CSS Prepare

compulsory · CSS study notes

CSS 2015 — Pakistan Affairs Paper (Solved)

CSS 2015 — General Knowledge Paper-III (Pakistan Affairs) · Part-II: attempt any 4 of 7 questions (20 marks each). Part-I MCQs were not included in the source PDF.

Themes this year: Sir Syed, Bengal partition and Khilafat (Q2–Q4), 1971 and the Two-Nation Theory (Q5), culture (Q6), Zia's Islamization (Q7), War on Terror (Q8).

Q2. "Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was in no way pro-British." Agree or disagree; answer your question with arguments. (20)

Outline: Introduction and stance → Context of 1857 → Evidence that he appeared pro-British → Evidence that he was not pro-British → Loyalty as strategy → Evaluation → Conclusion

Introduction

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817–1898) is often called a loyalist because he preached cooperation with the British after 1857. But his loyalty was not blind devotion to colonial rule; it was a calculated strategy to rescue a defeated community. This answer partly agrees: Sir Syed was not pro-British in the sense of serving British interests; he was pro-Muslim, using loyalty as a means to Muslim revival.

1. Context

  • After 1857, the British blamed Muslims for the revolt; Muslims were executed, dispossessed and excluded from jobs, while Hindus gained ground through English education.
  • Open confrontation would have meant further destruction; Sir Syed chose reconciliation.

2. Why He Appears Pro-British

  • Served in the East India Company's judicial service; saved British lives during 1857 (at Bijnor).
  • Wrote Loyal Muhammadans of India to prove Muslim loyalty.
  • Advised Muslims not to join the Congress (1885) and founded the Patriotic Association (1888) and MAO Defence Association (1893), which supported British rule.
  • Accepted a knighthood (KCSI, 1888) and praised British education and administration.

3. Why He Was Not Pro-British

  1. Asbab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind (1859): boldly blamed the British for the revolt — exclusion of Indians from the Legislative Council, economic exploitation, missionary interference, annexations and harsh army policies. He sent copies to Parliament at personal risk.
  2. Defence of Islam: answered Sir William Muir's attack on the Prophet (PBUH) with Khutbat-e-Ahmadiya (1870), travelling to London at his own expense.
  3. Demand for Indian representation: argued that Indians must be consulted in legislation — a political demand, not subservience.
  4. Criticised British racial arrogance and discrimination against Indians in services.
  5. Opposition to Congress was pro-Muslim, not pro-British: he feared that representative government by majority would subject Muslims to permanent Hindu dominance — the early form of the Two-Nation Theory.
  6. Aim of education: to empower Muslims to compete with Hindus and the British, not to produce servants of empire. Aligarh later produced the leaders who demanded independence.

4. Loyalty as a Strategy

  • His loyalty was conditional and instrumental: to remove British hostility, win jobs and education for Muslims, and buy time for recovery.
  • Comparable to the pragmatism of later leaders who used constitutional means against the British.

5. Evaluation

  • The statement "in no way pro-British" is too absolute: Sir Syed openly supported British rule as necessary for India's stability at the time.
  • But calling him simply "pro-British" is also misleading. His writings show independence of thought and courage in criticising the British. His real loyalty was to the Muslim community.

Conclusion

Sir Syed was a realist. He cooperated with the British because the survival of Indian Muslims demanded it, while criticising British policies whenever they harmed Indians. He was, in essence, pro-Muslim and pro-education rather than pro-British. His strategy transformed a humiliated community into a self-conscious political nation, which in time challenged British rule itself.

