Puncturing Pakistan’s “Hard State” narrative - It is turning Kashmir into a security laboratory
A doctrine that mistakes military might for legitimacy, turning Pakistan administered Kashmir into a testing ground where coercion eclipses accountability and the pursuit of security risks eroding the very rights it claims to protect.
The Pakistan Army’s campaign to portray Pakistan as a “hard state” may resonate with those who equate strength with coercion, but nowhere are the dangers of this doctrine more apparent than in Pakistan administered Kashmir. If implemented as a governing philosophy, the “hard state” narrative risks transforming a politically sensitive region into one where security overshadows rights, dissent is viewed with suspicion, and accountability becomes secondary to state power.
Picture credit: Suhail Naqshbandi
Kashmir does not need more coercion. It needs more trust.
The promise of a “hard state” is built on the assumption that expanding the state’s coercive authority will produce stability. History suggests otherwise. Stability achieved through fear is temporary. Stability built on justice, accountability and public confidence is enduring.
The people of Pakistan administered Kashmir have long sought greater political participation, economic development and accountable governance. Yet the language of the “hard state” risks reducing these aspirations to security concerns. Once every criticism is viewed through a national security lens, legitimate political expression can be portrayed as a challenge to the state’s authority rather than an essential feature of democratic life.
This is the fundamental weakness of the “hard state” narrative. It does not distinguish sufficiently between violent threats and peaceful dissent. When that distinction begins to blur, democratic space inevitably shrinks.
The broad security narratives in Pakistan administered Kashmir have, at times, been used to justify crackdowns on protests or heavy handed responses to public demonstrations.
The true cost of a “hard state” in Kashmir extends well beyond individual incidents.
It risks criminalizing peaceful political expression by treating criticism as a security challenge rather than democratic participation.
It discourages independent journalism by creating an atmosphere where scrutiny of state actions is viewed with suspicion instead of being recognized as a public service.
It weakens civilian institutions when security considerations overshadow the role of elected representatives, courts and local governance.
It deepens public mistrust by replacing dialogue with coercion, making reconciliation increasingly difficult.
It isolates young people who seek political engagement, encouraging frustration instead of participation.
Most importantly, it undermines the credibility of the state’s own institutions by suggesting that authority depends more on force than on fairness.
None of these outcomes strengthens Kashmir. All of them weaken the relationship between the state and the people.
There is another contradiction at the heart of the “hard state” doctrine. If Pakistan believes its constitutional position in Pakistan administered Kashmir is legitimate and enjoys public confidence, why should peaceful criticism or independent scrutiny be treated as threats? Confident governments answer criticism with facts, institutions and law. Insecure governments answer it with coercion.
The strongest states are not those that exercise the greatest force. They are those that exercise the greatest restraint.
A genuinely strong state welcomes independent courts, protects peaceful assembly, allows a free press to investigate uncomfortable questions and ensures that every allegation of abuse is impartially examined. These are not signs of weakness. They are the defining characteristics of constitutional confidence.
For Kashmir, the stakes are especially high. Every policy that expands coercive authority at the expense of political freedoms risks widening the gap between the governed and those who govern. Lasting peace cannot be secured by reducing civic space or treating constitutional rights as obstacles to security. Peace requires legitimacy, and legitimacy cannot be imposed.
The “hard state” narrative promises order. But order without justice is fragile. It promises authority. But authority without accountability lacks credibility. It promises stability. But stability without public trust rarely lasts.
Kashmir does not need to become a proving ground for a “hard state.” It needs institutions that are trusted, laws that are applied fairly, and governance that places the rights and dignity of its people alongside security, not beneath it.
If Pakistan truly seeks lasting stability in Pakistan administered Kashmir, it should reject the politics of intimidation in favor of the politics of legitimacy. History has repeatedly shown that states become stronger not when they harden against their own people, but when they earn their people’s confidence through justice, transparency and the rule of law.