In a recent interview with Indian media, Michael Rubin, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former Pentagon advisor, launched a blistering critique of Pakistan’s role in fomenting terrorism, called for its designation as a state sponsor of terror, and defended India’s right to protect itself. Rubin’s statements have stirred diplomatic ripples across South Asia and beyond, especially in light of rising tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.
“You Don’t Stop Being a Terrorist by Wearing a Uniform”
Rubin minced no words in asserting that Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment continues to nurture terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, despite their global designation as terrorist organizations. Criticizing the Pakistani military for participating in funeral prayers for slain militants, Rubin declared, “The army uniform does not wash off the blood of terrorism.”
He also highlighted the hypocrisy of Pakistan’s plea for international aid to combat terrorism, noting that “you don’t give an arsonist a can of gasoline.”
India’s Calculated Restraint Praised
While initially critical of Prime Minister Modi’s perceived delay in responding, Rubin acknowledged the Indian military’s “carefully planned” retaliation. He lauded India’s democratic approach, contrasting it with Pakistan’s systemic targeting of minorities and suppression of ethnic identities under the guise of radical Islamism.
Rubin emphasized that “India thrives because of diversity,” while Pakistan, he claimed, continues to implode under the weight of its own contradictions.
Nuclear Deterrence: A Ticking Clock?
Both countries possess nuclear arsenals, but Rubin assured that the mechanisms and doctrines surrounding nuclear deployment today are more robust than they were during the 1999 Kargil conflict. However, he warned that India must not self-deter: “Fear of escalation should not become a green light for continued terrorism.”
Global Stakes: US, China, and Russia Watch Closely
According to Rubin, the U.S. and Russia could work in tandem to prevent escalation, while China’s close ties with Pakistan limit its effectiveness as a mediator. He warned China about its support for Islamist groups: “Those who play with wildfire rarely escape the burn.”
Drawing a stark analogy with Israel’s policy in Gaza, Rubin warned India against short-term retaliatory strikes (“mowing the grass”) and urged a structural uprooting of terrorist networks.
Sociological Analysis: State Identity, Structural Violence, and the Politics of Fear
This geopolitical conflict is not just about missiles and borders—it is a profound sociological case study in state formation, identity politics, and systemic violence.
1. Pakistan’s Ideological Crisis: A Failed State Model?
Rubin’s assertion that Pakistan is an “artificial state” touches on Benedict Anderson’s theory of imagined communities. Pakistan’s post-1971 shift to radical Islam as a unifying force represents a forced cultural homogenization, undermining ethnic pluralism (Sindhis, Balochs, Pashtuns, etc.). This mirrors Louis Althusser’s concept of ideological state apparatuses—religion being used to cement control in lieu of real national identity or democratic cohesion.
2. Terrorism as a Tool of Governance: Structural Violence in Practice
Rubin’s claim that Pakistan funds terrorism to mask its own governance failures aligns with Johan Galtung’s theory of structural violence—where systemic poverty, corruption, and ethnic repression are indirectly maintained by institutions, often masked as religious or nationalistic responses. The use of minority scapegoating echoes Girard’s scapegoat theory, a mechanism through which societal tensions are externalized.
3. India’s Pluralism vs. Pakistan’s Exclusionism
India’s internal strength, Rubin argues, lies in its pluralistic structure. From a Durkheimian lens, India reflects an organic solidarity, where different groups co-exist based on mutual interdependence. Pakistan, in contrast, leans toward mechanical solidarity, but instead of shared values, it imposes a singular identity rooted in exclusion and authoritarianism.
4. Global Hegemony and Soft Power
Rubin’s call for the U.S. to support India is indicative of Gramsci’s concept of hegemony—where global power is not just military but also moral and ideological. By supporting democratic nations against state-sponsored terrorism, the West reinforces a hegemonic norm that delegitimizes authoritarian regimes.
The Way Forward: Uprooting the Problem, Not Trimming It
Rubin’s conclusion mirrors the sociological lesson: merely “trimming the grass” doesn’t solve the root problem of terrorism. As long as Pakistan sustains a political economy of terror, aided by weak international accountability, real peace will remain elusive. The solution lies in a dual strategy: external diplomatic pressure combined with internal structural reforms.