'Bleed India with thousand cuts': How Hindu hatred is taught in Pakistan's military classrooms, not just terror camps

A man carries a portrait of Pakistani Army Chief General Syed Asim Munir, during a rally to express solidarity with Pakistan's armed forces, in Islamabad on May 14, 2025.

In his recent speech about Pakistan's military, Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan cited the work of Christine Fair and Peter Chalk, both renowned experts in international security and policy. Fair and Chalk, in their works, exposed to the world the archaic yet dangerous doctrine that guides Pakistan’s military establishment -  “bleed India with a thousand cuts.”

Far from being a relic of the past, the strategy remains deeply embedded in the psyche of Pakistan’s generals, which is not just nurtured in its military institutions but also celebrated in statements by leaders such as the one made by Field Marshal General Asim Munir before the Pahalgam attack.

At its core, this doctrine is not simply about military rivalry; it is ideological warfare aimed specifically at Hindus, the Indian state and the idea of secular democracy. Behind the euphemism of “strategic depth” lies a darker truth: Pakistan’s deep state, led by the Army and its intelligence wing ISI, has institutionalised anti-Hindu bigotry as a national obsession. It is even printed in the words of serving officers, spoken from podiums by generals and taught to military recruits every year.

Doctrine of terror, rooted in hate

The phrase “bleed India with a thousand cuts” is not just a rhetorical flourish – it is the cornerstone of Pakistan’s decades-long unofficial war against India. The origin and evolution of this doctrine are deeply rooted in Pakistan’s military and political thinking since the 1960s, with strong ideological backing from leaders like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and successive regimes and military establishments.

In his speech on June 3, CDS Chauhan recalled that back in 1965, then Pakistan foreign minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto declared a "thousand-year war" against India during a fiery address to the United Nations Security Council. While initially rhetorical, this statement laid the ideological groundwork for a prolonged conflict with India.

A little over a decade later, General Zia-ul-Haq gave Bhutto’s vision a dark and strategic form. After overthrowing Bhutto in a military coup in July 1977 and formally assuming the presidency in September 1978, Zia recalibrated Pakistan’s approach toward India. The crushing defeat in the 1971 war, which led to the secession of East Pakistan and the birth of Bangladesh, had convinced Pakistan’s military establishment that conventional warfare could no longer achieve its objectives, particularly in Kashmir.

In response, Zia devised a covert, long-term policy of proxy warfare, famously described as the strategy to “bleed India with a thousand cuts.” This doctrine focused on fomenting terrorism, insurgency, and internal unrest within India, especially in Kashmir, as a means of attrition. It was under Zia’s leadership that Pakistan’s military and intelligence apparatus began actively nurturing and arming Islamist militant groups to launch low-cost, high-impact attacks across the border, setting the stage for decades of cross-border terrorism.

Both Christine Fair and Peter Chalk, in their work, have detailed how Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has supported non-state actors to carry out proxy wars against India, particularly in Kashmir.

Genesis of the doctrine

The specific phrase “bleed India with a thousand cuts” became popular in Pakistani strategic and military circles after the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, which ended in a crushing defeat for Pakistan and the secession of East Pakistan as Bangladesh. In the aftermath, Pakistan’s military leadership, particularly under General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, began pursuing asymmetric warfare more systematically.

The doctrine emphasised on supporting insurgencies in Kashmir and Punjab, training and arming terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, using proxy warfare instead of direct military confrontation, and weaponsing radicalisation to destabilise India’s harmony.

It essentially became a blueprint for using terrorism as state policy to exploit India’s social, ethnic, and religious fault lines.

Institutionalised anti-Hindu sentiment

Documents from the Quetta Staff College reveal writings by military officials expressing hostility towards India, particularly Hindus, reflecting deep-seated biases within the military establishment. CDS Chauhan had also mentioned this in his speech: "As far as our adversary (Pakistan) is concerned, it has taken the decision to bleed India by a thousand cuts ... This doctrine is found in various studies in Pakistan's staff college Quetta. This is a normal talk in Pakistan"

Such sentiments have influenced the training and mindset of Pakistan's military personnel, fostering an environment of intolerance.

