I must admit, watching the recent press briefing by Pakistan’s Director-General of Inter-Services Public Relations (DG ISPR), under the banner of “Welcome to Unheard Asia,” felt like a watershed moment. For years, many of us in Pakistan have felt the sting of externally sponsored instability, have whispered about the “foreign hand,” but this time felt different. This was, without a doubt, one of the most assertive and direct briefings I’ve witnessed from our military leadership concerning India’s role in fostering chaos within our borders.
The DG ISPR didn’t mince words. He openly blamed India of orchestrating terrorism on Pakistani soil. The primary instrument of this destabilization? He named them: the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), among other proxies. But this wasn’t just a rhetorical flourish, or a general accusation thrown into the wind. What struck me, and what should strike the world, was the claim that this came with detailed evidence: names of individuals, intricate communication trails, and operational support all meticulously traced back across our eastern border. Pakistan, it seems, is finally laying its cards on the table with a level of detail that aims to be undeniable.
What I find perhaps even more astonishing, and frankly galling, is how elements within India seem to corroborate these very claims, however inadvertently or brazenly. It’s been reported, and I’ve seen clips myself, that Indian TV channels have aired discussions – those vibrant, often cacophonous platforms – where ministers and officials indirectly, and at times, shockingly directly, appear to admit coordination with BLA operatives. They cloak it in the vague language of “regional interests” or strategic imperatives, but the implication is often chillingly clear. It’s as if the shadow war has stepped out into the glaring studio lights for all to see. This is no longer a hushed conspiracy; it’s being discussed, debated, and almost celebrated on their own airwaves.
The DG ISPR’s presser painted a disturbing, but for many of us, not entirely surprising picture: India isn’t just accused of providing moral support. The allegations are far more severe – that India actively funds and equips these terror outfits. More than that, the claims extend to logistical support and shelter, with fingers pointing towards parts of Afghanistan allegedly being used as a hub, a staging ground to destabilize Pakistan’s western frontier, to keep us perpetually looking over our shoulder.
And this, for me, raises the most pressing question: what will the United States and the global community do now? We are no longer talking about whispers or conjecture. Pakistan is presenting what it asserts to be concrete evidence. Simultaneously, the accused state sees its own officials making statements that seem to acknowledge their role, however veiled their language. In such a scenario, shouldn’t there be consequences? Shouldn’t the professed global commitment to fighting terrorism, irrespective of perpetrator or victim, kick in?
Of course, India has its own version of events. They consistently frame such Baloch groups as purely internal insurgents, a domestic issue they have no hand in. But with Pakistan now stepping forward with this level of detail, and with Indian voices seemingly validating aspects of these claims on public forums, the global community will have a much harder time looking away. They will now have to decide how to address these increasingly direct and evidenced claims of state-sponsored proxy warfare in South Asia.
Will these concerns, voiced with such unprecedented clarity by Pakistan, spark independent investigations? Will there be diplomatic recalibrations? Or will the world, particularly the influential powers, continue with business as usual, prioritizing strategic partnerships over inconvenient truths? For those of us in Pakistan who have borne the brunt of this “unheard” campaign of terror, the hope is that Asia is no longer unheard. The silence from influential capitals, in the face of such bold assertions and self-incriminating discussions, is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile with their stated principles of a rules-based international order. It truly remains to be seen if a new chapter of accountability is dawning, or if we’re simply shouting into the wind.
