When Pakistan names its missiles after invaders of its own land, it’s rewriting history for war

PAKISTAN

By Bhumi Jain 

Pakistan's decision to name its missiles after invaders or figures historically viewed as adversaries in the Indian Subcontinent raises provocative questions: is this an act of reclaiming heritage or rewriting history for war?

These names carry profound and ideological weight, combining the realities of contemporary geopolitics with the ghosts of previous conquests. The missiles, carrying the legacies of Ghazni, Abdali, and Ghauri, infer a message that goes beyond the battlefield, questioning how history is remembered, interpreted, and possibly weaponised for power and identity. 

At first, naming missiles after these figures might appear to be a way of invoking historical legacy, an effort to position Pakistan within a lineage of military strength and resilience. Ultimately, it serves the national narrative of Pakistan as defenders of Muslim rulers and invaders identity in the subcontinent, reinforcing the foundational ethos of the state. This attempt suggests efforts by Pakistan's military to evoke a seamless connection between its present day defence capabilities and past glories.

Nonetheless, this is no neutral homage. It is a strategic, symbolic act, intended to make a point, both to audiences at home and to rivals in the region, mainly India. These names are not arbitrary. Rather, they reference invasions that established leadership of Muslim rulers and invaders in the subcontinent, and in doing so, highlight Pakistan’s ideological identity and strategic posture. In this context, history is seemingly recalled to legitimize and exacerbate current conflict dynamics, rather than just being remembered. 

The indigenous missile systems created under Pakistan's Hatf program reflect this pattern. Ballistic and cruise missiles like Ghaznavi (Hatf-III), Abdali-I (Hatf-II), and Ghauri (Hatf-V) bear the names of historic conquerors. That said, not all weapons, particularly those obtained from defense partners, follow this pattern.

Such historically charged names are reserved for domestically produced assets, many developed with technological help from China and, allegedly, North Korea. In contrast, imported military assets, such as the JF-17 fighter jets, which were developed in partnership with China, or other platforms that are supplied by China and the United States, do not carry such symbolic names.

For example, the Babur cruise missile, which bears the name of the Mughal Empire's founder, went into service in 2010 and has since received several upgrades, such as improved targeting systems and the ability to launch submarines.

This reclamation, though, is contentious and selective. Numerous historical figures were invaders who devastated regions that are now part of present-day Pakistan. Ahmad Shah Abdali, for instance, looted Lahore, the second largest city of Pakistan. Babur also toppled the Lodi dynasty, which ruled over areas of modern-day Pakistan. This paradox implies that rather than reclaiming heritage objectively, the narrative is more about rewriting history to suit contemporary geopolitical and ideological purposes. From a strategic perspective, these names function as psychological warfare, potentially intended to remind India of past setbacks, projecting a sense of historic continuity and military resolve.

Beyond mere symbolism, Pakistan's practice of naming missiles after past invaders is not without real world consequences. It plays a role in shaping deterrence strategies, regional perception, and diplomatic positioning. The symbolism remains alive and current in the current geopolitical environment, particularly in light of the current flare-up between India and Pakistan. In that light, Pakistan’s test-firing of the Abdali missile on May 3rd, 2025 following the military confrontation between India-Pakistan served as pointed strategic messaging, linking past conquest to present conflict.

In comparison, India's naming strategy focuses on cultural heritage and spiritual symbolism. India refers to names such as Agni- the fire god, Prithvi- earth, and BrahMos- a portmanteau of river Brahmaputra and Moskva. Names like these evoke strength and nature, and use history and mythology to establish identity and strategies in a well-defined way. 

However, there are two sides to this rewriting of history. But such symbolic acts can cut both ways. Rather than pushing for reconciliation, this process risks reinforcing historical grievances. It has also triggered internal dissent within Pakistan with the country's defence minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, once referred to Mahmud of Ghazni as “merely a plunderer,” sparking national debate about historical interpretation. Meanwhile, Afghanistan has objected to Pakistan’s appropriation of Ahmad Shah Abdali, who is revered as a national hero.

(Bhumi Jain is a third-year student at FLAME University, currently interning with The Takshashila Institution.)

Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.