Does Pakistan need another Zia-ul-Haq or Aurangzeb to deal with a mischievous neighbor like India?

[The Bald Eagle]

Pakistan has always put the hand of friendship towards India for a broader peace in the region but unfortunately all these good will gestures and endeavors have been met with hostility.

Recently, Pakistan invited Indian EAM to the SCO conference in Islamabad but still the Indian side didn't show any warmth and instead blamed Pakistan recklessly for a fishy incident like Pahalgam attacks. So bearing in my mind the current bloodshed in Balochistan, would it be plausible for Pakistan to wish for another leader like General Zia-ul-Haq just to deal with India.

A brief overview of Pakistan India relations under General Zia-ul-Haq

General Zia-ul-Haq played a significant role in shaping Pakistan's hostile stance against India. After coming to power through a military coup that deposed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Zia implemented a strategy known as "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts," which involved covert warfare, militancy, and backing of Mujahideens aimed at liberating Kashmir and Punjab.

Zia's approach to India was marked by a mix of military brinkmanship and nuclear ambiguity. In a 1987 visit to India under the guise of watching a cricket match, Zia warned Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that any attack on Pakistan could lead to a nuclear war with devastating consequences for India, emphasizing that while Pakistan might be destroyed, the Muslim community would survive, but Hinduism could vanish from the earth. This threat highlighted the intense hostility and the high stakes of the Pakistan-India conflict during his regime.

Despite these tensions, Zia also engaged in limited diplomacy, such as his unannounced visit to India in 1987, which was part of "cricket diplomacy" aimed at easing border tensions. However, his tenure was largely defined by the militarization of Pakistan's policy towards India and the promotion of Islamist policies internally.

In summary, Zia-ul-Haq's stance against India combined aggressive covert operations, nuclear deterrence threats, and occasional diplomatic overtures, all within the broader context of Pakistan's long-standing conflict with India over Kashmir and regional dominance

 

[Bhaijaan]

Yes please.

I hope you have a strong military dictatorship for at least another two decades.

It will be fantastic.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Yes please.

I hope you have a strong military dictatorship for at least another two decades.

It will be fantastic.

We don't need dictators or field marshals but some tough guys who could keep Indian mischievous tendencies in place especially in Balochistan. Zia kept India at bay even dealing with Soviets at one end.... phenomenal

 

[Major]

Lol OP and zia ul haq fan boyism.

Zia did more damage to Pakistan than any good.

 

[Major]

We don't need dictators or field marshals but some tough guys who could keep Indian mischievous tendencies in place especially in Balochistan. Zia kept India at bay even dealing with Soviets at one end.... phenomenal

This contradicts your first line

 

[Bhaijaan]

We don't need dictators or field marshals but some tough guys who could keep Indian mischievous tendencies in place especially in Balochistan. Zia kept India at bay even dealing with Soviets at one end.... phenomenal

I am with you on this.

Making a dua that Pakistan gets its Zia up Haq golden era back.

 

[Devadwal]

Balochistan is going to be independent soon bro. Fact

 

[HalBass9]

This was never just about Zia, India, or the Soviets, it was always shaped by America's Cold War playbook.

During the Cold War, while the US fueled a proxy war in Afghanistan through Pakistan, India sought to maintain plausible neutrality, careful not to appear entangled. That’s why the conflict remained largely confined to Indian occupied Kashmir.

Today, the dynamics have shifted. India may not be at war with Pakistan outright, but it is certainly entangled in a proxy confrontation with China, on Pakistani soil. The recent events and China's help to Pakistan is clear evidence to that.

Regardless of who governs, military or civilian, Pakistan’s long term foreign policy cannot afford to be reset every time leadership changes. With military reliance on China and economic dependency on Western institutions, Pakistan must walk a geopolitical tightrope. Striking the right balance won’t stop India’s covert campaigns, but it will blunt their narrative advantage.

What Pakistan needs is not another strongman, but a strong strategy. Sadly, that remains more a hope than a plan.

One thing is certain, China will not allow Baluchistan to be separated from Pakistan.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Lol OP and zia ul haq fan boyism.

Zia did more damage to Pakistan than any good.

It's not about Zia as a dictator but as a strategist who kept India under check and that too when Indira Gandhi was in power...guys like Modi would have been nothing.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

This was never just about Zia, India, or the Soviets, it was always shaped by America's Cold War playbook.

During the Cold War, while the US fueled a proxy war in Afghanistan through Pakistan, India sought to maintain plausible neutrality, careful not to appear entangled. That’s why the conflict remained largely confined to Indian occupied Kashmir.

Today, the dynamics have shifted. India may not be at war with Pakistan outright, but it is certainly entangled in a proxy confrontation with China, on Pakistani soil. The recent events and China's help to Pakistan is clear evidence to that.

