Hybrid warfare is primarily marked by the characteristic of interpenetrated fluidity which renders the conventional watertight demarcation among different spheres/trajectories of conflict obsolete. Additionally, it’s a 5th generation warfare approach whose’ discursive foundations are somewhat closer to the postmodernism. It is a holistic approach which mobilizes and subsequently synergizes the entire spectrum of society in order to achieve its stated objective. In such an undertaking, it warrants an ontological revision of the very concept of the war (in itself). In this context, it’s a multitude of the kinetic and non-kinetic means (blurring the conventional boundaries of limitations/autonomy of the multiple spheres such as economic, media, knowledge and Artificial Intelligence and harnessing them collectively) to attain certain national-interest objectives. In a sharp contrast to the conventional kinetic means hybrid warfare primarily targets the collective-sub consciousness of the opposite state/society rather than applying the conventional means of pressure at the tangible capabilities of the adversary. Unlike conventional warfare, hybrid warfare’s motives revolve around the ‘subversion of the value system’ of a particular state/society (ontological-gains). Now the important question is: what are the policy options of Pakistan to deter this hybrid warfare? This short essay contends that in order to develop any sort of strategic discourse of ‘resistance’ against this hybrid warfare; the policy options must involve the Pakistani society along with kinetic means of state. This discourse of resistance must be led by the institutions of the society along with the sustained assistance of the institutions of Pakistani state. Due to the Neo-colonial path dependency, there exists a sort of substantial gap between society and state in Pakistan. Any genuine sustainable discourse of ‘resistance’ must narrow down this gap between state and society, between people: represented by societal institutions and state: represented by state institutions. This process of the mitigation of the gap should be a two-way strategy mixed with proportionate application of coercion and consent. In such an undertaking, institutions of the state (which are relatively developed and synchronized with the historical expectations of people) should take the role of a benign hegemony in order to bridge this gap without surrendering the autonomy of the state. Such a process would entail the intense process of political socialization which also discursively exposes the people to hybrid warfare. Therefore, the genuine discourse of resistance against hybrid warfare should also acknowledge the role of society and its corresponding institutions. It should harness genuine research/knowledge in order to evolve an ‘indigenous discourse of identity’ and evolve sophisticated mechanism to channel it outwardly. The current economic system led by the IMF and World Bank, and underpinned by the hegemony of dollar has become the weapon of choice of the hegemonic powers In this context, the central impediment to any sustainable policy option is the neo-colonial context of Pakistani society. Its central problem historically has been the relative depleted degree of its autonomy in foreign policy. Historically, Pakistan’s foreign policy has this predominant character which could be marked as ‘autonomous’ rather than ‘sovereign’, in a relative environment of states. Therefore, any policy option which ignores this context, has serious structural constraints against its optimization. The contemporary dislocation/rupture in the unipolar world-order bears every hallmark of the end of the unipolar world-order. Ruptures/dislocation generate crisis and crises breed opportunities. Pakistan’s national security policy options should take this dislocation in the world-order as a serious opportunity in order to respond against the hybrid warfare. It should address its central problem of western originated hegemony which has paralyzed the operational capability of its societal and state institutions, and has engendered the serious rupture to its value system/culture. In such a situation, in order to check the US originated hegemony and its corresponding structural constraints represented by its equilibrium of power in the South Asian region; in which Pakistan historically has been an essential component. Pakistan should evolve its own complicated mechanism of resistance-power-equilibrium in which its foreign policy does not rely on a single major power rather that it develops a sophisticated system of equilibrium of multiple-multi size states which balance and counterbalance different major powers while pursuing their own national interest with maximum degree of flexibility. Such mature, sophisticated operation of foreign policy carries a serious potential to enhance the depleted degree of autonomy of the Pakistan’s foreign policy. An autonomous; assertive foreign policy is a major milestone in the pursuit of any resistance-oriented discourse against hybrid warfare. In supplementation of the above-mentioned contentions to develop a genuine discourse of resistance against hybrid warfare, Pakistan should also de-link its economic system from dollar and pluralize it by conducting economic activity in potential partner countries’ local currencies. It should follow the international tendency of de-dollarization. The current economic system led by the IMF and World Bank, and underpinned by the hegemony of dollar has become the weapon of choice of the hegemonic powers. Sanctions are simply means to harness the economic power beyond any standard of ethics to convince the resisting country. Largely, it is the single major hurdle in development of any genuine discourse of resistance against hybrid warfare which the Iranian leadership has recently marked as ‘economic terrorism’. In addition to this, Pakistan also needs to institutionalize a regulatory mechanism in order to combat this hybrid warfare in cyberspace. Under the discourse of hybrid warfare, the conventional grounds of war have also been shifted. In addition to the earlier grounds of war such as land, air, water, the virtual world is emerging as a new autonomous ground of war. (hypothetically qualifying the grounds which is always pre-given/presupposed as a base/turf upon which the kinetic/non-kinetic activity of conflict is performed by the players) This space is increasingly becoming militarized and harnessed as an ideal ground to conduct the operations of hybrid warfare. Its peculiarity is that it targets the subconscious of the intended subject rather than the body which has been the primary target of conventional kinetic means of war. Therefore, this short essay contends that state-assisted and society-led discourse of resistance against hybrid warfare is a sustainable policy option in order to deter/check the profound effects of hybrid warfare against Pakistan. It further attempts to evaluate the translation of this central contention into the concrete policy recommendations in foreign policy, economic policy, cyber space. Through, empirical analyses of such central argument and its subsequent concrete policy translation, it concludes that any attempt to approach hybrid warfare must also take into account its corresponding social, political, economic background and autonomous role of societal institutions. It marks this type of strategic resistance discourse as ‘resistance from below’ rather than other way around. The writer is PhD Political Science Candidate in CAU (Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel), Kiel Germany Published in Daily Times, December 16th2018.