The year 2025 proved to be extremely difficult and decisive for Pakistan and the wider region. Pakistan faced sustained pressure on multiple fronts, from accusations following the Pahalgam incident to heightened tensions with Afghanistan and the increasingly close alignment between India and Kabul. These overlapping challenges created a persistent sense of strain. Yet, even within these dark and testing circumstances, important shifts and positive developments emerged that deserve close attention.
At the core of these challenges lies a fundamental shift in Pakistan’s counterterrorism policy. Pakistan’s position on terrorism has been direct and unambiguous. The state is no longer willing to tolerate extremist and militant groups that conduct cross border attacks against its territory. This policy shift is the primary reason behind the sharp rise in security incidents and confrontations. When policy changes, consequences follow. The effects of this shift are visible in the data. Reports indicate that the number of terrorists neutralized in 2025 increased by 122 percent. This demonstrates that decisive policy choices inevitably produce measurable outcomes on the ground.
The year 2025 holds significance on three key counts. First, the recalibration of Pakistan’s counterterrorism strategy resulted in intensified operations and a higher operational tempo against militant networks. Second, Pakistan’s defence posture and international standing underwent a notable transformation. Following the events of May 9 and 10, when India attacked Pakistan and was met with a forceful response, Pakistan’s military capability was acknowledged globally. The episode reinforced Pakistan’s image as a formidable regional power and a serious global actor. Third, Pakistan’s financial trajectory remains central to the sustainability of these gains. The direction in which the economy stabilizes will determine how far Pakistan can carry forward its security and defence objectives.
Continuity is crucial. If the current policy framework remains intact over the next three to five years, Pakistan’s economic position, counterterrorism capacity, and defence capabilities can reach new levels of maturity. Defence related agreements and the growing international demand for Pakistani military hardware reflect both operational credibility and strategic relevance. These are not isolated developments but interconnected outcomes of consistent policy direction.
Security data further illustrates the intensity of the challenge. According to the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, out of approximately 700 attacks recorded nationwide, nearly 450 occurred in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The remaining incidents were spread across Sindh, Punjab, and Balochistan. This means roughly three quarters of all attacks took place in a single province. However, it is equally important to note that counter operations in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have been more frequent and more effective than in other regions. Security forces and police units have repeatedly thwarted attacks, reflecting heightened alertness and operational readiness.
The transformation of the police force is a critical element of this response. Traditionally designed to deal with routine criminal activity, the police were not structured as an anti terrorism force. That reality has changed. With evolving threats, police strategies, equipment, and training have also evolved. Today, police units are increasingly capable of confronting militants directly. This shift, however, does not imply that the situation is satisfactory. Significant gaps remain.
The responsibility to address these gaps lies squarely with the provincial government. Police and security forces require sustained funding, modern equipment, advanced technology, and specialized training. Without these, timely and effective responses remain difficult. Improving capacity is not optional. It is essential.
Border management presents another layer of complexity. Securing the 2,600 kilometer Pak Afghan border is an immense challenge. Even with hundreds of thousands of troops, complete physical control is impossible. Fencing has been completed in many areas, yet hundreds of kilometres remain unfenced, particularly in regions like Chitral where extreme weather and continuous snowfall make construction and monitoring unfeasible. These geographic realities create vulnerabilities that militant groups attempt to exploit.
To compensate, Pakistan has invested heavily in surveillance infrastructure. Cameras, drones, and advanced monitoring systems have been deployed along sensitive stretches of the border and within Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. These systems allow security forces to track movement from significant distances and intercept groups before they penetrate populated areas. Recent incidents demonstrate that large groups attempting to cross the border have been detected and neutralized using this technology.
The greater challenge lies within civilian populations. Militants often embed themselves in villages, settlements, and even religious spaces. They carry out attacks and then retreat into mosques or residential areas, deliberately using civilians as shields. Security forces face severe constraints in such environments, as the use of aerial strikes or drones risks collateral damage. Avoiding civilian casualties remains a guiding principle, even when it complicates operations.
This operational restraint is then exploited through propaganda. Militant groups and hostile external actors flood social media with manipulated videos and false claims of territorial control. Footage is circulated to create the illusion that entire areas have fallen, when in reality nothing of the sort has occurred. On New Year’s night, for example, videos falsely claimed that Bannu Cantonment had been overrun. The claim was absurd and entirely false, yet it spread rapidly online. The objective was psychological warfare, not military truth.
These narratives are amplified through coordinated networks. Fake accounts, often posing as locals, accuse security forces of targeting mosques or civilians while omitting the presence of armed militants using those locations. Funding networks ensure that not only attacks but also post attack propaganda is carefully planned and disseminated. Narrative management has become as central to militant strategy as physical violence.
Governance failures further aggravate the situation. Despite public claims of reform and funding, police leadership has openly acknowledged severe shortages. Salaries remain stagnant, weapons outdated, and infrastructure dangerously weak. Many police stations are structurally vulnerable, unable to withstand even basic attacks. Announcements of billions in allocated funds have not translated into actual disbursements. This disconnects between claims and reality undermines morale and operational effectiveness.
The contrast between social media portrayal and ground reality is stark. Online, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is presented as peaceful and thriving. On the ground, insecurity, resource shortages, and governance failures persist. When senior police officials themselves state that promised funds never arrived, the credibility gap becomes impossible to ignore.
At the regional level, Pakistan’s strategic position has strengthened. China, Turkey, Iran, and other partners stand with Pakistan, while India increasingly finds itself isolated. Evidence has emerged of Indian efforts to fuel instability through proxies and technology transfers, including drones supplied to hostile actors operating from Afghan territory. Pakistan has made its position clear. Terrorism sponsored or facilitated from across the border is unacceptable, regardless of diplomatic engagements elsewhere.
The lessons of 2025 are unmistakable. Pakistan’s shift toward a firm and uncompromising counterterrorism policy has yielded tangible results. The sacrifices of security forces, combined with strategic clarity and international partnerships, have reinforced national resilience. Governance weaknesses remain a serious concern, but the foundations for long term stability and security have been laid. Sustained commitment, policy continuity, and institutional accountability will determine whether these gains endure.