Q3. "It was over-reaction of Hindus to the partition of the Bengal in 1905 that widened the gulf between Muslims and Hindus." Comment. (20)

Outline: Introduction → Partition of Bengal: reasons → Muslim reaction → Hindu reaction (agitation, Swadeshi, terrorism) → Annulment 1911 → How it widened the gulf → Other factors → Conclusion

Introduction

In October 1905 the Viceroy Lord Curzon divided the huge province of Bengal into West Bengal (Hindu majority, with Bihar and Orissa) and East Bengal and Assam (Muslim majority, capital Dhaka). Muslims welcomed it; Hindus launched a fierce agitation until it was annulled in 1911. The Hindu reaction — especially its religious colouring and violence — convinced Muslims that the Congress and Hindu leadership would oppose any measure benefiting them. The statement is largely correct.

1. Reasons for the Partition

  • Administrative: Bengal (about 78 million people) was too large for one Lieutenant-Governor; East Bengal was neglected.
  • Official aim: better administration and development of the east.
  • Nationalist view: "divide and rule" to weaken Bengali nationalism.

2. Muslim Reaction

  • Welcomed it: East Bengal gained a new capital, jobs, schools, courts and trade opportunities; freedom from Hindu zamindars and moneylenders of Calcutta.
  • Nawab Salimullah of Dhaka led support; the Muslim League (founded in Dhaka, 1906) supported partition.

3. Hindu Reaction (the "Over-Reaction")

  • Mass agitation led by the Congress and Bengali Hindu elite (lawyers, landlords, press) who feared losing influence in East Bengal.
  • Swadeshi and boycott of British goods; public bonfires of foreign cloth.
  • Religious symbolism: Bande Mataram (from Bankim Chandra's anti-Muslim novel Anandamath) became the anthem; worship of goddess Kali invoked; Raksha Bandhan day.
  • Violence and revolutionary terrorism: attempts on officials (e.g., bomb attacks; Muzaffarpur 1908).
  • Muslims who did not join were harassed; boycott hurt Muslim traders and peasants.

4. Annulment (12 December 1911)

  • Announced by King George V at the Delhi Durbar; the capital moved from Calcutta to Delhi.
  • Muslims felt betrayed by the British and realised that agitation, not justice, determined policy.

5. How It Widened the Gulf

  1. Exposed the Congress as a Hindu body opposed to Muslim interests.
  2. Religious colouring of the agitation made the conflict communal.
  3. Pushed Muslims to organise politically: Simla Deputation (1906) and All-India Muslim League (1906).
  4. Strengthened the demand for separate electorates, granted in 1909.
  5. Annulment taught Muslims they must rely on their own organisation, not British goodwill — leading to greater Muslim political assertiveness (and briefly toward Hindu-Muslim cooperation in the Lucknow Pact, 1916, on Muslim terms).
  6. Created lasting Bengali Muslim resentment, reflected in the Lahore Resolution (moved by A.K. Fazlul Haq of Bengal in 1940).

6. Other Factors Also Widened the Gulf

  • The Urdu-Hindi controversy (1867, 1900), cow-protection movements, Hindu revivalism (Arya Samaj), and the Congress's majoritarian outlook existed before 1905.
  • The British policy itself (partition and then annulment) contributed.

Conclusion

The Partition of Bengal was an administrative measure, but the Hindu over-reaction turned it into a communal confrontation. Its agitation, religious slogans and eventual success in reversing a decision that benefited Muslims convinced Muslims that their interests required separate political organisation and safeguards. It did not create the gulf, but it widened it decisively and set Muslims on the road to separate political action.

Q4. "Khilafat Movement was an emotional movement." Discuss. (20)

Outline: Introduction → Background → Objectives → Course of the movement (Khilafat Committee, Non-Cooperation, Hijrat, Moplah, Chauri Chaura) → Why it was emotional → Why it was more than emotion (achievements) → Causes of failure → Conclusion

Introduction

The Khilafat Movement (1919–1924) was launched by Indian Muslims to protect the Ottoman Caliphate and the holy places after the First World War. It was driven by deep religious sentiment and ended in disappointment when the Turks themselves abolished the Caliphate in 1924. In that sense it was an emotional movement; but it also produced lasting political results for Muslims.

