Misreading Pakistan’s Nuclear Doctrine

What is surprising is that such a publication as The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) would be open to sensationalism with ideological overtones and historical inaccuracies ideally such as in the case of Pakistan and its nuclear programme. Because of WSJ being among the most prominent news sources globally, such stories do not only distort the understanding of the population but also create a precondition of the loss of the diplomatic language of truth-based geopolitical representation. By continuing to perpetuate, this kind of lopsided characterization of a country strategic moves, such a world-wide influential platform increases the chances of giving a license to such selective historical memory and builds on the existing bias. Misreading Pakistan’s Nuclear Doctrine This is the trend in the recent description of the Pakistan nuclear programme as rogue programme when reality on the ground is reduced to mere politically convenient soundbites.
Defining Pakistan nuclear development as reckless or illegitimate is to deliberately black out what was rather obvious at the receiving end during the 1970s in terms of stability of states in the region and in the form of the international security arrangements. It was not a hypothetical need to achieve militaristic superiority that led to the nuclear ambition of Pakistan, but rather the direct reaction to the nuclear explosion which took place in India in 1974 and became ironically known as the Smiling Buddha. This experiment essentially changed South Asian geopolitics. The action of India changed the balance of power in the region and required Pakistan to review its national security strategy with a brand-new threat to its own existence. To exclude such a background is to engage in revisionist history in which perceived faults of the reactor are explored to the detriment of the fire setter.
Pakistan had not gone into the nuclear route in isolation. This came as a logical reaction to an opponent that never really accepted the founding of Pakistan in the year 1947. Ever since the advent of Pakistan, it has suffered hostilities of different levels at the hands of India, including diplomatic undermining and the military assault on complete-scale status. The memory of the 1971 war that led to the secession of East Pakistan and the birth of Bangladesh with a overt Indian support is still fresh in the strategic psyche of Pakistan. It is on this background that the acquisition of nuclear capability by Pakistan was not a pugnacious process, but a well-thought through episode of gaining and maintaining strategic stability to help it guard against any future existential threats.
Sad to say, even that is not the end of the misrepresentation of history that is included in the WSJ account; it also keeps the unfounded and worn-out stereotypes of Pakistan as harbouring terrorism in full swing. Such ellipsis is clearly machinations aimed at appealing the long-tried trope of the Indian story that by this point, has become more than outworn its welcome in informed circles within the global community. The geopolitics arrangements and perceptions on counterterrorism have changed as well as the world. The efforts of putting the whole picture of Pakistan in this light overlook the extreme sacrifices the country has endured in its war against terrorism not only in human lives but also in economic costs.
Further calling upon expressions such as death by a thousand cuts to make allegations of the same true to Pakistan when it has been known to a significant extent that India too has a history of using proxies to wreak havoc on Pakistan quite openly most times. Many reliable sources such as the testimonies given by Indian officials themselves have linked India in inciting insurgencies in Pakistan especially in Balochistan. This two-way relationship in proxy war use is a lamentable part of modern low-intensity conflict but the West is habitually uninterested, or at least not so keen, to examine the functions of India as it does those of Pakistan.
As a matter of fact, Pakistan has been the real victim of the Indian sponsored terrorism throughout the history. The Indian interference is not only substantial but also alarming; this is because of assassinations to funding insurgency. Pakistani intelligence and law enforcing agencies have uncovered some operations involving Indian agents whose missions were to destabilized Pakistan internally. Human and strategic takes of this engineered subversion have been enormous. But the realities hardly ever reach the international op-eds and opinion pieces, particularly the Western publications which should be aware.
Quite contrary, Pakistan is anything but destabilizing force as its nuclear capability has only helped maintaining the fragile equilibrium in the South Asia region. It has become a viable deterrence to both conventional and non-conventional threats and has ensured that the hostilities, witnessed in the form of full-fledged conflicts and in 1965 and 1971 never reoccur. This view that the Pakistan nuclear weapon is an out-of-control or irresponsible threat is plain deceiving not to mention hypocritical relative to the way other nuclear states were handled in the region.
In fact, the strategic stability in south Asia is based on the nuclear ability of Pakistan. It has established a security setting in which diplomacy, as opposed to war is the mode of interaction albeit the weakest interaction possible. This is a delicate balance which helps to keep the region out of chaos. It goes without saying that the Pakistani nuclear force limits the Indian aspirations of hegemony in the region to the dismay of New Delhi. Despite all its soft power, economic growth, India remains hemmed with acceptance of the facts which cannot be wished away, in this case, Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state that has the capability to meet it and the will and determination to fight for its sovereignty.
The storyline adopted by WSJ, even intentionally or otherwise, does not justice to the strategic reasoning, the historical background and regional realities, which support Pakistan nuclear doctrine. Not only is it a disservice to Pakistan, but to the worldwide reader who is not satisfied with standards of old tropes and the ideology-coloured translation. As the complexity of security dynamics in the world continues to grow, there also needs to be an evolution of how responsible journalism is undertaken by not going through the old narratives to embrace a more balanced, history-informed analysis.