she shared. “It’s very easy for well-organized and well-funded campus groups to rope you in and give you an instant ‘community.’ There is a constant flow of free food, entertainment, and excitement. What anti-Israel campus groups are doing is a systematic luring of lonely foreign students into their ‘movement’… Once caught, the foreign students often find purpose thinking they’re helping ‘oppressed’ people.”

Motwani emphasized that the near-instant mobilization of anti-Israel protests after October 7 was not organic but meticulously orchestrated — and that many such groups trace their funding roots to Qatari-linked entities.

Qatar’s Expanding Influence Campaign

The timing of Motwani’s warning coincides with growing international concern over Qatar’s covert operations to shape political narratives, particularly through soft power mechanisms. Israeli intelligence officials are currently probing the possibility that Qatari actors are orchestrating a wave of disinformation targeting Israel-Egypt relations.

A recent online campaign portrayed Egypt’s military buildup in Sinai as a violation of its peace treaty with Israel — despite the fact that many visuals used in the posts were traced back to 2018 military drills. “Fake Reporter,” an Israeli civil society organization, confirmed a significant spike in misinformation across social media platforms depicting Egypt as a growing threat.

This apparent attempt to sow distrust between Israel and Egypt — long-time peace partners — is suspected to be part of a larger Qatari strategy to weaken Cairo’s standing as a regional mediator, especially in Gaza-related negotiations.

But this isn’t an isolated incident.

A Global Web of Qatari Influence

From funding elite U.S. universities to lobbying Western politicians, Qatar’s influence infrastructure is expansive — and increasingly scrutinized.

In higher education alone, Qatar has donated $4.7 billion to American institutions between 2001 and 2021. Universities like Georgetown, Cornell, and Carnegie Mellon have opened satellite campuses in Doha, often under contracts that grant significant editorial or academic influence to Qatari stakeholders. Texas A&M received over $400 million in Qatari funding and is now in the process of exiting Qatar, facing diplomatic backlash.

A 2020 ISGAP study highlighted a correlation between Qatari funding and the rise of pro-Palestinian — and in many cases, anti-Israel — activism across American campuses.

This education-based influence is just one aspect. Qatar also wields diplomatic, media, financial, and sports-based soft power globally. It has invested billions in European firms, funded politicians and think tanks in Washington D.C., and cultivated public goodwill in the U.S. through pandemic-era aid packages. Its ownership of Al Jazeera — accused of promoting Islamist narratives — further bolsters its reach.

In the Middle East, Qatar’s role in supporting radical groups under the guise of humanitarian aid is well documented. It remains a major funder of Hamas and continues to press for direct involvement in Gaza’s reconstruction and aid delivery post-conflict.

Recent media investigations and security analyses suggest that Qatari “charities” are often conduits for funding extremist ideologies. The Eid Charity and other Qatari foundations have been linked to Brotherhood-aligned networks in India, Syria, and elsewhere — often with destabilizing consequences.

Why Universities Must Act Now

For thought leaders like Asha Jadeja Motwani, this is no longer just an issue of free speech or student activism — it’s a matter of national security and ideological integrity.

“Qatari money doesn’t come free,” she warns. “It brings with it a worldview — one that is at odds with democratic values, academic freedom, and even basic human rights. If we want to protect the integrity of our institutions, the first step is to sever these financial pipelines.”

Motwani’s call resonates with a growing chorus of voices demanding transparency in foreign donations to universities and greater accountability in how such funds are used.

As campuses continue to grapple with ideological polarization and rising antisemitism, the question isn’t just about what students believe — but who is funding their belief systems.

The answer, increasingly, points back to Doha.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a shape-shifting ideology. Sometimes it appears as social activism, other times as religious outreach.

Loay Al-Shareef, an Emirati peace activist and respected voice in the Arab reformist movement, recently issued a stark warning to American campuses and political leaders: the Muslim Brotherhood must be banned before its toxic ideology causes further harm.

His message is not one of political convenience or ideological vengeance. It is a cry rooted in personal experience, cultural insight, and a sincere concern for both the Arab world and the West.

Al-Shareef has visited more than 15 American universities, speaking alongside fellow Arab Muslim activists who once lived under the shadow of the very ideology they now confront. His mission is clear—to expose the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood and its military wing, Hamas, before more young minds are seduced by the movement’s deceptively noble slogans.

