The Mirage of Invincibility: As Pakistan urged an immediate ceasefire, even while absorbing the brunt of India’s retaliatory precision under Operation Sindoor, it again retreated into the realm of denial and distortion. These reactions, far from unexpected, follow a long-established pattern – one that compels observers to ask: How does a nation, again and again, manage to mislead its own 250 million citizens into mistaking setbacks for triumphs? In an age where digital transparency is reshaping warfare and geopolitics alike, how does Pakistan maintain a self-imposed ‘Halo of Oblivion’ – an alternate reality where defeats are spun as divine endurance and tactical failures are masked behind messianic narratives? This phenomenon is not merely a matter of media control or psychological warfare; it reflects something far deeper.
Pakistan’s refusal to acknowledge military defeats is no anomaly; it is a studied behaviour, woven tightly into the fabric of the state’s ideological and religious identity. This article probes into the heart of that doctrine. It explores how Pakistan’s strategic narrative, crafted and curated by its military establishment, finds strength not in battlefield outcomes but in a larger ideological framework that merges Islamic exceptionalism, institutional propaganda, and a perpetual posture of resistance. Let us unravel the layers behind this enduring narrative — a narrative not just of denial, but of deep-seated national conviction.
Historical Account and the Two-Nation Theory
The Two-Nation Theory formed the ideological backbone of Pakistan’s creation as a homeland for Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. It asserted that Muslims and Hindus could not coexist peacefully in a single state due to irreconcilable religious and cultural differences. This constitutive belief fuelled a sense of entitlement and isolation, leading to the Partition in 1947, which resulted in communal violence, mass displacements, and a deeply ingrained victimhood psyche. Perceived sense of existential insecurity led to the belief that survival itself was a perpetual struggle. Military setbacks were thus seen not as failures of tactics, but as episodes in an ongoing saga of ideological defence.
The Two-Nation Theory formed the ideological backbone of Pakistan’s creation as a homeland for Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. It asserted that Muslims and Hindus could not coexist peacefully in a single state due to irreconcilable religious and cultural differences
The incorporation of Islamic ideals into the state apparatus led to the emergence of a unique worldview-based narrative where striving is valorised. Over time, this foundational mindset evolved into a framework that positioned Islam at the centre of the state’s identity. The military, often seen as the most organised institution in Pakistan, emerged as the custodian of this tenet.
The Islamic Philosophy of Continued Struggle
Islamic theology significantly influences the mindset of Pakistan’s society. The Quran and Hadiths emphasise striving in God’s path, aligning closely with the military’s ethos. Terms like ‘shahadat’ (martyrdom) and ‘sabr’ (patience and endurance) are commonly used in military and public narratives. Jihad, encompassing both physical and spiritual struggle, transforms military actions into expressions of divine will. The Quranic verse, “Do not weaken or grieve, for you will prevail if you are true believers,” reinforces this outlook. Martyrdom, seen as the ultimate sacrifice, elevates those who die in conflict to the status of shaheeds, honoured in ceremonies and state media. In this perspective, defeat is a temporary worldly setback, while martyrdom represents eternal spiritual triumph.
Pakistan’s Military: Centre of Gravity
In Pakistan, the military is not just a defence apparatus; it is a dominant political player and economic stakeholder. Accepting military defeat could jeopardise its hegemonic position in national politics. The ‘repudiation of defeat’ serves important socio-political functions. It unites diverse populations under a common ideological banner and justifies military expenditure and governance. It also helps mitigate public discontent and redirects focus on existential external threats, primarily centred on India. Additionally, this stance justifies continued military dominance in political and economic affairs. By presenting itself as the sole bulwark against defeat and disintegration, the military legitimises its influence over civilian institutions and policymaking.
Institutional Conditioning and Civil-Military Culture
Pakistan’s military has developed a distinctive institutional culture deeply rooted in Islamic ideals and nationalist fervour. This unique blend is systematically integrated into every aspect of military life, from the initial stages of cadet training to the processes of officer promotion. Core values such as honour, martyrdom, and unwavering ideological commitment are continuously emphasised. This strong doctrinal foundation creates an environment where the concepts of defeat or loss are seen as fundamentally incompatible with the military’s identity.
This narrative extends beyond the military, significantly influencing civilian life, including the education system. School curricula are designed to glorify past wars and portray soldiers as both religious and national icons. Furthermore, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) plays a crucial role in reinforcing this ethos through the production of films and songs that further solidify this deeply ingrained cultural narrative.
