Dr. Ashish Shukla, Associate Fellow, South Asia Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), presented his Fellow Paper on “Faultlines in Pakistan: An Analysis” on 4 September 2025 at 1500 hrs. The Seminar was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA. Ambassador TCA Raghavan, Former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan and Professor Ajay Darshan Behera, Professor at the Academy of International Studies at Jamia Milia Islamia joined as External Discussants. Dr. Ashok Behuria, Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA contributed as an Internal Discussant. Scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

Pakistan’s internal landscape is shaped by a dense web of ideological, ethnic, sectarian, economic, and institutional fault lines that have accumulated over decades of post-colonial state-building and elite-driven governance. The country’s struggle to define a cohesive national identity, sharpened by competing religious and civic narratives, has fed intolerance and empowered radical groups. Ethnic grievances among Baloch, Pashtuns, Sindhis, and Muhajirs stem from centralised power structures that privilege a narrow elite while side-lining regional aspirations, producing cycles of insurgency, protest, and repression. Moreover, long-standing economic fragilities, repeated Internatiional Monetary Fund (IMF) dependence, weak tax structures, and a rent-seeking political culture have further eroded the state’s capacity to govern effectively. These tensions converge with institutional imbalances marked by political polarisation, weak civilian authority, and the military’s pervasive influence over policy and power. The discussion focussed thoroughly on these systemic crisis of identity, governance, and legitimacy that continues to shape Pakistan’s instability and its enduring significance for India’s foreign policy.

Detailed Report

In his Opening Remarks, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy welcomed the Discussants and audience to the Fellow’s Seminar featuring Dr. Ashish Shukla’s paper, “Fault Lines in Pakistan: An Analysis.” He highlighted the paper’s relevance given Pakistan’s enduring significance in India’s foreign policy. Ambassador Chinoy noted that while Pakistan’s ideological, ethnic, economic, and sectarian divisions merit close study, equal focus should be placed on its institutional resilience. He emphasised that analyses of this nature must align with the principles of sovereignty, good neighbourliness, and non-interference, which underpin India’s foreign policy approach.

Dr. Ashish Shukla began by expressing gratitude to the Chair and Discussants. He briefly outlined his approach, noting that Pakistan’s political, economic, ideological, and social divides stem from its post-colonial formation and remain deeply embedded in its national fabric. Instead of fostering inclusive governance or long-term institutional reform, successive civil-military elites have pursued short-term political gains, reinforcing instability and fragmentation.

Dr.. Shukla explained that Pakistan’s ideological divide has been central to its national trajectory. Founded on the Two-Nation Theory, the State was projected as a homeland for the Muslims of South Asia. However, right since the beginning, it struggled to create a unifying identity. He referred to Jinnah’s contrasting speeches, his March 1940 Lahore Address in which he emphasised on the differences between Hindus and Muslims and his August 1947 Constituent Assembly Speech in which he advocated for a presumably secular State. He highlighted that after 1971, despite the loss of East Pakistan, the military and political establishment continued to frame Pakistan’s identity around Islam and perceived hostility towards India. He said that this narrative persists today, as reflected in General Asim Munir’s public remarks urging Pakistanis to view their State as founded on religious ideals.

Dr. Shukla highlighted how this ideological foundation has fostered radical and sectarian divisions. Successive political measures, including the Objectives Resolution of 1949, Bhutto’s declaration of Ahmadis as non-Muslims, Zia-ul-Haq’s Islamisation, and the blasphemy laws, deepened intolerance and strengthened extremist forces in the country. Dr. Shukla noted that besides the Shia-Sunni tensions, the intra-Sunni rivalries between Deobandi and Barelvi groups have further fractured society. He drew attention to increasing violence against minorities, such as Ahmadis, Hindus and Christians who face systemic persecution at the hands of radical forces. The State and its institutions often condone such violence which emboldens the radical outfits in the country. Quoting survey data, he observed that nearly half of the Pakistanis disapprove of befriending people from different religions or sects, illustrating the entrenched social divisions.

Dr. Shukla then discussed ethnic fault lines, calling them among the most visible and enduring. Pakistan’s political and military elite, dominated primarily by Punjabis, have consistently failed to accommodate the country’s linguistic and regional diversity. This centralised control has provoked resentment and separatism among Baloch, Sindhi, Pashtun, and Muhajir groups. While state coercion subdued Sindhi and Muhajir movements, insurgency in Balochistan remains active. He referred to five distinct phases of Baloch resistance. The latest phase started around 2000 and continues to be alive. He also noted that the rise of the Baloch Liberation Army and its adoption of suicide tactics have rattled the security establishment in the country. What is surprising is the fact that BLA’s suicide squad includes significant number of women.  In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, he highlighted the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement’s peaceful campaign against human rights violations and the State’s repressive response, including its ban in 2024. Both cases, he noted, show how Pakistan’s refusal to share power and resources continues to fuel alienation in its peripheries.

Turning to the economy, Dr. Shukla observed that Pakistan’s structural weaknesses have persisted since independence. The country has approached the IMF nearly 25 times, reflecting chronic fiscal mismanagement and over-reliance on external aid. In 2023, it narrowly avoided default due to an IMF bailout. This was followed by a 37-month Extended Fund Facility. He attributed Pakistan’s economic miseries to low tax compliance, below normal tax to GDP ratio, presence of exemptions, and most importantly no serious attempt to introduce much needed structural reforms. Moreover, Pakistan’s rentier mindset, he argued, allows its leaders to depend on international aid, loans and strategic patronage.

