The Jaffar Express Attack: A Multidimensional Threat To Pakistan’s Security And Sovereignty – OpEd

The recent hijacking and brutal attack on the Jaffar Express, carried out by Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF), is no run-of-the-mill terrorist attack—it is a heart-stopping escalation of the hybrid warfare that has been waged against Pakistan.

This attack, in which innocent civilians, women, and children were gunned down, is a reminder of how the modus operandi of Balochistan’s terrorism is changing and how increasingly more outside players are becoming involved in this complex conflict. It can be observed that the attack was not just a bid to destabilize Pakistan internally but also part of a bigger, coordinated effort to influence internal and external narratives regarding the security issues of the country.

Jaffar Express attack is a model of the way stateless actors aided by foreign intelligence agencies and web blogs are using terror not only as a warfare tactic but also as a psychological endeavor. Taking an unarmed civilian train hostage, murdering civilians in cold blood, and subsequently using the attack as propaganda on social media reveals a very troubling trend—terrorism has moved beyond the coordination of violence to information manipulation. The terrorists who began in BLA and BLF now work within a larger hybrid war framework that involves much more than the geographical location of conflict.

These factions, instead of heading towards full-scale war, increasingly resorted to terrorizing civilians in an effort to deliver a strong psychological message: one of instability, terror, and fragmentation. It doesn’t appear that they are seeking separatism so much as creating a victimized narrative, presenting themselves as freedom fighters as they perpetrate the heinous crimes of brutality.

A concerted strategy of propaganda was spearheaded with the objectives of manipulating facts and shifting the blame from the terror networks to the security establishment of Pakistan. Propagandia media like The Balochistan Post and the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) led the campaign of promoting the victim culture with total disregard for the cold-blooded killings of innocent travelers.

Parallel to it was a procession of cyber spaces and media faces with anti-state biases like Iman Mazari and Adil Raja underplaying the killings or putting the focus elsewhere on Pakistan’s counter-terror approach. Their outrage at state counter-terror efforts selectively, staying quiet about terrorist outfits’ crimes, is an apt example of how ideological biases and foreign alignments lead to covering facts and fiction. This coordinated effort of disinformation is not simply a matter of refuting the Pakistan narrative but is an amplification of the continuing campaign of psychological warfare, whose objective is to inject turmoil and destabilize the will of the local citizenry and international community. It seeks to destabilize the state’s power, delegitimize its presence, and present the terrorist organizations as just rebels engaged in combat with an oppressive state.

The Jaffar Express attack also alludes to the increasing evidence of cross-border terrorism that Balochistan has been suffering from. The hijackers were continuously in contact with their Afghan handlers, according to available intelligence—pulling the Afghan state deeper into terror centers. It is not an isolated phenomenon. Pakistan has persistently complained of the presence of terrorist sanctuaries along its western border, i.e., those operating with international patronage.

Besides, the direct link between India and Baloch separatist operations has also been established, with several instances of Indian intelligence, particularly the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), offering Baloch militant groups material and financial assistance.

Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav’s admission, leaks from the intelligence sector, and the activities of hostile elements in Afghanistan all came together to form an exceptionally concerted attempt at destabilizing Pakistan and using Baloch militants as proxy agents of a broader geopolitics.

One of the most ominous features of this new threat is the part played by certain political leaders in Pakistan to indirectly give legitimacy to separatist violence.

Politicians like Akhtar Mengal, who have criticized the state’s reaction to the same acts of terror, encourage rebel forces more by challenging the legitimacy of counterterrorist action. These stories, that are most typically ethnic grievance centered, generate a moral rationalization for violence, particularly where violence is construed as retribution against state seen oppression. These stories not only harm Pakistan’s efforts at national security but are also part of the overall discourse of separatism, wherein terror groups acquire political and moral capital, both home and abroad. Divisive myths can pull at the very fabric of the nation, establishing a self-sustaining cycle of violence for the sole enjoyment of the actors who want to destabilize the state.

Someone who condemns the security agencies of Pakistan for late or tardy response does not understand the nuances of conducting counterterrorism operations, especially when hostages have been taken.

Keeping civilians hostage as human shields poses much more difficulty for military action to be initiated, and huge caution and restraint of tactics have to be used.

A swift, aggressive response would have killed many more innocents and would have been giving the terrorists exactly what they had been hoping for. With discipline and patience, the military forces of Pakistan were able to save lives and restrict casualties, although the operation took longer than maybe some would have wanted. The operation itself comes as a subject of question for Pakistan’s readiness against the new war of terror art. Though as much war-fighting as possible by the military option is an issue of urgent priority, Pakistan quite evidently needs to launch a larger campaign of hybrid war. This requires not just a development in counterterrorism raids but also joint efforts in combating the cyber and ideational dimensions of hybrid conflict.

The Jaffar Express attack puts the onus on Pakistan to take a more proactive stance against hybrid warfare. State cannot be on the back foot anymore, responding to things whenever they happen.

There should be a strategic rethinking in order to uproot the networks that finance and facilitate terrorism in Balochistan, for instance, foreign intelligence networks and cyber propaganda networks. This should be followed by a more strenuous effort to counter the ideological origins of extremism, that is, in those who opt to use political platforms to glorify terror. In addition to that, Pakistan has an obligation to bring to light the extent of foreign interference in the insurgency and narratives promoted by aggressive actors. The global community has to be alerted to the cross-border patronage fueling the insurgency and apocalypse effect it presents to Pakistan’s internal security and regional stability.

Conclusion

The Jaffar Express attack is a wake-up call for Pakistan. It has opened a complete gamut of the dangers to the nation—starting with terror organizations which have been operating under the guise of foreign patronage and extending right up to attempts at people’s opinion manipulation via cyber propaganda.

No more an internal or a domestic concern; it is a geopolitical concern that will have to be confronted by multiple dimensions.

What Pakistan must do is be courageous, strong action not only against the terrorists but against all the facilitators—political, cyber, cross-border—who help destabilize the state. Doing that, Pakistan can start to reverse the tide on this complicated, multi-fronted war.