Executive Editor of TV9 Network Aditya Raj Kaul posted, “Funeral prayers for Terrorist Yaqub Mughal, head of Bilal Terror Camp in Pakistan. Pakistan ISI and Pakistan Police present in the funeral.”

The claim has prompted reactions from a wide spectrum of users. Arjun, a prominent commentator, accused the Pakistani state of open endorsement, stating, “The State of Pakistan publicly endorsing terrorism by giving state funeral to slain terrorists. Shameless subhumans.”

Similarly, Ratnish wrote, “They have gathered for the funeral of a terrorist and then want us to believe they don’t support terrorism. Imagine having any kind of sympathy for this terrorist nation.”

Rashmi, another X user, pointed to a recurring pattern, saying, “First they shelter terror groups and then they play victim. So typical.”

Zahack Tanvir, Founder of Milli Chronicle London, also highlighted the alleged presence of state officials: “Funeral prayers held for terrorist Yaqub Mughal, chief of Bilal Terror Camp in #Pakistan. Shocking presence of ISI and Pakistan Police officials at the ceremony raises fresh questions about state support for terror networks.”

The funeral comes at a time of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, particularly in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, during which India reportedly struck multiple terror infrastructure targets across the border.

Daniel Bordman, a senior correspondent for National Telegraph, summarized the ongoing situation: “India hit multiple terror targets in Pakistan… Expect Pakistan to play victim and claim total victory.”

Though the official confirmation of the attendees remain unclear, the incident has amplified calls for greater scrutiny of Pakistan’s alleged dual role in counterterrorism and support for militant entities. The controversy once again casts a shadow over Islamabad’s global narrative of being a victim of terrorism, as critics argue the state continues to harbor and legitimize extremist elements within its borders.

Islamist terrorism did not rise in a vacuum. It was engineered, cultivated, and weaponized—first by colonial powers, then by Cold War strategists, and now by regional regimes.

In the aftermath of European colonialism, the world has seen many upheavals—but few have been as globally disruptive and persistently violent as the rise of Islamist terrorism. It is one of the darkest legacies of the colonial era, ironically shaped and sharpened by the very empires it now claims to oppose. Today, it stands as a transnational threat, claiming lives from Karachi to Kuala Lumpur, and from Tel Aviv to London.

The data tells a haunting story. Since 1979—the year of the Shia Islamic Revolution in Iran—there have been more than 49,000 Islamist terror attacks worldwide, resulting in over 220,000 deaths. But what is often overlooked is the fact that 89.5% of these attacks occurred in Muslim-majority countries, with the vast majority of victims being Muslims themselves. Even the holiest of sites, such as Mecca, have not been spared. The carnage is indiscriminate, and the ideology behind it is far more complex than simplistic narratives often suggest.

Islamist groups would have the world believe that their violence is a response to foreign occupation or injustice. Yet the overwhelming facts betray that narrative. Most Islamist terrorism does not take place in occupied territories but in nations where Muslims are the majority. This disproportionality demands a deeper, more historically rooted investigation into how this ideology emerged and why it continues to thrive.

The Colonial Incubator of Political Islam

To understand the modern-day menace of Islamist terrorism, we must go back to the time of European imperialism—particularly British colonial rule. Colonizers, determined to suppress nationalist uprisings and maintain control over their dominions, employed a classic divide-and-rule strategy. In this context, religious identity became a tool of political manipulation.

Extremist elements were co-opted and even fostered by colonial administrators to counter secular, anti-colonial movements. It is no coincidence that key Islamist movements—such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat-e-Islami in India—were born during this time. These Islamist movements did not rise organically from within their societies as spiritual or theological reforms; rather, they were often sponsored or tolerated by colonial regimes as buffers against resistance.

Figures like Sir Syed Ahmed, who promoted the divisive “two-nation theory” in British India, and Sir Agha Khan, who founded the Muslim League, played pivotal roles in politicizing Islam. Their ideas—encouraged, amplified, or at least facilitated by the British—ultimately contributed to the partition of India and laid the groundwork for modern political Islam. This ideological framework would later become fertile ground for the rise of violent jihadist movements.

From West Africa to Southeast Asia, similar patterns emerged: colonial authorities empowering Islamist elements for short-term control, only to leave behind long-term instability.

Cold War Complicity and the Rise of Armed Jihad

The Cold War did not reverse this legacy—it accelerated it. In Afghanistan, for example, the United States and its allies, including Pakistan, armed and trained Islamist fighters to push back against Soviet expansion. The result was the creation of well-equipped and ideologically radicalized groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

What was once political Islam turned into militant jihadism. The West had, once again, fed the very forces it would later call its enemies.

