Abdul Rauf and Dr. Zeenat Aslam

Pakistan’s borderlands, stretching from the rugged terrains of Balochistan to the tribal districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, have long functioned as both security frontiers and cultural margins. These regions, historically autonomous and socially diverse, have undergone a deep transformation under the influence of state-led militarisation. Through the framework of Sociological Institutionalism, this essay examines how military presence, administrative restructuring, and national integration policies have reshaped local identities, social hierarchies, and collective consciousness in Pakistan’s peripheral zones.

Sociological Institutionalism emphasises that institutions are not only systems of rules but also carriers of cultural meanings and social norms. They shape behaviour not just through formal incentives but through the internalisation of ideas, symbols, and practices. In Pakistan’s borderlands, militarisation has thus operated as a cultural process as much as a political one. Military operations, cantonment establishments, and the introduction of new governance structures have redefined what it means to belong, to obey, and to participate in the national framework. Local populations, once identifying primarily through tribal, sectarian, or ethnic affiliations, have been reoriented towards state-centric narratives of patriotism and security.

The post-2001 War on Terror marked an accelerated phase of this transformation. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), long administered under colonial regulations, became a focal point of counterterrorism efforts. The military’s prolonged engagement in the area introduced a new institutional culture — one centred on surveillance, control, and discipline. Schools, local councils and media outlets began to reflect national security discourse. Sociologically, this process induced a redefinition of social identity: the borderland inhabitant, once viewed as a frontier tribesman, was reframed as a ‘national citizen’ within a securitised narrative of loyalty and suspicion.

However, this identity shift has been dual in nature. On one hand, militarisation created opportunities for state inclusion — education, infrastructure and communication networks penetrated previously neglected regions. On the other, it produced psychological distance and cultural tension. Traditional codes of honour, jirga systems, and local governance mechanisms were gradually replaced or subordinated by formal security institutions. As a result, collective identities fragmented between those assimilated into the national framework and those resisting it in defence of ancestral traditions and autonomy.

Sociological Institutionalism helps explain why this transformation has been uneven and contested. Institutional symbols, such as the flag, uniform, and national anthem, carry deep social meanings that can inspire unity or provoke alienation depending on local interpretation. In Pakistan’s borderlands, the process of identity transformation has not simply followed state design but has evolved through negotiation, adaptation, and sometimes quiet defiance. The local youth, for instance, have increasingly adopted hybrid identities — embracing modern education and digital connectivity while retaining tribal pride and regional consciousness.

Hence, it has been investigated that militarisation in Pakistan’s borderlands cannot be viewed solely as a security measure; it is a sociological process that reconstructs collective identities. Through the lens of Sociological Institutionalism, it becomes evident that institutions influence society not only through coercive authority but through the meanings they embed in everyday life. The challenge ahead for Pakistan is to balance its security imperatives with cultural sensitivity, ensuring that institutional transformation leads to social cohesion rather than identity erosion. Only through inclusive and participatory governance can the borderlands evolve from zones of control into genuine spaces of integration and dignity.