1

1. Define non-state actors. ‘Non-state actors are posing more threat to

Pakistan’s national security than threats from external state actors.’ Argue in
favor or against.

Define non-state actors

Non-state actors are defined as entities composed of individuals or groups

that exert significant political, economic and social power and they not only
influence national policymaking but can also alter international policymaking
trends. They do not belong to any single country but they are set on a
pattern that can affect state interests.
Since the end of cold war non- state actors have persistently emerged and
evolved into an organized political actor which has shaken the centuries old
Westphalia system where state was the only supreme actor. Where once
state was the sole decision maker to challenge, threat or coerce in the
international realm non state actors have surprisingly dethroned the state.
International relations have reached a point of no return where sovereign
states may never be able to regain their former crowning glory status as non-
state actors have taken over the world by a storm. The present situation can
be mirrored by a famous Latin phrase Alea iacta est ("The die is cast") uttered
by Suetonius to Julius Caesar in 49 BC as he led his army across the River
Rubicon in Northern Italy. In a similar vein, the die has been cast where state
sovereignty is gravely challenged and non-state actors are here to stay.

Generally non state actors are classified as coercive and benign actors
depending on their inclinations but the following kinds of coercive and
cohesive non-state actors have emerged on the national and international
stage:
• International Organizations (IGOs)
• Multinational Corporations (MNC)
• Non- Governmental Organizations (NGO)
• International Media
• Religious Groups
• Transnational Diaspora Communities
• Terrorist and Criminal Networks
• Drug Cartels
2

 Non-State actors are all those entities which are not under the control or part
of state, yet they play a role like a state in the international domain.
 Hence these entities are not recognized as ‘state’ by the international
community.
 In the present context, various international NGOs, multinational
corporations, religious groups, terrorist groups like Islamic state, operating
under international domain are generally referred to as ‘non-state actors’.
 A non-state actor is an individual or organization that has significant political
influence but is not allied to any particular country or state.
 ISIS is a good example of a non state actor. It is an organization which had
the potential to bring heavy change in the world, especially the political
scenario. At the same time it is not associated to a single country.
Main Non-State Actors in Pakistan

• Tahreek e Taliban
• Haqani network
• Lashkar e Taiba
• Sepah e Sahaba
• Balochistan liberation Army
• Separatist groups in Sindh
• Operation of proxies sponsored by external enemies in different parts of
Pakistan
3

2. Non-state actors are posing more threat to Pakistan’s national security than
threats from external state actors

Till this point, Pakistan’s engagement with non-state actors hadn’t caused
much trouble. But 9/11 changed everything. Two major events are worth
mentioning:
• First, when the US hammer came down on Afghanistan there was no
anvil on the Pakistani side to stem the influx of escaping Al-Qaeda
and Taliban personnel. They scurried into the country as they
wanted to.
• Second, when General Musharraf decided to ‘abandon’ the Taliban, he
made two tactical errors:
1) he chose to stick with groups which were not operating there;
and
2) in siding with the US, he created enemies for himself and
Pakistan
1. Propagating extremism
2. Planning and executing terrorist attacks
3. Causing the deterioration of relations
4. Tarnishing the image of country
5. Augmenting sectarian conflicts
6. Misusing blasphemy laws
7. Being financed and sponsored by anti-Pakistan stakeholders
4

Pakistan’s Fatal Mistake of Sponsoring Non-state Actors

The west has long pointed an accusing finger at Pakistan’s policy of dealing
with terrorists, alleging that:
a. the state differentiates between those that directly attack the country,
it’s citizens, soldiers and institutions – the bad Taliban – and those that
operate across the eastern border in Afghanistan, and westwards in
Occupied Kashmir and beyond – the good Taliban; and
b. This accusation has come to be known as Pakistan’s good and bad Taliban
policy. Pakistan have nurtured and used civilians to either supplement
certain requirements of the state or act in a certain manner on the state’s
behest as non-state actors.
1. It all started back in 1947/48, A motley crew of tribal fighters from
FATA and the then NWFP, coupled with state irregulars, moved towards the
state of Kashmir when Hari Singh solicited the help of our neighbours, who
agreed to help, with the caveat ‫ انتباہ‬of Singh signing off on the accession to
India.
This incursion had been a potent mix of patriotism and religion: nationalistic
Islam, shall we say.
2. In 1970/71, when General Yahya Khan, with the Jamaat-e-Islami,
formed, trained, armed and unleashed on the hapless Bengalis, two
organisations: Al-Badr and Al-Shams. These two are the first instance of an
organised non-state organization used by the state.
3. General Zia decided to use religion as jihad. From 1979 onwards,
Pakistan became the landing ground and launching pad for any Muslim who
wanted to fight in Afghanistan. The quintessential jihadist outfit was formed,
Harkatul Jihad al Islami. (HuJI).
4. Not only focused on the Russians, Zia, being a perfect opportunist seeing
their success, after the Soviet retreat, but also recalibrated their focus
towards Kashmir. It is widely believed that three groups: the HuJi, Lashkar-e-
Taiba (LeT) and the JeM emerged from HuJi.
5. By this time, hundreds of jihadi outfits had emerged. Some were fighting in
Afghanistan, others in Kashmir. Many had disbanded and many small ones had
grouped together. Thousands of seminaries were operating unchecked and
churning out crop after crop of young men, brainwashed with a skewed
version of religion, and trained in the use of weapons.
5

How Non-State Actors Could Cause War in South Asia

Pakistan-based non-state actors have an alarming ability to dictate the tenor

of India-Pakistan relations.
1) The September attack on the Indian army base at Uri in the state of
Jammu and Kashmir by terrorists belonging to Lashkar-e-Taiba proved to
be a defining moment for India-Pakistan relations, triggering the worst
crisis between the two nuclear powers in decades.
Having absorbed many such attacks in the past, the Indian Government
chose to redraw the contours of the rules of engagement by conducting an
unprecedented surgical strikes across the Line of Control (LoC) c l a i m i n g to
target half a dozen terrorist launch pads.
What followed were not only increasing claims and counterclaims by the two
sides, but also an extraordinary escalation of hostilities.
2) The incidents of cross-LoC and cross-border gunfights, which had shown
decreasing trends in the past decade, have not only become more
frequent but also more militarily intense.
Defense experts believe that such large scale gunfights have the potential to
ignite a full-scale armed conflict between the two adversaries.
The Uri attack once again demonstrated the ability of Pakistan-based non-
state actors to dictate bilateral engagements between New Delhi and
Islamabad.
3) A similar attack in January 2016 on another Indian army base at
Pathankot by Jaish-e-Mohammad had refrozen relations after a
temporary thaw ‫پگھلنا‬, which came about after the surprise visit of Indian
Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Pakistan in December 2015.
4) The Parliament Attacks of 2001 and the Mumbai Terror attacks of 2008
brought the two nuclear powers to the brink of an armed conflict.
 It is not unwise to assume that even a limited conventional conflict
between India and Pakistan has the realistic potential of escalating into a
nuclear exchange.
 Any such conflict would not only be detrimental for regional peace but also
for global security. The risk of conflict between the two nuclear powers as a
result of such terrorist actions is perhaps one of the most underappreciated
threats to international peace and security.
 These non-state actors rightly view bilateral peace in the subcontinent as
an existential threat, detrimental to their survival. Consequently, they
have again demonstrated their unalloyed goal of violating the peace
process as a cynical tactic to sustain to achieve their political goals.
 The political goal here translates to their ability to survive and project
themselves as a “useful” instrument ready to be employed by their “State
Patrons.”