The rhetoric emerging from Pakistan during and after its recent conflict with India served as a stark reminder that the country’s heavy reliance on Islam to stir public sentiment and fuel national pride remains deeply entrenched, with no sign of fading.
From the outset, Pakistan framed its airstrikes against India as a moral victory — a triumph over evil. The military operation it launched into India was named Bunyan al-Marsous, an Arabic phrase meaning “a firm wall,” drawn from a Quranic verse largely unfamiliar to most Pakistanis.
Religious rhetoric played a central role in Pakistan’s response, appearing frequently in both official military briefings and media coverage. Islamic references were pervasive, with terms like jihad (used to describe a fight against the enemies of Islam) invoked to celebrate Pakistan’s airstrikes.
As news of Pakistan’s airstrikes into India broke in the early hours of May 10, a leading Urdu-language news channel aired a special broadcast featuring an anchor passionately translating the Quranic verse from which the operation’s name was taken. A clip of his recitation quickly went viral, reposted widely by jubilant social media users moved by the moment.
Another major channel set up a “war room” to cover developments related to the conflict. The broadcasts gave the impression of religious programming rather than mainstream news coverage of a major breaking story.
(While Indian media also employed jingoistic and hyper-nationalistic rhetoric, some might argue to an even greater and more unprofessional extent, I focus here on Pakistan — in the spirit of self-reflection.)
The politicization of religion in Pakistan’s national defense is nothing new. But what stood out this time was the silence from the country’s liberal voices — those who typically speak out against religious framing in favor of secular reasoning. Their absence from the conversation allowed Islamic rhetoric to dominate the official response to India’s actions, with little to no pushback.
Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir was recently promoted to field marshal in recognition of his leadership during the war. Praise on social media and in parts of the online media went beyond highlighting military strategy or geopolitical gains. Instead, some attention focused on the fact that he had memorized the Quran — an achievement many hailed as a spiritual force behind Pakistan’s ability to strike back at India.
This merging of faith and firepower was broadcast proudly and repeatedly, while leading liberal voices in Pakistan who might once have questioned such a narrative remained noticeably quiet.
The post-war atmosphere in Pakistan can be summed up by the phrase “Islamic touch,” a term popularized by a Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader in 2022. During a public rally held just weeks after party leader Imran Khan’s ouster as prime minister, a PTI official was caught on camera whispering into the ear of the now-imprisoned Khan, advising him to add “an Islamic touch” to his speech to make it more appealing.
Following this leaked clip, the term “Islamic touch” soon entered mainstream discourse, used by commentators to describe the strategic use of Islamic references by politicians and public figures.
Although the term was coined by a PTI politician, the practice it describes had long been embraced across Pakistan’s political spectrum. This tactic appears to have become a defining feature of the post-war atmosphere, allowing the military to evade greater scrutiny over its official claims regarding the conflict.
Amid this display of religious symbolism in Pakistan, liberal voices have remained largely silent. No prominent progressive figures from the country’s civil society have raised concerns that the excessive use of Islamic rhetoric could alienate religious minorities. The striking absence of liberal critique means that fundamentalist forces face little resistance in their efforts to push for an Islamist agenda in the country.
Today’s silence suggests that secular voices in Pakistan have either been marginalized into irrelevance or have resigned themselves to it.
This lack of scrutiny stands in contrast to the past, particularly in 2009, when the military first launched a formal operation against the Pakistani Taliban in the Swat district of the restive Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. At the time, the late human rights lawyer Asma Jahangir openly questioned why the military was framing the operation in religious terms.
The absence of similar liberal voices in today’s discourse suggests a deeper shift: not only has the military become more powerful and less accountable than it was a decade ago, but liberal critics appear increasingly unwilling — or unable — to challenge the dominant narrative. Many seem to have resigned themselves to the reality that overt Islamic rhetoric will continue to dominate mainstream political and media discourse.
This apparent surrender is significant for two main reasons:
First, the Pakistan military, having gained renewed public support and legitimacy at home following the recent conflict with India, will face little pressure to take meaningful action against banned religious extremist groups operating within the country. Without scrutiny, there is little incentive for the institution to “set the house in order.”
Second, by employing unchecked religious rhetoric, state officials risk emboldening extremist groups such as Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), an organization notorious for weaponizing blasphemy accusations and staging violent protests. In recent years, the TLP’s influence has grown so widespread that its ideology now inspires ordinary citizens to commit acts of mob violence in the name of punishing “blasphemy.”
With progressive and liberal voices silent or pushed to the wall amid this show of force by the state, the absence of a strong counter-narrative will enable the TLP to continue expanding its power.
When the post-war euphoria fades, Pakistan will be left to confront the enduring threat of religious extremism — without any meaningful opposition willing to challenge its rise.