1. Background

  • Turkey fought against Britain in the First World War; Indian Muslims were anxious about the fate of the Caliph and the holy places.
  • British promises (Lloyd George) that Turkey would not be deprived of its lands were broken by the Treaty of Sèvres (1920).

2. Objectives

  1. Preserve the Ottoman Caliph as the head of the Muslim world.
  2. Keep the holy places under Muslim control.
  3. Maintain the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire.

3. Course of the Movement

  • All-India Khilafat Committee (1919); leaders: Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Hakim Ajmal Khan.
  • Khilafat Day (17 October 1919); delegation to the Viceroy and to London (1920) failed.
  • Alliance with Gandhi: the Congress adopted Non-Cooperation (1920) in support of Khilafat — boycott of British goods, courts, schools and titles.
  • Karachi Khilafat Conference (July 1921): declared service in the British army un-Islamic; the Ali Brothers were tried and imprisoned.
  • Hijrat Movement (1920): tens of thousands of Muslims, mainly from Sindh and NWFP, migrated to Afghanistan, which closed its borders; many returned ruined.
  • Moplah uprising (1921) in Malabar turned communal, and Hindu-Muslim relations suffered.
  • Chauri Chaura (February 1922): after violence, Gandhi called off Non-Cooperation without consulting Muslim leaders.
  • Abolition of the Caliphate (3 March 1924) by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ended the movement.

4. Why It Was an Emotional Movement

  • Based on religious sentiment for a distant institution whose own people (Turkish nationalists) no longer wanted it.
  • Leaders ignored political realities: Britain would not reverse its war settlement under Indian pressure.
  • Hijrat was an impulsive decision without planning, causing great suffering.
  • Heavy reliance on Gandhi, whose aims (Swaraj) differed; he withdrew unilaterally.
  • No clear strategy once the Turks acted themselves.

5. Why It Was More Than Emotion (Achievements)

  1. Mass political awakening: first mass movement of Indian Muslims, reaching villages and ordinary people.
  2. Training of leaders and workers who later served the Muslim League.
  3. Sense of pan-Islamic unity and solidarity; funds sent to Turkey (e.g., for the Turkish struggle; later contributions helped Turkish institutions).
  4. Lesson in Hindu-Muslim relations: the collapse of the alliance and communal riots (1920s) convinced Muslims that Hindu-Muslim unity was fragile — strengthening the Two-Nation Theory.
  5. Awareness of independent action: Muslims learned they needed their own political platform.

6. Causes of Failure

  • Turkish nationalism and abolition of the Caliphate.
  • Gandhi's withdrawal after Chauri Chaura.
  • Failure of Hijrat and communal violence (Moplah).
  • Lack of a realistic programme and internal differences.

Conclusion

The Khilafat Movement was emotional in its cause and methods and failed in its immediate aim. Yet it was politically significant: it awakened the Muslim masses, trained a generation of leaders and exposed the limits of Hindu-Muslim cooperation. Its failure pushed Indian Muslims toward the realistic, constitutional politics of the Muslim League under Jinnah.

Q5. "Separation of East Pakistan, though a tragic part of History of Pakistan, was not the negation of two nation theory." Comment. (20)

Outline: Introduction → Two-Nation Theory defined → Causes of separation (political, economic, linguistic, military, external) → Argument that 1971 negated the TNT → Arguments that it did not → Evidence: Bangladesh remained separate from India → Conclusion

Introduction

In December 1971 East Pakistan became Bangladesh. Indira Gandhi claimed that the Two-Nation Theory had been "sunk in the Bay of Bengal". The claim is wrong. East Pakistan separated because of political, economic and linguistic grievances and Indian military intervention — not because Bengali Muslims wished to rejoin India or had become one nation with Hindus. Bangladesh emerged as a separate, Muslim-majority state, which in fact confirms that Muslims of the Subcontinent did not want to live under Hindu-majority rule.

