In recent days, certain Pashtun nationalist and anarchist circles have levelled accusations against the state, claiming it is deliberately drawing a distinction between “good and bad Taliban” as a pretext to justify its counter-terrorism measures. These allegations have emerged amid a series of ongoing military operations targeting militant infiltration and attacks in Pakistan’s border regions.

Experts believe that such rhetoric is not merely a difference of opinion but part of a broader attempt to weaken the momentum of current counter-terrorism campaigns. They argue that framing security operations as selective or politically motivated risks eroding public trust in the armed forces’ efforts and emboldening militant groups who thrive on creating political and social divisions.

Security sources point out that during the tenure of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government, certain militant factions were indeed allowed to resettle in parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, particularly in former tribal districts. However, they note that at the time, these very circles raising objections today either refrained from criticism or tacitly accepted the policy. This, they say, underscores a pattern of selective outrage and political opportunism.

Analysts emphasise that many of the present-day critics were either directly associated with decision-making during that period or chose to remain silent spectators when similar strategies were implemented. For them, the current backlash appears less about principle and more about political positioning.

They further warn that remaining silent in the face of terrorist violence while actively opposing security forces’ operations cannot be considered a neutral stance. Instead, such actions, intentional or otherwise, can indirectly serve the interests of militant elements by weakening the national consensus against terrorism.

Experts stress that narratives questioning the legitimacy of state-led counter-terrorism efforts neither contribute to lasting peace nor enhance the state’s credibility. They call for unconditional, cross-party support for all measures aimed at eliminating terrorism, arguing that only through unified action can the safety of civilians and security personnel be guaranteed.