Nations undergo different circumstances, i.e., crisis, war, peace, rise and fall. They respond these challenges and opportunities according to their collective wisdom, however repercussions they face leave profound effects on their collective memory as well as social order. If problems persist or become nuisance to security and integrity, it necessitates nations to formulate narrative and counter narrative. The phenomenon is somehow easy to construct being discourse, but difficult to employ as it requires to take all stakeholders on board in the realm of public approval that is a key to success. Like history, narrative is also an interpretation. It is constructed. It is justified. It is validated. But how? At time, it is generated through a single factor, but in most of the cases it is based on the combination of factors, such as, history, socio-culture, religion, politics, security, etc. In short, narrative construction is done in proportion to historical perspectives, socio-religious acknowledgements and political and security needs. Acceptability and validation are two corner stone to make narrative functional and inculcate a sense of belonging among its followers. Sometimes narrative is being rejected and get repulsed if it is devoid of these elements. Hence, the significant aim of narrative holders is to get identified publicly with operative viewpoint(s). In modern politics, it appears as a game changer to declare right or wrong, however it continues to evolve in accordance with changing circumstances and perspectives. A continuous battle between state and non-state actors is the central features of today’s politics posing threat to the world peace. In this situational crisis, both actors formulate their narratives to subvert each other’s vision and mission. On this premise, we find two important types of narratives, such as, state narrative and anti-state narrative. Let’s see how they work and compete each other. State narrative, also called as national narrative, refers to rhetoric about a shared beliefs and collective understanding of the nation. It represents the stance of entire nation on the face of internal and external security threats that aims to shape public opinion and to legitimize state’s actions that are aligned with national goals. Based on consensus and employed to fight against anti-state elements, experts believe that it is technically crafted in the light of inclusion-exclusion policy or ‘us’ vs ‘them’ mindset. State narrative is always responsive in nature, as it is built to encounter specific challenges. The example of Pakistan’s National Narrative (2017) against terrorism and extremism, known as Paigam-e-Pakistan, is case in point. It is to be remember that it was constructed after Pakistan plunged into violent extremism and terrorism specifically after APS incident in 2014. As far as important tools to build state narrative are concerned, these include media, education, religious and culture institutions, intelligentsia, academia and think tanks, etc., which vigorously help propagate and disseminate the mission. The central focus of the extreme narrative is to radicalize the individuals by poisoning their thoughts against the state Conversely, anti-state narrative, popularly known as extremist narrative, is constructed by the enemy, such as, extremists and terrorists, who propagate and disseminate their ideology. It embarks upon indoctrination of general public mostly based on propaganda to malign state and its machinery while portraying themselves as innocent and vulnerable to repression. The purpose is to win the sympathy of people. It is always defensive in nature and constructed to justify violence. According to experts, extremist narrative often highlights grievances, portray act of victimization, identify scapegoats and framing events and ideologies in a way that resonates with specific audiences and justifies their actions. In this regard, we can take the examples of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Al-Qaida, ISIS, etc. This alternate narrative is mostly based on Takfeer i ideology that denounces the existence of others. To elaborate further, extremist narrative revolves around three concerns. First, the West and its allies fostering atrocities against the Muslims. Second, other religions (like, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc) and the last, sectarian identities, i.e., Shia, Sunni, etc. Some prominent examples in case of Pakistan include, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was popularized as global Jihad. It was the Jihad against infidels or Godless people. Gradually, it transformed into the Jihad against the West and its allies in the Muslim world. Jihadi organisations spread the narrative of one Ummah to unite the Muslims and pejorative connotations like taghooti taqat (Evil force), kuffar (Infidels), etc, have been used frequently against the west in both speeches and religious hymns. It appears as the battle between Islam and infidels. Furthermore, anti-state actors strongly believe that their mission to fight against evil forces is not limited rather that will continue worldwide. If mission interrupted, they argue that a timely retreat or defeat does not mean the end of our mission. Of course, it will continue unless evil forces are wiped out completely. To oppose other religions particularly the Christians, the Jews, the Hindus, etc., is another feature of extremist narrative. It is all-time anti-Islam and anti-Muslim concern whereby these entities are responsible for all malaises prevailing in the Muslim countries. The popular religion-based connotation like, kuffar (Infidels) is used for them. Moreover, under sectarian identities like Shia, Sunni, etc, the prevailing religion-based connotations include munkar (apostate), Kafir (infidel), etc are used. For example, in a widely recited Urdu hymn, the phrase, Sahaba ka munkar kafir he, Ahle bait ka munkir kafir he, is heard in entire country. Furthermore, these extremists and terrorists portray them as the righteous apostle of Allah with the mission to avenge evils in establishing Islam in the world in general and Pakistan in particular. Moreover, in both types of narratives (e.g. Pakistan’s national narrative vs extremist narrative) competitor in front is portrayed as evil that needs to be wiped out completely. On both sides, religious hymns, like Jihad, fidayee, ghazi, shaheed etc., are used to legitimate their actions. Person across the line is termed as kafir (infidel) and murtad (apostate) and all is justified through selected works from the Quran and Ahadith. Despite all these odds, a small minority accepts extremist narrative and supports it morally, physically and financially. A million-dollar question is, why is there a public approval present in favor of extremist narrative not only in Pakistan but in the Muslim world as well? Evidences show that it is the religious and ideological inspired madrassas in Pakistan have actively contributed to producing their sympathizers and followers. As regards strategy, it is observed that after every violent incident, a statement is released by a terrorist organization to accept its responsibility to induce fear and challenge the state. The more compact and coherent narrative means the more sympathizer and recruitments for them. “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”, is a sin qua none to frame any narrative today. However, the central focus of the extreme narrative is to radicalize the individuals by poisoning their thoughts against the state. History tells us that extremist narrative is always proved short-lived due to its unnatural character, rigid beliefs, deterrence, over-politicization of religion and lack of adaptability. The writer is an academic and can be reached at muhammad.azeem @fuuast.edu.pk