1. The Two-Nation Theory

  • Muslims and Hindus of the Subcontinent are two distinct nations with different religion, culture and history, entitled to separate homelands (Sir Syed, Iqbal, Jinnah; Lahore Resolution 1940, which spoke of independent "states" in the north-west and east).

2. Real Causes of Separation

  • Political: denial of majority rights — parity under One Unit (1955); dominance of the West Pakistani civil-military bureaucracy; long periods of military rule; refusal to transfer power to the Awami League after it won 160 of 162 general seats in East Pakistan (1970) and a national majority.
  • Economic disparity: foreign exchange earned by East Pakistan's jute used for West Pakistan's development; per capita income gap widened in the 1960s; under-representation in civil services and army.
  • Language: the 1948 declaration of Urdu as the sole national language; Language Movement (21 February 1952) — Bengali recognised only in 1956.
  • Geographical distance: 1,600 km of Indian territory separated the two wings.
  • Six Points (1966) and the Agartala Conspiracy Case (1968) deepened alienation.
  • Military action: Operation Searchlight (25 March 1971) and its aftermath.
  • Indian intervention: support to the Mukti Bahini, the Indo-Soviet Treaty (August 1971) and invasion (November–December 1971); surrender on 16 December 1971.

3. The Argument That It Negated the TNT

  • Religion alone could not hold the two wings together; Bengali ethnic nationalism prevailed over Muslim identity.

4. Why It Was Not a Negation

  1. Bangladesh did not merge with India: it chose to be a separate sovereign state with a Muslim majority — exactly what the TNT demanded (separation from Hindu-majority rule).
  2. The Lahore Resolution envisaged separate "states" in the east and west; 1971 is arguably closer to its original wording.
  3. Causes were governance failures, not the ideology: denial of democracy, economic injustice and cultural insensitivity would break any federation (e.g., Soviet Union, Yugoslavia).
  4. Islamic identity persisted in Bangladesh: Islam was later made the state religion (1988); Bangladesh joined the OIC.
  5. Hindu and Muslim Bengalis did not reunite: West Bengal remains in India; the division of 1947 stands.
  6. Pakistan's recognition of Bangladesh (1974) and good relations since show Muslim fraternity continues.

5. Lessons

  • Ideology must be supported by democracy, federalism, justice and respect for cultural diversity.
  • The Hamoodur Rahman Commission highlighted political and military failures.
  • The 1973 Constitution and the 18th Amendment (provincial autonomy) reflect these lessons.

Conclusion

The separation of East Pakistan was a national tragedy caused by political mismanagement, economic disparity, linguistic insensitivity and Indian intervention. It did not negate the Two-Nation Theory: the Muslims of Bengal did not return to India but created their own Muslim-majority state. The theory survived; what failed was the governance of a united Pakistan.

Q6. Briefly discuss the main features of cultural heritage of Pakistan. (20)

Outline: Introduction → Definition → Historical layers (Indus, Gandhara, Islamic) → Religion → Languages and literature → Architecture → Sufism, music and arts → Dress, food and festivals → Sports and crafts → Regional cultures (unity in diversity) → Threats and preservation → Conclusion

Introduction

Culture is the way of life of a people — their beliefs, values, language, arts, customs and institutions. Pakistan's cultural heritage is one of the oldest in the world, layered with the Indus Valley Civilisation, Gandhara and centuries of Islamic civilisation, and enriched by the distinct traditions of Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan and Kashmir. Islam provides the unifying core; regional traditions provide diversity.

1. Ancient Heritage

  • Indus Valley Civilisation (c. 2600–1900 BCE): Mohenjo-daro and Harappa — planned cities, drainage, the Great Bath; Mehrgarh (c. 7000 BCE) is among the earliest farming settlements.
  • Gandhara civilisation: Taxila and Takht-i-Bahi (UNESCO World Heritage sites), Buddhist art blending Greek and local styles.

