The Hindu Editorial Analysis
30 September 2025
An Anti-Terror Role That Defies Logic
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic : GS Paper II – International Relations | GS Paper III – Internal Security | GS Paper IV – Ethics
Context
The editorial critically examines Pakistan’s attempt to position itself as a responsible player in global counterterrorism, despite its deep complicity in harboring and promoting terrorism. Recent developments—such as Pakistan’s UN speeches portraying itself as a victim of terrorism and seeking international recognition for counterterrorism efforts—stand in stark contrast to its continued support for terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the Haqqani network.
Key Issues and Arguments
1. Pakistan’s Double Standards
- Pakistan shelters and trains terrorist outfits targeting India and Afghanistan.
- The country’s role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Pulwama 2019, and ongoing cross-border infiltration shows its entrenched terror infrastructure.
- Yet, it projects itself at global platforms, including the UN, as a frontline state in counterterrorism.
2. UN’s Questionable Approach
- The UN’s decision to involve Pakistan in counterterrorism mechanisms is puzzling, given overwhelming evidence of its terror sponsorship.
- This undermines the credibility of international institutions and erodes global trust in counterterrorism frameworks.
- Pakistan exploits such spaces to deflect attention from its domestic crises (economic collapse, political instability, FATF scrutiny).
3. India’s Consistent Stand
- India has repeatedly raised the issue of Pakistan’s duplicity at the UN, exposing its terror sponsorship.
- India advocates for reforms in global governance systems—ensuring that states sponsoring terrorism cannot be given legitimacy in shaping counterterrorism policy.
- India also highlights the ethical dimension: justice for victims of terror cannot be compromised for short-term geopolitical gains.
4. Strategic Implications
- For South Asia: Pakistan’s attempts complicate regional security, making peace with India and Afghanistan elusive.
- For the UN: Its credibility is eroded when known terror sponsors are given leadership roles in counterterrorism.
- For Global Security: A false narrative of Pakistan as a victim blurs accountability and hampers genuine collective action.
Ethical and Philosophical Dimensions
- Allowing Pakistan to shape global counterterrorism is akin to letting “the arsonist play the firefighter.”
- It raises ethical concerns about truth, justice, and responsibility in international relations.
- From an ethical lens (Immanuel Kant’s principle of universality), institutions must act in ways they expect all nations to behave. Rewarding duplicity undermines moral credibility.
Way Forward
- Institutional Reform: The UN must tighten membership criteria for counterterrorism platforms. States accused of sponsoring terrorism should face suspension until proven compliance.
- Collective Action: India, along with like-minded nations (U.S., France, Japan), should push for accountability frameworks within the UN.
- Expose Duplicity: India must continue documenting Pakistan’s terror links and present evidence at international forums.
- Strengthen FATF: Use economic levers to compel Pakistan to dismantle its terror infrastructure.
- Victim-Centric Narrative: Global counterterrorism policies should prioritize justice for victims, not geopolitical convenience.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s attempt to don the mantle of a counterterrorism crusader is not just illogical—it is dangerous. It undermines both international justice and global security frameworks. India must persist in exposing Pakistan’s duplicity and push for reforms in global governance that prioritize truth over narratives, accountability over convenience, and justice over impunity.