Rising Nationalism and Progressive Politics in India and Pakistan
- Zaineb Majoka
- 5 days ago
- 12 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
India and Pakistan were recently on the verge of a nuclear war. Things escalated quickly but the two sides thankfully reached a ceasefire within four days.
The news was coming in real time and in most cases, the source was the government of India or Pakistan. Things were moving fast and there was no time to verify or validate any information or to step back to assess the full picture.
Nationalism soared on both sides, which manifested as hatred for each other. The Media, especially the Indian mainstream media, added fuel to fire by running a continuous cycle of fake news. In previous conflicts between India and Pakistan, there was a general sense that it was our governments who were at war and not the people. But this time, it seemed different. There was a parallel war being fought on social media. In fact, the Pakistani government lifted the ban on X whereas the Indian government started banning Pakistani social media accounts on X. It was clear that the governments on both sides wanted to shape public opinion through controlling the flow of information.
In the immediate aftermath of these attacks, one casualty of this war was of progressive voices on both sides. A majority of them quickly rallied behind the armed forces of their respective countries. For some in Pakistan, retaliation was an absolute must to protect Pakistan’s sovereignty and deter any future attacks on Pakistani territory while others saw this as a war against the rise of a Hindutva-Zionist alliance. In India, it was perceived as a fight against terrorism in the region. While it was expected that the mainstream media would continue with its jingoism, India’s claim that Pakistan was behind the terrorist attack in Pahalgam went largely unquestioned. There were a very few voices asking for evidence to prove this link and even those were seen as anti-state or disloyal to India in times of crisis. When the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) released a statement supporting India’s attack on Pakistan as part of its stand against terrorists and their handlers, it showed that there was a widespread acceptance of India’s attack, which was seen as the only way to counter terrorism in the region.
These arguments may sound convincing in the heat of the moment. But now that the fog of war has cleared, we need to step back and assess who this war benefited and how we can better organize to resist any further acts of aggression internally as well as externally.
Changing Global Power Dynamics
In recent years, the US’s longstanding global hegemony has been facing its biggest threat since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989: China’s technological advances and gains in global trade make it a viable contender for superpower status. Whether it is trade deals, arms sales or infrastructure investments, the US is trying to direct its global activities with an explicit aim to counter China’s influence in the emerging economies. In this new bi-polar world, India’s geostrategic position and its economic strength make it an important ally for the US. India and the US already have strong economic ties: India is one of the top 10 trade partners of the US and the US is the top trade partner of India. This trade partnership is likely to improve if JD Vance’s last visit to India is any indication. Vance emphasized on further strengthening the ties between the two countries. The new trade agreement being discussed aims to double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030 and will primarily involve the sale of energy and defense equipment to India.
Amidst all this, the World Bank recently announced that New Delhi will be its next regional hub for the South Asia Region. In the same move, it also reclassified Pakistan and Afghanistan as part of the Middle East and North Africa Region. This decision is absurd on multiple levels and will have short- and long-term ramifications.
First, the cultural differences in South Asia are more of a function of geographical proximity and ethnicity than of religion. For example, Muslims and Hindus of Indian and Pakistani Punjab are more alike than Hindus of North India and Hindus of South India. While Pakistan was founded on the basis of a two-nation theory that declared Hindus and Muslims as two separate nations who were too incompatible to live together, this idea has gained more traction in India with the rise of Hindutva.
Drivers of popular culture such as cinema, partisan media outlets, and social media have played their role in creating a perception that religion is the most essential difference among the people of South Asia. Even the western media has often portrayed Pakistan as more similar to the Arab countries than its South Asian counterparts. Such a narrative ignores hundreds of years of shared history and culture and wants to create a distorted view that creates this image of the “other” as being too incompatible to co-exist with. This World Bank decision only strengthens this trend and further exacerbates these perceptions not only across countries but also within them.
At a more macro level, this decision is likely to jeopardize any chance of economic and political integration and cooperation between countries across the globe while further deepening the fault lines between India and Pakistan. On one hand, it sends a strong signal that India is the most important partner for the powers that be. On the other hand, it discourages any future collaboration and coordination between India and Pakistan on initiatives that require transnational partnerships such as climate change, air pollution, and trade. This is especially concerning given that India’s relationship with its neighbors has become increasingly fraught over the past decade or so. From facilitating a blockade of essential supplies to the land-locked Nepal in 2015 to harboring Sheikh Haseena after the popular uprising in Bangladesh in 2024, India is seen by its neighbours in the region as hostile.
As India gets cozy with the world’s imperial hegemon, the United States, it also poses a threat to the overall regional stability and peace. While other countries in the region condemned the Pahalgam attack, they did not offer any public support to India’s attack on Pakistan creating an impression of India’s diplomatic isolation in the region. To counter the rising economic and military strength of India, a military response from Pakistan is seen as desirable by some anti-imperialist activists, as it can serve as a check on India’s power. However, it may not have any long-lasting impact because Pakistan itself is a beneficiary of imperial powers and has always acted to preserve the interest of its ruling class.