Regardless of who governs, military or civilian, Pakistan’s long term foreign policy cannot afford to be reset every time leadership changes. With military reliance on China and economic dependency on Western institutions, Pakistan must walk a geopolitical tightrope. Striking the right balance won’t stop India’s covert campaigns, but it will blunt their narrative advantage.

What Pakistan needs is not another strongman, but a strong strategy. Sadly, that remains more a hope than a plan.

One thing is certain, China will not allow Baluchistan to be separated from Pakistan.

How can that strategy ever evolve now when an institution is more busy serving some Individuals egos

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Balochistan is going to be independent soon bro. Fact

You shall pray for the chicken neck as Chinese devour them well for dinners.

 

[Devadwal]

It's not about Zia as a dictator but as a strategist who kept India under check and that too when Indira Gandhi was in power...guys like Modi would have been nothing.

India captured the Siachen Glacier on April 13, 1984, during Operation Meghdoot and Zia was the dictator of Pakistan. Lol.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

India captured the Siachen Glacier on April 13, 1984, during Operation Meghdoot and Zia was the dictator of Pakistan. Lol.

And under him Pakistan became a nuclear power, also why didn't your government back then attack Pakistan...after all Soviets had made numerous overtures too...or your country doesn't know how to return favor....Poor Soviets to have such weak hearted friends

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Please no.
I can't add more than that.

 

[Devadwal]

And under him Pakistan became a nuclear power, also why didn't your government back then attack Pakistan...after all Soviets had made numerous overtures too...or your country doesn't know how to return favor....Poor Soviets to have such weak hearted friends

Do you even know when was Pakistan becomes nuclear State?

And what had Zia did when India captured Siachen Glacier. Anyway Pakistan can give the Power to anyone ,we simply don't care .

Btw Asim Munir promoted Asim Munir after a humiliation defeat

 

[guard]

Lol OP and zia ul haq fan boyism.

Zia did more damage to Pakistan than any good.

Why indian s***r boys upvoting??!

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Do you even know when was Pakistan becomes nuclear State?

And what had Zia did when India captured Siachen Glacier. Anyway Pakistan can give the Power to anyone ,we simply don't care .

Btw Asim Munir promoted Asim Munir after a humiliation defeat

It seems like your history is weak my friend...just simply google when exactly Pakistan attained nuclear weapons not when they openly tested.

 

[emranabbas]

Indians will be dealt with last time they had to run to paw paw trump and had a lucky escape

 

[Bhaijaan]

Please no.
I can't add more than that.

Modi masterstroke worked.
Pakistanis already talking about bringing back notorious dictators back from dead

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Modi masterstroke worked.
Pakistanis already talking about bringing back notorious dictators back from dead

Yes Masterstroke

https://twitter.com/x/status/1924495799548780748

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Please no.
I can't add more than that.

I can understand bro, may be you think that we don't need Zia but Aurangzebs

 

[The Bald Eagle]

When I suggest someone like Zia it doesn't mean Zia the dictator but Zia the Indian nightmare

 

[Champ_Pal]

Sure. You need a Zia who gets blasted everyday online by Pakistanis for screwing up their country. Regarding Aurangzeb, what can a fanatic like him do? You already have enough of them in Pakistan. If Zaid Hamid becomes your Army head, he will be your new Aurangzeb. It will be a good show to watch Pakistan disintegrate even faster.

 

[HalBass9]

Pakistan doesn’t need another Zia. What it needs is diplomacy grounded in consistency, a long-term foreign policy that isn’t torn up and rewritten every time a new uniform or ego takes charge. No more Musharraf experiments or Bajwa doctrines masquerading as national strategy.

Meanwhile, India has done what Pakistan did in the 70's and 80's, it elected its own Zia, his name is Modi, also known as the Butcher of Gujarat. Where Zia ushered in Islamization, Modi has mainstreamed Hindutva. And just as Pakistan is still grappling with Zia’s legacy, India will soon reckon with the cost of turning majoritarianism into national identity.

History may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes, and the consequences don’t discriminate.

 

[LordJames]

Pakistan has always put the hand of friendship towards India for a broader peace in the region but unfortunately all these good will gestures and endeavors have been met with hostility.

Recently, Pakistan invited Indian EAM to the SCO conference in Islamabad but still the Indian side didn't show any warmth and instead blamed Pakistan recklessly for a fishy incident like Pahalgam attacks. So bearing in my mind the current bloodshed in Balochistan, would it be plausible for Pakistan to wish for another leader like General Zia-ul-Haq just to deal with India.

A brief overview of Pakistan India relations under General Zia-ul-Haq

General Zia-ul-Haq played a significant role in shaping Pakistan's hostile stance against India. After coming to power through a military coup that deposed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Zia implemented a strategy known as "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts," which involved covert warfare, militancy, and backing of Mujahideens aimed at liberating Kashmir and Punjab.