The Twin Threats: State-Sponsored and Non-State Jihadism

In the modern context, Islamist terrorism operates under two primary umbrellas: non-state actors and state-sponsored networks.

Non-state actors are dispersed, often embedded within societies, waiting for ideological or operational cues. Their roots trace back to political Islamist thought developed during colonialism, shaped further by theological radicalism and geopolitical grievances. Their dream of a global caliphate transcends borders, and they are often motivated not by poverty or lack of opportunity—but by ideology. No amount of economic aid or deradicalization programs alone can address this; it requires ideological confrontation led by credible scholars and religious authorities.

On the other hand, state-sponsored Islamist terrorism is far more organized—and dangerous. Here, nation-states actively fund, shelter, or enable terrorist proxies to project power or destabilize rivals. Iran, since the 1979 revolution, stands out as the most prolific actor. From supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon to Hamas in Gaza, and from Houthi insurgents in Yemen to Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, Iran’s fingerprints are evident across some of the most devastating conflicts in the Middle East.

Turkey and Qatar, despite being close Western allies, also play significant roles. Both states have financially supported Islamist groups—including the Muslim Brotherhood and others—across North Africa and the Levant. Media outlets like TRT (Turkey) and Al Jazeera (Qatar) have become soft-power instruments, often amplifying Islamist narratives under the guise of journalistic independence.

Then there is Pakistan—arguably the most paradoxical player. Created as a result of colonial partition, Pakistan has, since its inception, used Islamist militancy as statecraft. Its long-standing doctrine of “Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts” has led to decades of cross-border terrorism. From Kashmir to Punjab, from Naxalite regions to the Northeast, India has faced relentless proxy warfare orchestrated from across the border.

Unlike Iran, Pakistan has largely escaped Western censure or sanctions, remaining a “major non-NATO ally” and benefiting from strategic utility. Whether during the Afghan jihad against the Soviets or the post-9/11 conflict, Pakistan’s duplicity has been tolerated, if not rewarded.

A recent example was the attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, where 26 innocent civilians were killed by Pakistan-sponsored Islamist militants. It is part of a consistent pattern—not an anomaly.

Solutions Begin with Truth and Courage

Combating Islamist terrorism requires more than drones, security checkpoints, or surveillance. It demands truth—about its origins, its enablers, and its geopolitical underpinnings.

The first step must involve addressing state actors that perpetuate terrorism under ideological or strategic pretexts. In this context, resolving the “Pakistan-Iran-Turkey” triad is essential. And one of the most viable ways to do this is by supporting the self-determination of oppressed peoples within those states.

The liberation of Balochistan (currently divided between Pakistan and Iran) and Kurdistan (spanning parts of Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria) is not just a moral imperative—it could be a strategic game-changer. Empowering these freedom movements would strike at the very heart of the Islamist-terror ecosystem and weaken the foundations upon which these regimes rely.

Time for a Reckoning—and a Response

India, Israel, and democratic states across the world must come together, not just to condemn terrorism, but to confront its root causes and supporters. The West, too, has an opportunity—a responsibility—to correct the historical wrongs of colonialism. This means no longer appeasing authoritarian allies who feed Islamist extremism for their own ends.

Islamist terrorism did not rise in a vacuum. It was engineered, cultivated, and weaponized—first by colonial powers, then by Cold War strategists, and now by regional regimes. To dismantle it, we must stop treating the symptoms and start confronting the disease.

And that means standing with those who fight for freedom—not those who hide behind religion to suppress it.

The statement, issued from the General Secretariat in Makkah, reaffirmed the MWL’s unwavering stance—shared by the broader Islamic world—against all forms of violence and terrorism. It categorically rejected any justification for such acts and strongly opposed the exploitation of religion or culture to legitimize terrorism.

In its message, the MWL emphasized that terrorism has no place in any faith or tradition, and it should not be associated with any race, religion, or community. “Violent extremism must be condemned unequivocally, regardless of its form or manifestation,” the statement declared.

The timing of the statement was significant, coming shortly after a high-profile meeting between MWL Secretary General Dr. Mohammed bin Abdulkarim Al-Issa and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Jeddah on Tuesday. The meeting highlighted shared concerns around global terrorism and deepened the dialogue between India and the Islamic world on peacebuilding and counter-extremism efforts.

The MWL’s remarks also referenced a recent joint statement issued during PM Modi’s visit to Saudi Arabia, where both nations reinforced their commitment to combat terrorism and its financing. The MWL praised the “pivotal Saudi-Indian cooperation” and called for dismantling the cross-border terror infrastructure and bringing its perpetrators to justice.