He is often asked: Why this relentless warning? His answer is powerful in its simplicity: “Because we know their evil better than anyone else on the planet.”

This isn’t abstract theory or secondhand knowledge. Many of these reformers were once indoctrinated with the Brotherhood’s ideas—raised on narratives of victimhood, infused with theological justifications for hatred, and programmed to see the world through a rigid binary of believers versus enemies. But some, like Al-Shareef, broke free. And in that awakening, they saw not just the lie—they saw the machinery behind it.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a shape-shifting ideology. Sometimes it appears as social activism, other times as religious outreach. But in moments of global attention—especially during crises in Gaza or Jerusalem—it wears the mask of “resistance” and “liberation.” That’s when slogans like “Free Palestine” or “From the river to the sea” are weaponized. To the uninformed, they echo human rights and justice. To those who know the ideology’s roots, they are coded calls for extermination and destruction.

Al-Shareef’s perspective forces an uncomfortable but necessary re-examination. The West, particularly liberal institutions in the U.S., often romanticize political Islamists as representatives of “authentic” Muslim identity. Yet the reality is far more complex—and dangerous. The Muslim Brotherhood has long perfected the art of double-speak: peace in English, militancy in Arabic; democracy in the West, theocracy at home.

The tragedy is that many Western politicians and diplomats continue to give these preachers a pass. Whether out of ignorance, fear of being labeled “Islamophobic,” or naïve idealism, this tolerance is enabling the very ideologies that fuel radicalization, antisemitism, and violence.

Al-Shareef is not anti-Palestinian. He, like many in the Arab world, supports justice and dignity for Palestinians. But he draws a line between a genuine pursuit of peace and the manipulation of that cause by Islamist actors who have hijacked it for their own ideological war.

His call to ban the Muslim Brotherhood in America is not just about foreign policy. It’s about safeguarding the social fabric of democratic societies. It’s about recognizing antisemitism—not as a political position, but as a crime with deadly consequences. And it’s about listening to those who have walked through the fire and come out with scars and clarity.

The next time a “Free Palestine” protest escalates into violence, as many unfortunately have in recent months, remember this warning: the danger isn’t just spontaneous—it’s ideological, well-organized, and globally connected.

Loay Al-Shareef’s message to America is not anti-Muslim. It’s anti-extremist. It’s a call for nuance, courage, and truth in a time when too many prefer slogans to substance.

The West must listen to those who know the mask behind the movement. Before it’s too late.

This not only strengthens Pakistan’s foothold in Turkey’s strategic calculations but also aligns with Erdogan’s broader ambitions to lead the Muslim Ummah.

On August 15, 2019, a seemingly emotional piece appeared in a Turkish publication. Written by Ruwa Shah, the daughter of jailed Kashmiri separatist Altaf Ahmad Shah, the article lamented the “besieged” condition of Kashmir, portraying a picture of despair and victimhood. Shah, writing from Turkey, decried the “loss of childhood” among Kashmiri children—despite living thousands of miles away from the region.

While the article may appear at first glance to be a personal narrative, its deeper context and timing are far more consequential. The piece, and many others like it published in Turkish media, reflect an expanding ecosystem of information warfare aimed at maligning India’s global image, particularly in the Muslim world. The source and structure of this narrative appear increasingly tied to a broader project of political Islam, under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Altaf Shah Connection: Terror and Propaganda

Ruwa Shah’s father, Altaf Ahmad Shah, was no ordinary man. He was a key operative in Kashmir’s separatist ecosystem and is currently facing charges in India related to terror financing. India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered a case in 2017 implicating him in illegally raising funds, including through hawala channels, to fuel street violence, destroy schools, and provoke unrest in the Kashmir Valley. His actions, far from the realm of peaceful protest, allegedly contributed to organized violence and efforts to destabilize the region.

Thus, Ruwa Shah’s presence in Turkey and her article in its media cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be seen in conjunction with the growing pattern of Turkish platforms becoming hubs for Pakistani-backed and separatist-driven disinformation campaigns.

