General Munir’s real war is not with India — It’s for Pakistan itself

Pakistani establishment runs on loops. It’s been on a loop of military vs civilian rule. It’s been on a loop of supporting, sponsoring, training and at times fighting homegrown terrorists. It’s been on a loop of fighting against Afghanistan rulers, first against erstwhile USSR-supported regime and now against its own creation-Taliban. To continue its terror loop, it first created Taliban, fought for it, fought along with it and is now battling against it.But in Pakistani loop, history rarely repeats itself cleanly. However, it rhymes loudly enough for those who care to listen. Today, as Pakistan's army chief General Asim Munir tightens his grip on the country’s crumbling political edifice, it’s time to ask a critical question: Is Pakistan once again under the shadow of another General Zia-ul-Haq?If the answer is yes, the implications reach far beyond Islamabad’s intrigue-laden corridors - they reverberate across India’s borders, through US-China’s strategic calculations, and into the heart of an unstable global order.The Imam's son from RawalpindiFirst, a brief about the “aspiring or would-be Zia-ul-Haq”: Asim Munir's biography is heavy with symbolism. Born in Rawalpindi – the city that has been the nerve center of Pakistan’s military might – to a deeply religious Punjabi family, Munir was immersed early in the conservative traditions that have shaped much of Pakistan’s social and political life. His father was an imam and a school principal; Munir himself memorized the Quran, an act of personal piety that today feels politically significant.The outlines of his life story – religious discipline and Punjabi roots – mirror the paths of many others in the “establishment” – a euphemism for Pakistan’s military. But what is alarming is that Munir embodies the personification of Zia’s ideological project: A vision of Pakistan as a militarized Islamic state, driven by a distinct identity that defines itself against India and its secular, cacophonous democracy.What is disturbing is that Munir is no longer a quiet figure behind closed doors. His recent speeches, steeped in the rhetoric of the two-nation theory, have hurtled India and Pakistan on the brink of another war. “Our religions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different,” the Pakistan army chief declared, arguing that Hindus and Muslims are “two nations, not one”. medium120815699The Pahalgam attack and the return of the 'thousand cuts'It’s not just what Munir said that matters – it’s also when and for whom he said it. Just days after Munir’s assertions about Hindus and Muslims being different, terrorists attacked tourists at a meadow in Baisaran, Pahalgam, killing 26 people on April 22. The link between Munir’s speech and Pahalgam attack is self-explanatory.The Pahalgam attack is not an isolated event. It may be beginning of an old pattern that many Indian security officials fear: The resurrection of the "thousand cuts" doctrine, Pakistan's low-intensity proxy war against India through terrorism, revived now under Munir’s watch.Even if the strategy looks old, the stakes are far higher this time. medium nocaption120812712Pakistan’s unravelling: What if Pak army chief General Munir is right?Pakistan Army chief’s speech that possibly triggered Pahalgam strikeMore TOI+ stories here medium nocaption120812732An Islamic Emirate of Pakistan?In his book “Deadly Embrace”, Bruce Riedel sketches out a dark thought experiment: What if Pakistan were to become an Islamist state? The outlines are chilling — a coup by a Zia-like figure, a purge of moderates, an embrace of militant groups and a grip over the country’s nuclear arsenal.“Suppose, for purposes of analysis, that a new Zia comes to power,” writes Riedel and goes on to analyze how it may pan out:Internal takeover: Riedel predicts that Pakistan’s greatest danger would come from an Islamist general quietly reshaping the military and political landscape, not through a classic coup but through gradual ideological capture.Militant alliances: A new Islamist regime would forge deeper ties with extremist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani Taliban, and possibly al-Qaida, offering them safe haven and operational freedom.Purge of moderates: The armed forces and intelligence agencies would be purged of secular or moderate officers, creating a military loyal primarily to a radical Islamic vision rather than to a constitutional government.Internal resistance and civil conflict: Not all Pakistanis would accept such a transformation. Shia Muslims, secular urbanites, and ethnic minorities like Sindhis and Muhajirs could resist fiercely, leading to widespread internal violence.Nuclear nightmares: A radicalized Pakistan would still possess nuclear weapons, making it far harder for external powers to intervene without catastrophic risk. Riedel warned that securing or neutralizing Pakistan’s arsenal would be almost impossible. 120815507“It’s a family affair”Under Munir, some of Riedel’s imagined contours no longer seem hypothetical. “It is a family affair,” one Pakistani general told Riedel. The army’s recruitment pool remains closely linked to the same Punjabi towns that produce militants. Supporters of radical groups linger within both military and civil services. And Munir’s own deep religiosity, combined with his recent anti-India rhetoric, signals a willingness to blend mosque and military in ways that threaten both Pakistan’s democracy and regional stability.Already, Munir has spoken of Pakistan's religious destiny in language that would have pleased Zia immensely. In reiterating two-nation theory, Munir was essentially echoing Zia who had famously said “take Islam out of Pakistan and make it a secular state; it would collapse.”Yet Munir's ambitions may not be limited to foreign policy. MJ Akbar has sharply observed in an article in Open magazine, Munir’s true target may not be India at all - but Pakistan’s own civilian leadership. An army coup may be on its way, hints Akbar. The general may be done with the “hybrid” rule, he may go far a direct command.If that happens, what’s next?But even a coup – formal or creeping – won’t stabilize Pakistan. It may ignite unrest. The street-level support for jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan still pulses beneath the surface. Arrests and repression may silence his party’s voices, but not its appeal. The army, ever fearful of India, may find itself in conflict with its own people instead.Akbar reminds Munir that Pakistan is no longer the two-nation fantasy carved from the Partition of 1947. It became a three-nation reality in 1971, when Bengali Muslims fought a bloody war to break free from West Pakistani dominance. They didn’t leave Islam. They left Pakistan. And in doing so, exposed the fissures that have only widened in the decades since.Today, those fissures threaten to become fractures. Baloch nationalists have waged a simmering insurgency for years. Pashtun and Sindhi resentment festers. Even in Punjab — the army’s traditional heartland — there is growing fatigue with military overreach. Munir’s consolidation of power may not reunify a broken polity.The question now is whether Munir’s doctrine leads to yet another cycle of authoritarianism or whether this time, the loop finally snaps.Illustration: Sandeep Adhwaryu