The Pakistani Taliban’s killing of more than 150 people at the Army Public School in Peshawar in December spurred the Pakistani government to draft a new National Action Plan against terrorism. A primary architect of that plan, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, discussed his country’s terrorism challenge on Feb. 18 in his first public appearance in Washington since taking office in 2013.

201502018_Pak_Minister_2SM-NF.jpg

While Pakistan has been subject to numerous extremist attacks for more than a decade, the school attack was singular in the shock it generated in the country, with 134 children among the victims.

“For the first time, an environment has been created in which the government is moving forward on a very, very fast track” to strike against the Taliban and allied groups, Khan said.

“Historically, there has been a divide … over the last 10 or 12 years between the civil and military [authorities] on how this operation against terrorism should move forward,” he told an audience of policy specialists and officials.

In 2013 to 2014, Khan said, the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif first gathered a consensus among political parties to attempt dialogue with the Taliban, an effort the administration broke off after Taliban-allied guerrillas attacked the country’s largest airport in Karachi, in June 2014. The fact that peacemaking had been attempted first enabled the government to rally the support of “all the political parties” now behind a military offensive against the Taliban, he said.

“An environment has been created in which the government is moving forward on a very, very fast track.”

The government’s policies, culminating in the new National Action Plan, mark the first time that civilian and military authorities in Pakistan have forged a joint strategy against extremism, Khan told the USIP’s South Asia director, Moeed Yusuf, who moderated a discussion with the audience. “You come from Pakistan,” he told Yusuf. “You know we normally … act first and strategize later. We have been engaged in this war against extremism for the last 13 years. We had no strategy; almost everything was being handled by the military, and a lot of it was off the cuff.”

“When this government took office in June 2013, one of the first imperatives … was to have a strategy, was to have a policy,” he said. In creating its action plan, the Sharif government coordinated significantly with the military for the first time, and also engaged Pakistan’s provincial governments, which control most police work in the country, Khan said.

Dozens of intelligence agencies

Pakistan critically needs better coordination among the disparate organs—federal and provincial, civilian and military—that conduct security work, he said. “Pakistanis were jolted by this revelation that we have … 33 intelligence agencies working in Pakistan,” Khan said.

“Most of these agencies were working in competition with each other, sometimes at variance with each other,” he said.  “I can say now that there has been a sea change. … There is a lot of close coordination.”

USIP has worked in Pakistan since 2005 to promote peace and stability. The institute conducts research and programs to counter violent extremism, strengthen youth and civil society organizations, and improve relations between police and their communities.

To a question by Yusuf about the continued operation in Pakistan of banned extremist groups, which often have evaded formal bans simply by changing their names, Khan said, “I’m almost embarrassed to give you feedback on this,” saying that, when his government took office “there was no tangible record on the exact number of proscribed organizations.”  And official prohibitions on militant groups have been enforced selectively, Khan conceded.

“Giving a free hand to most of these groups over the years has given rise to a lot of problems,” he said.

Now, Khan said, there is “a consensus that … no armed militias should be allowed in Pakistan, and only official security agencies should be allowed to carry arms. That is a policy which is being implemented.”

Yusuf pressed Khan on Pakistan’s past practice of permitting the operation of militant groups that have focused their attacks on India or Afghanistan. Those governments, and independent analysts, have accused Pakistani military and intelligence officials of protecting groups such as Lashkar-i-Taiba, which has attacked Indians in Kashmir, Mumbai and elsewhere, and the network of Afghan militant leader Jalaluddin Haqqani.

Khan responded: “I can speak about the intent of the Pakistani state as of today. I cannot speak about the intent of the Pakistani state or various Pakistani governments over the years. But more importantly, the international community had understood the point of view, in this respect, of successive Pakistani governments. So why blame us at this stage in time, when I think the intent in this respect is very, very clear.”

“Our point of view is that it will take a bit of time. Things have reached such a pass that you cannot expect overnight solutions,” Khan said. “The intent is there, which was never there before. And actions have been taken over the last few weeks which are a manifestation of that intent.”


Related Publications

Senior Study Group on Counterterrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan: Final Report

Senior Study Group on Counterterrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan: Final Report

Tuesday, May 14, 2024

When announcing the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in April 2021, President Joe Biden identified counterterrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan as an enduring and critical US national security interest. This priority became even more pronounced after the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021, the discovery of al-Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul less than a year later, and the increasing threat of the Islamic State of Khorasan (ISIS-K) from Afghanistan. However, owing to the escalating pressures of strategic competition with China and Russia, counterterrorism has significantly dropped in importance in the policy agenda.

Type: Report

Violent Extremism

Why Counterterrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan Still Matters

Why Counterterrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan Still Matters

Thursday, May 9, 2024

From wars in Ukraine and the Middle East to rising tensions in the South China Sea, there is no shortage of crises to occupy the time and attention of U.S. policymakers. But three years after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the threat of terrorism emanating from South Asia remains strong and policymakers need to be more vigilant. Indeed, at the end of March, an Afghanistan-based affiliate of ISIS launched a devastating attack outside of Moscow, killing over 140 people.

Type: Question and Answer

Global PolicyViolent Extremism

As Fragile Kashmir Cease-Fire Turns Three, Here’s How to Keep it Alive

As Fragile Kashmir Cease-Fire Turns Three, Here’s How to Keep it Alive

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

At midnight on the night of February 24-25, 2021, India and Pakistan reinstated a cease-fire that covered their security forces operating “along the Line of Control (LOC) and all other sectors” in Kashmir, the disputed territory that has been at the center of the India-Pakistan conflict since 1947. While the third anniversary of that agreement is a notable landmark in the history of India-Pakistan cease-fires, the 2021 cease-fire is fragile and needs bolstering to be maintained.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

Understanding Pakistan’s Election Results

Understanding Pakistan’s Election Results

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Days after Pakistan’s February 8 general election, the Election Commission of Pakistan released the official results confirming a major political upset. Contrary to what most political pundits and observers had predicted, independents aligned with former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) won the most seats at the national level, followed by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). No party won an absolute majority needed to form a government on its own. The resultant uncertainty means the United States may have to contend with a government that is more focused on navigating internal politics and less so on addressing strategic challenges.

Type: Analysis

Global Elections & ConflictGlobal Policy

View All Publications