ALSO READ: Inside Pakistan’s classrooms: How textbooks are shaping generations on hate and half-truths against India

The same mindset has been evident in Field Marshal Asim Munir’s two-nation theory, emphasizing the distinct separation between Muslims and Hindus. “Our forefathers believed that we were different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life. Our religion is different. Our customs are different. Our traditions are different. Our thoughts are different. Our ambitions are different,” Munir said during a speech in April this year – nearly a month before the dastardly terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam, where 26 innocent people were killed.

Reports also suggest that Munir has given tacit support to radical clerics and pro-jihadist groups who amplify anti-Hindu sentiments under the guise of “defending Kashmir.” The attempted revival of the “two-nation theory” as a justification for domestic policies under Munir echoes the communal tone Ayub once used to consolidate power.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's 'Eat Grass' remark

Former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto infamously stated in the 1960s: "We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own [atom bomb]". The words underpinned Pakistan's determination to achieve nuclear capabilities at any cost.

The "bleed India with a thousand cuts" doctrine has not remained confined to Pakistan Army classrooms or ISI meeting rooms; it has spilled over into Indian streets, temples, railways, hotels, Parliament and schools. Over the past three decades, the consequences of this doctrine have been horrific and relentless, marked by a blood-soaked chronology of terror attacks, all tied by one thread: Pakistan’s sustained, institutionalised campaign of asymmetric warfare.

ALSO READ: Ayub Khan and Asim Munir: A tale of two war-mongering Pakistani field marshals

The insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir in the late 1980s was among the earliest manifestations of this doctrine. Funded and trained by Pakistan’s ISI, a wave of jihadis crossed the border and turned a political movement into a violent Islamist separatist uprising. The exodus of Kashmiri Pandits, widespread terror, and years of military engagement were direct results of Pakistan’s attempt to radicalize and weaponize Kashmir under the garb of “self-determination.”

One of the most heinous acts of cross-border terror came in 2001, when the Indian Parliament was attacked by gunmen linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba – both backed by Pakistan.

On July 11, 2006, seven bombs exploded on Mumbai’s suburban trains, killing over 200 people and injuring more than 700. Investigations revealed a carefully planned operation involving Pakistan-based operatives, sleeper cells, and RDX smuggled across the border.

Then came the horror of 26/11 – Mumbai’s darkest night. In November 2008, ten Pakistani terrorists from Lashkar-e-Taiba landed on India’s shores and launched a coordinated killing spree across the city. They murdered 166 people, including foreign nationals, children, and police officers. The chilling voice of Pakistani handlers directing the terrorists via phone was not just evidence; it was a damning indictment of a state that had outsourced its foreign policy to radical killers.

In 2016, the Uri attack once again exposed Pakistan’s role in targeting Indian soldiers in their own barracks. This led to India’s first publicly acknowledged surgical strikes across the Line of Control. In 2019, the Pulwama suicide bombing, carried out by Jaish-e-Mohammed, killed 40 CRPF personnel and triggered India’s airstrike on Balakot – a terror camp deep inside Pakistan.

Most recently, the Pahalgam terror attack in 2025 was a fresh and chilling reminder that the doctrine of bleeding India is still in effect. Carried out by The Resistance Front (TRF) – a rebranded Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy – the attack targeted male civilians in Jammu and Kashmir. The attack had the unmistakable footprint of Pakistan-backed terrorism that proved, once again, that the army in Rawalpindi continues to treat jihad as a policy tool. It also came just two weeks after Munir's venemous speech.

The doctrine has also evolved with time. Pakistan’s hybrid war today includes cyber-attacks, propaganda campaigns targeting Hindus, and international disinformation pushed through Western NGOs, media outlets and even UN forums – all aimed at painting India as oppressive while shielding terror outfits as “freedom fighters.”

Each attack, each riot triggered through WhatsApp, each weapon smuggled across the border is a cut – one of the thousand envisioned by the Pakistan Army's twisted doctrine. And every drop of Indian blood spilled is a direct consequence of the hate that Pakistan’s military elite has cultivated and institutionalised under the strategic guise of "deniability."