Nations evolve through different phases, often passing through periods of intense conflict, internal division, political instability, economic crisis even collapse. There are moments in a nation’s life when it faces a serious risk of breaking apart such as China’s Warring States Period (475-221 BCE) and, later in modern history, the China’s Century of Humiliation (1839-1949). In both of these bitter historical chapters, China experienced a severe erosion of national unity, marked by internal division, external vulnerabilities, lost significant territories to various imperial powers, and a decline in its international status. Similarly, the United States Civil War (1861-1865) saw the Southern states’ secession from federal authority, which directly challenged the very idea of a unified American nation, and the French Third Republic’s collapse and occupation during World War II by Nazi forces. In 1940, France was swiftly defeated by Nazi Germany and divided into the occupied zone and the Vichy regime backed by Nazis, raising doubts about French future as a sovereign state. However, like many nations throughout history, France eventually reclaimed its independence, rebuilt its institutions, and reestablished itself on the global stage. These periods of crisis, though deeply challenging, often serve as turning points in a nation’s evolution.
Pakistan is yet another glaring case study of a nation that has faced numerous existential challenges since its inception in 1947. Even the very idea of Pakistan, when conceived, was met with scorn, and the “Two-Nation Theory”, which stood as both a core defense and a crucial instrument in achieving a sovereign state for a vulnurable Muslim minority whose language and cultural identity were at risk of being erased by a furious and vindictive majority. A British author, Beverley Nichols in, “Verdict on India”, a book published in 1944 provides a sense about the enormity and the severity of the threat to the identity of a minority Muslim community, on page no. 183 writes, Indian National Congress found itself in the large majority in 1937 election and formed a Congress ministries. Instead of seeking coalition or sharing power, Muslims were rigidly excluded from all responsibilities. The Congress regime extended its autocracy beyond politics, launching systematic attacks on every aspect of Muslim life. A campaign was waged to replace Urdu with Sanskritized Hindi, schools were dominated in a manner so ruthless that it would have aroused Nazi Admiration, forcing Muslim children to salute Gandhi’s portrait, and the Congress flag was imposed as the national symbol. Justice was subverted, the police earned the nickname Gestapo, and economic discrimination against Muslims, from landowners to laborers, was persistent and pitiless. This reveals the true face of the so-called secular Congress. When the party first came to power, even an independent observer could see how it threatened the cultural identity of minorities with a majoritarian arrogance that contradicted its secular ideals.
The struggle for Pakistan was fraught with conspiracies, controversies, betrayals, and deep-seated biases.
The struggle for Pakistan was fraught with conspiracies, controversies, betrayals, and deep-seated biases. Its leadership faced relentless challenges, including personal insults and psychological warfare from a vindictive Hindu majority and its political leadership. Adding to this was Mountbatten’s duplicity, his double standards and hypocrisy directly contradicted the very principles of partition he himself laid out, consistently favoring the Congress Party. V.P.Menon, a key figure in Indian independence who played instrumental role in integration of princely states in connivance with Mountbatten, in his book, “the story of the integration of Indian states” on page no.83, clearly admits the mountbatten’s partisan partiality against Mr. Jinnah and Muslim League, favouring Congress in his abundant love for India. Can a man entrusted with the monumental responsibility of partitioning a nation truly afford to let his personal affection for one political party cloud his judgment? How can the fate of millions be left in the hands of such partiality?
Amidst challenging circumstances, the newly created state was born at midnight between 14th and 15th August 1947, amid deep skepticism, particularly among segments of the Indian leadership who believed Pakistan was not a viable entity and would soon come crashing back into the Indian Union. This wishful thinking was echoed by India’s first Home Minister and prominent Hindu nationalist, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who dismissively remarked that Pakistan would not survive more than six months. The so-called “Patel Doctrine” was the first hostile policy after Partition aimed at undermining and destabilizing Pakistan.
In pursuit of this ulterior motive, the early Indian leadership implemented a “policy of economic strangulation.” In pursuit of this policy, Pakistan’s agreed share of 550 million rupees was deliberately withheld to further strain an already fiscally fragile nation. The severity of Pakistan’s financial crisis was such that even Mr. Gandhi protested and fasted, demanding the release of the allocated funds to Pakistan, an act which cost him a life. At the time, Pakistan was grappling with enormous challenges, including Mountbatten-Nehru-Edwina connivance and betrayl over the Muslim contagious Kashmir, Ferozepur and Gurdaspur, Indian ominious schemes to create trouble in the accesion of Kalat, state managing a massive migration crisis and a more complicated matter of making its first constitutional and administrative framework to govern the new state whose territories are hardly decided and defined.
Indian hostility towards its much smaller neighbor persisted with the aim of weakening it, and ultimately undoing, Pakistan. The policy of “accepting Pakistan with mental reservation” was enacted by successive Indian governments to justify harming Pakistan whenever deemed necessary. Pakistan’s own internal failures and fault lines eventually provided India the much desired opportunity to realize this policy. In December 1971, India played a key role in severing a part of Pakistan, cutting off an eastern arm of its smaller neighbor which became India’s biggest achievement since independence. Indians celebrate this with great pride and openly acknowledge their role in breaking Pakistan. Later in December 2024, Prime Minister Modi referred to the Fall of Dhaka as “Vijay Diwas”, or “Victory Day,” calling Fall of East Pakistan as India’s historic victory.
