A new report exposes how Pakistan legitimises terrorist networks through politics and state-backed projects, allowing groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad to operate openly while bypassing FATF oversight and international accountability.
A new international report has raised serious concerns over Pakistan’s evolving strategy of legitimising extremist organisations by integrating them into political processes and state-supported development initiatives. The findings suggest that militant networks long designated as terrorist entities are being rebranded through legal, electoral, and institutional channels, allowing them to operate openly while avoiding global scrutiny.
At the centre of the report is the Pakistan Markazi Muslim League (PMML), a political party widely regarded by international observers as the political front of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a UN-designated terrorist organisation. Despite its extremist origins, PMML has been allowed to contest elections, organise public rallies, and operate nationwide, demonstrating how radical Islamist groups in Pakistan have transitioned from armed militancy to political legitimacy without meaningful ideological transformation.
Although PMML has not achieved electoral victory, the report emphasises that electoral success is not its primary objective. Instead, participation in democratic processes allows the group to preserve its organisational infrastructure, maintain financial flows, and mobilise supporters under legal protection. This political visibility, the report argues, enables extremist networks to bypass international counterterrorism oversight mechanisms, including monitoring frameworks established by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
Writing for EuropaWire, Greek lawyer, journalist, and analyst Dimitra Staikou described Pakistan’s approach as a deliberate model of “state-managed extremism.” According to Staikou, the Pakistani state has developed a system in which terrorist organisations are not dismantled but repurposed, receiving political cover and operational tolerance to ensure their continued utility.
“There are moments when evidence speaks louder than official denials,” Staikou wrote. “The dossiers emerging from Pakistan do not describe isolated failures but outline a coherent model of state patronage, where tolerance, political legitimacy, and material support work together to sanitise violence.”
She argued that the distinction between state institutions and internationally designated terrorist groups is not merely blurred but systematically regulated. This arrangement, she noted, allows armed networks to remain functional while shielding the state from direct international accountability.
The report further highlights documented interactions between Pakistani authorities and extremist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). Despite being subject to UN sanctions, these organisations reportedly continue to operate training facilities, recruitment structures, and public outreach programs with little interference.
One of the most striking examples cited is the reconstruction of Markaz Syedna Bilal in the Muzaffarabad region of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The site had previously been identified as a JeM training facility and was dismantled during Operation Sindoor last year as part of counterterrorism efforts. According to the report, the same site has now been rebuilt as a state-backed development project.
The reconstruction ceremony was reportedly attended by a Pakistani federal minister, government officials, and local political leaders, signalling official endorsement. The report describes this move as a powerful political message, demonstrating that infrastructure linked to terrorism can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into public life under the guise of development, provided it aligns with Pakistan’s internal strategic interests.
Beyond Pakistan’s borders, the report warns that this internal normalisation of extremism has wider regional consequences. Staikou argues that Pakistan functions simultaneously as a domestic hub for militant networks and as a regional actor forming strategic alliances with Islamic countries, thereby exporting instability to the Middle East and East Asia.
“When armed networks are transformed into political parties, educational institutions, or so-called social organisations, violence stops being an exception and becomes a governing method,” the report stated. “At that stage, the challenge is no longer limited to Pakistan but implicates the international system that tolerates such strategies.”
| Also Read: Chittagong University faces crisis as Students Publicly Assault Faculty |
The report concludes by cautioning that global silence and diplomatic convenience risk reinforcing this model. Without sustained international pressure and accountability, the integration of terrorism into formal state and political structures may continue, undermining global counterterrorism norms and regional security.
