On July 8, 2024, terrorists ambushed a bus carrying Hindu pilgrims in the picturesque town of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, killing nine and injuring 33. The victims were en route to the revered Amarnath shrine, undertaking a journey that has long symbolised spiritual unity in a deeply divided region. While India mourns yet another tragedy in Pahalgam, which claimed 26 innocent lives—mostly Hindu tourists from across India—has reignited debates far beyond the tragic loss of life. The larger question must be asked: Why do such attacks keep happening, and what geopolitical logic—or lack thereof—sustains them?
Pakistan’s alleged
involvement in sponsoring and sustaining militant networks across the Line of
Control (LoC) is not new. What is striking, however, is the sheer persistence
of this proxy doctrine, despite overwhelming evidence of its strategic failure.
Suppose war is politics by other
means, as Clausewitz suggested. In that case,
Pakistan’s use of asymmetric violence without long-term vision reflects a
condition best described as power without knowledge—the exercise of
influence divorced from wisdom, foresight, and legitimacy.
Strategic Illusions,
Tactical Catastrophes
Since the 1990s,
Pakistan’s military-intelligence apparatus has nurtured a range of non-state
actors to achieve strategic depth against India, particularly in Kashmir.
Groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) have received
logistical, financial, and ideological support under the justification of
‘liberating’ Kashmir. This policy was rooted in a Cold War-era playbook, where
the use of militant proxies seemed effective in bleeding adversaries while
retaining plausible deniability.
Yet this doctrine has
become increasingly untenable in the post-9/11 world, where the costs of harbouring
transnational jihadist actors outweigh the tactical gains. Internationally,
Pakistan is isolated, grey-listed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for
years, and diplomatically cornered by a growing India-U.S. strategic
partnership. Domestically, blowback from militant violence has ravaged cities
from Karachi to Peshawar, eroding public confidence in the state’s ability to
ensure security.
The Pahalgam attack,
allegedly orchestrated by The Resistance Front (TRF), a LeT-linked outfit,
bears all the hallmarks of this failing doctrine. It targeted civilians, had no
viable political objective, and immediately drew international condemnation. If
the aim was to internationalise Kashmir or create political instability in
India ahead of the Amarnath Yatra, it only reaffirmed New Delhi’s narrative of
Pakistan-sponsored terror.
A Doctrine without
Destination
The problem with
Pakistan’s proxy doctrine is not just that it is morally reprehensible or
strategically costly. It is that it lacks coherence. There is no clear endgame.
If the goal was to ‘liberate’ Kashmir, the means—terror attacks on
civilians—have only hardened Indian control, alienated Kashmiri civil society,
and justified an expanded military presence. If the aim was to keep the Kashmir
issue ‘alive’ on the world stage, the tactic has backfired: most global
capitals now view Pakistan not as a defender of Kashmiri rights, but as a
habitual exporter of jihadist violence.
This is what makes
Pakistan’s behaviour a classic case of power without knowledge. The
Pakistani deep state continues to wield considerable coercive
capacity—internally through the army and externally through proxies—but shows
little understanding of how power must be aligned with legitimacy, strategy,
and diplomacy to produce lasting outcomes.
One might contrast this
with India’s evolving approach in Kashmir. While far from perfect, New Delhi
has managed to integrate the region more deeply into the national economy
post-2019, significantly reduce local militancy through counterinsurgency operations,
and win international patience through its legalistic framing of the conflict.
Pakistan, in comparison, has been left peddling outdated rhetoric and enabling
attacks that diminish its moral and strategic standing.
The Regional Fallout
Pakistan’s reliance on
proxy actors does not merely destabilise Kashmir; it fuels a broader arc of
insecurity across South Asia. The same jihadist networks once used to challenge
Indian forces have been recycled in Afghanistan, with catastrophic
consequences. The Taliban’s return to power in 2021 was initially seen as a
strategic win for Islamabad, but it has quickly turned into a security
liability, as groups like Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) now use Afghan
territory to launch cross-border attacks.
The persistence of this
doctrine has also weakened Pakistan’s relations with Iran, which has grown
increasingly wary of Sunni extremist groups operating in Baluchistan. Even
China, Pakistan’s "iron brother," has expressed concerns over the
security of its nationals after repeated militant attacks on China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects. What began as a strategy to contain India
has metastasised into a regional security nightmare, threatening the very
alliances Pakistan depends on for survival.
The Epistemology of
Failure
The intellectual
bankruptcy of Pakistan’s strategic doctrine lies in its failure to adapt.
Despite mounting evidence of its inefficacy, the Pakistani military continues
to double down on proxy warfare, unable or unwilling to acknowledge that the
world—and Kashmir—has changed. This stubbornness stems from institutional
inertia, bureaucratic self-preservation, and an entrenched belief within
Pakistan’s security establishment that conventional diplomacy is a sign of
weakness.
Yet real power in
international relations is not the ability to inflict harm, but the ability to
shape outcomes. That requires knowledge of the enemy, of one’s own limitations,
and of the evolving international order. Pakistan, tragically, has confused
violence with strategy, and fear with influence.
This condition is not
unique to Pakistan. States across the world, from Russia to Iran, have at times
fallen into the trap of using force without wisdom. But in Pakistan’s case, the
danger is compounded by its fragile democratic institutions, its nuclear
arsenal, and its economic vulnerability. A doctrine that produces neither
deterrence nor dialogue is not just failing—it is unravelling.
A Way Forward?
Any sustainable
resolution to South Asia’s enduring conflicts must begin with the recognition
that terrorism is not a legitimate tool of foreign policy. Pakistan must
dismantle its infrastructure of proxy warfare—not because India demands it, but
because its national interest requires it. A stable, economically integrated
Pakistan with a credible foreign policy would gain far more in global standing
than one that trades in martyrdom and mayhem.
For this to happen, the
Pakistani military must cede space to civilian leadership, allowing for a
foreign policy rooted in diplomacy rather than deception. Regional cooperation
on climate change, trade, and counter-terrorism is impossible so long as Pakistan
sees its neighbourhood through the prism of zero-sum conflict.
The tragedy of Pahalgam
is not just the loss of innocent lives. It is a reminder that Pakistan’s
current trajectory is unsustainable. Power without knowledge is not only
self-defeating—it is dangerous. If Pakistan seeks relevance in the 21st
century, it must abandon the ghosts of 20th-century warfare and embrace a
future rooted in peace, partnership, and political maturity.
@Author is Faculty, Department
of Political Science, University of Calcutta
No comments:
Post a Comment