In 1954, Pakistan joined the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), signaling to the world that it stood with the US in its war against communism. Such close partnership continued through the cold war as well as the War on Terror. Pakistan has not shied away from supporting imperialism outside and inside its borders. Even with the Trump presidency canceling most of its foreign aid, it has decided to exempt Pakistan, offering a $397 million security assistance to its longtime ally.
In his 2007 book, The Darker Nations, Vijay Prashad captures this phenomenon well: “Those who act alongside the U.S. military, such as Bolivia’s Barrientos or Indonesia’s Suharto, are emblems of certain class fragments that have domestic reasons to use the U.S. government for their ends. They are not passive and guileless, simply misused by “Western imperialism.” The Barrientoses, Mobutus, and Suhartos of the world, and those classes that they defend, are part of the ensemble of imperialism, even if as subcontractors”.
Can we resist imperialism by supporting the establishment, which itself mirrors its imperial masters? Can we resist imperialism by supporting that military that constantly uses violence to kill dissent within its own borders? Can we resist imperialism by supporting the military that committed a genocide in Bangladesh and never acknowledged its role?
The Military Industrial Complex is the Only Winner
For decades, Pakistan has experienced a constant tug-of-war between civilian and military forces, where the winner was primarily the military. It not only shrank the space for civilian governments but also had a direct impact on the well-being of its own citizens.
Over 40 percent of children under five in Pakistan are stunted, a number significantly higher than the South Asian average of 31 percent. Pakistan also has an astounding number of out-of-school children, which is estimated to be 22.8 million, representing 44 percent of 5-16 years olds in Pakistan. Despite the dire situation, government expenditure on health and education was 2.9 percent in 2021 and 1.9 percent of GDP in 2023, respectively. In contrast, Pakistan’s spending on military, with a few exceptions, has always remained upward of 3 percent of GDP.
However, these official budget figures understate the magnitude of the military’s financial and economic power. According to Ayesha Siddiqa, the author of Military Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy, as of 2008, the military’s private wealth was as high as USD 20 billion, with military officials controlling one-third of all heavy manufacturing in the country. Over time, the military has further consolidated its control over the economy with a huge expansion of Defense Housing Authorities (DHA) as well as military-backed farming, and more recently its engagement in the Green Pakistan Initiative, which will give Pakistan military decision making power over 4.8 million acres of land.
In the aftermath of the recent war, the ruling party in Pakistan has already announced that it will further increase the military budget. This war has given legitimacy and credibility to the narrative that India poses an existential threat to Pakistan and the only way to counter this threat is through military means and not diplomatic channels. This is especially concerning as Pakistan is already allocating 40 to 50 percent of its government revenue to debt servicing, leaving very limited resources to serve the public. Pakistan will likely resort to more austerity measures when Pakistanis have already been heavily affected.
Globally, India and Pakistan account for a significant share of global arms imports, so there is an incentive for global superpowers to keep this conflict going. From 2020 to 2024, India was the second largest arms importer, accounting for 8.3 percent of global arms imports. Currently, the majority of India’s imports are from Russia, but it is gradually shifting to France, Israel, and the United States. In contrast, Pakistan’s arms and weapons imports increased by 61 percent between 2015-19 and 2020-24. Its imports account for 4.6 percent of the total global arms imports.
It’s not the first time Pakistan and India have gone to war and nor will it be the last time. The two countries had their first war in 1948, only a year after independence. Since then, there have been multiple wars as well as smaller-scale military confrontations. But this needs to end. Until then, the Military-Industrial Complex is the only winner and its victory will be at the expense of the people of India and Pakistan.
A military response from Pakistan without any diplomatic and strategic groundwork is only going to further embolden fascist tendencies in both countries. We should demand effective use of diplomatic channels and constantly hold those in power accountable. We must ask in unison how our representatives are mitigating this conflict and what groundwork they are laying to avoid similar military confrontations in the future.
Future of Dissent
Pakistan has experienced multiple military dictatorships and has also constantly ranked low on the Press Freedom Index. Despite that, multiple social movements have emerged that have challenged the status quo and used courageous and innovative ways to build political inroads. There is no doubt that dissent will continue, but the space for this dissent is shrinking. This challenge is not only coming from the establishment but also from fellow citizens who now overwhelmingly approve of the military.
Just when the Pakistani military was boasting of downing the Indian aircrafts, the Supreme Court of Pakistan gave a green signal to trying civilians in the military courts. A few days later, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif declared Mahrang Baloch—the leader of a peaceful women-led movement against the enforced disappearances in Baluchistan—a terrorist. There has also been an increase in reports of disappearances in Baluchistan and drone attacks in Waziristan. Simultaneously, several activists were arrested in Gilgit Baltistan for ”anti-state” activities. The space for dissent has shrunk so much that even pro-Palestine protestors have gotten detained.
