Many societies are built on customs and religion but don’t suffer what Pakistan suffers. All of GCC, Brunei, even many Christian countries. How did Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait etc manage to survive without terrorism while their societies are probably many folds more religious and customs focused than even Pakistan? Pre 9/11 large segments of their society supported AQ. Most of the GCC is Athari’s, the same Aqeedah AQ and Daesh claimed to follow. The propaganda these groups had directed at GCC Arabs was many folds stronger than whatever propaganda terrorists do in Pakistan. Majority of Muslims in Pakistan do not even follow the same Aqeedah as what AQ or Daesh claims to follow and most of Pakistan doesn’t even follow the Aqeedah Taliban or TTP claim to follow. So essentially, terrorists propaganda in Pakistan doesn’t even appeal to at least 70% of the population in Pakistan. In GCC it appealed to probably 95%+ of the people. They had the same tribal links and connections there. Even their governments played double games similar to Pakistan like how Saudi or UAE supported groups like AQ in Yemen or Libya.
But you can always argue the same taking points everyone uses like religious labels don’t mean anything to terrorists or our region have the same human pool that acts as all these groups.
But then why blame customs and religious practices for this mess?
It’s simple as Pakistani strategy has been flawed this whole time.
Also, Balochistan’s militants aren’t even religious. They’re communist/socialists and secularists. Their mean breeding ground is liberal universities. Are we still going to blame religion or because we made our customs or religion?
1400+ yrs of Islamic history and many examples of how to deal with khawarij. Even present day from Morocco to Indonesia, every successful or powerful Muslim country has seem to have dealt with terrorism. You have literal regimes in power who rose to power on the basis of Jihad (Syria and Afghanistan) who are doing better against counter insurgency than Pakistan.
Let’s say we did not have religion as our customs. What plan do you have to deal with independent Balochistan, Pashtunistan, or even Sindhudesh movements? Socialist/communist secular ideologies are foreign to Pakistan and Muslims. Still Pakistan hasn’t been able to deal with such groups who don’t even advocate for religion and a lot of their cadre are borderline if not actually atheist.
The idea that religion and customs are innocent bystanders in Pakistan’s terrorism troubles doesn’t quite hold up when you look deeper at the socio-political fabric and historical context.
First, saying the GCC countries are paragons of religious societies without terrorism overlooks how their wealth and authoritarian state control shape their stability. Their massive oil revenues fund strong security apparatuses and co-opt tribal loyalties, which Pakistan has struggled to do amid weaker institutions and more complex ethnic divides. The “double game” you mentioned wrt Saudi or UAE playing both sides is exactly a case of using religion and tribalism as geopolitical chess pieces, not evidence that religion itself is disconnected from violence. The Saudis’ export of Wahhabism globally has had deep ramifications, including seeding extremist ideologies. So, it’s simplistic to say religion and customs don’t matter because the GCC controls violence more through state power and wealth than societal harmony.
PK society is not simply about flawed strategy either but the legacy of colonialism and imperialist meddling that carved up societies artificially, leaving Pakistan with unresolved ethnic and sectarian tensions under the veneer of religion.
Cultural narratives are constantly shaped by both indigenous and external powers, making the weaponization of religion almost inevitable when used by elites to maintain control or pursue agendas. The presence of secular militants in Balochistan or Pashtun areas does not erase religion’s role but shows how instability breeds ideologies that challenge the status quo be they religious or secular. It’s not religion or customs per se that fail, but the failing of inclusive governance that addresses legitimate grievances.
When you mention 1400 years of Islamic history dealing with khawarij, remember that history is interpreted selectively; any regime in power claims legitimacy through religion, but also often suppresses dissent violently. The success of Syria or Afghanistan regimes against insurgents is hardly clear-cut or peaceful; their victories have come at grave humanitarian costs and through external patronage. Pakistan’s messy internal dynamics, with colonial borders, geopolitical positioning, and international interference, mean a purely religious or cultural explanation for terrorism misses the real underlying colonial legacies and contemporary global power plays but ignoring religion or customs leaves no actual solution available.
Finally, the argument that socialism or secularism is foreign to Pakistan ignores how colonial modernity introduced many such ideas, often violently resisted or co-opted by traditional elites. The rise of various ethnic and leftist movements is as much a symptom of socio-economic marginalization as it is ideology. To blame religion or customs without recognizing these postcolonial scars is to miss how power exploits identity to divide and rule.
In short, terrorism in Pakistan is not just a matter of flawed strategy or misapplied religion; it is deeply woven into the historical, economic, and geopolitical threads laid down by centuries of colonialism and continuing global power struggles. To isolate religion or customs from these is to misunderstand the root causes entirely.
