The collapse of the Soviet Union was perceived as a fundamental flaw in the socialist-communist political model—namely, its failure to ensure sustained economic progress. In its aftermath, the West shifted its focus towards Islam, as exemplified by Samuel Huntington’s provocative thesis in The Clash of Civilisations, notably his claim that “Islam has bloody borders”. Islam was portrayed as primitive, inherently violent, and predisposed to conflict.
Thus began a concerted effort to contain the Muslim world—particularly the oil-rich Middle East and strategically significant Afghanistan.
However, time has revealed that the real issue was not Islam as a religion per se, but rather the political philosophy it offers as an alternative political system—much like the challenge once posed by the communist USSR or socialist China. In essence, any ideology that contested the Western political and capitalist economic models was confronted—initially through Cold War antagonism and subsequently via the War on Terror, catalysed by the events of 9/11. Islam was demonised through the lens of the Saudi brand of religiosity, just as socialist ideology in China was once mocked and ridiculed, as caricatured by the portrayal of the Chinese woman in the British sitcom Mind Your Language.
The rise of China as a global economic power has fundamentally challenged these narratives.
China’s economic ascent demonstrates that a political system rooted in socialist ideology can, in fact, thrive. In other words, Western-style liberal democracy and free-market capitalism are not the only viable pathways to prosperity. Moreover, the Western democratic model is not necessarily the sole framework capable of ensuring socio-political stability—especially if the primary objective of governance is the welfare of the common citizen. If China’s one-party socialist system has succeeded in lifting nearly its entire population out of poverty, it must be recognised as a success by any reasonable standard.
The borders drawn by British colonialists are not legitimate in China’s eyes. Territories that historically belonged to China before colonial occupation must, in his view, be returned
Similarly, Pakistan’s economic difficulties have often been simplistically attributed to its religious character—as though avowedly democratic nations such as India, Israel, and the United States were somehow secular or non-religious in essence. Within Pakistan’s intellectual circles, there has long been an argument that the separation of religion and state is essential for fostering a more secular society capable of achieving socio-economic progress.
This argument does hold some merit.
While separating religion from the workings of the state may indeed be necessary, personal religious belief in itself does not obstruct economic development—as evidenced by the religious underpinnings of Christianity in America, Hinduism in India, and Judaism in Israel. However, the rise of religious fundamentalism—even fanaticism—in the form of Hindutva in India and Zionism in Israel coincides with early signs of economic stagnation in both nations. Likewise, in the United States, the rise of white supremacy and the harsh treatment of immigrants may be viewed as impediments to future economic growth.
Russia, China, and Pakistan have each drawn lessons from their respective histories.
China, for instance, learned from the Soviet Union’s collapse and adopted a free-market economic model while retaining its socialist political ideology—reaping enormous economic benefits. A similar realisation dawned in Pakistan after 9/11, when General Musharraf introduced the concept of ‘enlightened moderation’ to promote a more relaxed and tolerant religious environment. Likewise, Russia embraced market economics without abandoning its political worldview. Both China and Russia maintained ideological continuity while pursuing economic transformation.
Pakistan’s case, however, is more complex.
Pakistan continues to suffer from the fallout of the two Afghan wars—the Soviet invasion of 1979 and the American invasion of 2001. The Saudi-exported brand of extremist Islam, introduced during these conflicts, has left deep imprints on Pakistani society and culture. This along with terrorist activities via Indian proxies like BLA and TTP have significantly hindered the country’s economic progress. It suffices to leave readers with a few pressing questions: Who benefits from an economically weakened, cash-strapped Pakistan? To whom does Pakistan turn in times of financial need? And how is Pakistan exploited in exchange for the petty sums injected into its coffers?
Yet, Pakistan’s demonstration of aerial superiority over India on the night of 6–7 May marked a critical turning point in the regional military and geopolitical landscape.
This episode has been widely discussed in Pakistani media—both print and electronic. India, during its military confrontation with Pakistan between 6 and 10 May, performed well below American expectations. Its perceived impotence has significantly diminished its stature in Washington’s eyes as a credible strategic counterbalance to China in the Indo-Pacific. President Trump’s response in the wake of the conflict was seen by many as both demoralising and humiliating for India.
The message was clear: You have proven incapable—so step aside.
Conversely, China has begun to assert itself in unprecedented ways. It openly supported Pakistan during the four-day conflict. A particularly notable figure during this period was Dr Victor Zhikai Gao, Vice President of the Beijing-based Centre for China and Globalisation. Known to be close to Beijing’s inner circles, Dr Gao made it emphatically clear in several televised interviews that China’s commitment to Pakistan is unwavering. When it comes to Pakistan’s sovereignty and national interest, China stands firmly by its side.
In a recent interview with a Pakistani broadcaster, Dr Gao highlighted a crucial point regarding China’s relationship with India. According to him, the borders drawn by British colonialists are not legitimate in China’s eyes. Territories that historically belonged to China before colonial occupation must, in his view, be returned.
The same principle applies to Kashmir.
The British Empire left behind a legacy of unsettled and disputed borders across its former colonies—in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Perhaps the time has now come to resolve these lingering disputes once and for all. Territories that naturally and historically belonged to a particular nation should no longer be withheld through illegitimate force.
The project of a revised world order (I use the term revised to distinguish it from the ‘New World Order’ conceived in 1989–91) is now underway. It is only a matter of time before it takes its definitive shape.