A recent report by the US Congressional Research Service has brought renewed international attention to the presence of terrorist organisations operating from Pakistan, many of which continue to target India, especially in the sensitive region of Jammu and Kashmir.
Prepared by South Asia expert K. Alan Kronstadt, the report underscores that despite repeated counterterrorism measures, Pakistan remains a critical hub for a diverse array of armed non-state actors. These groups, some of which have been active since the 1980s, continue to pose a sustained threat to regional stability.
The analysis identifies several India- and Kashmir-focused militant organisations that are still operational from Pakistani territory. Among them are Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Harakat-ul Jihad Islami, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, and Hizbul Mujahideen. These organisations have long been associated with cross-border terrorism and insurgent activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
The report categorises terrorist groups operating in and around Pakistan into five broad categories: globally oriented, Afghanistan-focused, India- and Kashmir-oriented, domestically focused, and sectarian outfits. Notably, 12 out of the 15 groups mentioned in the report have been designated as Foreign Terrorist Organisations under US law, with many also listed by the United Nations.
Among globally oriented organisations, the report highlights Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent, and Islamic State Khorasan Province. These groups operate beyond regional boundaries and have demonstrated capabilities to influence or carry out attacks internationally.
In the Afghanistan-focused category, the report names the Taliban and the Haqqani Network, both of which have played significant roles in the Afghan conflict and maintain cross-border linkages.
Domestically focused militant outfits such as Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Balochistan Liberation Army, and Jaysh al-Adl are also cited, reflecting internal security challenges faced by Pakistan itself. Additionally, sectarian groups like Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi continue to fuel religious violence within the country.
The report also revisits Pakistan’s 2014 National Action Plan, which was launched with the stated objective of eliminating terrorist networks and ensuring that no armed militias operate within the country. However, it notes that despite multiple large-scale military offensives, including airstrikes and extensive intelligence-based operations, these efforts have not fully dismantled the existing terror infrastructure.
Quoting the findings, the report states that “several major military offensives, including airstrikes, and hundreds of thousands of intelligence-based operations have failed to defeat the numerous US- and United Nations-designated terrorist groups that continue to operate on Pakistani soil.”
At the same time, the report acknowledges that Pakistan itself has suffered significantly from terrorism. Since 2003, the country has experienced sustained militant violence and remains among the nations most affected by terrorist activities globally. This dual reality, being both a hub and a victim of terrorism, complicates Pakistan’s security landscape and raises questions about the effectiveness and intent of its counterterrorism policies.
The findings are likely to reinforce India’s long-standing diplomatic position that cross-border terrorism remains a central obstacle to peace in the region. Indian authorities have repeatedly pointed to the presence of such groups in Pakistan as a major concern, particularly in relation to Jammu and Kashmir.
From a broader geopolitical perspective, the report underscores the persistent challenge posed by non-state actors in South Asia. Despite international pressure and evolving counterterrorism strategies, the continued existence and activity of these groups suggest that the region remains vulnerable to instability.
The report serves as a reminder that while military operations can disrupt terrorist networks, dismantling them entirely requires sustained political will, institutional reform, and international cooperation.
