BEYOND the loss of life it caused — 28 at last count — Wednesday’s attack in Quetta on the residence of the Frontier Corps’ deputy inspector general was disturbing for its choice of target. Not content with detonating one bomb outside the house, its masterminds put his family at risk by planning a follow-up suicide bombing that struck even closer to the residence, if not inside it. The DIG’s wife was among the victims. The incident has likely done serious damage to the morale of security forces and the willingness of new recruits to join them. But it also takes to a troubling level the increasingly indiscriminate nature of terrorist attacks: once aimed at security installations, they have over the years been expanded to mosques, bazaars, funerals and now to the personal residence and family of a security official. While sectarian attacks have long crossed these boundaries, Wednesday’s incident demonstrates how this has increasingly become a feature of terrorist acts that do not have a sectarian basis.

Across the border that same day, at least 11 people were killed in a bomb blast at New Delhi’s high court. It was the second deadly terrorist attack in India in two months after a series of explosions in Mumbai on one day in July. If the terrorist organisation claiming responsibility is to be believed, Wednesday’s bomb was targeted at the judicial system to protest a death sentence passed for the 2001 Indian parliament attack. But it was planted near a reception desk for litigants, and the Mumbai blasts targeted crowded urban areas during the evening rush hour. In both cases, ordinary citizens lost their lives because of differences militants have with the state.

Wednesday’s attacks brought into stark relief how this is a crisis Pakistan shares with its neighbours on both sides; Afghan civilians, too, are living with violence. But while they have paid lip service to the concept of joint efforts against terrorism, the three countries do not even agree on who to classify as a terrorist or militant as opposed to a freedom fighter. Successfully fighting terrorism in the region will require them to come closer on the issue; they could jointly commit, for example, to fighting all those who target non-combatants. Beyond that, useful coordination would have to go beyond exchanging lists of those wanted or lodging protests with each other regarding safe havens and cross-border attacks. Wednesday’s carnage should be an indication of how much value an active coordination mechanism could add in a region where three countries in close proximity to one another are facing very similar threats and some of the same enemies.