The ‘repudiation of defeat’ serves important socio-political functions. It unites diverse populations and justifies military expenditure and governance. It also helps mitigate public discontent and redirects focus on existential external threats, primarily centred on India
Media, Memory and Psychological Projection
Pakistan’s reluctance to acknowledge military defeats functions as a psychological shield, reframing outcomes as moral or spiritual triumphs to uphold resilience and national identity. The media plays a pivotal role in this, working closely with the military to craft a narrative of endurance. Defeats are portrayed as temporary setbacks or moral victories, maintaining morale and unity, particularly in conflicts with India.
For instance, the 1965 and 1971 wars are depicted in public discourse as showcases of bravery and resistance, not losses. Similarly, during the Kargil conflict, the media highlighted soldiers’ valour while downplaying strategic failures. The 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War is rarely presented as a military defeat. Instead, the narrative emphasises internal betrayal by the Awami League and Indian interference, deflecting criticism from the army and preserving its legitimacy. Also, such messaging fosters a collective memory where resistance, not outcomes, defines victory, safeguarding public morale and preventing disillusionment.
Religious and Cultural Mobilisation
Religious clerics, madrasa networks, and political leaders frequently reinforce the myth of an unending struggle, casting military conflicts as sacred obligations. The state’s close alignment with religious institutions ensures that military ventures are not only justified but sanctified. From Friday sermons to public rallies, and even in school textbooks, patriotism is interwoven with piety, framing the refusal to accept defeat as a religious imperative. Culturally, films, television dramas, and patriotic music lionise soldiers and glorify war as a divine mission. This orchestrated convergence of faith, nationalism, and art shapes a collective mindset where acknowledging defeat is not merely unpatriotic — it is almost blasphemous.
Pakistan’s reluctance to acknowledge military defeats functions as a psychological shield, reframing outcomes as moral or spiritual triumphs to uphold resilience and national identity. Defeats are portrayed as temporary setbacks or moral victories, maintaining morale and unity
Regional Impact and Strategic Calculus
Pakistan’s ideological stance, rooted in its national identity and historical narratives, significantly shapes its regional and international relations. Its approach to conflict, particularly with India, is driven by a perception that compromise undermines its ideological core, leading to rigid positions and resistance to de-escalation. This dynamic perpetuates tensions, especially over issues like Kashmir, where symbolic and strategic interests intertwine, making reconciliation elusive.
Globally, Pakistan’s ideological posture creates a balancing act. The state seeks Western support for economic and military aid, but domestic audiences, influenced by anti-Western sentiment and religious nationalism, view such alignments sceptically. This forces Pakistan into strategic ambiguity — cooperating with global counter-terrorism efforts while navigating internal pressures that sometimes sympathise with or tolerate extremist elements. This duality undermines trust with international partners and complicates its role in coalitions against terrorism.
The implications are profound: regionally, hardened stances fuel instability and arms races, particularly with India; internationally, Pakistan’s credibility is strained by its inconsistent signalling. To mitigate these challenges, Pakistan would need to recalibrate its narrative to prioritise pragmatic diplomacy over ideological purity, though domestic political constraints make this difficult.
Religious clerics, madrasa networks, and political leaders frequently reinforce the myth of an unending struggle, casting military conflicts as sacred obligations. The state’s close alignment with religious institutions ensures that military ventures are not only justified but sanctified
Unpacking Pakistan’s Resilient Narrative: Conclusion
Pakistan’s inherent refusal to acknowledge military defeat is a deeply embedded phenomenon, shaped by a complex interplay of religious ideology, national identity, institutional conditioning, and political pragmatism. This isn’t merely a simplistic act of denial; rather, it’s a sophisticated tapestry woven from dogmatic conviction, strategic necessity, and deliberate narrative construction. Rooted firmly in Islamic values and the state’s partisan objectives, Pakistan offers a compelling case study. It demonstrates how nations can interpret and respond to military outcomes, not solely through the lens of battlefield realities, but significantly through the powerful prism of belief and national identity.
As long as Pakistan continues to define itself as both a geopolitical player and a spiritual vanguard, its unique understanding of victory and defeat will consistently defy conventional definitions. For anyone engaging with Pakistan — whether as a neighbour, ally, or observer — comprehending this belief-driven landscape is crucial. It unlocks the internal logic that guides its external behaviour, making it imperative for interpreting Pakistan’s military policies, regional strategies, and long-term national identity.
The writer is a commissioned officer in Regiment of Artillery. He brings with him extensive operational experience across diverse terrains and environments, including high-altitude areas along the LAC, counter-terrorism operations along the Line of Control, counter-insurgency duties in the North East, and operations in the obstacle-ridden terrain of Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and the deserts of Rajasthan. A passionate reader, he has cultivated a deep interest in strategic affairs, particularly related to Pakistan. He has authored numerous papers covering a wide range of subjects.
