Pakistan has been a victim of hybrid warfare. Attempts have been made to malign its reputation, diplomatically isolate it and exploit its domestic fault lines, and support has been provided to non-state actors to carry out terrorist attacks in the country.
The goal of this hybrid warfare strategy “is not the annihilation of Pakistan as a state but making the country so weak that Pakistan accepts Indian bid of supremacy in South Asia and compromises her vital interests and accepts the resolution of outstanding disputes on Indian terms.”[i]
In this context, India has been playing the victimhood card in its global narrative and blaming Pakistan for terrorist attacks with no evidence to back its claims. Till recently, India’s strategy seemed to be working, as despite its blatant violation of international laws (on 5 August 2019, it abolished articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution that guaranteed the autonomous status of IOK in violations of UN resolutions), it remained just too valuable a market and investment and strategic partner. Moreover, Indian communities in the US and UK are obviously extremely influential.”[ii]
However, due to multiple reasons, the Indian position has been degraded. Amongst them is the assassination of a Sikh activist and vocal supporter of the Khalistan movement, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, in Canada and an attempted assassination in USA by India. The world was, therefore, not as enthusiastic to accept the Indian post-Pahalgam attack narrative till the necessary evidence was presented.
India must have presumed that its narrative remained relevant when, in extreme haste (within minutes) it blamed Pakistan for the Pahalgam attack (22 April 2025), and, with equal haste (24 April 2025), it illegally and unilaterally held the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in Abeyance.
The successful repulsion of India’s “Operation Sindoor” and the formidable response through Pakistan’s “Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos” further tarnished the former’s reputation as it “exposed India’s military vulnerabilities, inadequacies and inefficiencies” and was “counterproductive to any misguided benefits they assumed would come their way through a hegemonic approach in the region.”[iii] Furthermore, its military campaign has been backed by deceit from not only its media but also its military and government officials. Fake news emanating from India has been repudiated by international experts, analysts and media, therefore, forcing the Indian administration to backtrack on some of its previous statements.
The narrative competition between the two nuclear rivals, therefore, seems to be shifting, slightly, in favor of Pakistan. Why slightly? Because: “International relations… are conducted on the basis of pragmatism and perceived national interests to a much greater extent than on principles, morality and international law.”[iv] Simply put, international relations are based on “shared interests, not values.”[v]
Pakistan has to make the limited space that it has gained in the global narrative spectrum work in its favor. Creative and aggressive diplomatic initiatives must continue, projecting its desire for regional cooperation and peace while simultaneously underscoring the hybrid warfare that is being conducted against it in the form of spinning the narrative to malign Pakistan’s reputation, weaponizing water and sponsoring non-state actors—attempting to create an atmosphere of disharmony, terror and instability.
Ironically, the basis on which Pakistan can base a large portion of its narrative is in the letter that was sent by Indian authorities that conveyed their intention to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance.
The Letter
Through a letter dated 24 April 2025, sent by the Indian Administration, the Indians communicated their decision “that the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect”. The primary reasons mentioned in the letter for this action were as follows:
- “…altered population demographics, the need to accelerate the development of clean energy and other changes…”
- “… cross border terrorism by Pakistan targeting the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.”
- And “apart from other breaches… Pakistan has refused to respond to India’s request to enter into negotiations as envisaged under the Treaty and is thus in breach of the Treaty.”
Countering these assertions are the following points:
- Whereas India’s population has increased by approximately 3.3 times since 1960, Pakistan’s population has increased by approximately 5.4 times over the same period. If the Indian argument of “altered population demographics” is, therefore, to be considered, then the above statistics favor Pakistan in demanding a larger portion of the water resources. Despite this, Pakistan has remained steadfast in adhering to the treaty and has not advanced any demands that would affect the integrity of the IWT.
- While accusing Pakistan of cross border terrorism, Jammu and Kashmir is referred to as “Indian Union Territory” which in itself is a manifestation of the illegal annexation of the said territory through the abrogation of article 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution which is in violation of UN resolutions, specifically those related to the self determination of the Kashmiri people “through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite” (UNSC Resolution 47).