2. Islamic Heritage (the Core)

  • Islam is the religion of about 96% of Pakistanis; it shapes values, law, family life and festivals (Eid-ul-Fitr, Eid-ul-Azha, Muharram, Eid Milad-un-Nabi).
  • Mosques, madrasas and shrines are centres of community life.

3. Languages and Literature

  • Urdu (national language, lingua franca) and English (official language); regional languages: Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Balochi, Saraiki, Brahui, Hindko, Shina, Balti.
  • Poets: Allama Iqbal, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Mirza Ghalib (shared heritage); Sufi poets Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai (Shah Jo Risalo), Bulleh Shah, Sultan Bahu, Waris Shah (Heer), Khushal Khan Khattak, Rehman Baba, Mast Tawakli (Balochi).

4. Architecture

  • Mughal: Badshahi Mosque, Lahore Fort and Shalimar Gardens (UNESCO), Wazir Khan Mosque, Shah Jahan Mosque (Thatta).
  • Tombs at Makli (UNESCO), Uch Sharif, Multan's shrines (Rukn-e-Alam).
  • Modern: Faisal Mosque, Minar-e-Pakistan, Mazar-e-Quaid.

5. Sufism, Music and Arts

  • Sufi shrines (Data Darbar, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, Bhit Shah) promote tolerance and love.
  • Qawwali (Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Sabri Brothers), classical and folk music (Sufiana kalam, Pashto tappay, Sindhi kafi), instruments (sitar, tabla, rabab, alghoza).
  • Calligraphy (Sadequain), miniature painting, truck art.

6. Dress, Food and Festivals

  • Shalwar qameez (national dress), Sindhi ajrak and topi, Balochi embroidery, Pashtun and Chitrali caps.
  • Cuisine: biryani, nihari, karahi, sajji, chapli kebab.
  • Festivals: Basant (spring), Shandur Polo Festival, Lok Virsa's Folk Festival, urs of saints, weddings with rich rituals.

7. Sports and Crafts

  • Cricket, hockey (national game), squash (Jahangir Khan, Jansher Khan), polo, kabaddi, wrestling.
  • Handicrafts: carpets, pottery (Multan blue pottery), ajrak printing, onyx, embroidery.

8. Social Values

  • Hospitality (mehman nawazi), strong family and kinship systems, respect for elders, community solidarity (jirga, panchayat), charity (Edhi Foundation as a symbol).

9. Unity in Diversity

  • Regional cultures differ in language, dress and customs, but share Islam, Urdu, national history and many traditions. Sufism in particular bridges regions.

10. Threats and Preservation

  • Threats: neglect of archaeological sites, extremism attacking shrines, commercialisation and cultural homogenisation through global media.
  • Preservation: Lok Virsa, UNESCO listings, provincial culture departments after the 18th Amendment, promotion of regional languages, heritage tourism.

Conclusion

Pakistan's cultural heritage is ancient, rich and diverse: from the Indus Valley to Mughal monuments, from Sufi poetry to qawwali, from Urdu to many regional languages. Islam forms its core, and regional traditions its colourful variety. Protecting and promoting this heritage strengthens national identity, tolerance and soft power.

Q7. Was Islamization during Zia era a need of Pakistan or was it a political propaganda? (20)

Outline: Introduction and stance → Background (1977 coup, PNA movement) → Measures → Arguments that it was a need → Arguments that it was political propaganda → Consequences → Evaluation → Conclusion

Introduction

General Zia-ul-Haq seized power on 5 July 1977 and ruled for eleven years. He launched the most extensive Islamization programme in Pakistan's history. Supporters say it fulfilled the purpose of Pakistan; critics say it was a tool to legitimise military rule and win religious support. A balanced view is that Pakistan needed Islamic reform, but Zia's version was driven largely by political motives, which explains its selective and controversial character.

