The Neo-Colonial Framing Of Pakistan – OpEd
By Ali Hassan
The neo-colonial framing of Pakistan is rooted in history, geopolitics, and global discourse. It describes how external powers and institutions continue to shape the way Pakistan is seen and treated in the world, in ways that resemble colonial-era hierarchies.
In contrast to the direct rule of the British Raj, neo-colonialism operates in less obvious ways, in economic circumstances, pressures over security issues, and cultural stereotypes. These processes tend to constrain Pakistan’s freedom in determining its own agenda. Nonetheless, Pakistan is not an innocent bystander. Its state organs, in particular the government and the Army, have been resilient in resisting, adapting, and claiming sovereignty. The actual problem is how to withstand such external pressure while enhancing governance and safeguarding strategic independence.
When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, most of the structural issues left behind by the British colonial rule were inherited by Pakistan, which included a weak economy, weak industries, and administrative systems built for control rather than development. Partition aggravated such problems by bringing up population movements, unresolved boundaries, and institutional chaos. Immediately after becoming independent, Cold War grounded relations put Pakistan in the position of being a frontline state either against communism or during the war on terror. As the theorist Kwame Nkrumah warned, such alignments often lock postcolonial states into dependency, as they are valued mainly for their strategic utility. Over time, Pakistan was too often defined not on its own terms but as a tool for others’ agendas, whether American, Chinese, or regional.
The security narrative is the strongest neo-colonial frame since the events of 9/11. Pakistan has often been called a terror hub or a weak nuclear nation. This framing makes a complicated reality easier to understand and rationalizes future outside measures like drone attacks by the U.S. Experiments done by Stanford and NYU faked the kill and image damage executed by the drones in tribal regions of Pakistan, which portrayed the analysis of how outer security policy aided in fuelling local numbers. Meanwhile, little or nothing is ever heard of the activity of the Pakistani counter-terrorism, which brought the violence to a minimum beyond 2014. This is Swedeica Peace, which seeks to ruin a proven image of an unstable Pakistan and its actual security accomplishments.
Another source of neo-colonial influence is through economics. The constant loans of the IMF and the World Bank have resulted in arranging the economy, including the 3-billion IMF standby facility in 2023. However, such programmes are normally subject to conditions that reduce subsidies, increase taxes or privatize their assets; and delivered to the rest of the world together with the suggestion of the need to make enhanced corrections to an errant state. In practice, there are bargaining stages in the hard job market at home politically. Scenes of success, like achieving IMF targets or even preserving social spending in a crisis, are not much discussed in the news. Rather, the international reputation is that of inescapable dependency, and this is not a case that is right or indicative of the hard work that Pakistan has employed to correct itself.
There is a skewed production of knowledge and representation across the globe as well. It is important to mention that Western scholarship and media still adhere to easily accessible cliches in a concept of Orientalism proposed by Edward Said to explain the role of religious fanatics, the oppression of women, and the backwardness of the tribes. Gayatri Spivak’s warning that “the subaltern cannot speak” is visible here: Pakistani voices are often sidelined in global debates. But worldwide media emphasizes terrorism or the political crisis, whilst giving scant attention to the accomplishments of Pakistan, such as disaster relief, advanced technological development, or cultural diversity. This inequality gives a skewed image, and all the stereotypes overshadow development.
Deep interest in geopolitics underpins these dynamics. The country being a neighbor to India, Afghanistan, China, and the Arabian Sea, makes Pakistan a target in the power rivalry battle of the world. The U.S. military aid during the Cold War made Pakistan dependent on its temporary security positions. Today, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is encouraged in the West largely in terms of “Debt traps,” while in Chinese discourse, the strategic access to the Indian Ocean is paramount. In fact, there are CPEC projects that result in power projects, roads, and ports that enhance infrastructure, although questions on how to make debts more transparent are not without merit. The reality of Pakistan is again reduced to a strategic narrative of someone.
The other aspect of this framing is cultural stereotyping. The international media uses a uniformly conservative, patriarchal or extremist perspective when describing Pakistan. This overlooks the communities of Pakistani society and the systems that endure. Democratic developments, a muscular judiciary, lively media, and extensions of civil societies are all signs that conflicting stereotypes are illegal, but when these sorely needed topics top the world news, they are hardly present there. In this case, the Frantz Fanon perspective on the psychological wounds of colonialism is applicable: external framings can create a sense of inferiority and dependency, which Pakistan must consciously resist.
The Pakistani state and the Army have a role in the middle world but in a complex manner. The critics have a point when they mention that in some cases, democratic institutions have been undermined by elite capture, gaps in governance, and the political influence of the Army. The very institutions have demonstrated real capacity also. The Army has had to play a crucial role during the fight against disasters, border operations, and counter-terrorism and governments have imposed drastic reforms under the global poverty spotlight, including compliance with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) rules that saw Pakistan leave the greylist in 2022. From these examples, one can conclude that despite the asymmetries that Pakistan faces, it still possesses agency and can exercise its sovereignty.
The solution here is providing strategies that embrace sovereignty coupled with intelligent interdependence. Foreign Funding of CPEC would need more transparency to dispel rumors that economic reforms would be sustainable if they were accompanied by measures to introduce more equitable taxation and to provide for better social protection. Pakistan should refrain from unilateral action in the name of security cooperation and instead shift towards capacity building in developing countries on a cooperative basis to address the threats that are common to all. Investing in local research, think tanks, and media would bolster Pakistan’s “epistemic sovereignty” by making its own voices heard in the world. Last but not least, it will diversify the diplomacy between China, the United States, the Gulf states, and the partners living in the region in order to be less dependent on a particular player.
A neo-colonial Pakistan is not in fact a foregone conclusion. It is a collection of images and plots that are subject to debate and reconsideration. Pakistan has had its fair share of limitations as well as strengths. Incorporating internal changes with clear and sovereign interaction with the globe, Pakistan can emerge from the existence of neo-colonialism. For the international community, we must move beyond reductionist stereotypes towards a truly partnership. If we are to do this, but more importantly, if it is to be fair, it is also essential for regional and global stability.
