THIS year kicked off on a gloomy trajectory from a security perspective. Pakistan saw a 34 per cent year-on-year increase in militant attacks in 2025, with 95pc of these occurring in KP and Balochistan. Border closures with Afghanistan have abated their frequency, but the security challenge is likely to persist. A concerning feature of recent militant violence is the increased use of drones by proscribed groups. So far concentrated in KP, this is a worrying trend with national implications.
A recent report in this paper detailed how militant groups are using ‘swarms’ of quadcopters to carry out attacks against KP security forces. The KP police are using anti-drone systems in Peshawar and Bannu, and anti-drone guns in other restive districts, but require wider deployment of anti-drone technology.
Pakistan can currently access the cheapest drones and related tech produced by China and Turkiye, both close allies. But the more the state deploys this technology, the more its opponents will manipulate it to their own advantage. The proliferation of drone usage by varied non-state actors is likely, including separatist groups, outlawed religio-political groups, organised criminal groups, etc.
Drones are also likely to be used in increasingly creative ways. TTP already uses them to transport medication, small equipment and batteries. There is also the example of Mexican drug cartels using modified drones to deliver drugs.
Drones also take a major mental toll on civilians.
Growing drone use will contribute to the experience of perma-conflict for many Pakistanis, manifest in the constant buzz of drones, whether they are used for surveillance, as a way to maintain territorial control, or to carry out attacks with drone-enabled IEDs. An acknowledged consequence of the normalisation of drone usage is the lowered threshold for initiating violent engagements by both state and non-state actors. As drones reduce both the human toll (from the operator’s perspective) and financial cost of a clash, engagements are more readily commenced, but with material consequences nonetheless.
Drones typically lead to the urbanisation of conflict, as it is easier to conduct surveillance and infiltrate dense civilian spaces from above. Drones also make it easier to pursue strategic targets that are otherwise well defended against conventional attacks. For example, the Houthis in Yemen began using drones to target key oil facilities.
Beyond the widening of the conflict arena, drones also take a major psychological toll on civilians, unlike conventional weaponry. This has been well documented in the erstwhile tribal areas in the first part of this century, when US drone strikes were common. Muhammad Amir Rana in these pages described the anguish of KP’s residents who are increasingly exposed to drone conflict —– the constant buzz of drones, the lack of clarity about what might happen, questions about whether the drones are the military’s or terrorists’, whether civilians are being protected or persecuted, and the inability to hold anyone accountable for the damage wrought. More drones will lead to more disruptions to daily life, more paranoia, more suffering.
The paranoia is unlikely to remain confined to conflict areas, though. Militant groups within Pakistan and globally increasingly use drones for propaganda purposes — to film videos of attacks and other fund-raising or radicalising activities, to drop leaflets and broadcast announcements. Drone-enabled media produced to circulate on social media platforms, particularly graphic descriptions of successful militant attacks, including drone attacks, will contribute to disinformation and intensify civilian paranoia. Additional challenges will emerge as security forces, and eventually non-state actors, begin to deploy AI-guided drones. AI systems may misinterpret complex environments — whether rugged terrain or informal urban settlements — leading to a high risk of civilian casualties or collateral damage. Cybersecurity breaches could also lead to the misuse of drones by nefarious actors.
Of course, the key victims of widespread drone usage will be accountability, due process and basic rights. Global drone usage in the 21st century has transgressed the bounds of existing humanitarian frameworks and the technology remains one step ahead of regulatory frameworks. This not only erodes the credibility of legislation and regulation, and further endangers citizen-state relations, but also means that conflict and related activities such as surveillance and propaganda can be conducted by all sides unimpeded and potentially unlawfully.
Given that drones will remain a reality of the contemporary conflict landscape, one hopes regulation will keep apace to secure the public’s safety and human rights to the extent possible.
The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.
X: @humayusuf
Published in Dawn, January 5th, 2026
