The recent statement made by Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari on the occasion of Independence Day is not merely a bitter and politically charged remark; it is also a reflection of a mindset in which hostility, distrust, resentment and ideological opposition towards India continue to remain deeply embedded. Commenting on the concept of “Akhand Bharat” (Undivided India), Zardari reportedly said that Indians believe in it, but that Muslims in Pakistan do not subscribe to the idea. At the same time, he claimed that Hindus in Pakistan are safe and happy. The question, therefore, is simple: should the world accept the assertion of a head of state at face value, or examine it against demographic data and realities on the ground? History does not judge nations merely by political rhetoric; it judges them by facts. In Pakistan’s case, four areas—demography, the condition of minorities, religious freedom and terrorism—provide a revealing mirror of its own reality.

When Pakistan came into existence in 1947, Hindus constituted a significant proportion of its population. According to the 1951 Census, Hindus accounted for approximately 14.6 per cent of the population of the then Pakistan. In Pakistan’s official 2023 Census, however, the population recorded under the categories of Hindu Jati and Scheduled Castes was 3,867,729 and 1,349,487 respectively, against a total population of approximately 240.46 million. Taken together, these figures amount to roughly 2.17 per cent of the population. The dramatic decline in the demographic share of Hindus cannot simply be dismissed as an insignificant statistical change; it raises serious questions about the historical and contemporary treatment of religious minorities in Pakistan.

India, too, must be assessed on the basis of facts. India’s last fully published Census was conducted in 2011, when the Muslim population stood at 14.23 per cent, or approximately 172.2 million people. This is where a fundamental difference between India and Pakistan becomes evident. India did not make religion the basis of citizenship. The Constitution guarantees equal citizenship, freedom of religion and the right of every individual to practise and profess his or her faith. Indian Muslims have occupied important positions as President, Vice-President, Union Ministers, Governors, Chief Ministers, judges, military officers, academicians, entrepreneurs, artists, sportspersons and administrators. They have contributed substantially to virtually every sphere of national life. This is not a weakness of Indian democracy; it is one of its greatest strengths.

By contrast, the condition of religious minorities in Pakistan continues to raise serious concerns among international human-rights organisations. Human Rights Watch’s 2026 reporting on Pakistan highlights the misuse of blasphemy laws and the vulnerability of religious minorities to violence, arbitrary detention and social pressure. Hindus, Christians and Ahmadis have faced serious challenges, including violence and allegations of forced marriage and religious conversion. In 2023, following allegations of blasphemy in Jaranwala, Punjab, mobs attacked churches and Christian homes. Human Rights Watch has also documented instances in which blasphemy laws have been exploited to facilitate the dispossession of minorities and force them to leave their homes. Against this background, Zardari’s assertion that Hindus in Pakistan are living happily and securely appears less like an objective assessment and more like a political narrative that deserves to be tested against verifiable evidence.

The true measure of whether minorities are safe in a country is not the statement of its president. It is whether minorities enjoy equal citizenship, religious freedom, protection of their temples and places of worship, equality before law and the right to live without fear. In India, Muslims and other minorities can question governments, criticise public policies, approach courts and seek constitutional remedies. That institutional space is fundamental to a democracy. It represents one of the key distinctions between a constitutional democracy such as India and a state where religious and communal insecurity continues to be a serious concern.

The second major issue is Pakistan’s long-standing association with cross-border terrorism. For decades, terrorism emanating from or facilitated through Pakistan has remained one of the most serious security challenges confronting India. The 2001 Parliament attack, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Pathankot, Uri, Pulwama and repeated incidents of violence in Jammu and Kashmir are part of this troubling history. Following the 2019 Pulwama terrorist attack, India carried out the Balakot air strike against a Jaish-e-Mohammed training facility. India’s Ministry of External Affairs stated at the time that the action was directed against terrorist infrastructure because Pakistan had failed to take adequate measures against terrorist organisations operating from its territory. The Pahalgam terrorist attack of 2025 and the subsequent Operation Sindoor marked another significant moment in India’s evolving security doctrine. Following the April 22, 2025 attack in which 26 people were killed, India announced on May 7 that it had conducted strikes against nine terrorist targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian government described the operation as a targeted and controlled action against terrorist infrastructure.

