Munir to Modi: Neither jingoism nor selective outrage helps

On April 16, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (COAS), General Asim Munir, delivered an address at the Overseas Pakistanis Convention in Islamabad that has rightfully raised eyebrows across the subcontinent. The speech, predominantly a celebration of Pakistani patriotism featuring praises of forefathers’ sacrifices, the “brain gain” from the diaspora, and the valour of the armed forces, was met with enthusiastic applause when it focused on national pride. However, in a brief thirty-second segment—from approximately 1:55 to 2:25 on the video posted by Pakistan’s Dunya News—the general singled out Hindus, a move that starkly separated Muslims from not only Hindus but also, presumably, other minority communities within Pakistan. This divisive sectarian rhetoric, which appears geared more toward inciting animosity than fostering genuine positive relations with India, is symptomatic of a deeper malaise within Pakistan’s leadership.

The silence that fell over the packed hall when Munir mentioned Hindus spoke volumes.

It was an unprecedented reaction at an event otherwise marked by patriotic fervour, suggesting that even staunch supporters of Pakistani patriotism are uncomfortable with overt religious exclusions. Survey after public survey also indicates that over 40% of people in Pakistan favour stronger trade and travel relations.

Major Pakistani outlets such as Dawn and The Nation, while covering the event, chose instead to focus on incentives for expatriates and anti-terrorism measures. They sidestepped the inflammatory religious remarks, offering a counter-narrative to Munir's divisive comment. Only Dunya News, according to available records, uploaded the full speech, allowing a direct examination of Munir’s rhetoric.

This episode is not isolated but rather a recurring theme in Pakistan’s political discourse. In 2019, Prime Minister Imran Khan’s address at the UN General Assembly involved veiled nuclear threats and calls to combat Islamophobia—messages that ultimately invited criticism for undermining Pakistan’s image abroad. Such instances underscore the broader problem: Pakistan’s leadership appears more enamoured with the rhetoric of historical glory and religious identity than with the pressing needs of domestic economic growth. There is little doubt that Pakistan’s cultural and ideological legacy—when framed as a “superior ideology” akin to the early Islamic state of Madina and asserted by invoking figures like Mohammed Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah—functions as both a rallying cry and a convenient distraction from underlying issues. Munir’s assertion that “no power of the world can harm Pakistan” is a stark reminder of the historical hubris that has, in the past, led to significant geopolitical and economic setbacks, such as the loss of Bangladesh.

The situation also reflects a broader trend where both Pakistan and India find it expedient to invoke historical narratives over pragmatic governance. India, despite its relatively stronger economic performance and a strategic pivot toward modernity, is not free from its own inconsistencies. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for instance, has been quick to condemn incidents like anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh, yet has remained silent on episodes of anti-Christian riots in Manipur and anti-Muslim riots in North West Delhi. This selective condemnation does little to address the root causes of communal strife or foster genuine reconciliation among communities and probably does more to exacerbate them.

The divergent narratives from both sides have left Indians with a justified sense of indignation over Munir’s address. However, reactionary rhetoric of the tit-for-tat variety does little to build bridges or enhance mutual understanding between the two nations. Instead, voices like that of former Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran offer a “toolkit of options” to deal with the situation. Saran has suggested that India adopt a dual approach: a negative realpolitik response concerning contentious issues in Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan, and a positive commercial strategy that bolsters trade.  

Foreign Secretary Saran and others have also pointed out that there is not much daylight between the Pakistani military and civilian leadership. (If there were, the civilians would be replaced!) Other options can be more effective:

• Boosting business-to-business relations can be more effective, even if, or including, the Army’s own network of enterprises
• Initiatives like facilitating the movement of Pakistani film stars to work in India
• Increasing visa allocations for societal leaders

India can create a network of economic stakeholders whose interests lie in stability over discord. The long-term benefits of such alliances matter significantly more than any transient moment of patriotic vindication.

Furthermore, building up relationships through institutional channels, such as enhancing financial transaction systems (for example, integrating India’s UPI scheme to both enable and monitor cross-border payments), and fostering deep connections between industry leaders, could gradually translate into sustained pressure on those in power. Equally important is the effort to cultivate broader South Asian ties with Afghanistan and other neighbouring countries. This can be both an opportunity and a challenge as Pakistan seeks similar alignments with Bangladesh. The gradual easing of security-related restrictions on people-to-people exchanges, provided there is robust oversight—commencing at the MLA level in India—could serve as a critical stepping stone toward de-escalating entrenched hostilities.

In essence, every piece of incendiary rhetoric, no matter how provocative, also opens a door for recalibration and dialogue. The way forward for India does not lie in mirroring Pakistan’s historical grievances or engaging in tit-for-tat rhetoric; it lies instead in creating secure, mutually beneficial economic and social ties that transcend old hatreds. While Indians are understandably offended by Munir’s recent divisive remarks, India’s leadership must leverage such provocations as catalysts for deeper, more meaningful engagement with Pakistan—one that moves beyond blunt denouncements and towards constructive, long-term cooperation.

The divisive speech by Munir and the ensuing Indian reaction underscores an enduring pattern where leadership in both Pakistan and India resorts to historical narratives and selective criticism over pragmatic governance. Amid these provocations, the pathway to sustained regional peace lies not in mutual recrimination but in a comprehensive strategy that strengthens people-to-people contacts, enhances commercial ties, and takes a guarded, incremental approach toward security and diplomatic engagement. The time has come for pragmatic dialogue and thoughtful initiative to supplant rhetoric with rationality in South Asia.