“Pakistan’s policy on Jammu and Kashmir is in conformity with the UN Charter, UN resolutions, international humanitarian and human rights laws.”[vi] In contrast, India is in violation of not only UN resolutions but also international humanitarian law. The brutality with which India is attempting to crush the right of self-determination is evident by the incarceration, rape, torture and killing of Kashmiri citizens.
- As far as cross border terrorism is concerned, on multiple occasions Pakistan has asked for verifiable evidence and has also encouraged a neutral and credible investigation on the Pahalgam attack without which all allegations remain baseless and false.
Furthermore, the counternarrative is the support provided by India to its proxies, the TTP in KP and BLA in Balochistan, in conducting terrorist attacks in Pakistan. The frequency of these attacks has escalated since the ceasefire of 10 May 2025.
- The accusation that Pakistan has refused to respond to India’s request to enter negotiations is also false. In January 2023, India proposed formal intergovernmental negotiations to amend and modify the IWT, citing population demographic changes, climate change and the need to develop renewable energy as its primary reasons. Pakistan replied that it was ready to discuss all grievances that India might have through the framework available to both within the IWT. That is, through the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) which is the first tier in resolving issues that either side may have. India did not respond to this. Furthermore, in August 2024, India suspended the bilateral PIC meetings until Pakistan agreed to start the process of renegotiations of the IWT.
- Finally, holding a treaty in abeyance has no legal standing. According to the Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties (1969) there is no legal option of holding a treaty in abeyance. A party can either terminate or suspend a treaty if a material breach occurs. India has cited Pakistan’s refusal “to respond to India’s request to enter into negotiations as envisaged under the Treaty” as a “breach of the Treaty.” The 4th point above shows that Pakistan was willing to discuss all of India’s grievances through the provisions available to both parties in the Treaty.
Narratives and Counternarratives
India continues to use “sophisticated propaganda” and state sponsored lobbying campaigns to malign and isolate Pakistan internationally while simultaneously targeting domestic fault lines to create unrest, disharmony and dissension through the spread of disinformation and fake news. In addition, incidents such as the capturing of Kulbushan Jadhav, an Indian spy operating in Pakistan, and his confession directly link India with the sponsoring and support of militant and terrorist activities in Pakistan.
A proactive diplomatic offensive, therefore, must be aligned with a domestic realignment that deters militant proliferation. National cohesion through socio-economic empowerment needs to be a national priority. In addition, the war against terrorism must have national support.
A counterterrorism strategy must eradicate the cancer and not cause it to spread. For instance, while kinetic force is essential for this strategy, it should be supplemented by legislation that protects the lives and livelihood of the population that is not participating in hostilities. The synchronization of important instruments of international law like the UN charter, International Humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions (in particular common article 3), etc. with Pakistan’s anti-terrorism legislation and actions, for instance, will not only negate any cause of disharmony but also limit the space for the dissemination of propaganda used to exploit domestic fault lines and malign the country’s reputation globally.
“Foreign policy has become a battlefield of competing narratives.”[vii] Global acceptance of a particular narrative is fickle and not permanent. As mentioned earlier, international relations are based more on shared interests than shared values. The limited diplomatic time and space that Pakistan has gained must be fully utilized to counter the hybrid warfare being waged against it.
References
[i] Air Commodore (R) Khslid Iqbal TI (M), Facts and Fallacies of Hybrid Warfare: Old Wine in new Bottle?, Criterion Quarterly, January/June 2020.
[ii] Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, An International Dimension of the Kashmir Struggle: A New Phase of Oppression, Criterion Quarterly, October/December 2022.
[iii] S. Mushfiq Murshed, Comment: Absurd, Inconceivable and Sheer Stupidity, Criterion quarterly, Special Edition.
[iv] Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, An International Dimension of the Kashmir Struggle: A New Phase of Oppression, Criterion Quarterly, October/December 2022.
[v] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/india/markey-modi-biden-united-states
[vi] Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, An International Dimension of the Kashmir Struggle: A New Phase of Oppression, Criterion Quarterly, October/December 2022.
[vii] Air Commodore (R) Khslid Iqbal TI (M), Facts and Fallacies of Hybrid Warfare: Old Wine in new Bottle?, Criterion Quarterly, January/June 2020.
