Pakistan is not just a geographical state; it is a metaphysical entity, born out of nearly a hundred years of Muslim struggle in the Indian subcontinent. To understand the nature of our challenges today, especially those originating from our eastern neighbor, we must critically examine the history that followed our creation. This reflection is necessary to grasp the epistemology behind the formation of Pakistan and the ideological threats we continue to face.

In recent decades, much of our intellectual discourse has shifted towards ontology and problem-solving approaches. While these frameworks have their merit, they have also contributed to ideational confusion. As a result, our nation remains unclear about its direction. Not advocating for a rigid form of nativism that borders on xenophobia, but it is essential to revisit and understand the historical struggle and the rationale that led to the creation of this great Islamic nation.

We must train our minds to decode the hidden meanings behind modern conflict

Why is understanding Pakistan’s epistemology essential? Because it reveals the roots of the crises and tensions we have faced with India since 1947. The epistemology and ontology of war and threat are not static—they evolve. To survive in such a dynamic environment, we must train our minds to decode the hidden meanings behind modern conflict. War is deception, it is an extension of political policy, and its nature is ever-changing. Deception and manipulation lie at its core.

Unfortunately, in Pakistan, although we frequently speak of “hybrid war,” our understanding of it remains superficial. We have been victims of hybrid warfare not just in the recent past, but since 1857—when Muslims lost political power over the subcontinent. Consider how our last ruler, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was treated. Captain William Hodson, the British officer who arrested him, threatened to shoot him like a dog if he attempted to escape. This humiliation marked the beginning of a long era of subjugation and manipulation that we must never forget.

It was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan who helped awaken a defeated community by encouraging education in English and science

After 1857, the Muslims of the subcontinent faced immense marginalization—socially, politically, and intellectually. It was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan who helped awaken a defeated community by encouraging education in English and science. He understood that survival under British rule required pragmatism and adaptation. This wasn’t submission; it was strategic realism.

Then came the Indian National Congress, formed in 1885 by Allan Octavian Hume, a retired British civil servant. Dominated quickly by Hindu interests, Congress began sidelining Muslims under the guise of Indian nationalism. Visionaries like Sir Syed and other Muslim leaders recognized this shift early on. By the early 20th century, especially after the backlash to the partition of Bengal in 1905, Muslims realized they needed their own political platform. In 1906, the All-India Muslim League was formed—not as a reactionary move, but as a necessary vehicle to safeguard Muslim identity and rights.

Despite repeated attempts to work together, including the Lucknow Pact, it became evident—especially to Muhammad Ali Jinnah—that Muslims and Hindus represented fundamentally different civilizational paradigms. Where the Congress stood for a nationalist vision that ultimately favored the Hindu majority, the Muslim League embodied an ideological and national identity distinct from that of the Hindu majority.

Pakistan emerged as the first ideological state of the modern world—founded on a distinct worldview and collective identity

Thus, in 1947, the subcontinent was divided. Pakistan emerged as the first ideological state of the modern world—founded on a distinct worldview and collective identity. India, in contrast, positioned itself as a secular state, though in practice, it often advanced majoritarian interests.

Some intellectuals, even within Pakistan, repeat the propaganda that Pakistan was a British creation. But history tells a different story. The Radcliffe Award, the bias of British officials against the Muslim League, the withholding of resources, and the early hostilities from Indian leadership—all refute this claim. The creation of Pakistan was a blow to the dream of Akhand Bharat (Greater India). One senior Congress leader even arrogantly predicted Pakistan would not survive. And yet, despite immense internal and external pressures, Pakistan not only survived—it emerged as a nuclear power and a beacon of hope for Muslims around the world.

Today, Pakistan and Muslims—whether in the Islamic Republic or in India—continue to face the same ideological and political struggle that began after 1857. Pakistan, having gained independence, is targeted by those who still seek to dominate it, often in partnership with Western powers. Meanwhile, Muslims who remained in India are systematically marginalized, forced to live under increasing pressure and insecurity. A look at the data on anti-Muslim violence and discrimination in India since 1947 paints a sobering picture—and it should deepen our appreciation for the sacrifices of our forefathers.

Subnationalism—alien to the very spirit of Pakistan’s creation—has taken root, weakening our unity

Sadly, due to the enduring effects of coloniality and the influence of foreign ideologies, we in Pakistan have drifted from the epistemological roots of our national identity. We’ve adopted external frameworks that have disoriented us. Subnationalism—alien to the very spirit of Pakistan’s creation—has taken root, weakening our unity.

Our adversaries understand the power of ideological influence. They invest billions to manipulate our narratives, distort our history, and steer us away from our foundational ideas. The war that began in 1857 did not end—it evolved. It intensified after 1947. Even today, many who ideologically favored the Congress continue to side with India. Ironically, during the Cold War, India benefited more than Pakistan despite our alignment with the West, leveraging both Soviet and Western blocs to its advantage.

Reality is a social construct. It is tragic to see how our enemies, with the help of their media and global allies, continue to construct false realities

Reality is a social construct. It is tragic to see how our enemies, with the help of their media and global allies, continue to construct false realities. Take, for instance, the Pahalgam attack—now increasingly seen as a false-flag operation. Yet, many among us still fall prey to disinformation, simply because we lack understanding of Pakistan’s epistemological foundation.

War is deception. War is an extension of political will. Victory belongs to the side that is consistent in its purpose and clear in its identity.

If we are to survive—and thrive—we must return to the epistemology of Pakistan. It gives us direction. It reveals our historical experiences. And it illuminates the nature and tactics of those who still seek to dominate us.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.