A New Axis: Ankara and Islamabad’s Media Alliance

Under President Erdogan’s rule, Turkey has undergone a dramatic transformation—from a relatively secular, pro-Western democracy to a country increasingly under the sway of Islamist populism. Central to this transformation has been Erdogan’s use of media as a strategic weapon—both domestically and internationally.

Analysts have raised concerns that Erdogan’s government has gone beyond domestic control of press freedom and has now adopted a deliberate strategy of international ideological export. Turkish state-run media outlets like Anadolu Agency and TRT, which once hired Western journalists, are now seeing an influx of Pakistani nationals with strong ideological leanings.

Currently, nearly half of the copy-editing staff in Anadolu Agency comprises Pakistani nationals. Many of these journalists have known affiliations with hardline ideologies, and some have shown clear sympathies with separatist movements in South Asia. Turkish media, particularly these two flagship outlets, are now actively providing platforms to voices that echo the narratives of Islamabad and anti-India actors.

ISI’s Invisible Hand?

Foreign policy observers argue that the placement of Pakistani journalists in Turkish media is not merely a reflection of Ankara-Islamabad camaraderie—it may very well be an orchestrated move by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. The intent: to amplify Pakistani geopolitical interests, challenge Indian narratives, and use Turkish soft power as a megaphone for radical Islam.

This not only strengthens Pakistan’s foothold in Turkey’s strategic calculations but also aligns with Erdogan’s broader ambitions to lead the Muslim Ummah. It explains why separatists from Kashmir, like Ruwa Shah, are finding Turkish media an inviting space to propagate their agenda.

Erosion of Sufi Pluralism in Turkey

One of the most tragic consequences of this media radicalization is the cultural loss within Turkey itself. Historically rooted in Sufi traditions, Turkish Islam was celebrated for its pluralism and syncretism. However, with the increasing dominance of Pakistani-Deobandi interpretations of Islam—promoted by the new wave of Pakistani journalists and clerics—there is growing concern about an erosion of Turkey’s spiritual heritage.

This ideological shift is being fueled not only through newsrooms but also through Turkey’s expanding religious institutions. The Diyanet, Turkey’s powerful Directorate of Religious Affairs, has witnessed exponential growth in both influence and budget. It is actively promoting a curriculum increasingly aligned with political Islam.

One such example is Erdogan’s controversial move in 2020 to convert Heybeliada Sanatorium—originally a hospital on one of Istanbul’s Princes’ Islands—into a religious school under Diyanet’s control. This follows the pattern of converting key historical monuments like Hagia Sophia and Kariye Church into mosques, symbolic of Erdogan’s Islamization campaign.

Observers worry that Turkey’s religious education sector is now being weaponized to raise generations of youth loyal to a singular, rigid ideological framework—one that is uncritical, conformist, and detached from Turkey’s once-rich theological diversity.

Radicalization of the Marginalized

Erdogan’s strategy doesn’t target the elite. Instead, his focus is on Turkey’s marginalized and underprivileged communities. For academically weaker students who are unable to get into mainstream education systems, religious schools are increasingly becoming the only option. Many of these schools promote a curriculum that serves political interests rather than religious or moral development.

In the long term, this has the potential to create an entire generation susceptible to radical ideologies and blind allegiance to Erdogan’s leadership. The role of imported media ideologues—especially Pakistani journalists—in this radicalization project cannot be underestimated.

A Caution for Turkish Society

Ruwa Shah’s article may have been a drop in the ocean, but it is emblematic of a larger, more dangerous tide. Turkish media, under Erdogan, is being transformed into a global hub for political Islam. It is actively collaborating with Pakistan’s ideological machinery, offering space to separatists and radicals, while undermining secular, moderate narratives.

The Turkish people—once custodians of a rich, pluralistic Islamic tradition—must now reckon with the possibility that their society is being reengineered. If unchecked, the radicalization of Turkish media and religious institutions could lead to long-term domestic instability and international isolation.

As for the rest of the world, particularly nations grappling with terrorism and separatism, the emerging Ankara-Islamabad axis of ideological influence poses a new frontier in the battle against extremism. What appears on the editorial page may just be a soft echo of a harder, strategic plan being executed in real time.

The classified assessment, first reported by The New Indian in an exclusive by Emaad Makhdoomi, reveals that this nexus was formalized during a high-level rally held in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) on February 5, 2025.

