This op-ed delves into a complex and highly charged geopolitical issue. To craft a compelling and well-structured piece, it's essential to ensure clarity, logical flow, and a strong narrative voice. Here’s an
These are turbulent times, and rational discourse often struggles to find its place amidst war cries. Yet, certain realities must be acknowledged. Since its inception, Pakistan has grappled with a powerful deep state—one that has dictated its political trajectory, preventing the country from evolving into a true democracy. Today, this deep state manifests through the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the military, which wield unchecked power, unmaking and remaking governments at will.
Declassified documents now shed new light on the partition of India, suggesting it was engineered to create a buffer zone—a vassal state designed to safeguard British and American interests in the region, especially against Soviet influence. The Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) and East Pakistan already harbored strong communist movements, and leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose were known to have been influenced by socialist ideals. The creation of Pakistan as a religious state was therefore not merely a byproduct of sectarian division, but a deliberate geopolitical move.
Over the years, theocratic elements in Pakistan, backed by the military, entrenched themselves as defenders of the deep state, justifying their existence through anti-India rhetoric. Much like ideological extremists in India, Pakistan’s hardliners believe they have triumphed in every war, including the decisive 1971 conflict. In times of war, truth is the greatest casualty, as blind nationalism overrides reason.
Pakistan’s historic defeat in the 1971 war wounded its military establishment, prompting covert efforts to destabilize India. Zia-ul-Haq’s regime and subsequent American support emboldened Pakistan’s elite, allowing it to exert significant regional influence. Meanwhile, Afghanistan had, at one point, embraced secularism under Babrak Karmal and later under Najibullah. However, Western powers, determined to control Middle Eastern oil and resources, funneled billions into Pakistan, nurturing jihadist forces such as the Taliban.
With the Soviet Union’s collapse, the West prematurely declared victory, believing Russia’s influence had been permanently diminished. Pakistan, once a prized ally, soon found itself sidelined. The 9/11 attacks changed this calculus, placing Pakistan under scrutiny as a hotbed of extremist activity. While its elites complied with Western demands—motivated by their financial interests abroad—their actions only furthered instability.
In contrast, India charted its own independent path. While critics of Nehru and Indira Gandhi often dismiss their policies as socialist, their leadership ensured India remained self-reliant. Indira Gandhi, recognizing the geopolitical realities, strategically aligned India with the Soviet Union, a partnership that strengthened India’s military-industrial complex. Many within India, particularly those enamored with Western ideologies, blame her for steering India away from capitalism, yet her policies democratized governance and reinforced national sovereignty.
India’s armed forces function under the civilian government, adhering to democratic accountability. Pakistan, however, operates differently. The military remains an unchallenged force, imprisoning leaders such as Imran Khan, despite his status as a democratically elected prime minister. This imbalance stifles meaningful governance, preventing the nation from evolving beyond military rule.
In response to the Pahalgam attack, India’s retaliatory measures were necessary. Calls for international investigations, rather than introspection within Pakistan’s system, would be a strategic blunder. Pakistani elites, including General Asim Munir, have repeatedly sought to deepen divisions within India, using the two-nation theory to justify their geopolitical maneuvers. Despite provocations, Indian society has demonstrated remarkable resilience, refusing to fall into the trap of sectarian discord.
The reality remains that ordinary citizens across India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka aspire to better relations. A united South Asia could become an economic powerhouse, driven by growth rather than conflict. Persistent issues such as hunger, malnutrition, lack of education, and inadequate healthcare could be addressed through cooperative development. Yet, powerful arms industries thrive on perpetual conflict—peace would render them obsolete.
Ironically, while South Asians can travel across the globe, visiting neighbors remains an arduous task. Rigid visa policies discourage regional exchange, reinforcing artificial barriers. Why must history’s scars continue to dictate the present?
Ultimately, Pakistan faces a choice: will its military and ISI retain control over its political discourse, or will the people reclaim their right to governance? Only a democratic government can engage in genuine negotiations, correcting historical missteps. Bombing terror hubs will not resolve the crisis—terrorism in South Asia stems from entrenched ideological structures upheld by Pakistan’s military intelligence apparatus.
War yields no lasting solutions—only suffering. Civilians on both sides pay the price for political maneuvering. The hope remains that Pakistan’s future leadership embraces democratic governance, curtailing military interference. However, the West must also reconsider its role—having once bankrolled Pakistan’s military against Soviet influence, will it now shift its stance in favor of democracy?
In the coming days, global players will have to decide whether to sustain existing power structures or enable democratic transitions. Meanwhile, we can only hope tensions de-escalate, preventing unnecessary bloodshed. The responsibility lies not with television anchors fueling hysteria but with professional military leadership, assessing the long-term consequences of war.
India stands resolute, supporting its armed forces while demanding informed decisions from its government. Resolving this crisis requires strategic diplomacy and a commitment to ensuring that innocent lives are not lost—be it in Pahalgam or beyond.
---
*Human rights defender
Comments