1. Background

  • The PNA movement (1977) against Bhutto used the slogan Nizam-e-Mustafa; religious parties were powerful in the streets.
  • Zia promised elections in 90 days but postponed them; he needed legitimacy.
  • The Afghan jihad (from 1979) gave religion a central place in state policy, backed by the US and Saudi Arabia.

2. Main Measures

  • Hudood Ordinances (1979); Federal Shariat Court (1980).
  • Zakat and Ushr Ordinance (1980).
  • Interest-free banking (PLS accounts).
  • Blasphemy laws (295-B, 295-C) and Ordinance XX (1984).
  • Majlis-e-Shoora (1981) instead of an elected parliament.
  • Qanun-e-Shahadat (1984) on evidence; Islamic studies compulsory; Nizam-e-Salat; Ramzan Ordinance (1981).
  • Referendum (December 1984): a "yes" vote to Islamization was treated as a vote for Zia's presidency for five years.
  • Eighth Amendment (1985): Article 2-A (Objectives Resolution substantive).

3. Arguments That It Was a Need

  1. Pakistan was created in the name of Islam; the Objectives Resolution and the 1973 Constitution required laws to conform to Islam (Articles 227–231), but little had been done.
  2. Public demand: the PNA's Nizam-e-Mustafa movement showed popular desire for Islamic laws.
  3. Moral and social decline, corruption and a desire for justice.
  4. Institutions such as the FSC and Islamic banking provided a framework later governments continued (e.g., the 2022 FSC riba judgment).

4. Arguments That It Was Political Propaganda

  1. Legitimacy for military rule: Islamization replaced the promise of elections; the 1984 referendum linked a vote for Islam to Zia's own tenure.
  2. Selective and punitive: focused on penal laws and rituals, not on Islamic principles of consultation (shura), justice, accountability and welfare.
  3. Alliance with religious parties (Jamaat-e-Islami) to counter the PPP.
  4. Non-party elections (1985) fragmented politics along ethnic, sectarian and personal lines.
  5. Foreign-policy tool: religion mobilised support for the Afghan jihad, funded by the US and Saudi Arabia.
  6. Contradiction: the Eighth Amendment's Article 58-2(b) gave the President power to dismiss parliaments — not an Islamic principle of consultation.

5. Consequences

  • Sectarianism: Shia protests against compulsory zakat (1980) led to exemptions; sectarian organisations and violence grew.
  • Extremism and militancy: jihadist culture, madrasa proliferation, weapons and drugs ("Kalashnikov culture").
  • Injustice to women: rape victims prosecuted under the zina provisions until the 2006 Women Protection Act.
  • Minorities: blasphemy laws misused.
  • Positive legacies: Islamic banking, the FSC, zakat system (reformed), greater Islamic content in education.

6. Evaluation

Islamization as a principle was a constitutional need, recognised by all constitutions. Zia's programme, however, was shaped by the needs of his regime: it was imposed without an elected parliament, emphasised punishment over justice, and was used to justify indefinite rule. It therefore contained both genuine religious aspirations and heavy political propaganda — with the latter dominant.

Conclusion

Pakistan needed to give practical shape to its Islamic identity, and some of Zia's institutions endure. But the timing, method and emphasis of his programme show that it served above all to legitimise military rule and win allies. Its costly legacy of sectarianism and extremism shows that Islamization must come through democratic consensus, justice and education rather than decree.

Q8. Critically evaluate the role of Pakistan in "The War on Terror". (20)

Outline: Introduction → Why Pakistan joined (2001) → Contributions (logistics, arrests, military operations) → Costs (human, economic, social) → Controversies (double game, drones, Abbottabad, Salala) → Gains → Critical evaluation → Lessons and way forward → Conclusion

Introduction

After the 11 September 2001 attacks, the US demanded that Pakistan choose sides. General Pervez Musharraf joined the US-led War on Terror, reversing Pakistan's support for the Taliban regime. For over a decade Pakistan was the key frontline ally, providing logistics, intelligence and military operations. It paid a heavy price in blood and money while facing constant accusations of duplicity. Its role was indispensable but costly and controversial.