The rally, provocatively titled the “Kashmir Solidarity and Hamas Operation Al-Aqsa Flood Conference”, took place at Shaheed Sabir Stadium in PoK. Sources confirm that operatives involved in planning the Pahalgam attack were present at the event.

In a declaration that shocked security circles, a Jaish operative reportedly thundered from the stage: “The fighters of Palestine and Kashmir now march as one. Blood will be spilled in Delhi, and Kashmir shall be torn from India.”

Among those in attendance were top-ranking commanders: Talha Saif, brother of JeM chief Masood Azhar; senior field commanders Asghar Khan Kashmiri and Masood Ilyas; and key Lashkar-e-Taiba figures.

Most notably, Hamas made its first known formal appearance in PoK, represented by Dr. Khalid Al-Qadoumi, its Iran-based envoy. Several Palestinian figures were also seen aligning ideologically and logistically with Pakistani terror outfits.

According to intelligence analysts, this summit marked more than just rhetoric—it established a collaborative framework for future joint operations, modeled on Hamas’s asymmetric warfare tactics in Gaza.

“Pakistan-backed terrorist outfits are now consciously emulating Hamas’s blueprint,” a senior Indian intelligence official told The New Indian. “These groups are manipulating religious ideologies to provoke violence and foster deep-seated communal discord within Jammu and Kashmir.”

A Multimedia Propaganda Surge

Days ahead of the February summit, a provocative eight-minute propaganda video was circulated by the Pakistan Markazi Muslim League, glorifying Islamist separatists such as Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Yasin Malik, and Masrat Alam Bhat. The video lauded slain terrorists including Burhan Wani and Manan Wani, showing funeral footage while drawing incendiary parallels between Gaza and Kashmir.

“Pak ki Azadi, Kashmir ki Azadi” blared throughout the production, openly inciting Kashmiri youth to rebel against Indian sovereignty.

Security experts warn that this blend of emotional imagery and militant messaging represents a dangerous evolution in hybrid propaganda, designed to radicalize young minds and fuel communal tensions.

“The aim is to internationalize the Kashmir issue by tying it to the globally resonant Palestine-Israel conflict,” said a counterterrorism analyst. “It’s a strategic pivot designed to rally global sympathy while accelerating internal destabilization.”

Pahalgam Attack: Pre-Meditated and Communally Driven

On March 24, the idyllic town of Pahalgam—a hub for tourists and Hindu pilgrims—was shattered by a brutal terrorist ambush. Sources have confirmed the attack was orchestrated from across the Line of Control (LoC) by banned outfits including Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Jammu and Kashmir United Mujahideen (JKUM). The strike bore the hallmarks of meticulous premeditation, with execution carried out by highly trained Pakistani terrorists.

Three key individuals have been identified as the architects of the attack:

• Saifullah Kasuri (aka Saifullah Khalid), a senior LeT commander with close ties to LeT founder Hafiz Saeed. Designated by the U.S. Treasury Department, Kasuri has served as LeT’s Peshawar operations head and was instrumental in mobilizing the political front Milli Muslim League (MML), widely seen as a civilian mask for LeT’s agenda.
• Abu Musa (aka Musa Kashmiri), formerly affiliated with ISIS, is known for plotting attacks against foreign nationals in India. He was found with jihadist literature and reportedly attempted lone-wolf attacks before realigning with LeT to target non-locals and Indian security personnel.
• Rizwan Hanif, a senior JKUM operative based in Rawalakot, PoK. Intelligence sources say Hanif oversaw the logistics of the Pahalgam strike, including infiltration routes and arms procurement.

Perhaps most disturbing was the revelation that the attackers reportedly interrogated victims about their religion before executing them—pointing to a targeted communal intent. “This wasn’t just a terror attack—it was a message,” said a senior Indian intelligence official. “It signals a dangerous shift from generalized violence to targeted, faith-based executions.”

ISI and Military Involvement

The role of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and its military in coordinating this growing alliance is under sharp scrutiny. According to multiple sources, the ISI is driving efforts to reposition Kashmir on the global stage by deliberately echoing the Palestine narrative, hoping to energize pan-Islamist sentiments and draw international scrutiny toward India’s internal affairs.