Zia's approach to India was marked by a mix of military brinkmanship and nuclear ambiguity. In a 1987 visit to India under the guise of watching a cricket match, Zia warned Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that any attack on Pakistan could lead to a nuclear war with devastating consequences for India, emphasizing that while Pakistan might be destroyed, the Muslim community would survive, but Hinduism could vanish from the earth. This threat highlighted the intense hostility and the high stakes of the Pakistan-India conflict during his regime.

Despite these tensions, Zia also engaged in limited diplomacy, such as his unannounced visit to India in 1987, which was part of "cricket diplomacy" aimed at easing border tensions. However, his tenure was largely defined by the militarization of Pakistan's policy towards India and the promotion of Islamist policies internally.

In summary, Zia-ul-Haq's stance against India combined aggressive covert operations, nuclear deterrence threats, and occasional diplomatic overtures, all within the broader context of Pakistan's long-standing conflict with India over Kashmir and regional dominance

Rethinking Pakistan’s Strategic Posture: Passive Defense Isn’t a Deterrent

We all agree — Pakistan doesn’t need another military dictator eroding civil liberties and suppressing dissent. However, it also doesn’t need leadership that is overly conciliatory in the face of hostile actions. The current regional dynamic demands a firmer, more strategically assertive approach — not for adventurism, but for national security and deterrence.

I believe it's time for Pakistan’s military and its numerous intelligence agencies — including the ISI, MI, and IB — to refocus on their core mandate: safeguarding national security with a clear strategic emphasis on the threat posed by India.

Over the years, these institutions have been drawn into internal political affairs and non-essential entanglements that dilute their effectiveness and distract from their primary responsibility. It's crucial that they return to their foundational mission — developing robust external security strategies, especially in countering cross-border threats and hybrid warfare tactics originating from India.

A disciplined, outward-facing intelligence and defense posture will not only strengthen Pakistan’s deterrence but also help restore public trust in these institutions.

If hostile elements from across the border are actively supporting insurgency, targeting civilians, or aiding operations that result in the loss of innocent lives in Pakistan — especially children — then passive restraint is not a viable long-term strategy. A nation cannot afford to absorb such losses indefinitely while relying solely on diplomatic or moral appeals.

Pakistan must consider leveraging all available tools to protect its interests. This could include providing strategic, logistical, and diplomatic support to indigenous freedom movements across the region — whether in Indian-administered Kashmir, Manipur, Nagaland, Assam, or elsewhere — wherever people are struggling against systemic marginalization or military repression.

Such support must always be principled and targeted, avoiding harm to civilians and staying within the boundaries of international norms — but it should also be firm in reciprocating hostile state-sponsored actions, especially when those result in bloodshed inside Pakistan.

Moreover, in regions like Ladakh or Jammu, where China has overlapping strategic interests, coordination — even if tacit — should not be dismissed outright if it serves to rebalance the strategic equation in South Asia.

This isn’t about escalation for the sake of it, or undermining peace efforts, but about restoring deterrence and sending a clear message: continued destabilization of Pakistan will have consequences.

Pakistan cannot afford to wait for more "little coffins" before it rethinks its red lines. I am neither a Zionist nor an Indian so can never agree to targeting random civilians or harming water supplies or using rape etc but India needs to feel the pain for the "little coffins" which Pakistan and its people have been lifting!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Pakistan doesn’t need another Zia. What it needs is diplomacy grounded in consistency, a long-term foreign policy that isn’t torn up and rewritten every time a new uniform or ego takes charge. No more Musharraf experiments or Bajwa doctrines masquerading as national strategy.

Meanwhile, India has done what Pakistan did in the 70's and 80's, it elected its own Zia, his name is Modi, also known as the Butcher of Gujarat. Where Zia ushered in Islamization, Modi has mainstreamed Hindutva. And just as Pakistan is still grappling with Zia’s legacy, India will soon reckon with the cost of turning majoritarianism into national identity.

History may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes, and the consequences don’t discriminate.

I am starting to see some real backlash from Indians on social media after a long time. The penny is finally starting to drop that BJP is a one trick pony whose answer to everything is to blame either Pakistan, or their own Muslims instead of addressing real issues while China surges ahead and takes charge of Asia.

 

[sweep_shot]

I don't think soft/peaceful approach would work with India. It is because India currently has an extremist government backed by many extremist sanghis. You can't be soft with extremists.

Therefore, a strong leader is needed definitely.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I don't think soft/peaceful approach would work with India. It is because India currently has an extremist government backed by many extremist sanghis. You can't be soft with extremists.

Therefore, a strong leader is needed definitely.

