In the annals of modern history, few nations have been as deeply entwined with violence as Pakistan. From its inception in 1947, carved out amidst the bloodshed of Partition, to its continued reliance on militant proxies and ideological extremism, Pakistan’s trajectory has been marred by conflict. The recent resurgence of the two-nation theory by General Asim Munir underscores the enduring grip of a divisive ideology that has long outlived its relevance.
The Two-Nation Theory: An Obsolete Ideology
The two-nation theory, which posited that Muslims and Hindus were distinct nations requiring separate homelands, served as the ideological foundation for Pakistan’s creation. However, the secession of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh in 1971 dealt a significant blow to this theory. The Bengali population, despite sharing the Islamic faith, chose linguistic and cultural identity over religious nationalism, highlighting the limitations of a religion-based nationhood.
General Munir’s recent invocation of this theory, asserting that Pakistan’s ambitions and traditions are inherently different from those of Hindus, reflects a persistent reliance on outdated narratives to justify the state’s actions. This ideological stance continues to influence Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policies, often at the expense of regional stability.
Pakistan’s Strategic Culture
Pakistan’s strategic culture is fundamentally shaped by a deep-rooted revisionist ideology that fosters nationalism through the dominance of the military and clergy, functioning as a state within a state. These two institutions exert pervasive control over both internal politics and foreign policy, driving a disruptive agenda grounded in radical Islamism and militarism. The Pakistan Army, radicalised and self-declared as the custodian of Islamic identity, anchors the nation’s ideological narrative — one that is deeply scarred by the trauma of Partition, the loss of East Pakistan in 1971, and an obsessive fixation on Kashmir.
Its worldview is shaped by insecurities of geography and identity, conservative Islamic revivalism, and a dangerous belief in nuclear deterrence as a cover for revisionist adventurism. This has reduced it to a fragile rentier state with poor development indicators, trapped in disruptive strategies under the illusion of nuclear invulnerability.
Its deepening nexus with China under CPEC has only emboldened its risk-taking behaviour, positioning it as a destabilising actor and a pliable pawn in Beijing’s expansionist strategy. Given the enduring nature of its strategic culture — marked by Punjab-centric Sunni dominance, Islamist radicalism, and militarised revisionism — it is unrealistic to expect Pakistan to abandon its path of self-destruction or become a proponent of regional peace.
Given the enduring nature of Pakistan’s strategic culture — marked by Punjab-centric Sunni dominance, Islamist radicalism, and militarised revisionism — it is unrealistic to expect Pakistan to abandon its path of self-destruction or become a proponent of regional peace
A Legacy of State-Sponsored Terrorism and Collusivity
Pakistan’s engagement with terrorism as a tool of state policy dates back to shortly after its formation. In October 1947, Pakistani forces, along with tribal militias, invaded Kashmir, leading to widespread violence and the first Indo-Pak war. This pattern of using non-state actors to achieve strategic objectives has persisted, with groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) operating with alleged support from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
The 2008 Mumbai attacks, orchestrated by LeT, resulted in the deaths of over 170 people and strained India-Pakistan relations. Despite international condemnation, Pakistan’s response was marked by denial and obfuscation, further eroding trust between the two nations. Kargil, Uri and Pulwama followed with a strategy of denial and deceit.
China’s enduring ‘all-weather’ alliance with ‘iron-clad’ friend Pakistan adds another dimension. The collusivity and Pakistan being a Hezbollah equivalent proxy of China is a reality. China does not want a direct war with India so the best option is to weaken India through Pakistan. This is ‘two fronts on one front’ reality. China provides material, expertise, funds and psychological two-front play to deter and weaken India and empower Pakistan.
Similarly, Turkey’s closeness to Pakistan is no diplomatic flirtation — it’s part of a deeper military alignment with Azerbaijan and Pakistan, known as the ‘Three Brothers Alliance’. Born out of pan-Turkic-Islamic ambitions, this bloc has already conducted joint military drills focused on counter-terrorism and mountain warfare — terrain disturbingly similar to Kashmir. Turkey supplies drones, operators and doctrine. Azerbaijan offers strategic cover and access to corridors that bypass India. This is not just a partnership. It is a war room in motion — one that India is staring down without acting accordingly.
Military Dominance and Political Instability
The Pakistani military has long held a dominant position in the country’s political landscape. It is a state within a state and a powerhouse. General Munir’s rise to the position of Army Chief, just days before his scheduled retirement, exemplifies the military’s influence over civilian governance. His recent statements suggest a possible intention to extend his tenure and further entrench the military’s role in shaping national policy. In a nation cast in a history of military coups, the fragility and instability remain.
