Asif Haroon Raja
Was there ever a period in Pakistan’s history when the country was not the target of hostile powers? Since its inception, Pakistan has faced a relentless series of conspiracies, covert operations, and destabilisation campaigns aimed at keeping it politically divided, socially fragmented, economically dependent, and militarily constrained.
Successive governments and military leaderships have never been oblivious to the threats emanating from Pakistan’s eastern and western borders, nor to the often duplicitous role played by external powers, particularly the United States in pursuit of its regional interests.
Equally well known is the role of fifth columnists and anti-Pakistan elements who never reconciled themselves to the creation and survival of Pakistan.
Over the past eight decades, the influence and reach of such elements have multiplied. Internal divisions, political polarisation, and ideological confusion have created vulnerabilities that hostile actors continue to exploit.
Our own moral and institutional failings, coupled with decades of political expediency and appeasement, have often weakened national resilience and made Pakistan more susceptible to subversion.
The reality is that many reform initiatives and accountability drives remained largely cosmetic. Elite capture became entrenched, while inefficient institutions and flawed governance structures were allowed to persist.
Against this backdrop, one must ask: what exactly is so unprecedented today that certain pseudo-intellectuals and self-styled defence analysts are suddenly ringing alarm bells over the engineered turbulence in Azad Jammu and Kashmir?
The most significant development since March 2022 has been the sharp rise in anti-military sentiment. A substantial segment of political activism has focused not merely on opposing the government, but on discrediting the military establishment and tarnishing the image of the Pakistan Army and the ISI.
The sustained campaign against State institutions has deepened political divisions and created an environment that hostile forces can readily exploit.
One must ask who continues to vilify the Army Chief, fuel internal discord, and obstruct efforts aimed at strengthening national cohesion?
Equally important is the question of why certain political actors and opinion-makers appear reluctant to confront anti-state groups and separatist tendencies with the same vigour that they reserve for criticism of state institutions?
Is the government aligned with banned organisations, or is it actively engaged in combating the existential threat posed by terrorism?
Is it not striving to revive the economy, restore investor confidence, and strengthen Pakistan’s strategic and economic position?
Despite formidable challenges, the government has achieved notable milestones during 2025–26 in stabilising key economic indicators and improving Pakistan’s international standing.
The conduct of a segment of retired officials and veterans aligned with partisan political interests also deserves scrutiny.
Many appear willing to place party loyalties above institutional interests. Rather than directing their energies towards strengthening national unity, they often contribute to narratives that deepen divisions and weaken public confidence in the State’s most important institutions.
Patriotism demands more than rhetoric. At a time when Pakistan faces multiple internal and external challenges, every veteran and citizen has a responsibility to support national institutions and demonstrate loyalty through constructive action rather than selective criticism, double standards, or political opportunism.
To date, PTI has shown little inclination to contribute positively towards addressing Pakistan’s economic, security, and governance challenges.
Its primary focus remains the restoration of its political power. In pursuit of that objective, it has increasingly found common ground with groups and narratives that are openly hostile to the State.
The disturbing convergence between anti-Pakistan narratives promoted by India and Israel and those circulating within certain segments of social media should not be ignored.
The reaction to the helicopter crash in Muzaffarabad was particularly revealing. Reports of celebrations among certain expatriate circles in the United Kingdom, many of whose gatherings are attended by PTI sympathisers, reflected a troubling level of hostility towards national institutions.
Similarly, the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) does not possess a conventional political or democratic pedigree.
Critics view it as a coalition of opportunistic interests that has been exploited by external actors seeking to destabilise the region.
Some analysts believe that the Indo-Israeli nexus, with possible support from other regional actors, has sought to leverage local grievances for broader strategic objectives.
One should also not lose sight of the larger geopolitical context. For years, strategic thinkers in Washington have debated alternative futures for Kashmir, including proposals aimed at altering its political status.
Reports have periodically surfaced suggesting plans to transform the wider Kashmir region into a zone of international strategic influence, with Ladakh emerging as a major military and logistical hub for India and its strategic partners.
Within Pakistan’s domestic political landscape, the role of coalition politics cannot be overlooked. Although the PPP remains a coalition partner of the PML-N-led government, it has consistently sought to maximise political advantage while distancing itself from responsibility for governance shortcomings.
Having consolidated its influence in Sindh, it has increasingly focused on expanding its footprint in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.
Critics argue that both PPP and PTI have, directly or indirectly, contributed to the political environment that enabled JAAC’s rise.
The issue of the twelve reserved refugee seats remains particularly contentious. Since the majority of these seats are linked to refugee populations residing in Punjab, any effort to alter their status carries significant political implications.
Viewed in this context, one possible objective behind the current unrest may be to disrupt or influence the electoral process ahead of the scheduled elections in Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 27 July.
Whether this assessment proves accurate or not, the unfolding developments deserve careful scrutiny, for the stakes extend beyond local politics and touch upon the broader national interests of Pakistan and the future of the Kashmir cause.
Pakistan’s adversaries have long sought to exploit its internal divisions. The challenge before the nation today is not merely to identify external threats, but to ensure that political rivalries and partisan interests do not become instruments through which those threats are advanced.
About the Author
Brigadier (Retd) Asif Haroon Raja, SI (M) is a war veteran. He is Command and Staff Course and War Course qualified, holds an MSc in War Studies, and served as Defence Attaché in Egypt and Sudan, as well as Dean of the Corps of Military Attachés in Cairo.
He is a defence, security, and geopolitical analyst, columnist, featured columnist of IntelDrop magazine Washington, author of five books, former Chairman of Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Patron-in-Chief of Centre for Development Studies Think Tank, Director of Meesakh Research Centre; he regularly appears on media platforms.
