Qamar Bashir
Pakistan, a country often portrayed through the lens of political instability, economic turbulence, and internal strife, reveals a strikingly different character when confronted by threats from abroad. While its streets may echo with the voices of dissent and disagreement, and while provinces, ethnic groups, and political factions may spar over resources, representation, or ideology, all these differences melt away in the face of foreign aggression. It is in moments of external crisis that the true resilience and unity of
Pakistan assert themselves—unmistakable, immovable, and unmatched.
The tragic incident in Pahalgam and the subsequent Indian accusations directed at
Pakistan have triggered such a moment. Without credible evidence or the completion of a
thorough investigation, India has mobilized aggressive rhetoric, raising the specter of a
military response. Pakistan, however, is not merely responding with diplomacy and
warnings; it is revealing something more formidable—national cohesion that transcends
its internal contradictions.
The warning issued by Federal Information Minister Attaullah Tarar, citing credible
intelligence of an impending Indian strike within 24 to 36 hours, underscores the gravity
of the moment. But more telling than the content of the minister’s statement is the spirit
in which it has been received across Pakistan. It has not deepened divisions. Instead, it
has catalyzed a familiar, almost reflexive instinct: unity in defense of sovereignty.
Pakistan’s political culture is as vibrant as it is contentious. From federal-provincial
tensions to ethnic grievances, religious sectarianism, and competing party ideologies, the
country is no stranger to discord. The last decade alone has witnessed mass protests,
changes in government through both electoral and judicial processes, economic
disruptions, and serious insurgent challenges—particularly in Balochistan and along the
western borders.
Yet, when the Indian threat looms, there is a visible recalibration across society. Political
leaders who cannot agree on tax reform or electoral procedures suddenly speak in unison
about defending the motherland. Ethnic communities with longstanding grievances rally
behind the national flag. Media, often bitterly divided along partisan lines, align their
coverage in defense of national integrity. Even insurgent narratives fade into the
background when national survival is perceived to be at stake.
This phenomenon is neither manufactured nor symbolic—it is deeply historical and
psychological. It was evident during the 1965 and 1971 wars with India, resurfaced
during the Kargil conflict, and once again during the Balakot episode in 2019. In each
instance, internal conflicts paused, if not dissolved entirely, in service of a greater cause:
the defense of Pakistan.
It is easy to dismiss this unity as temporary or reactionary, but that would be to miss its
structural significance. The Pakistani nation, despite all its fractures, retains a
foundational identity built around its creation as a homeland for Muslims in South Asia.
That identity is most activated when external forces threaten its existence, dignity, or
sovereignty.
In many ways, this national instinct is rooted in survival. Pakistan was born in the
crucible of Partition, with immediate hostility from its neighbor and multiple wars within
its first few decades. It developed not only a physical defense apparatus in response, but
also a social one—a deeply embedded consensus that territorial integrity and sovereignty
are non-negotiable, regardless of who is in power or how deep domestic problems run.
This unity is not blind nationalism. It does not mean Pakistanis agree on everything—or
anything—outside of national security. But it is a conscious prioritization of state
survival over sectional interests when the threat is real. It is an understanding that no
matter how bitter the internal disputes may be, they cannot be allowed to embolden or
invite external aggression.
Minister Tarar’s statement gains its real strength from this collective instinct. His
declaration that “the nation reiterates its resolve to defend the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Pakistan at all cost” is not mere political posturing. It reflects a lived reality.
Across provinces, languages, and party lines, there is little debate on this issue. That
cohesion is Pakistan’s greatest strength—and its ultimate deterrent.
Consider recent history. Pakistan’s response to Indian aggression in 2019 was calibrated
and effective. Despite economic strain and political tension, the country’s military
response, diplomatic mobilization, and public unity forced a strategic re-evaluation in
India. The downing of an Indian fighter jet and the return of the captured pilot was not
only a military maneuver but also a message of strategic discipline and national
solidarity.
This unity also explains Pakistan’s credible deterrence posture. While India’s defense
spending is significantly higher, and its military size and technology more expansive, it is
Pakistan’s cohesive will and unshakeable defense doctrine that maintain regional balance.
The resolve of its population—to support its military, absorb pressure, and respond as
one—compensates for many quantitative disadvantages.
India, on the other hand, appears to be ignoring this pattern. By attempting to isolate an
incident like Pahalgam and use it to manufacture a pretext for aggression, it risks
underestimating both Pakistan’s resolve and its history of united resistance. That
miscalculation could be catastrophic—not just for bilateral relations but for the entire
South Asian region.
Another aspect often overlooked in such scenarios is the message it sends to Pakistan’s
younger generation. While internal politics may erode faith in governance, these
moments of national defense re-establish the idea of collective identity. It is in these
crucibles that patriotism is not taught but experienced. When political workers, religious
leaders, and critics alike rally behind the national interest, it creates a template of civic
maturity and democratic responsibility.
This is not to glorify conflict, nor to deny Pakistan’s internal challenges. But it is to
affirm a truth that foreign analysts often miss: that Pakistan’s internal instability does not
equate to national fragility. On the contrary, its ability to self-correct, mobilize, and unify
in response to external aggression is proof of a deeply resilient nation-state.
In conclusion, if India is considering a military move based on unverified claims, it
should consider not only Pakistan’s defensive capabilities but also its internal cohesion.
What appears to be a divided nation is, in moments like these, a wall of steel. Any
adventurism will not face a fragmented state but a consolidated will. Pakistanis may
argue over policy, governance, or ideology—but when the land is threatened, they speak
with one voice.
The Pahalgam incident, tragic as it is, should have been a cause for collective mourning
and sober investigation. Instead, it is being transformed into a catalyst for conflict. If
India proceeds, it must be prepared to face not just the Pakistani military, but a united
Pakistani nation—one that has stood this test many times before, and will again.
Writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC
Macomb, Detroit,