“The ISI is effectively weaponizing the Palestinian cause to export jihad to South Asia,” said a former Indian military officer. “Their goal is twofold: to globalize the Kashmir issue and to create a new generation of radicalized youth who see themselves not just as Kashmiris, but as soldiers in a broader global jihad.”

A Cross-Continental Threat Matrix

This emerging Hamas-LeT nexus signals a dangerous cross-continental collaboration that may reshape the operational dynamics of Islamist terrorism in the region. Indian officials believe this could mark the beginning of a new era of hybrid warfare—fusing militant Islamist ideology with advanced propaganda and asymmetric guerrilla tactics.

As India grapples with the fallout of the Pahalgam massacre, and as global attention continues to focus on the Middle East, security experts are calling for a recalibration of counterterrorism strategies. “We’re witnessing the globalization of local conflicts,” said an Indian intelligence official. “And that’s a warning the world can’t afford to ignore.”

In a striking piece titled “All Roads Lead to Pakistan,” Blackburn deploys rhyme and rhythm to weave together a litany of global terror attacks — from the 9/11 bombings in New York and the 7/7 transit attacks in London, to the 2008 Mumbai carnage and unrest in Kashmir. Each stanza ends with a refrain that echoes his central argument: “All roads, all roads lead to Pakistan.”

The poem, now circulating widely across social media platforms, takes aim at Pakistan’s role as a hub for extremist networks. Though not an unfamiliar assertion in diplomatic circles, Blackburn’s decision to express this through verse has added a layer of emotional resonance that policy reports and press briefings rarely capture.

9/11, 7/7 — the skies burned red,
The flags of terror left defenceless dead.
From cave to command, from plot to plan,
All roads, all roads lead to Pakistan.
26/11 — Mumbai bled,
Ash and flame where children fled.
22/4 — in Pahalgam’s grace,
A meadow fell — a shattered place.
From Kalashnikov to prayer and ban,
All roads, all roads lead to Pakistan.
New York weeps, and London mourns,
Bali’s beaches, Kashmir’s thorns.
From training camps to hidden hand,
The signal’s clear, the airwaves scanned —
Terror stirs where shadows span:
All roads, all roads lead to Pakistan.

A specialist in international relations and counterterrorism, Blackburn has been a frequent commentator in European think tank discussions on radicalization, cross-border extremism, and human rights in South Asia. His current role with the EBF — a group that advocates for secularism and minority rights in Bangladesh — has brought him closer to diaspora concerns about religious extremism and state complicity.

His poetic pivot comes amid growing scrutiny of Pakistan’s domestic policies and its relationships with jihadist groups. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which had previously grey-listed the country for terror financing concerns, lifted the designation in 2022 — a move that critics like Blackburn viewed as premature.

The poem’s structure is simple, almost nursery-like in its cadence, but its content is anything but gentle. References to “Kalashnikov to prayer and ban” and “terror stirs where shadows span” leave little ambiguity about Blackburn’s message: international terrorism, regardless of where it strikes, has operational links that often trace back to Islamabad’s orbit.

Whether praised for its courage or criticized for its bluntness, “All Roads Lead to Pakistan” has succeeded in sparking conversation — and perhaps that was Blackburn’s goal all along.

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Cultural and religious minorities in Bangladesh are also suffering due to rising extremism.

The New York Times published a report titled “As Bangladesh Reinvents Itself, Islamist Hard-Liners See an Opening,” detailing the rise of Islamist extremism in Bangladesh during political changes. The report discusses how religious extremists are taking advantage after the removal of former leader Sheikh Hasina. 

It highlights incidents like bans on women’s soccer and public harassment of women who do not follow conservative dress codes. 

There have been rallies demanding the death penalty for actions seen as blasphemy. The report notes that some Islamist groups, including previously banned ones, are pushing for stricter religious rules in the government. 

Officials are working on a new constitution that might change secularism to pluralism. This shift is causing concern over weakening democratic values and increasing risks for women and minorities.

Bangladesh used to be known for its secular roots and cultural diversity, but in recent years, extremist ideas have been resurfacing. Although this isn’t an entirely new foundation, it has become more noticeable and concerning since 5^th of August 2024.

Extremists are attacking secular bloggers and targeting women’s sports and cultural events. Their goal is to impose strict religious views or a political caliphate on a society that values diversity. This rise in extremist actions is worrying because it threatens freedoms, especially those of women and minorities, and poses a danger to the country’s democratic setup. 

