The persistent characterization of Pakistan as a “rogue state” in geopolitical discourse transcends mere diplomatic labeling. It reflects a complex interplay of deliberate policy choices, institutional pathologies, and historical traumas that have shaped its trajectory. This article examines the structural and ideological foundations of Pakistan’s international identity, avoiding isolated factual claims in favor of pattern analysis grounded in documented critiques and observable phenomena.
The Ideological Crucible: Manufacturing National Identity
Pakistan’s foundational identity crisis stems from its contested historiography. Post-independence, the state actively reconstructed historical narratives to erase pre-Islamic heritage and minimize cultural connections to India. Educational materials systematically portrayed Hindus as “enemies of Islam” while glorifying military dictatorships over democratic traditions. The state-sponsored textbook narrative positioned Pakistan not as a geographical entity but as “an ideology reflecting a unique civilization born to resist Hindu nationalism”. This institutionalized revisionism served dual purposes:
- Creating existential justification through perpetual opposition to India
- Legitimizing military dominance by framing democracy as “weak” against external threats
The 1979 Islamization reforms under General Zia cemented this worldview, replacing critical pedagogy with religious dogma and transforming schools into incubators of religious nationalism 9. The recent Punjab Compulsory Teaching of the Holy Quran Act (2018) and clerical censorship boards further entrenched this paradigm, deliberately compromising “freedom of inquiry and critical thinking”.
The Garrison State: Military Hegemony as Governance
Pakistan’s political architecture functions as a “miltablishment” – a fusion of military, bureaucratic, and comprador elites that perpetuates a security-obsessed state model. This power structure exhibits three defining characteristics:
- Constitutional Subversion: The military has directly ruled for over three decades since independence, while indirectly controlling foreign policy, national security, and economic priorities during civilian interludes. The controversial 26th Amendment (2024) marked a constitutional watershed, effectively dismantling judicial independence and separation of powers to legitimize military supremacy. International jurists condemned it for “eroding the judiciary’s capacity to function as a check against excesses by other branches”.
- Economic Cannibalization: Defense spending consistently prioritizes geopolitical ambitions over human development, creating what critics term an “exclusive, extractive, elitist security state”. The military’s commercial empire (Fauji Foundation et al.) dominates sectors from banking to cement, while feudal-industrial oligopolies block equitable reforms. This “elite capture” diverts resources from education, healthcare, and climate resilience despite Pakistan’s acute vulnerability.
- Social Control Mechanisms: Military intelligence agencies operate as a “state within a state,” manipulating media, intimidating dissenters, and weaponizing legal systems against critics. The persecution of Imran Khan exemplifies this pattern – his unprecedented popularity transformed him into a threat requiring “permanent removal” according to establishment calculus.
Table: Evolution of Pakistan’s Governance Model
| Period | Dominant Power Center | Defining Feature |
|---|---|---|
| 1947-1971 | Civilian bureaucracy | Weak democratic institutions; military ascendance |
| 1971-1977 | Populist civilian rule | Socialist reforms; elite backlash |
| 1977-1988 | Military-Islamist nexus | Islamization; proxy warfare infrastructure |
| 1988-1999 | Alternating dynasties | Democratic instability; nuclear proliferation |
| 1999-2008 | Military dictatorship | Counterterrorism partnership with US |
| 2008-2024 | Hybrid regime | Judicial-military collusion; constitutional erosion |
Foreign Policy as Asymmetric Warfare
Pakistan’s security doctrine relies on “non-state actor entrepreneurship” to compensate for conventional military disadvantages. This approach transformed the country into what international observers term a “terrorist rogue state” – one that “not only does not have a part in the international system but whose very being involves being outside of it and throwing… hand grenades inside”. Its foreign policy exhibits rogue state hallmarks:
- Nuclear Blackmail: Pursuit of tactical nuclear weapons lowered conflict thresholds while proliferation activities (A.Q. Khan network) “cemented its rogue reputation”. India’s 2025 call for IAEA oversight of Pakistan’s arsenal highlighted global anxieties about nuclear security in an unstable state.
- Proxy Warfare Ecosystem: The “bleed India” strategy through Kashmir-focused militants (Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed) evolved into a broader doctrine of “strategic depth” in Afghanistan. The ISI’s cultivation of the Taliban as an anti-Indian proxy created what one analyst called a “double game” that eventually unleashed “blowback” in the form of surging terrorist attacks.
- Transactional Alignment: Branded a “sidekick of every superpower” , Pakistan mastered crisis-driven alliances – extracting billions from the U.S. during the Afghan jihad and War on Terror, while simultaneously partnering with China through debt-trap infrastructure projects (CPEC). This “frenemy” status reflects its survival strategy: leveraging geopolitical rivalry while resisting institutional accountability.
Societal Fractures and Resistance
Beneath the security state apparatus, Pakistan faces existential demographic and ecological pressures:
- Demographic Time Bomb: With 64% under 30 and 40% experiencing learning deprivation, the education system fails to equip youth for productive employment, making them susceptible to radicalization.
- Climate Vulnerability: Disproportionate suffering from climate disasters like the 2022 floods exposes how military-centric governance neglects human security.
- Civil Society Awakening: Despite repression, new resistance vectors emerge. Youth-led digital activism, lawyer movements for judicial independence, and women’s rights campaigns represent what one critic terms “the political awakening of the youth, the poor and the women of Pakistan”. The mass rallies supporting Imran Khan – despite brutal crackdowns – revealed deep public rejection of military dominance and “inspired a sense of invincibility” among ordinary citizens.
V. The “Rogue” Dichotomy: Pathology or Strategy?
The rogue state label obscures more than it reveals. Pakistan’s trajectory reflects not inherent cultural dysfunction but deliberate institutional choices:
- The Military’s Strategic Calculus: Praetorian elites view nuclear brinkmanship, proxy warfare, and Islamist mobilization as rational tools to maintain domestic control and regional influence. The “India obsession” justifies budget monopolization while distracting from governance failures .
- International Enabling: U.S. funding during the Cold War and post-9/11 eras armed the military without demanding democratic reforms, while China’s CPEC investments ignored human rights and transparency concerns. As one diplomat noted, America “publicly deplored weakly what it privately endorsed strongly”.
- The Democratic Alternative: Critics argue Pakistan’s “third republic” is emerging through grassroots resistance. This movement challenges the military’s assumption that citizens “do not sufficiently value their freedom” to sustain prolonged struggle . Its success hinges on transcending the rogue state paradigm through constitutional restoration and regional détente.
Rogue by Design, Redeemable by Agency
Pakistan epitomizes the “security state paradox”: institutions designed for national protection become agents of national unraveling. Its classification as a rogue state reflects not predetermined destiny but the cumulative outcome of elite choices – military supremacy over democracy, ideological purity over pluralism, and strategic adventurism over developmental governance. As citizens recognize their “fateful choice between complete degradation and dignified resurgence” , Pakistan stands at a crossroads: either solidify its rogue identity through escalating repression or embrace redemption through inclusive governance minus extremism and terrorism.
