When it comes to India’s strategy to tackle Pakistan, Indian left-liberal discourse automatically descends into the usual ‘Aman ki Asha’ mode, glossing over the Islamist Jihadist mindset of the Pakistani political and military establishment, backed by a significant section of the Pakistani populace. So far, the strategy has been to downplay the strong affiliation of Pakistani people with the wretched ‘two-nation theory’ that essentially formed the basis for India’s partition and Pakistan’s creation on Islamist lines. However, there has been a software update.

Now, the Indian liberals have started admitting that the two-nation theory is indeed one of the main causes behind the persistent Indo-Pak hostilities since 1947. But now, cultural exchanges, Bollywood, Pakistani dramas, shared subcontinental identity and millennial liberalism are being presented as progressive elements that can bring the Indian and Pakistani people together.

Leftist propaganda outlet Newslaundry has suggested a revamp of India’s Pakistan strategy. In the article titled “India’s Pak strategy needs a 2025 update” by Alpana Kishore, the Modi government’s approach to Pakistan has been described as the one characterised by a “zero-sum” mindset. Newslaundry suggests that India’s focus on military and economic containment is outdated and does not account for evolving social and cultural dynamics in Pakistan.

At the very onset, the article insinuates that India’s stance of treating Pakistan-sponsored terror attacks in India as an act of war, and scrapping the Indus Waters Treaty after the jihadist attack in Pahalgam, opposition to the collaboration of Pakistani artists with the Indian entertainment industry is inappropriate.

“A state as enemy – means its people are enemies. This supposedly new non-negotiable has failed to notice an important reality. It’s a different world from 1980. Today’s wars require responses that work in 2025,” the Newslaundry article reads.

It further asserts that things have undergone a significant change over the years, and that there was a time when “It was simply too incorrect for an Indian historian to say upfront, the Two Nation Theory was a terrible, racist idea because it would be seen as delegitimising a valid Pakistani identity and subsuming it as Indian. Yet these things are currently being said by Pakistanis!”

Firstly, two-nation theory though not devoid of the delusional superiority complex of belonging to martial Arab race, however, this divisive theory has been more about religion than race. The Two-nation theory promulgated by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan essentially stated that Muslims cannot co-exist peacefully with Hindus and thus should have a separate nation.

Syed Ahmad Khan said in 1876, “I am convinced now that Hindus and Muslims could never become one nation as their religion and way of life was quite distinct from each other.” Seven years later, he voiced similar sentiments. He said, “Friends, in India, there live two prominent nations which are distinguished by the names of Hindus and Mussalmans…To be a Hindu or a Muslim is a matter of internal faith which has nothing to do with mutual relationships and external conditions…Hence, leave God’s share to God and concern yourself with the share that is yours…India is the home of both of us…By living so long in India, the blood of both have [sic] changed.”

Twelve years later, he stated, “Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?… Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land.”

The article proceeds to calling the Pakistani millennials and their Gen Z successors as some sort of ‘gamechangers’. Alpana Kishore asserts that Pakistani Gen Z has been using social media to “question the choices and ideological beliefs of their ancestors, acquire information that contradicts official narratives and communicate globally, they have been able to condemn jihadists, engage with the other and push modern agendas.”

While it is true that a significant section of Pakistani youth, especially the supporters of PTI leader and now-jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan have been questioning the corrupt practices of the Pakistan Army and its functioning as the country’s de facto ruler, even the most liberal of the liberal Pakistanis hold the two-nation theory dear. Holding the two-nation theory dear, essentially means that they cling to the belief that Muslims cannot co-exist peacefully with Hindus, who as per their Islamic belief are infidels/Kafirs.

It is further argued that studying and working together abroad has brought Pakistanis and Indians together, leading to their friendships and bonds. However, the supposed Indo-Pak diaspora bonds abroad hardly change any ground realities in Pakistan. In fact, many Pakistanis abroad falsely claim to be Indian to avoid negative perception and escape embarrassment they feel is attached to their nationality; however, this does not mean they actually identify as Indians or hold pro-India opinions.

The Newslaundry ‘Aman ki Asha’ piece focuses too much optimistically on ‘millennial liberalism’ and a shared subcontinental identity in Pakistan. It underestimates the authoritative influence of Pakistan’s military and intelligence apparatus, which continues to be the primary driver of its anti-India policies.

The article suggests that Pakistani youth’s worldview is “critically” shaped by their engagement with the Indian cultural multiverse, be it through Bollywood films, OTT, social media or diaspora countries. “It has kindled an inter-generational interest in an older, shared past and identities they see in rituals, festivals, language, fashion and music,” the article reads.

Newslaundry went on to suggest that despite the emergence of ‘jingoistic’ films within India, here, jingoistic essentially means that movies centred on Indo-Pak themes that do not whitewash Pakistan-backed cross-border terrorism, Pakistani millennials find their deepest India connection via Bollywood music and films.