This transformation is not limited to conventional military responses. India has increasingly focused on the financial, logistical and narcotics networks that sustain terrorism. The phenomenon of narco-terrorism—where narcotics smuggling is used to generate funds for terror networks—has emerged as an additional dimension of the security challenge. India’s challenge today is therefore not merely an armed terrorist standing across the border. It is an interconnected ecosystem involving terrorism, weapons, drones, narcotics, disinformation and attempts to create social divisions. Over the past decade, India has increasingly communicated a clear strategic message: terrorism and dialogue cannot proceed on parallel tracks when one undermines the other. The surgical strikes of 2016, the Balakot action of 2019 and Operation Sindoor in 2025 are different events, but they convey a common principle—India will not remain confined to condemnation and diplomatic protests when confronted with terrorism directed against its citizens.

This transformed India is also essential to understanding Pakistan’s continuing unease. India’s economy, technological capabilities, space programme, defence manufacturing, digital infrastructure, global diplomacy and strategic influence have expanded considerably. India is no longer viewed merely as a South Asian power; it is increasingly regarded as an important participant in global decision-making and a significant partner in shaping the international order. Pakistan’s challenge is therefore not merely that India is moving ahead economically and strategically. A deeper challenge is that India is progressing while retaining its pluralistic and democratic identity. That is precisely why Zardari’s remarks deserve scrutiny. Before commenting on India’s internal diversity or invoking the idea of “Akhand Bharat,” Pakistan’s leadership should look inward and examine the condition of its own minorities and the forces threatening its social cohesion.

India’s demographic reality itself demonstrates that the Muslim community has not disappeared or been marginalised out of existence. It remains a large and integral component of Indian society. At the same time, international human-rights organisations continue to express serious concerns about the security and religious freedoms of minorities in Pakistan. The international community, therefore, should also examine its approach towards Pakistan. Countries should not overlook serious issues merely because of short-term strategic or political interests. A nation should ultimately be judged by its conduct, not by its speeches. If a country publicly professes commitment to combating terrorism while terrorist networks operating from or linked to its territory continue to threaten its neighbours, the international community should not be satisfied merely by diplomatic assurances. Words must be matched by demonstrable action.

India’s strength does not mean hatred towards any religion or hostility towards any nation. It means protecting its citizens, defending its borders, preserving national unity and responding firmly to terrorism. Indian Muslims are as Indian as Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists and members of every other community. India’s unity derives not from uniformity but from the constitutional principle of equality amid diversity. The most important question before Pakistan today is not India. It is Pakistan itself. When will Pakistan acknowledge that using terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy ultimately destabilises the very society in whose name such policies are pursued? The people of Pakistan themselves have suffered enormously from terrorism and militant violence. According to Human Rights Watch’s reporting, hundreds of people were killed in Pakistan in 2025 in attacks by various militant organisations. Terrorism is therefore not merely an instrument directed outward; it has become a source of profound insecurity within Pakistan itself.

Before worrying about the imagined threat of “Akhand Bharat,” Zardari and Pakistan’s leadership would do well to worry about the unity, peace, stability and security of present-day Pakistan, including the protection of its religious minorities. There is a profound irony in history: a nation that repeatedly questions India’s unity continues to struggle with terrorism, political instability, economic difficulties and social divisions within its own borders. The path forward for South Asia cannot lie in hatred, historical grievances or the export of terrorism. It lies in peace, constitutional democracy, protection of minorities, economic development, mutual respect and an unequivocal rejection of terrorism in all its forms. India’s message should therefore remain clear: peace is welcome, dialogue is possible, but terrorism cannot be a tool of state policy. A confident and democratic India does not need to answer hatred with hatred. It needs to answer propaganda with facts, terrorism with resolve, and divisive politics with the enduring strength of its constitutional values. History will ultimately judge Pakistan not by what its leaders say about India, but by what Pakistan does within its own borders—to protect its minorities, defeat terrorism and build a peaceful and stable society.