This event deeply affected the national psyche of Pakistanis, leaving Pakistan unable to regain full confidence until May 1998, when India’s actions left Pakistan with no choice but to go nuclear. Between May 13 and 27, the rhetoric from Indian political leaders, including the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, was extremely hostile and threatening. Home Minister L.K. Advani went further, warning Pakistan to wipe out from the map of South Asia. Then, on May 28, 1998, when Pakistan’s strategic patience reached the limit, Pakistan tested nuclear weapons and altered South Asia’s security landscape by nuclearization of the region, the nation took a second birth, regained its national pride and confidence, while India fell silent. With this, India was awaken from the state of denial acknowledging Pakistan as soveriegn nation. All Indian illusions were shattered to further harm Pakistan, and India hurriedly rectified the policy of “accepting Pakistan with mental reservation,” was made to rush to Minar-e-Pakistan, a site of great historical significance as the symbolic birthplace of the demand for a separate Muslim state, and reluctantly recognize Pakistan as an equal sovereign state. During his visit to Pakistan, the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Minar-e-Pakistan, symbolically acknowledging Pakistan’s legitimacy, a gesture that drew criticism from hardline elements within the RSS, mother organization of BJP and other nationalist groups in India.
India’s reluctant recognition of Pakistan has been shaped by the theory of nuclear deterrence and the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which makes direct war less likely. However, in pursuit of its regional hegemonic ambitions, India’s desire to subordinate Pakistan as a junior partner has manifested in various alternative strategies.
The most recent and aggressive doctrine aimed at undermining, sabotaging and balkanizing Pakistan emerged in 2014, following the rise to power of the Hindu-nationalist government in India. This marked yet another Pakistan-centric iteration of the so-called multi-pronged Doval Doctrine, which was operationalized through a coordinated strategy involving propaganda, disinformation, activating network of proxies and international lobbying. India leveraged the territories of neighboring countries, particularly Afghanistan as platforms for subversive activities. As part of this approach, India invested nearly $2 billion in Afghanistan to expand its influence and enhance its soft power, establishing multiple consulates across the country under the guise of diplomatic engagement. This involved the deployment of India’s covert intelligence network to fund, facilitate, and train ethno-nationalist groups and other destabilizing elements aimed at undermining Pakistan’s internal security and exploit Pakistan’s faultlines. All of these claims have been corroborated by the confessions of a captured Indian Hitman from Baluchistan, an Indian naval commander who is currently in Pakistan’s custody.
Under the Modi government, a dedicated disinformation lab was established to damage Pakistan’s international reputation to alienate and isolate Pakistan, a policy expressed openly by Indian Prime Minister. This campaign, which spanned over 100 countries, aimed to isolate Pakistan diplomatically and strategically. One of its principal objectives was to push for Pakistan’s blacklisting by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), thereby increasing pressure on the country in the global financial system. Between 2014 and 2025, extensive efforts were made to isolate Pakistan diplomatically and destabilize it internally. Generously funded proxies, supported by India, were reportedly activated within Pakistan to further this objective. A sustained narrative was pushed portraying Pakistan as a failed state, a nation perpetually dependent on aid, and a country with unsafe nuclear weapons. Indian lobbying efforts were also aimed at influencing international financial institutions, including attempts to pressure the IMF to deny Pakistan critical bailout packages. Water was weaponized as a tool of coercion, and Pakistan was frequently scapegoated and vilified, especially during Indian election cycles with accusations of involvement in terrorist attacks often made without credible evidence. These actions contributed to political instability, economic disruption, and particularly targeted the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a geoeconomic flagship project for regional economic development.
This multi-pronged approach, often described as an extension of the Doval Doctrine, gradually eroded Pakistan’s national psyche. India’s so-called “Godi media,” now increasingly exposed on the global stage, played a significant role in advancing this narrative as part of the broader strategy.
By 2025, many Pakistanis, especially the youth, had internalized Indian-driven narratives accepting Pakistan as a failing, dysfunctional, or pariah state. This perception, fueled by sustained Indian propaganda machine, led to widespread doubt about Pakistan’s future. However, on 7 May 2025, India launched an unprecedented attack deep inside Pakistan, accusing it of involvement in the Pahalgam incident. India acted under several illusions: that Pakistan could not respond militarily, that global powers would back India, that Pakistan’s economy could not sustain conflict, that Pakistanis and specially Indian proxies would revolt and that Indian aerial supremacy would go unchallenged.
This miscalculated aggression shocked the international community. India had long believed Pakistan was too weak to defend itself or retaliate, and that its network of proxies inside Pakistan would trigger internal chaos during any conflict. The events of May 2025 shattered those assumptions yet again. In the four-day conflict, Pakistan not only defended itself but inflicted significant losses on India, downing several Indian aircrafts, including French Rafales. The scale of the Pakistan response on May 10 left India rattled, prompting it to urgently seek U.S. intervention for a ceasefire. Pakistan agreed to the ceasefire, and as Rahul Gandhi mockingly put it, “Narender surrenders.”
The Mid May 2025 marked a turning point in nation’s evolution, Pakistan’s first clear military and diplomatic victory over four time larger enemy, leading to what I describe as the “third birth” of the nation. All of India’s doctrines, propaganda campaigns, and policies aimed at strangulating Pakistan ultimately failed and from their collapse, Pakistan 2.0 was reborn at 9th, 10th midnight: The 10 May morning saw a more confident and united nation. Having endured India’s attempts at economic strangulation, Pakistan must now embrace a vital truth: the success of every great nation begins with a strong, self-reliant economy and a steadfast commitment to democratic ideals.
Sarfraz Ahmed Rana teaches at NUML, Islamabad. He can be reached at Ranasarfraz3417@gmail.com and tweets at @SarfrazRana01.