However, even former Pakistani Army General Pervez Musharraf had deep admiration for Bollywood films and music, did that stop him from orchestrating the great betrayal of the Lahore Agreement signed between then Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif and his Indian counterpart Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in the form of the 1999 Kargil war? Years later, Musharraf, the same Bollywood-loving Pakistani army general, boasted the Kargil betrayal as a ‘successful’ operation and even condemned Nawaz Sharif for having ordered the withdrawal of Pakistani troops from Kargil.

While the younger Pakistani generation may engage with Indian culture through films, OTT platforms, or social media, this cultural affinity does not essentially translate into political or strategic influence. Contrary to the liberal journalist’s assertion that Pakistanis have been able to condemn jihadis, in contexts outside Pakistan, be it the Pakistani terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba masterminded 21/11 Mumbai attacks, 2001 Parliament attack masterminded by Pakistani terrorist Masood Azhar, 2016 Uri attack, or the 2025 Pahalgam attack among others, Pakistanis never even acknowledged the involvement of Pakistani terrorists and their jihadist motivations.

Even after the Pahalgam attack, wherein terrorists including an ex Pakistani Army officer, belonging to The Resistance Front, an offshoot of LeT, shot innocent tourists after confirming their non-Muslim identity. The victims were asked to recite Kalma and failure of doing so invited a bullet. Many Pakistani celebrities and even common people condemned the attack. However, a common pattern seen across their condemnation of the attack was visible in their dexterity to diassociate Islam from the Jihadist mindset and motivation of the terrorists. “Terrorism has no religion”, “Islam does not teach hatred” and similar such messages poured in.

More than condeming the jihadist attack, the focus of the same Pakistani millenials and gen-Z was on making sure that the attack carried out by Muslim terrorists against Hindu civilians driven by their hatred for Hindus, is not seen as an act of Islamic terrorism. One thing must never be forgotten if we are to truly address the menace of Jihadi terrorism, while the two-nation theory was the driver of India’s partition of Islamic lines, the two-nation theory finds its roots in the Islamist hatred for non-Muslim communities, especially the idol-worshipping Hindus.

The Pakistani military and the ISI, continues to nurture, fund and shield anti-India terror groups like LeT, Jaish, among others. While the Newslaundry article does acknowledge the peristance of Pakistan’s Jihadi infrastructure, it downplays its centrality by suggesting that India should focus on engaging with liberal elements. However, the question arises is how? Are the relatively secular or non-jihadist millennials governing Pakistan? Pakistan continues to be dominated by its military, in fact, the Pakistani Army’s anti-India and anti-Hindu rhetoric suggests that there is hardly any difference between jihadis and the Pakistan ‘Aand’ Forces. Even Pakistan’s current DGISPR, Sharif Ahmed Chaudhary, is the son of a UN-designated terrorrist.

Forget showing any willingness to dismantle jihadist terror networks, Pakistan continues to deny any sort of involvement in the terror attacks in India despite evidence of linkages. Pakistan’s military leadership continues to issue nuclear threats to India.

Not to forget, just days before the Pahalgam attack, Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir had spewed venom against India and Hindus. He even urged the Pakistani people not to forget to instil the venom of the two-nation theory into the younger generations and how they must continue to harbour hatred for Hindus. Such blatant expression of hatred for Hindus, who despite continued persecution exist in Pakistan as a minority, went without any outrage from the progressive liberal Pakistani millennials and Gen-Z.

Thus, the only rational response to Pakistan’s intransigence is India’s “zero-sum” approach.

No matter how much Pakistanis criticise its political and military leadership, they have so far not shown any interest in abandoning the two-nation theory. In fact, to this day, the Pakistan Army’s grip on power ensures that the anti-India and anti-Hindu rhetoric remains a unifying force for domestic legitimacy.

Alpana Kishore’s suggestion that a shared subcontinental identity could bridge divides ignores the fact that Pakistan’s establishment has consistently weaponised identity politics to keep the flames of hostility ablaze, particularly over Kashmir, which it calls its ‘jugular vein’. India has been very generous with Pakistan in attempting cultural and diplomatic engagement with Pakistan, even after the Kargil betrayal and continued cross-border terrorism. If history tells anything, it is that cultural overtures alone cannot alter Pakistan’s strategic calculus without addressing the role of its military and the puppet government it has installed.

Has Pakistan renounced its sinister desire of bleeding India with a thousand cuts through jihadist terrorism? Has Pakistan extradited terrorists like Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahuddin, Masood Azhar, and many others involved in terror activities against India? Has Pakistan acknowledged that indeed a Pakistani terror group was behind the Pahalgam attack? Has Pakistan stopped patronising Jihadis? Has Pakistan given up its unjustified claim over Jammu and Kashmir? Has Pakistan handed over PoJK back to India? Have cross-border infiltration bids stopped from the Pakistani side?