A particularly troubling aspect is the attack on women’s rights to participate in public life. For example, some women’s football matches had to be cancelled because of threats from extremist groups. This shows how these groups are trying to take over spaces that were once empowering for women. Sports provide young women with opportunities to move up socially and gain international recognition, but these are now under threat. 

Such actions not only limit their dreams but also send a negative message about the shrinking space for women in public and professional life. It reflects a broader aim to suppress women’s rights under the guise of religious morality, harming the progress made in gender equality over the years.

Lifting bans on Islamist political parties like Jamat-e-Islami and freeing extremists like Mufti Jashimuddin Rahmani known as the Anwar Al Awlaki of Bangladesh, give these groups more confidence. While the interim government might claim these actions are part of a broader peace strategy, they risk legitimizing extremist ideas and giving them a platform to grow. 

Inadequate systems to monitor released extremists make the situation worse, providing spaces for radical elements to regroup and plan for something like the meticulously planned October 7^th Attack orchestrated by Hamas. 

Meanwhile, a banned organization like Notorious Hizbut Tahrir openly propagated their influence and participation in Anti-Quota protest which for them was a tactical Jihad to oust the exiled Government and get a step ahead for their future plan of implementing a Caliphate. 

This political leniency by Interim Government weakens public trust in governance and helps extremist narratives spread, they have made few arrests while the extremist leaders are free and that questions if arresting the activists while ignoring the leadership is a soft ploy to leverage a tactical narrative. 

Cultural and religious minorities in Bangladesh are also suffering due to rising extremism. Attacks on Sufi shrines and other minority religious sites highlight an increase in intolerance. These aren’t isolated events but part of a plan to make all of Bangladeshi society conform to strict ideological rules. 

Targeting cultural figures, authors, and artists underlines this trend, aiming to silence voices of dissent and alternative perspectives. Such actions threaten Bangladesh’s rich culture, traditionally a mix of diverse influences. We must also consider socio-economic factors driving this phenomenon.

Poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to education create conditions where extremist views can take root. Young people, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, often join these movements seeking a sense of identity, purpose, or community. 

Extremist groups exploit these vulnerabilities using targeted propaganda and recruitment strategies, often through social media. Addressing these foundational issues requires comprehensive policies that promote inclusive development and foster social unity. 

Political Researcher and former Pentagon Official Michael Rubin, in a US Congressional briefing highlighted the growing concern of Radicalization in Bangladesh and opinionated an article ‘Is Bangladesh the Next Afghanistan’. 

Rubin is worried about how Noble Laurate Yunus is leading because it seems less tolerant than people expected. This is particularly true about how the government handles freedom of the press and different political views. 

Yunus is famous around the world for his work in microfinance, which helps poor people with small loans. He took charge of the interim government after Sheikh Hasina was removed from power. 

At first, many welcomed Yunus because they thought he would be different from Hasina, who was seen as too controlling. But Rubin thinks Yunus’s government is letting strict Islamist groups have too much power and is stopping people from speaking freely, which could hurt democracy. 

Rubin is especially concerned about the freedom of the press under Yunus’s rule. Some journalists, like Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed, have reportedly been brutally jailed on vague and ambiguous murder charges, raising fears about free speech in Bangladesh.

Over 1,000 journalists seen as “too secular” have reportedly been fired, showing a lack of tolerance for different opinions. Rubin also mentions problems faced by Julfikar Ali Manik, who reports on Islamist groups, and former Member of Parliament Fazle Karim Chowdhury, who works to protect minority rights. 

These issues suggest that Yunus’s temporary government might not be supporting the diversity and human rights that are important for democracy.

Increasingly, people are showing public support for Hamas, which is a growing concern. This support is visible in rallies and in the way some individuals dress to symbolize the group. 

Bangladesh, for many years, has had a clear stance against Israel. It has consistently supported Palestine through diplomatic efforts and has officially recognized only the Fatah-led government based in the West Bank. However, there is a noticeable rise in grassroots support for Hamas, especially in the wake of the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. 

In this situation, extremists have spoken out against American interests in Bangladesh. Recently, some Islamists verbally called for aggressive protests in the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka. Along with Anti-India rhetoric, hatred for Trump’s America and Israel are seen. 

