Harbouring Terror, Destabilising South Asia: Pakistan Long War Against India

Having lost all the conventional conflicts with India over the last 78 years, Pakistan does have the courage to fight the Indian armed forces upfront. Hence, it has been waging a proxy war against India for the last 40 years by using terrorism as an instrument of State policy to harm India’s sovereignty.

Initially, it was Punjab, where Pakistan supported the Khalistan movement in Punjab and armed Sikh separatists (Khalistan Liberation Force, amongst others) in the 1980s. When the Khalistan movement was crushed by India, Pakistan fanned separatist movements in Kashmir and sent terrorists to break away Kashmir from India in the 1990s, which continues to date. All the major terror attacks carried out on Indian soil have been orchestrated by terrorist groups harboured inside Pakistan. Their only intention has been to tear the fabric of communal harmony that India proudly wears.

The presence of terrorist safe havens in Pakistan is a major cause of instability along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, as Pakistan provides these groups with training, weapons, and logistical support, using them in a “hybrid war” against India to undertake attacks into Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of India, like Mumbai and Delhi.

Be it the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts, 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Pathankot air base attack, Uri, Pulwama or even Pahalgam, there has been clear involvement of terror groups linked to Pakistan. Despite providing realms of dossiers containing fool-proof evidence of Pakistan’s involvement in the terrorist attacks, it has not only failed to act against the perpetrators of violent attacks on India.

Pakistan has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the presence of anti-India terror organisations in its country and has asserted that there were no safe havens. Recent reports from the US State Department and the Global Terrorism Index indicate ongoing issues with terrorist infrastructure and activities within Pakistan, linking them to instability in the region.

The United States’ State Sponsors of Terrorism designation list describes Pakistan as a terrorist safe haven where individual terrorists and terrorist groups are able to organise, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train, transit, and operate in relative security because of inadequate/supportive governance, political will, or both. A 2021 US-Congressional report stated Pakistan is home to at least 12 groups designated as ‘foreign terrorist organisations’, including five of them being India-centric, like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

Key examples of UN-designated groups with operations in or links to Pakistan include Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and Al-Badr Mujahideen. These organisations are linked to attacks in India, and the Resistance Front (TRF) is considered a front for LeT, which was involved in the Pahalgam terror attacks.

Pakistan's state agencies support terrorist groups like LeT and JeM by providing safe havens, training, and arms, enabling them to conduct attacks in Jammu and Kashmir. The challenging and porous terrain along the LoC, combined with safe havens, facilitates the movement of militants and weapons across the border, leading to frequent infiltrations and escalating violence.

Pakistan is ranked second on the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) 2025, with a significant surge in terrorist attack deaths in 2024, indicating that the problem of terrorist safe havens persists. The direct connection between terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and attacks along the LoC is evident, such as the forensic linkage of the Pahalgam attack to LeT operatives trained in Pakistan.

Terrorist groups use safe havens to exchange information, money, and weapons, allowing them to organise and coordinate attacks with increased security and relative anonymity. From these havens, terrorist groups can plan and execute operations targeting both local populations and foreign countries, as seen with groups like LeT and JeM operating in Jammu and Kashmir.

There have been numerous instances where both Hafiz Saeed and Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, leaders of the designated terrorist group LeT and subject to UN sanctions, have remained unpunished or been released in Pakistan, despite international pressure and the fact that they are considered security threats. This includes Saeed's house arrests, releases by Pakistani courts, and Lakhvi’s release on bail after the Mumbai attacks, with Pakistani courts often making decisions that conflict with India's requests for extradition and for Saeed to be brought to justice.

Hafiz Saeed, the co-founder of LeT and Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), has been placed under house arrest several times in Pakistan, often citing maintenance of public order or security threats. In one instance, the Lahore High Court deemed his containment unconstitutional and ordered his release, also ruling that his group, JuD, was not a banned organisation and could operate freely. India has expressed disappointment with these decisions, and Interpol had issued a red notice against Saeed in response to requests for his extradition.

Despite Lakhvi’s involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Lakhvi was granted bail by a Pakistani anti-terrorism court in 2014, though this decision was later rejected by the high court. Pakistani courts have sometimes found that legal proceedings against Saeed and Lakhvi were unconstitutional or that there was insufficient evidence to continue their detention. The Pakistani government has been accused of using these legal loopholes to protect its own interests.

The complete inertia on the part of the Pakistani administration in cracking down upon terrorist groups and their infrastructure present within the country clearly shows its complicity in orchestrating terror attacks against India. But post-2016 Uri terror attacks, India has refused to suffer in silence. Every time there is a misadventure from the other side of the border, it will meet with a proportional or even stronger response. As Newton’s third law of motion states: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.