OPINION | Collusion, Not Control: How Pakistan Works Through Aligned Networks

by Huma Siddiqui

Discussions of external influence often fall into a familiar trap. They assume control where there is, in reality, alignment. Orders where there are incentives. Direct command where there is shared ideology. In Bangladesh’s current political churn, this distinction matters more than ever.

Pakistan’s engagement with Bangladesh has rarely taken the form of overt intervention. Instead, its influence, where it exists, operates through aligned networks, sympathetic narratives, and opportunistic amplification. This is not a model of command and control. It is a model of collusion without coordination.

The difference is subtle but consequential.

Direct control requires hierarchy, discipline, and traceable lines of authority. It leaves fingerprints. Aligned influence does not. It thrives on overlap rather than obedience. Actors do not need instructions when their interests already converge.

Bangladesh’s political history provides fertile ground for such convergence. Debates over secularism, religious identity, historical accountability, and the legacy of 1971 have never been fully resolved. During periods of instability, these debates resurface with force. When they do, certain ideological currents within Bangladesh naturally resonate with narratives long present in Pakistan’s political and religious discourse.

This resonance does not require orchestration. It is structural.

Political and religious organizations that prioritize identity over nationhood, grievance over reconciliation, or revision over accountability often draw from transnational ideological pools. These pools are sustained through clerical discourse, diaspora networks, media ecosystems, and digital platforms that do not respect national boundaries. Influence flows laterally, not vertically.

Pakistan’s advantage in this environment lies precisely in restraint. By avoiding direct operational involvement, it minimizes exposure while retaining narrative relevance. When internal fault lines in Bangladesh widen, familiar storylines re-emerge organically: questions about the legitimacy of historical settlements, reinterpretations of past violence, and appeals to broader religious solidarity.

This is collusion in the strategic sense, not conspiracy, but convergence.

Aligned networks function best when they appear autonomous. Their credibility depends on being locally rooted, articulating domestic grievances, and reflecting internal anxieties. External direction would undermine that authenticity. Ideological alignment, by contrast, reinforces it.

During political transitions, this alignment becomes more visible. Institutions are distracted. Enforcement is uneven. Competing actors rush to occupy narrative space. In this environment, voices with existing organizational infrastructure, mosques, student wings, online communities, informal welfare networks, can mobilize quickly. Their messaging spreads not because it is imported, but because it fits pre-existing frames.

Pakistan’s role in this process is largely reactive. It does not create openings; it recognizes them. When internal debates in Bangladesh tilt toward historical revisionism or religious reframing, amplification follows. When those debates recede, so does the echo.

This explains why Pakistan’s influence often appears inconsistent. It surges during moments of domestic contestation and fades during periods of consolidation. That pattern would be difficult to explain if control were centralized. It makes sense if alignment is the mechanism.

Understanding this distinction is critical for effective policy responses. Treating aligned networks as externally controlled risks overestimating foreign reach while underestimating domestic drivers. It can also lead to counterproductive strategies that target symptoms rather than causes.

Suppressing narratives without addressing the grievances that sustain them rarely works. Worse, it can reinforce the sense of victimhood that aligned networks rely on. The result is deeper polarization, not resolution.

This does not mean external influence should be ignored. Narrative ecosystems do not operate in isolation. Amplification matters. Validation matters. Silence can matter as much as speech. But influence that rides on alignment is best countered by strengthening internal cohesion, not by hunting for invisible strings.

Bangladesh’s long-term resilience will depend on narrowing the spaces where alignment becomes attractive. That means reinforcing historical clarity, protecting institutional credibility, and reducing the incentives for identity-based mobilization to substitute for political accountability.

Pakistan’s strategy, such as it is, relies on patience rather than precision. It waits for moments when domestic debates reopen old wounds, then allows familiar narratives to circulate without claiming ownership. The absence of fingerprints is not evidence of absence; it is evidence of method.

Collusion, not control, is how influence endures in contested political environments. Recognizing this does not absolve domestic actors of responsibility. On the contrary, it places responsibility exactly where it belongs, within the system that provides alignment with its oxygen.

---

About Author

Huma Siddiqui is a senior journalist with more than three decades of experience covering Defense, Space, and the Ministry of External Affairs. She began her career with The Financial Express in 1993 and moved to FinancialExpress.com in 2018. Her reporting often integrates defence and foreign policy with economic diplomacy, with a particular focus on Afro-Asia and Latin America.