Headquartered in Makkah, the MWL is one of the most prominent Islamic non-governmental organizations, with a global presence aimed at promoting peace, interfaith dialogue, and humanitarian outreach. Under the leadership of Dr. Mohammed Al-Issa, the MWL has taken a progressive stance against extremism, earning international respect for its efforts to build bridges across faiths and cultures.

India’s connection with the MWL has grown in recent years, especially under Prime Minister Modi’s outreach to the Muslim world. Dr. Al-Issa’s public condemnation of terrorism reflects a growing strategic alignment between India and key Islamic institutions in promoting global peace and fighting radical ideologies.

We are ancient nations, young and proud… We are peaceful nations… but we are not going to hesitate from gaining what we need through solidarity

On Saturday, Chitresh Kapoor and India’s Geopolitical Analyst Vaibhav Singh hosted Israel’s Ambassador to India, Reuven Azar, on the podcast Defensive Offense.

Since assuming his role in August 2024, Ambassador Azar has been a key figure in fostering the growing partnership between two of the world’s oldest civilizations—India’s Sanatan Dharma and the Jewish people.

Their dialogue explored the historical and strategic ties between the nations, the evolving threats posed by radical forces like Hamas and Iran, and the potential for deeper collaboration in the decades ahead.

A Shared Civilizational Resilience

The conversation began with a reflection on the deep historical connection between India and Israel, which Ambassador Azar described as a “civilizational connect.” Both nations, he noted, have endured invasions and foreign domination over millennia, yet preserved their cultural identities through resilience and memory.

“Unlike many old civilizations that vanished under the pressure of invasions, we stayed, we prevailed,” Azar remarked, attributing this survival to cultural perseverance rather than continuous sovereignty. For the Jewish people, landless for nearly 2,000 years, this meant developing “techniques of memory,” a theme he promised to elaborate on later but left tantalizingly unexplored in the podcast.

Official diplomatic relations between India and Israel began in 1992, yet their partnership predates this milestone. Azar highlighted how the relationship started “quietly and almost clandestinely,” rooted in mutual security challenges.

“We could help each other,” he said, emphasizing that trust, forged through defense cooperation, became the bedrock of their strategic alliance. This trust has since expanded into agriculture, water management, and high-tech sectors, with India boldly adopting Israeli technologies under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership.

One standout example is the agricultural partnership. Indian companies, such as Jain Irrigation’s acquisition of Israeli firm NaanDanJain, have collaborated with Israel to establish 32 Centers of Excellence across India. These centers provide subsidized seedlings, enhancing crop yields and food security—a testament to how Israeli innovation complements India’s scale.

Azar also pointed to emerging areas like water management, critical given India’s resource challenges, and the potential for joint research and development (R&D) in infrastructure and technology.

Geopolitical Shifts: Trump, Trade, and Trilateral Ties

The discussion took a timely turn toward global economic shifts, particularly with the recent U.S. administration change under President Donald Trump. Azar noted that both India and Israel have navigated relations with the Trump administration effectively, despite new trade tariffs announced just days before the podcast.

With India facing a 17% tariff and Israel 26%—compared to 54% for China and around 50% for Cambodia and Vietnam—both nations stand to gain as production shifts away from heavily taxed countries. “Textiles, the most flexible industry, could move to India within days,” Azar predicted, foreseeing a boost to India’s economy even before a potential U.S.-India trade deal.

This economic realignment underscores a trilateral dynamic among India, Israel, and the U.S. “Our relationship is not only bilateral but bears strategic significance trilaterally,” Azar said, urging a pragmatic rather than confrontational approach to such shifts.

For India, rising as a global economic power, and Israel, a technological innovator, this partnership could reshape supply chains and regional influence.

The Middle East: Hamas, Iran, and a New Alignment

The podcast pivoted to the Middle East, where Israel faces persistent threats from radical groups like Hamas and state actors like Iran.

Singh referenced former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir’s poignant statement: “We can forgive them for killing our children, but we cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill theirs.” He asked whether, decades later, anti-Semitism and hatred toward Israel have diminished.

Azar’s response was sobering: the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, with its brutal atrocities, marked the worst violence against Jews since the Holocaust. Yet, he argued, the nature of the conflict has evolved.