On the political and institutional front, he pointed to the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which gave Parliament power to nominate the Chief Justice, undermining judicial independence. Dr. Shukla underlined that the 2024 elections deepened political polarisation, with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) -backed independents emerging as the largest group but unable to form a government; Shehbaz Sharif, strongly supported by the military establishment. In the wake of the security establishment’s micromanagement, the PPP agreed to support PML-N Government from outside.  PTI’s attempts to mobilise public support, seek judicial intervention, and negotiate through backchannels failed to secure the release of Imran Khan and other senior leaders. Still, the party retained its political relevance, and Imran Khan remains the most popular politician in Pakistan. Dr. Shukla added that subsequent legal amendments extended the tenure of the three Service Chiefs from three to five years, ensuring General Asim Munir’s continuation until 2027. Dr. Shukla concluded by stating that Pakistan’s multiple internal fractures, including economic stagnation, ethnic alienation, ideological rigidity, and institutional decay, are not episodic but systemic. They represent an enduring crisis of governance and identity that continues to undermine state cohesion.

Ambassador TCA Raghavan complimented Dr. Ashish Shukla’s paper for its analytical maturity and focus on Pakistan’s internal dynamics beyond the traditional military lens. He noted the challenge Indian scholars face in studying Pakistan due to limited access, but observed that comparative insights from India’s own context often fill this gap. He welcomed Dr. Shukla’s structured framework for analysing Pakistan’s faultlines across ideological, sectarian, ethnic, economic, and institutional dimensions, and suggested situating sectarian divisions within broader geopolitical shifts such as the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet-Afghan war.

Ambassador Raghavan appreciated the nuanced discussion of Baloch and Pashtun issues but stressed the need to factor in tribal dynamics and the limited scale of insurgencies, citing the loyalty of Pashtun soldiers as evidence of Pakistan’s enduring state cohesion. He cautioned against underestimating the consolidation of Pakistani nationalism alongside regional and sectarian identities. On the economy, he agreed that recent stabilisation is superficial, while institutional weaknesses, particularly the military’s dominance, remain central. He proposed looking beyond Indian democratic benchmarks, suggesting comparisons with Thailand or Myanmar to grasp Pakistan’s national security state.

Professor Ajay Darshan Behera referring to Ambassador Raghavan’s comments, acknowledged the challenges Indian scholars face due to limited access to Pakistan but pointed out that the extensive work of Pakistani academics already provides a solid empirical base. He suggested that Indian scholars should focus on developing new analytical frameworks rather than seeking new data, and emphasised the value of understanding regional languages like Punjabi to grasp local realities better than Urdu-based sources allow.

On Dr. Ashish Shukla’s paper, Professor Behera praised the categorisation of Pakistan’s ideological, sectarian, ethnic, economic, and political fault lines but noted that it needs greater focus on how Pakistan historically manages these divisions. He stressed on studying the intersections among fault lines and called for a theoretical framing. Highlighting elite capture as a stabilising mechanism, he explained how bureaucratic and military elites, rooted in land and class hierarchies, have historically managed contradictions and maintained state stability through control over the economy and politics. He urged attention to the political fault lines, especially the rise of Imran Khan’s educated middle-class base, which challenges elite and military dominance. Concluding, he suggested that Dr. Shukla’s rich data should drive analysis explaining how Pakistan navigates its internal contradictions, offering interpretive depth beyond description.

Dr. Ashok Behuria began by appreciating the discussion and called for deeper research on Pakistan’s linguistic and ethnic dynamics. He noted the paradox of Punjabi dominance in governance alongside the marginalisation of the Punjabi language and traced historical shifts in language use among writers and newspapers. He highlighted the Saraiki community’s ongoing struggle for recognition and cultural rights as an area needing closer study. Discussing ethnic representation, he examined the position of Hazaras, and Pashtuns in the armed forces, pointing to their limited inclusion and long-standing grievances. He explained how recruitment patterns in the Baloch regiment and tribal affiliations influence both loyalty and dissent, linking the rise of movements like the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement to historical exclusion and marginalisation in former FATA areas, with broader regional implications tied to pan-Pashtun nationalism and Taliban networks.

Dr. Behuria also underlined the need to study inter-ethnic dynamics in urban centres, especially among Mohajirs, Sindhis, and Baloch, to understand their impact on Pakistan’s social and political cohesion. While some groups hold sway in higher administrative positions, representation at lower levels remains uneven, perpetuating structural inequalities. Dr. Behuria stressed that Pakistan’s management of these divisions through policy, elite negotiation, and historical contingencies must be examined to grasp its internal governance mechanisms. He concluded that incorporating linguistic and ethnic dimensions into research is essential for a fuller, more nuanced understanding of Pakistan’s state and society.

Question and Comments

The discussion focused on Pakistan’s fault lines, including ethnic, sectarian, and political divisions, and how these interact with state structures and elite capture. Key themes included the criteria for prioritising fault lines, the role of sectarian groups like Tehreek – e – Taliban Pakistan in deepening existing divides, and the state’s use of religion as a political tool, creating overlapping conflicts. Questions addressed why large-scale revolts among Pashtuns and Baloch have not materialised, with insights pointing to disciplined military and tribal structures, early training, and regimented socialisation as containment factors. The discussion also highlighted the impact of social media on political awareness, the significance of elite management in controlling insurgency and ethnic tensions, and the importance of evaluating which fault lines have interstate relevance.

Report prepared by Ms. Sneha M, Research Analyst, South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.