This militarisation of politics has often come at the cost of democratic institutions and processes. The military’s involvement in politics has also contributed to the proliferation of extremist ideologies, as seen in its support for groups like the Milli Muslim League, a political front for LeT.
Pakistan’s deepening nexus with China under CPEC has emboldened its risk-taking behaviour, positioning it as a destabilising actor and a pliable pawn in Beijing’s expansionist strategy. China does not want a direct war with India, and therefore, it plans to weaken India through Pakistan
India’s Strategic Restraint and Assertiveness
India’s approach to Pakistan has oscillated between restraint and assertiveness. Following the 1971 war, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi chose to return 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war and significant territory captured during the conflict, opting for a diplomatic resolution through the Simla Agreement. However, Pakistan’s continued support for cross-border terrorism has tested India’s patience. The joint investigation post-Pathankot attack and provision of evidence dossiers to Pakistan have been met by enhanced deniability. Thus, of no utility or value.
In recent years, India has adopted a more assertive stance. The 2016 surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot airstrikes demonstrated India’s willingness to respond militarily to terrorist provocations. The recent limited three-day war in May 2025, following a deadly attack in Kashmir, further underscores this shift in policy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s warning of more severe consequences for future attacks reflects a clear message: terrorism will be met with decisive action. The Indian PM stated: “India will no longer entertain dialogues diluted by duplicity. No more ‘talks and terror’, ‘trade and terror’, or ‘blood and water’ coexisting in the name of peace. India’s only conversation with Pakistan now is about Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir — a territory illegally held, brutally governed, and rightfully ours.”
International Mediation and the Quest for Peace
The escalating tensions in May 2025 raised international concerns, with the United States playing a key role in brokering a ceasefire. While Pakistan acknowledged the US involvement, India maintained its stance against third-party mediation, emphasising bilateral resolution as outlined in the Simla Agreement. This divergence highlights the complexities of international diplomacy in South Asia.
The ceasefire agreement, while a reprieve, underscores the need for a sustainable framework to address the underlying issues between India and Pakistan. However, as long as Pakistan continues to harbour and support terrorist groups, meaningful dialogue remains elusive.
The ceasefire agreement, while a reprieve, underscores the need for a sustainable framework to address the underlying issues between India and Pakistan. However, as long as Pakistan continues to harbour and support terrorist groups, meaningful dialogue remains elusive
The Path Forward: Confronting Ideological Extremism
Pakistan’s reliance on religious nationalism and state-sponsored terrorism has not only strained its relations with neighbours but also hindered its development. The perpetuation of the two-nation theory and the military’s dominance in politics have stifled democratic growth and fuelled internal dissent.
India’s audacious Operation Sindoor conveyed the intended message of resilience, deterrence, and retaliatory prowess. What unfolded was a high-profile unravelling of Pakistan’s failure in conventional deterrence, its political-military coherence, nuclear blackmail and its international credibility. In contrast, India’s well-calibrated military response to the Pahalgam terror attack redefined the rules of engagement, exposing Pakistan’s deepening vulnerabilities — political, military, diplomatic, economic, social and internal fissures.
For Pakistan to achieve lasting peace and stability, it must confront and dismantle the structures that support extremism. It must rein in its rogue Army proxy war designs. Pakistan Army has lost its credibility both to effectively tackle internal and external domains.
Pakistan’s history is a testament to the dangers of intertwining state policy with religious ideology and militant proxies. The continued invocation of the two-nation theory and support for extremist groups have not only isolated Pakistan on the international stage but also perpetuated cycles of violence and instability. A reimagining of national identity, grounded in inclusivity and democratic values, is imperative for Pakistan to break free from its violent legacy and chart a new course towards peace and development.
The author, a PVSM, AVSM, VSM has had an illustrious career spanning nearly four decades. A distinguished Armoured Corps officer, he has served in various prestigious staff and command appointments including Commander Independent Armoured Brigade, ADG PP, GOC Armoured Division and GOC Strike 1. The officer retired as DG Mechanised Forces in December 2017 during which he was the architect to initiate process for reintroduction of Light Tank and Chairman on the study on C5ISR for Indian Army. Subsequently he was Consultant MoD/OFB from 2018 to 2020. He is also a reputed defence analyst, a motivational speaker and prolific writer on matters of military, defence technology and national security. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily carry the views of Raksha Anirveda