1. Reasons for Joining

  • US pressure ("with us or against us"); threat of isolation or being targeted.
  • Protecting nuclear assets and the Kashmir cause from being linked to terrorism.
  • Economic relief: debt rescheduling, lifting of sanctions (imposed after 1998 tests and the 1999 coup).
  • Preventing India from becoming the US's sole regional partner.

2. Pakistan's Contributions

  • Logistics: ground lines of communication through Karachi and Torkham/Chaman carried the majority of NATO supplies; air corridors and bases (Jacobabad, Pasni, Shamsi).
  • Arrests: hundreds of al-Qaeda operatives, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (2003), Abu Zubaydah (2002) and Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
  • Military operations: Al-Mizan (2002–06), Rah-e-Rast (Swat, 2009), Rah-e-Nijat (South Waziristan, 2009), Zarb-e-Azb (North Waziristan, June 2014), later Radd-ul-Fasaad (2017).
  • Deployment of over 150,000 troops on the western border.

3. Costs

  • Human: tens of thousands of civilians and security personnel killed (official estimates exceed 70,000 casualties); the APS Peshawar attack (16 December 2014) killed about 147, mostly children.
  • Economic: the Economic Survey estimated direct and indirect losses of over **120billion∗∗(2001–2018),farexceedingUSaid(CoalitionSupportFundandotherassistanceofabout120 billion** (2001–2018), far exceeding US aid (Coalition Support Fund and other assistance of about 33 billion, 2002–2017).
  • Displacement: millions displaced from Swat and FATA.
  • Internal backlash: emergence of the TTP (2007); suicide bombings in cities; sectarian violence; Lal Masjid (2007).
  • Image: Pakistan branded a haven for terrorists; travel and investment suffered.

4. Controversies

  • Double-game allegations: accused of sheltering the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network (Quetta Shura) while fighting the TTP.
  • Drone strikes (over 400) violated sovereignty and caused civilian deaths, fuelling anti-US sentiment.
  • Abbottabad raid (2 May 2011): Osama bin Laden found in Pakistan; unilateral US raid embarrassed the state.
  • Raymond Davis (2011) and Salala attack (November 2011) — NATO killed 24 Pakistani soldiers; Pakistan closed NATO supply routes for seven months.

5. Gains

  • Economic assistance, debt relief, military hardware (F-16s), Kerry-Lugar Act (2009: $7.5 billion over five years).
  • Non-NATO ally status (2004).
  • Eventually, successful operations restored state control over FATA, leading to its merger with KP (25th Amendment, 2018), and a sharp fall in terrorist attacks after 2014.

6. Critical Evaluation

Positive: Pakistan was indispensable to the war; its sacrifices were greater than those of any other ally; its later operations (Zarb-e-Azb and the National Action Plan, 2014) sharply reduced terrorism.

Negative:

  • Joined without national debate or parliamentary approval; policy personalised by Musharraf.
  • Inconsistent policy (distinguishing "good" and "bad" Taliban) damaged credibility and allowed militancy to grow.
  • Military-only approach neglected governance, justice and development in FATA.
  • Transactional relationship with the US led to mistrust on both sides.

7. Lessons and Way Forward

  • A clear, consistent national counter-terrorism policy (NAP, National Internal Security Policy).
  • Parliamentary ownership of security decisions.
  • Development and governance in affected areas.
  • Regional cooperation with Afghanistan, China and Central Asia.
  • Counter-narrative (Paigham-e-Pakistan) and madrasa reform.

Conclusion

Pakistan played a central and costly role in the War on Terror. Its sacrifices and operations dismantled al-Qaeda's leadership and later restored state control over its tribal areas. Yet decisions taken under pressure, an inconsistent approach to militants and the absence of national consensus made the costs heavier than necessary and damaged trust with allies. The experience shows that security policy must rest on national interest, consistency and democratic ownership.