FOR several days, I remained uncertain about what to call this article. I knew what I wanted to write about: the deepening security and law-and-order challenges confronting Pakistan, unfolding against political uncertainty and a persistent wave of terrorist attacks across the country and the potentially far-reaching consequences for our nation’s future. Yet I was equally certain about what I did not want to write. I did not want to revisit the familiar exercise of assigning blame for every difficulty Pakistan has faced over the decades. We have heard those arguments many times, from many sides. Repeating them may satisfy our desire to explain the past, but it does little to prepare us for what lies ahead.
After nearly four decades in the Pakistan Army, much of that time in intelligence and now involved in the private security sector, I have had the opportunity to observe national security from different perspectives. My intention here is not to offer political judgment, but to share a few observations from another time that may help illuminate the present. I write neither to defend nor to oppose anyone. I have no political side to take and no score to settle. I write simply as a Pakistani and as someone who spent decades wearing the uniform of his country.
Perhaps, some of those experiences and the lessons they carry, may help us look at today’s Pakistan with greater clarity and, more importantly, think more seriously about the Pakistan we are leaving for tomorrow. One of the difficult realities of an intelligence professional is that the wider consequences of events are often understood only years later. Many challenges we face today have roots in earlier developments, decisions and unresolved issues. My purpose is not to reopen old controversies or assign responsibility to individuals or institutions, but to highlight lessons that may help us understand the changing nature of national security.
Some experiences and observations referred to here involved situations in which I was, in one capacity or another, a participant, planner or observer. I have deliberately avoided anything sensitive or classified. These are intended only to illustrate broader strategic lessons. Following the end of the Cold War, Pakistan’s strategic importance did not disappear. In many ways, it became more complex. The international environment changed, regional dynamics evolved and Pakistan continued to occupy an important position because of its geography, nuclear capability and relationship with the wider region.
During these years, Pakistan also faced pressures, both external and internal, that interacted with existing weaknesses and differences. Looking back, it is striking how certain pressures developed gradually and how some early warning signs were not always fully understood or addressed. Our internal vulnerabilities have often been connected with political and social divisions. From a national security perspective, the relationship between external pressure and internal weakness deserves careful attention. A country becomes more vulnerable when disagreements within society begin to weaken confidence in national institutions and eventually in one another.
My own experiences at different times and in different regions reinforced this belief. As a young officer, I witnessed the difficult period surrounding the 1971 crisis. I could feel the pain and see, with my own eyes, the anger and frustration that followed the loss, while feeling largely helpless. Later, as an intelligence officer, I observed challenges emerging during different periods and, in some instances, was directly involved in efforts to understand and address them. Baluchistan is one example. I found the Baloch people highly patriotic and many among the Baloch leadership whom I encountered were deeply committed Pakistanis. At different times, I was involved in discussions and negotiations and remained hopeful that differences could be resolved through dialogue.
Unfortunately, political circumstances and mistrust often made such efforts more difficult than they needed to be. The lesson, in my view, is not about deciding who was right or wrong. It is that grievances, when left unresolved, can gradually become security challenges. Similar observations apply to Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, the former FATA areas and Azad Jammu and Kashmir, regions that have made immense contributions to Pakistan’s history and security. Communities that have stood by Pakistan through its most difficult moments must never be allowed to feel alienated.
Political language matters. Given the sensitivity of these issues, the highest degree of caution and responsibility is required at all ends. Growing frustration across different segments of society is deeply concerning, particularly against the backdrop of the evolving national security architecture. This brings me to the larger question: what does national security mean today? For much of modern history, national security centred on geography, military strength, border defence, alliances and deterrence.
That environment has changed. Today, strategic competition extends far beyond the conventional battlefield. The human mind has become an important strategic space. Information can be manipulated and narratives shaped in ways that influence public opinion and, ultimately, national decision-making. The intelligence experience teaches an important lesson: information and understanding are not the same thing. The real challenge is understanding what that signal means, connecting it with other developments and acting before the strategic environment changes.
For Pakistan, this transformation has particular significance. The strategic contest begins long before the battlefield and may continue long after it. The deeper transformation is from the battlefield to the battle of the mind. Differences within a nation are natural. Allowing those differences to permanently divide society is a strategic vulnerability. Perhaps this is the real lesson from the past: history does not always repeat itself, but it often gives us warnings. National cohesion, institutional confidence, strategic resilience and the ability to think beyond immediate political differences are no longer simply desirable objectives. They are essential to preserving our independence, sovereignty and dignity in an increasingly complex world.
—The writer is Security Professional, entrepreneur and author, based in Dubai, UAE.