These tensions are fuelled by foreign policy support for Israel. The Interim Government was supposed to carry forward a Peaceful transition towards Democratic Election, while the reality looks, they have political interests to gain in the name of ‘reform’. 

Serving the interests, they are currently capitalizing on Islamists for majority support while being harsh and harsher on Secularists, Awami league activists, minorities and anyone associated with the 1971 Liberation war as tweeted by Lemkin Institute of Genocidal Prevention with multiple red flags. 

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

Speaking at the Convention for Overseas Pakistanis in Islamabad—with Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif in attendance—General Munir declared that Pakistan was created on the basis of “every possible difference” between the two religious communities.

“Our religion is different. Our customs are different. Our traditions are different. Our thoughts are different. Our ambitions are different,” Munir said, invoking the ideological foundation laid by Muhammad Ali Jinnah in the 1940s. “You must tell this to your children so that they never forget the story of Pakistan.”

But this “story” is not just about differences—it’s a carefully preserved narrative used by Pakistan’s military establishment to maintain a stranglehold on power, distract the public from economic failures, and perpetuate enmity with India. It is a story that has long come at the cost of regional peace, minority rights, and Pakistan’s own internal harmony.

Munir’s speech, delivered with a religious tone befitting his reputation as a “Hafiz-e-Quran”, did little to hide the Army’s obsession with defining Pakistan solely through what it is not—India. His remarks reflected the establishment’s enduring dependence on the ideological rhetoric of 1947, a time when the wounds of Partition were still fresh, and the world had not yet seen the consequences of such rigid identity politics.

A Doctrine Past Its Expiry Date

The Two-Nation Theory has not aged well. If anything, it collapsed under its own contradictions in 1971, when Bangladesh—originally East Pakistan—broke away in a bloody war that exposed the myth of religious unity. Despite sharing the same religion, East Pakistanis rejected the economic and political dominance of West Pakistan, shattering the illusion that Islam alone could form a cohesive national identity.

And yet, here we are in 2025, with the head of Pakistan’s most powerful institution lecturing overseas citizens to hold tight to that expired ideology. What purpose does this serve, other than reinforcing xenophobia, hostility, and a warped sense of nationalism rooted in exclusion and antagonism?

Critics across the globe have not held back. Indian strategic expert Aditya Raj Kaul accused Munir of “exposing his hate for Hindus and India,” while prominent Pakistani journalist Taha Siddiqui called the remarks an attempt to “brainwash youth” with dangerous falsehoods.

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma called the speech a reminder of the stark ideological divide between the two nations, urging India to stop harboring illusions about reconciliation with its western neighbor.

The Real Jugular: The Army’s Grip on Pakistan

Munir’s speech also touched on Pakistan’s usual talking points—Kashmir and Balochistan. His threat-laced comments about Baloch rebels further illustrated how the military sees dissent as terrorism, rather than a call for justice. Kashmir, once again called Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” is less a heartfelt issue and more a strategic tool—one that sustains the military’s budget, influence, and unchallenged supremacy in Pakistan’s political life.

As Delhi-based journalist Rishi Suri rightly pointed out, Kashmir has become more of a “business model” for Pakistan’s generals than a national cause. Strategic analyst Sonam Mahajan summed it up bluntly, “Kashmir is Pakistan’s jugular vein, which explains why Pakistan has been in the ICU for 78 years, sustained only by IMF oxygen and jihadist morphine.”

An Unyielding Establishment in a Changing World

The tragedy of General Munir’s speech is that it wasn’t surprising. It’s the same tired script the Pakistan Army has relied on for decades—where religion is used to unify, enemies are used to justify military supremacy, and history is rewritten to prevent progress.

Pakistan’s establishment had a choice. It could have embraced a narrative of peace, coexistence, and modern statehood. Instead, it chose to double down on identity politics rooted in fear and historical grievances.

By clinging to an outdated and divisive ideology, General Asim Munir and the Pakistan military aren’t just looking backward—they’re actively obstructing the possibility of a forward-looking, inclusive, and stable Pakistan.

And perhaps that is by design. Because in a truly democratic and progressive Pakistan, the Army might no longer be the most powerful voice in the room.