Pahalgam and Pakistan’s two-nation delusion

When terrorists attacked unarmed pilgrims near Pahalgam in Kashmir this month, they did more than spill innocent blood. They tried to resurrect a dangerous ghost from India’s past: the two-nation theory.

In making Hindu pilgrims recite the Kalima — a Muslim declaration of faith — to identify and then execute non-Muslims, the attackers were not just engaging in violence, they were staging an ideological provocation of the most chilling kind.

This was no random act of terrorism. It was a message to India and to the world: that religious coexistence is a myth, and that the partition logic of 1947 must be revived in spirit, if not in form.

That this happened at a time when the Kashmir Valley has seen historic voter turnout, improved infrastructure and a general sense of hope speaks volumes about what is at stake, and who wants to sabotage it.

What makes this ideological assault even more insidious is the backdrop in Pakistan. The context from across the border cannot be ignored.

Just days before this attack, Pakistan’s Army Chief General Asim Munir likened Pakistan to Riyasat-e-Madina — the original Islamic state founded by Prophet Muhammad.

“Pakistan was created in the name of Islam and we will turn it into a true Islamic welfare state,” Munir declared.

It was a statement divorced from reality, even delusional, but full of intent. It was an astonishing and a deeply ahistoric comparison. If Pakistan is indeed a ‘modern Medina,’ then who are its Quraish? India? Iran? The Shia within? Ahmediyas? The question exposes the hollowness of the analogy.

Munir’s invocation of Medina is not mere rhetoric. It signals the complete theological hijack of Pakistan’s national identity by its military elite, who, in the face of economic collapse and political fragmentation, have embraced religious nationalism as a last ideological refuge.

“States often turn to sacred myths in times of decline,” writes historian Faisal Devji. “The myth of Medina has become Pakistan’s final frontier of self-legitimation.”

What the General actually revealed, perhaps inadvertently, is a deeper truth: that Pakistan’s establishment has shed even the pretence of being a modern republic.

Instead, it is embracing a religious-nationalist fantasy to paper over its collapsing economy, dysfunctional politics and fractured identity.

When a state invokes theology in place of policy, dogma replaces diplomacy and terror becomes not just tolerated but sanctified. The Pahalgam attack, in this context, is not an isolated event.

It is a manifestation of this ideological posture; a continuation of Pakistan’s quest to keep Kashmir emotionally, if not territorially, hostage to its failed foundational idea.

The act of demanding that pilgrims recite the Kalima as a test of belonging is an act of brutal differentiation and deadly symbolism. It echoes partition-era massacres, where trains carried corpses instead of passengers and names, accents, or the presence of a sacred thread became life-or-death indicators.

This is terrorism not aimed at military targets or political installations, it is aimed at the idea of India itself. That a Muslim-majority region can co-exist peacefully in a secular, democratic India threatens the very logic upon which Pakistan was created.

If Kashmir thrives within India, Pakistan’s ideological project fails. And so, these attacks are orchestrated not for tactical military gains, but to reopen the emotional wound of 1947. And yet, India must refuse to be baited into mirroring this religious extremism.

That is what the terrorists want: a symmetrical response that proves their thesis that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together, and that India is no different from them.

The temptation in moments like this is to resort to outrage. But outrage is not a response, it is a reaction. What India needs is a cold-eyed, multi-layered doctrine that punishes, deters and outmanoeuvres this evolving threat.

First, India must diplomatically dismantle Pakistan’s new moral positioning. General Munir’s Medina rhetoric must be taken seriously, not because it is true, but because it is dangerous. At international fora, India must expose how Pakistan’s military elite are aligning with Islamist narratives to justify their own failures and endangering regional peace in the process.

Second, covert intelligence operations must shift from episodic strikes to a sustained campaign. India needs to go beyond neutralising foot soldiers and instead target the logistical, financial and ideological lifelines of such terror networks both within Pakistan and their transnational tentacles.

Third, the narrative within Kashmir must be protected with care. The majority of Kashmiris have no sympathy for such acts. The high turnout in recent elections and widespread condemnation of the attack are proof. But India must continue to build bridges, not bunkers. Investment in education, entrepreneurship and integration must continue with even greater urgency.

Fourth, the use of technology must be ramped up to fight not just bombs but bytes. Radicalisation today is algorithmic. AI and data analytics must be used to preempt and counter digital indoctrination efforts that precede every terror recruitment.

Finally, there must be a credible deterrence posture. Pakistan must be made to understand, not through sabre-rattling or jingoist rhetoric, but through silent, strategic and sustained operations that make clear that every provocation has a calibrated cost. Whether through economic isolation, cyber disruption, or targeted sanctions, the price of harbouring ideological terror must be raised consistently.

India’s strength is not just in its military capability or economic rise, it is anchored in its ability to hold together what others thought impossible. To be a nation where faith is private, democracy is public, and identity is plural. This is precisely what the attackers at Pahalgam wanted to destroy. That is why the answer must not merely be a military one, it must be civilisational.

We must remember that the two-nation theory was defeated not just in 1947, but every day since - in every interfaith family, every common marketplace, every election in Kashmir. That is the idea that must endure. That is the message that must echo louder than bullets or sermons, from Pahalgam to Islamabad.

(The author is Director, School of Social Sciences and School of Law,
Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.