Asif Zaheer Gondal
Within hours of the assassination of the judges, the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) claimed responsibility for the attack. The speed of the claim was striking. It came at a time when questions about the identity of the attackers and the circumstances behind the incident were still emerging.
For terrorist organisations, claiming responsibility has become an important part of their strategy. An attack creates fear on the ground, while a claim creates an impact beyond the scene of the crime. It shapes public discussion, attracts attention and allows militant groups to present themselves as powerful actors.
ISKP has used this method repeatedly. The group emerged in 2015 as the regional branch of Islamic State, with its main focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. It attracted militants from different extremist groups and built a network based on the ideology of a global jihadist movement. Over the years, it has tried to establish itself as one of the most dangerous militant organisations in the region.
The strength of ISKP does not come from holding large territories. Its strategy is based on small networks, sudden attacks and aggressive propaganda. The group aims to create fear through high-impact operations and then use those attacks to spread its message.
Pakistan has witnessed several major attacks linked to ISKP. The 2016 attack on lawyers at Quetta Civil Hospital, the 2018 Mastung election rally bombing and the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack showed the group’s ability to target vulnerable communities and cause mass casualties. Each attack served the same purpose: creating panic and projecting the organisation’s presence.
The claim after the assassination of the judges becomes important in this background. The question is not limited to who issued the claim. The larger issue is how terrorist organisations use such moments to influence perceptions. A quick claim can create uncertainty, complicate the process of identifying the attackers and provide space for different narratives to emerge.
Balochistan already faces a separate terrorist threat from the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA). The group has carried out repeated attacks against security forces, government installations and civilians. A day before the judges were assassinated, BLA militants stopped a passenger bus in Mastung. When the driver tried to move away, the attackers opened fire. Three passengers were killed and three others were injured.
The Mastung attack reflected the pattern of violence associated with BLA operations in the province. Ordinary citizens have repeatedly suffered because of terrorist attacks carried out in the name of political objectives.
ISKP and BLA are different organisations. Their backgrounds, goals and ideologies are different. ISKP follows the extremist ideology of Islamic State, while BLA operates around a separatist agenda. Yet both create serious security challenges for Pakistan because both rely on violence to challenge state authority and spread fear.
The immediate ISKP claim after the judges’ assassination highlights another dimension of the security problem. Terrorist groups understand that every major attack creates a struggle over information. The first claim, the first message and the first narrative often shape public understanding of an incident.
Pakistan’s fight against terrorism has entered a difficult phase where multiple groups operate with different motives. Some seek territorial influence, some pursue ideological goals and some exploit political grievances. Their methods may differ, but they all understand the importance of fear and publicity.
The assassination of the judges and the ISKP claim that followed it show how terrorism has evolved. The attack itself remains the central crime, but the battle continues afterwards through claims, propaganda and attempts to control the narrative. The challenge for Pakistan is to identify the perpetrators, dismantle their networks and prevent terrorist organisations from using confusion as a weapon. In this new environment, the fight against terrorism is taking place on the ground as well as in the minds of people. Success will depend on the ability of state institutions to respond with clarity.