The situation in India is not much different. Right after the Pahalgam attack, Indian forces arrested more than 2,000 Kashmiris and destroyed several homes on a mere suspicion of collusion with the “terrorists”. Multiple people have been arrested on sedition charges or for purportedly endangering national sovereignty.
In both countries, the space for dissent is shrinking at an alarming speed and undoing the gains that took decades of organizing. The sense of fear is tangible. It is important, now more than ever, to build alliances with other progressive groups and individuals in the region to resist these fascist forces. Our battles are the same, only the cast of characters is different.
Where do we go from here?
The spillover effects of global politics are always felt locally. The dictatorial character of the Pakistani state did not arise in a vacuum; it has been enabled by generous U.S. sponsorship from the Cold War to the Global War on Terror. The current U.S. tilt towards India is having a similar effect, worsening the already toxic tendencies of Modi-era politics.
The only answer to outside antidemocratic pressures is the mass mobilization of the public inside these countries and it cannot happen separately. Due to geographic proximity and shared history, India and Pakistan have a common fate. Mobilizing in one country without the other will not build a foundation for peace or justice.
We should remember that supporting one fascist government against another fascist government will not help us fight imperialism, and that a military response would further exacerbate the plight of people while empowering the state to further suppress dissent.
Since the ceasefire, social media has become a hotbed for altercations between Indians and Pakistanis when our goal should be achieving a peaceful co-existence. There is a long and arduous road ahead, for which we will have to be strategic.
We will have to learn to ignore mainstream commentators who repeat state narratives and offer only jingoism: They are mere distractions. We should waste no time and energy in responding to them. Instead, we have to focus on building a transnational movement, where following actions can get us started:
Scaling up political education programming through teach-ins, study circles, newsletters, art, and social media campaigns that can strengthen the support for social movements and progressive political values.
Building solidarity with communities that have been oppressed due to their caste, economic status, religion, or ethnicity. This includes Baloch and Kashmiris who are accused by Pakistani and Indian nationalists of being agents of their respective enemies.
Strengthening organizing work to increase membership of student unions and trade unions. Here, India also offers great examples with its successful organizing of street vendors, home-based workers, waste-pickers, farmers, and other self-employed workers (e.g., SEWA).
Building alliances among progressives in both India and Pakistan as well as other South Asian countries to cultivate resistance nationally and transnationally. We need a consolidated approach as we cannot fight fascism in India if we are not also fighting fascism in Pakistan.
Building cross-border coalitions on pressing issues such as climate change, which require countries to work together and can be a natural entry point for future collaboration and coordination. Climate shocks have become more intense and more frequent in South Asia. The time for action is now.
Joining the global disarmament movement with the aim of shifting the focus away from building false “security” to improving the well-being of people of South Asia.
Carving out a path for economic cooperation that respects the sovereignty of nation states to avoid any undue advantage to those who are already economically powerful. We need to develop an economic vision that works for all of us and is less dependent on the US.
These steps will not directly solve the deeper problems of the region, such as the oppression of Kashmir and both states’ support for irregular subversive violence. However, these steps can help in mobilizing at a grassroots level and ultimately create a political environment that is more conducive to coexistence and cooperation.
It may seem like a daunting task, but we have to keep building people power and resisting. That’s the only way to keep expanding the space for progressive politics.
Edited by Thenthamizh SS
Zaineb Majoka grew up in Pakistan and now lives in Washington DC. She has a particular interest in labor markets and how political economy interacts with and influences labor market outcomes, especially in the Global South. She is also a cofounder of Bol Coop, a worker-owned cooperative bookstore in DC.
Disclaimer
Any facts, views or opinions are not intended to malign and/or disrespect any religion, group, club, organisation, company, or individual.
This article published on this website is solely representative of the author. Neither the editorial staff nor the organisation (Political Pandora) are responsible for the content.
All illustrations in this piece, if any, are original works created exclusively by the Design Department of Political Pandora.
These illustrations are protected and are not available for replication, reproduction, or redistribution in any form without explicit written consent from Political Pandora. Unauthorized use, including but not limited to copying, modifying, or redistributing, is strictly prohibited.
Photographs in this particular article are taken from external sources and are not a property of Political Pandora. The use of these images are not meant for commercial purposes.
While we strive to present only reliable and accurate information, should you believe that any information present is incorrect or needs to be edited, please feel free to contact us.
Keywords: India Pakistan Conflict, Nuclear War Threat, South Asia Politics, Fake News India, Hindutva Nationalism, US India Relations, World Bank Decision, Pakistan Military Power, Indian Media Bias, Kashmir Human Rights, Global Imperialism South Asia, Arms Trade India Pakistan, Climate Change South Asia, Student Union Organising, Peace Movement South Asia