Imran Khan was so much better than current lot...it's so irony that Modi even turned back on those who invited him to weddings

 

[Pakpak]

This was never just about Zia, India, or the Soviets, it was always shaped by America's Cold War playbook.

During the Cold War, while the US fueled a proxy war in Afghanistan through Pakistan, India sought to maintain plausible neutrality, careful not to appear entangled. That’s why the conflict remained largely confined to Indian occupied Kashmir.

Today, the dynamics have shifted. India may not be at war with Pakistan outright, but it is certainly entangled in a proxy confrontation with China, on Pakistani soil. The recent events and China's help to Pakistan is clear evidence to that.

Regardless of who governs, military or civilian, Pakistan’s long term foreign policy cannot afford to be reset every time leadership changes. With military reliance on China and economic dependency on Western institutions, Pakistan must walk a geopolitical tightrope. Striking the right balance won’t stop India’s covert campaigns, but it will blunt their narrative advantage.

What Pakistan needs is not another strongman, but a strong strategy. Sadly, that remains more a hope than a plan.

One thing is certain, China will not allow Baluchistan to be separated from Pakistan.

Excellent post especially the bold. Sadly the entire elite is drunk celebrating a 'victory' - some victory where they knew in advance of the enemy attack but did nothing but there we go. Your point about the Cold War is spot on. The US also warned India a few times in the back channels as they needed Pakistan at the time against the Soviets.

 

[Farhan The Man]

We don't need dictators....

Zia kept India at bay even dealing with Soviets at one end.... phenomenal

Two sentences. In the same thought.

In complete contradiction.

Make you mind up.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Two sentences. In the same thought.

In complete contradiction.

Make you mind up.

Do I need to register in your Madrassah for making up my India....lol first you make up your mind whether you are a Hindutva fan boy or an atheist.

 

[Farhan The Man]

You just wrote two very nonsensical sentences.

Clearly you are a zia apologist. No we don't want zia back.

He deserved his ending though: sadar sahab ka tayara hawa mein phat gaya. bahwalpur, 17Aug'88. Music to ears still today.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

You just wrote two very nonsensical sentences.

Clearly you are a zia apologist. No we don't want zia back.

He deserved his ending though: sadar sahab ka tayara hawa mein phat gaya. bahwalpur, 17Aug'88. Music to ears still today.

No, but you seems to be his avowed hater. May be you were one of those famous poor guys who got lashed publicly. Anyway read my sentence again...I still appreciate his manhandling of India.

If you still have comprehension issues, then that is understandable...after all you are the same guy who can't even quote a single Quranic verse rightly...need to mention your Madrassah name for the betterment of others

 

[Hitman]

You just wrote two very nonsensical sentences.

Clearly you are a zia apologist. No we don't want zia back.

He deserved his ending though: sadar sahab ka tayara hawa mein phat gaya. bahwalpur, 17Aug'88. Music to ears still today.

You remember his passing?

 

[Farhan The Man]

I still appreciate his manhandling of India.

His manhandling of pakistan and its citizens was far worse.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

His manhandling of pakistan and its citizens was far worse.

Can't you read what I said above, I think you need to spend 14 more years in that Madrassah now...and do concentrate this time

 

[Farhan The Man]

You remember his passing?

Like yesterday.

By 8pm the news spread in karachi like wildfire of his fortunate demise. Celebrations and fireworks ensued.

He was so hated that to date even the army didn't follow up on investigation. Everyone was relieved.

 

[Hitman]

Like yesterday.

By 8pm the news spread in karachi like wildfire of his fortunate demise. Celebrations and fireworks ensued.

He was so hated that to date even the army didn't follow up on investigation. Everyone was relieved.

Isn't it widely believed it was a sabotage? But by whom?

 

[straighttalk]

You already got it .just a matter of time... Failed marshall munir

 

[Farhan The Man]

Isn't it widely believed it was a sabotage? But by whom?

The amreekans did him in. Every dictator they've supported met similar fate. He was in too deep with them.

He knew his end was near. When his hand was forced that day to visit a failed US tank demo. He didn't want to go.

amreekans reeled him in, and shot him out of the sky in their C130 transport. An hour after the entire area was water hosed. By zia's own army. Redudant to say, them also on amreekan payroll.

 

[Farhan The Man]

israel = islamic republick of pakistan

Equivalency confirmed by mard-e-momin: ziaulhaq.

Must be true then.

"Pakistan is like Israel, an ideological state. Take out Judaism from Israel and it will collapse like a house of cards. Take Islam out of Pakistan and make it a secular state; it would collapse. For the past four years we have been trying to bring Islamic values to this country."​

Chief Martial Law Administrator, Pakistan, 1981.
As quoted from Tariq Ali - The Clash of Fundamentalisms_ Crusades, Jihads and Modernity​