Myth, military and militancy: Why Pakistan is incorrigible

Time of India

12-05-2025

Ceasefire, but no real peace
Though on May 10, India and Pakistan reached a consensus for a 'full and immediate ceasefire' after four days of intense military engagements, the hostilities are not going to end in the near future. Pakistan cannot and should not be trusted. Pakistan sought non-conventional ways to challenge India's dominance—especially in Kashmir after losing wars to India in 1947, 1965, and 1971. Supporting insurgency and militant groups became a 'low-cost, high-impact' strategy to internationalise the Kashmir issue. Pakistan's involvement in supporting and enabling terrorism—particularly in the context of its regional policies—can be traced to a mix of historical, strategic, and ideological reasons.
The ideological dilemma
This foundation of Pakistan itself creates inherent contradictions. The very creation of Pakistan was driven by a religious identity. While the so-called 'Two Nation Theory' provided the ideological justification, the actual process was shaped by political negotiations, regional dynamics, and the realities of colonial rule. The result was a new nation-state, unique for being founded primarily on the basis of religion rather than ethnicity or language. The rise of Islam in the early 1950s was largely due to the efforts of political activists and religious scholars who had migrated to Pakistan. The notion of present Pakistan as an ideological state is often linked to the era of General Mohammed Zia -ul- Haq. However, its origins are much older and both Liaquat Ali Khan and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, for political reasons, created the groundwork for the subsequent institutionalization of Islamization under the General Zia regime.
Distorted history, strategic blindness
Since the 1980s, the early history of Pakistan has been largely omitted from the educational curriculum, with the national historical narrative predominantly centred on the arrival of Muhammad bin Qasim in Sindh in 711 CE. This focus led to the exclusion of significant historical elements such as the Indus Valley civilization and later sites like Taxila, Hakra-Gagger, and Kot Diji from the curriculum. The intertwining of Pakistan's history with that of Muslim rule in India has further strengthened the narrative. This historical context is believed to have played a role in the formulation of geo-political strategy of Pakistan.
The military's iron grip
Pakistan has been under direct military rule for nearly half of its existence and even during civilian rule, the military retained de facto power over defence, foreign policy, and internal security. The chief of the Pakistani Army possesses an unmatched level of power and influence, rendering the position one of the most formidable in the world. Having exerted influence over Pakistan both overtly and covertly, army often manipulates events from the shadows. It removes elected administrations, creates pressure groups, and instigates divisions within political parties. Through organizations like Fauji Foundation, Army Welfare Trust, and Defence Housing Authorities, the military controls vast economic assets in agriculture, real estate, and industry and this economic entrenchment provides both incentive and ability to shape politics. It provides financial support to opposition parties to destabilize elected governments, thereby preserving its grip on political authority. No surprise, the politicians seek to align themselves with the armed forces to share power. For this the term 'hybrid regime' has been introduced to describe the ongoing military influence over civilian governments.
Terror as statecraft
During General Zia's rule the military began to view its role as not only protecting Pakistan's territorial integrity but also upholding the state-endorsed ideology. Numerous mosque schools that proliferated during this period were characterized by a strong sectarian focus and a commitment to a transnational jihadist perspective. These advancements were significantly facilitated by the United States' requirement for Pakistan's assistance in the fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Most significantly, Zia's enduring influence fostered an environment conducive to the social acceptance of terrorism as a state policy. Subsequent leaders, whether civilian or military, followed the same policies. Political dynasties, such as the Bhuttos and Sharifs, dominate politics, often prioritizing personal power over national development.
No end in sight
So, over the years Pakistan has been harbouring and supporting terrorist groups, particularly those targeting India, Iran and Afghanistan. Pakistan's internal reliance on Islamist narratives and its long-standing military policy toward 'bleeding India by a thousand cuts' means it cannot easily abandon support for terrorism against India. In close coordination with the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Pakistani army groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and the Haqqani Network have been operating from Pakistani soil. Recently Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif himself admitted on Sky News to Pakistan's history of 'supporting, training, and funding terrorist organizations.' The Army remains the true centre of power. The primary and essential prerequisite of peace in the region demands a thorough reform of the Army framework in Pakistan with a transition towards a governance system that is more civilian-oriented. Unfortunately, it's not happening in the near future. Peace on the Western Front will remain elusive.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.