Historically, Israel battled pan-Arab nationalism, a secular movement that sought to eliminate the Jewish state as a colonial outpost—a narrative Azar dismissed, asserting, “Jews belong to Judea.” After five wars, this ideology waned, with Egypt’s peace treaty under Anwar Sadat marking a turning point. However, Sadat’s 1981 assassination by Islamists (Khalid Islamboli) signaled the rise of a new threat: pan-Islamic radicalism. Azar traced this shift through the Arab Spring of 2010, which, despite initial hopes for democracy, empowered radical forces like Iran and its proxies.

Today, he explained, the Middle East hosts two deeper conflicts: the Shiite-Sunni divide and the struggle between radicals and pragmatists.

Israel, he argued, is a “token” exploited by radicals to destabilize the region, with Iran’s ultimate aim not Jerusalem but Mecca and Medina. Within this context, Hamas’s attack and Israel’s retaliation did not unravel ties with Arab states, unlike past conflicts. “No Arab country has disconnected diplomatic relations,” Azar noted, citing the Abraham Accords and joint defense efforts against Iran’s April 2024 ballistic missile barrage as evidence of a new alignment.

Singh pressed further, asking why Saudi Arabia is often implicated in Israel-related conflicts. Azar pointed to the Shiite-Sunni rift, with Iran leveraging propaganda to undermine Saudi pragmatism.

He recalled the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, which both Israel and Saudi Arabia opposed, as a moment of crystallized common interest. While hesitant to predict Saudi recognition of Israel, he suggested it hinges on mutual benefit and timing. He said it while quoting King Solomon—“Everything has a time under the sun”—there is time for war and time for peace.

Aspirations for Indo-Israel Ties: Beyond Defense

Returning to bilateral ties, Kapoor asked about the future as the 30-year-old relationship approaches its 50th anniversary in 2042. Beyond defense—where Israel supplies equipment like drones and missile systems—Azar envisioned a partnership transcending trade.

“Our relationship is much more than transactions,” he said, rooted in shared heritage, trust, and India’s steadfast support during Israel’s recent war. This solidarity has spurred Israeli interest, with monthly ministerial visits and university collaborations on R&D.

Tourism emerged as another frontier. Kapoor noted that Israelis frequent Goa, Hampi, Manali, and Ladakh while Indian tourists to Israel, mainly from Kerala, visit for religious reasons. 

Azar highlighted Israel’s high GDP per capita ($55,000) and travel habits—20 million tourism packages annually for a 10-million-strong population—suggesting untapped potential as India’s per capita income rises. By 2050, with India projected at $10,000 per capita, he foresaw “hundreds of millions” of Indian travelers exploring the world, including Israel.

Kapoor proposed defense exchange programs for veterans, given both nations’ conflict histories. Azar welcomed the idea, noting Israel’s view of India as a safe haven and the potential for educational and cultural exchanges to deepen people-to-people ties.

Radicalism and Propaganda: A Global Challenge

The conversation darkened as Singh raised Iran’s role in terrorism, from historical invasions of India to modern proxy wars.

Azar praised Israel’s contributions—drip irrigation, desalination, and tech innovation—contrasting them with Iran’s export of ballistic missiles and drones to groups like the Houthis and Hezbollah. He warned of Iran’s infiltration of Western institutions, using media and academia to portray itself as a victim while perpetrating terrorism.

Singh echoed this, citing the Muslim Brotherhood’s growing influence in India via scholars trained abroad. Azar cautioned vigilance, citing the UAE’s successful deradicalization of its education system as a model. He acknowledged Israel’s own Muslim Brotherhood party, noting its varied nature, but stressed the broader threat of radicals exploiting democratic freedoms.

Netanyahu’s Popularity and Leadership

Singh concluded by noting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unrivaled popularity in India, evident in record-breaking TV ratings during his visits. Azar attributed this to shared national pride and leadership.

“We are ancient nations, young and proud… We are peaceful nations… but we are not going to hesitate from gaining what we need through solidarity”, he said, likening Netanyahu and Modi as proactive leaders who defy apology.

The Abraham Accords, he argued, stemmed from Netanyahu’s strategy of strength—economic, military, and diplomatic—shifting regional dynamics.

Addressing the Gaza conflict, Singh questioned the high civilian toll reported after October 7. Azar defended Israel’s actions, arguing Hamas’s tactics—operating from hospitals and disguising terrorists as civilians—forced a tragic response. He challenged inflated casualty figures, suggesting half were terrorists, and compared Israel’s urban warfare record favorably to historical precedents, despite biased narratives from outlets like Al Jazeera and the UN.

A Partnership for the Future

The podcast underscored a relationship built on trust, resilience, and mutual interest, poised to grow as both nations rise. From countering radicalism to fostering innovation and tourism, India and Israel share a vision that transcends geopolitics—a civilizational bond ready to shape the 21st century.