Removing the Fog, Layer by Layer
by: Air Cdre Pervez Akhtar Khan (Retd),
PAF
War, the great strategists remind us, is never self-justifying. From Sun Tzu to Carl von Clausewitz, its character may change, but its purpose does not. War exists to defend political authority when that authority is violently challenged.
If the political purpose is unclear, war becomes confused. Tactical success cannot compensate for strategic ambiguity.
Pakistan today confronts not only insurgents, but confusion.
Operation “Ghazab lil Haq” against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, and against cross-border sanctuaries enabled by the self-styled Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, has triggered predictable refrains:
“Muslim versus Muslim.”
“Pukhtun versus Pukhtun.”
“A war against Islam.”
Let us remove the fog — layer by layer.
Layer One: The Nature of the Conflict
The TTP has not engaged Pakistan in a theological debate. It has waged an insurgency: schools attacked, mosques bombed, markets shattered, soldiers and civilians killed. The Constitution rejected outright.
This is not jurisprudence.
It is organised violence.
A state that refuses to respond forfeits its reason for existence.
After nearly a decade of hesitation and oscillation, the state has finally stirred from its strategic slumber. There is nothing to celebrate in war — but there is something to acknowledge: the restoration of authority where it had dangerously thinned.
Layer Two: The State’s First Obligation
Political turbulence does not suspend national defence.
Yes, Pakistan’s elections are debated.
Yes, parliament is criticised.
Yes, sovereignty is contested in public discourse.
But the state’s primary duty — protection of life and territory — remains non-negotiable.
Security is continuous. It cannot be held hostage to political discord.
Layer Three: The Cross-Border Reality
For years, Pakistan exercised restraint toward Kabul in the expectation that Afghan soil would not be used against us.
That expectation has not been honoured.
Whether through incapacity or choice, the Kabul regime — the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan — has failed to prevent the TTP from operating against Pakistan.
No sovereign state can indefinitely tolerate cross-border sanctuary for armed groups.
This is not sectarian hostility.
It is territorial defence.
Layer Four: The Sovereignty Confusion
Here lies the deeper fault line.
For decades, our discourse blurred the distinction between divine sovereignty and constitutional authority. The slogan of Hakimiyyat-e-Ilahi entered politics without resolving a critical question:
If sovereignty belongs to God, who interprets His will in governance?
Parliament?
Mullahs?
Militants?
Ideologues?
Once political legitimacy becomes contingent on theological interpretation, every armed faction claims superior moral authority. The Constitution becomes conditional. Authority fragments.
Pakistan was envisioned by Muhammad Ali Jinnah as a Muslim-majority constitutional republic — not a clerical emirate. Faith was moral inspiration; governance was civic responsibility.
Islam shapes our civilisation.
The Constitution structures our state.
They must align — not collapse into one another.
Layer Five: The Name and the Narrative
I confess discomfort with invoking overt religious symbolism in naming state operations. The state does not need theological branding or religious symbolism to exercise its sovereign duty.
Strength lies in clarity — not sacralised rhetoric.
But names do not define substance. Substance defines legitimacy. If the purpose is defence of citizens and restoration of authority, the operation’s essence remains constitutional, not theological.
The state’s authority must rest on law — not on claims of sacred mandate.
Layer Six: The Legitimacy Argument
Some argue that because parliament is contested, major security action lacks moral authority.
This conflates political grievance with strategic paralysis.
Political disputes must be resolved through courts, elections, and reform. But even imperfect institutions retain responsibility for national defence.
Supporting this operation is not endorsement of any government of the day. It is affirmation of a principle:
No armed group may claim higher legitimacy than the republic.
Layer Seven: The Ideas That Must End
We must bury not individuals, but doctrines:
That divine sovereignty nullifies constitutional sovereignty.
That militancy can be sanitised as purification.
That ethnicity shields rebellion.
That political dissatisfaction justifies paralysis.
These ideas have weakened Pakistan more than any foreign adversary.
Final Layer: The Purpose of Pakistan
If war is an instrument, its purpose must be political clarity.
Operation “Ghazab lil Haq” must not become a spectacle. It must remain what it is: restoration of authority and defence of territorial integrity.
Governments will change.
Parliaments will rise and fall.
Political tides will shift.
But the state must endure.
Not as a theological battlefield.
Not as a perpetual contest over who speaks for God.
But as the republic imagined at its birth — sovereign, dignified, Muslim-majority, constitutional.
That is the Pakistan worth defending.
That is the Pakistan that must outlast confusion.