People to people ties are always welcome, hostilities should end, unravelling Partition in a quest for answers is also good, in fact, it is paramount. While the Hindu majority regrets the partition of India on Islamic lines, this regret is not shared by a large section of Pakistani populace. It needs to be questioned and examined by Pakistani youth, why is it that Indians largely believe that the partition should never have happened, but Pakistanis celebrate it.

Films, music, social media, and all sorts of people-to-people interactions indeed contribute to bridging differences and curbing hostilities. However, in a country like Pakistan, which has Hindu-hating jihadists leading its institutions, be it the puppet government or its puppeteer Pakistani ‘Aand’ Forces, who every now and then threaten to ‘attack Ayodhya Ram Mandir’, ‘wipe out Hindus’, ‘stop the breath of Indians’ and ‘wage Jihad against India’ and whatnot, no art, no cultural exchange, nothing can resolve disputes.

“The point is actually this. Pakistan’s jehadi infrastructure and its Army remain intact and dangerous. Many of its young remain vulnerable to radical Islamist thinking. Jyoti Malhotras are a reality. There can be no lowering of guards where it matters. Yet, the digital world isn’t going anywhere,” the Newslaundry article argues.

However, the actual point is that governments are not run solely in the digital world, as long as the Hindu-hating and anti-India thinking finds takers in Pakistan, the jihadist forces continue to dominate the country. No matter how warm and loving the Indo-Pak digital world appears, the ground realities won’t change. Pahalgam did not happen in the digital world. This digital world and opinions expressed on it are fickle.

The Newslaundry piece itself points out that many Pakistani YouTubers who enjoyed significant Indian viewership have “fallen back into the weary old rhetoric”, although it blames this change in tone on Indian television media’s dramatic and hysterical reportage during Operation Sindoor.

Amusingly, Newslaundry mentions Diljit Dosanjh and Hania Aamir to argue that both are admired by many Indian and Pakistani millennials, and that Dosanjh’s music is a unifier. To be very honest, music is indeed a unifier. However, his music and movies, even those featuring Hania Aamir cannot bring any policy change in Pakistan. If social media has positively contributed towards bridging differences, its negative side cannot be overlooked.

Newslaundry argues that India’s portrayal of Pakistan as an “axis of evil” is flawed since not all Pakistanis are anti-Indian jihadis. While it is true that not all Pakistanis are jihadis or support their state’s policies, the Modi government’s strong stand against Pakistan, be it scrapping IWT, banning Pakistani channels, discontinuing trade or talks until Pakistan stops cross-border terrorism, is not driven by any ideological whim but the ground realities.

Pakistan is represented by a regime backed by the Islamist military. How can India engage with an unrepresented liberal faction? India cannot prioritise social engineering experiments over national security. The Newslaundry article offers no mechanism for the implementation of its suggestion to engage with Pakistan’s supposedly liberal and progressive younger generation. From media to social media, the Pakistani army controls the narrative, it muzzles the voices of its own people, carries out drone attacks on Pashtuns, Balochs and anyone opposed to them and blames India for the same. In such a case, India cannot mindlessly open channels for cultural exchange while the hostile neighbour’s rulers yearn to bleed India with a thousand cuts.

Towards the end of the ‘Aman ki Asha’ dream repackaged in relatively balanced rhetoric, author Alpana Kishore laments that the Modi ‘regime’ indulges in labelling Pakistanis as ‘Madrassachhaps’, however, the author made no mention of how numerous Pakistani millennials throw Hinduphobic and racist slurs like ‘Pajeet’ at Indians.

“Yet this regime’s single-tone signalling allows no space for this influence to work. By its offensive labeling of madrassachhaps and obsessive gloating about Indian economic might – it pushes fresh thinking across the border back into the old grand narrative of the Two Nation theory that says ‘I told you so’,” the Newslaundry piece reads.

There is nothing “fresh” about this ‘I told you so’ thinking. In fact, Indian Muslims, especially celebrities often receive the “Jinnah was right that Muslims who chose to remain in India will have to prove their loyalty for the rest of their lives”, from Pakistan’s ‘progressive-liberal’ millennials. Also, the ‘madrassachhap’ jibe, although not good when thrown out of context, is not intended to mock the religious identity of Pakistani Muslims, rather the mention of Madrassa comes simply because madrassas in the neighbouring country have been the first stage of the brainwashing of Pakistani youths, who then proceed to either become ‘Mujahids’ or radical Islamists at heart.

For India to engage with Pakistani ‘liberal progressive’ millennials, it is the Pakistani people who need to abandon the Islamist anti-Hindu and anti-India mindset and start opposing their military leadership’s anti-India activities. Instagram, movies and music are secondary drivers of paradigmatic change. It is only when Pakistan breaks itself free from the shackles of the country’s Islamist military regime that India can even consider softening its stance. Our national security demands a strategy rooted in realism, not ‘Aman ki Asha’ style idealism. It is essential for India to ensure that Pakistan’s anti-India actions face consequences rather than mindlessly hoping for change through cultural overtures alone.