This is not a new experience for Pakistan, the enemy’s narrative has long been carried forward, sometimes through guns and sometimes through pens and microphones. But the latest development presents a far more dangerous picture than before.

The recent joint space session on X, held between 2100 and 2220 hours on October 6, 2025, between fugitive ex-military officer Adil Raja and Ehsanullah Ehsan, the former spokesperson of the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the mastermind of the Army Public School (APS) massacre, was not merely an online discussion. It marked the continuation of a deliberate and structured narrative, one aimed at weakening Pakistan from within and providing ideological justification for terrorism.

A New Face of the Terrorist Narrative

Ehsanullah Ehsan’s name remains tied to one of Pakistan’s darkest chapters, the 2014 APS attack, which killed 149 people, including 132 children. The man responsible for that horror now appears as a “guest speaker” on a public platform. Shockingly, he was given space by a Pakistani-origin former soldier, who amplified his words as “testimony of state oppression,” repackaging terrorist rhetoric in the language of human rights.

For any nation, such a spectacle is deeply troubling. The victims of terrorism, especially the APS martyrs, still await justice. Providing their killer a platform is not freedom of expression; it is a moral insult to their memory and a direct threat to Pakistan’s national security.

The Fugitive’s Agenda

Adil Raja’s role needs little explanation. Living abroad, he has spent years targeting Pakistan’s Army, judiciary, and state institutions through persistent propaganda. His so-called analyses often echo narratives promoted by Indian media and certain Western circles. This alignment is not coincidental, it reflects a hybrid warfare strategy in which hostile actors have replaced weapons with words, videos, and digital spaces. His collaboration with a convicted terrorist now makes clear that the anti-state campaign has merged directly with the ideological machinery of militancy.

Inside the Controversial Space

During the one hour and twenty-minute session, both speakers presented a distorted portrayal of Pakistan’s security institutions. They claimed that the Army and ISI hide the truth and intimidate critics. Ehsan recounted a dramatic story of a “deal, safe house, hunger strike, and escape” to appear heroic and depict the state as weak. He denied any involvement in the APS massacre, calling it a false-flag operation, and labeled TTP violence as “jihad,” reframing terrorism as a religious duty to justify attacks on Pakistanis.

Ehsan dismissed democracy and normalized militancy, downplayed the issue of Afghan safe havens, and shifted the blame to Pakistan’s policy. He accused Pakistan of using proxies like ISIS-K without providing any verifiable evidence, claimed that the Army led Taliban negotiations while sidelining civilians, and alleged that Pakistan traded militants with the United States and inflated refugee figures for aid, again without proof. Overall, the discussion aimed to whitewash his past, discredit Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts, and erode public confidence in the state.

Questions That Demand Reflection

The discussion has sparked outrage in Pakistan, particularly among the families of APS martyrs, who are asking difficult but necessary questions. Can a terrorist be granted the right, in the name of free speech, to spread hatred against state institutions? Can someone who hosts the killer of his own country’s children be called an “intellectual” or “political analyst”? And will international organizations and human rights advocates continue to ignore such blatant hypocrisy?

These are not just questions for Adil Raja but for everyone who confuses anti-state propaganda with freedom of opinion.

Legal and Moral Boundaries

Under Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) Act 2016 and UN Security Council Resolution 1373, providing a platform to a designated terrorist constitutes facilitation of terrorism. Authorities are therefore obligated to act swiftly to prevent such practices from becoming normalized. Media platforms, too, must recognize where the line lies between free expression and the amplification of enemy propaganda.

A War of Narratives

Pakistan’s struggle is no longer confined to physical battlegrounds, it is now being fought in the digital domain. Figures like Adil Raja and Ehsanullah Ehsan demonstrate that the enemy’s tools have evolved; the weapon is no longer a gun but a narrative.

The challenge now lies with the state, media, and the public: whether to stay silent in the face of this coordinated assault or to respond with unity and truth to defend national integrity and the memory of those lost to terror.

Adil Raja’s collaboration with Ehsanullah Ehsan marks a dangerous escalation. By giving space to a terrorist who brands TTP’s violence as “jihad,” Raja has revealed his desperation, aligning himself with those who use online platforms to incite violence against Pakistan and its people.