Walking into the ‘Jujutsu’ Trap?

On the nights of May 8 and 9, while the major Indian news channels were busy dishing out unverified news feed ranging from Indian navy’s alleged devastating attack on the Karachi port to the supposed arrest of Pakistani army chief Asim Munir, spanning the spectrum from sabre-rattling to ridiculous, the Pakistani army was staging a quiet ascent in the hearts of Pakistanis. Just two years ago, supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) flooded the streets in fury over the arrest of their leader, former Prime Minister Imran Khan. The protests shook the military’s long-standing grip on power, like never before.

Fast forward to May 11, 2025, and the streets were once again filled — this time with cheers for the very institution once challenged. The 3-day war with India triggered a dramatic uptick in public sentiment. A just-released Gallup Poll conducted in Pakistan between May 12 and May 18, 2025, reports overwhelming praise for its military and political leadership across party lines. The report revealed a 97 per cent positive approval rating for the Pakistani military, with fewer than 1 per cent expressing disapproval. Public opinion of the army improved for 93 per cent of respondents following the conflict. Though the army was never unpopular, and trusted more than twice as much as politicians in a previous poll, the civilian government also registered a dramatic upswing in Pakistani public sentiment, with a positive rating of 73 per cent. An overwhelming 87 per cent held India responsible for initiating the conflict and 96 per cent believed Pakistan won the war.

Wars and terror are as much psychological as they are physical, and in Pakistan’s case, the two are inseparable. In 1965, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto thundered at the UN: Pakistan would fight a “thousand-year war” against India. His rhetoric gave birth to the doctrine of “bleeding India with a thousand cuts,” later weaponized into state policy by General Zia-ul-Haq. From Kashmir to Mumbai, this strategy, steered by Pakistan’s ISI, unleashed a slow, covert war of infiltration, militancy, and terror.

The current Indian government has steadily upped its ante against such covert war waged through terrorism, and the increasing retaliation finally led to the current offensive against Pakistan’s terror outfits. Seen from this perspective, and through the lens of mind-game strategy, India’s counter-move to assign a high cost to what has long been a low-cost tactic for Pakistan seems appropriate. Application of game theory in behavioural sciences, as frequently demonstrated through games like ‘Prisoners’ dilemma’ shows that true cooperation and collaboration emerge when three basic conditions are met. A shareable goal, mutual trust, and perceived power of each party. As long as Pakistan sees Kashmir as the trophy, a shareable goal will remain elusive. But zooming out and reframing to look at the larger picture reveals a potential sharable goal: peace, stability, development, and economic prosperity. No doubt this reframing is fraught with challenges due to entrenched psychological barriers and multi-actor dynamics (e.g., domestic politics, external powers). Yet, pursuing this non-zero-sum goal is worthwhile, as it could unlock immense mutual benefits. The second condition of mutual trust has always been and continues to be chronically low. Any trust-building measure risks a Kargil-like betrayal unless the third, critical condition — perceived power — is met. All peace overtures will be taken as signs of weakness meant to be strategically exploited unless Pakistan perceives India as capable of inflicting equal or greater damage. Arguably, this perception has been missing ever since the adoption of the doctrine of strategic restraint.

But the mind game doesn’t stop there. The physical damage inflicted in retaliatory strikes is often quickly reversible, and therefore has limited utility as a long-term strategy. Terrorist camps can be rebuilt within weeks. Indeed, Pakistani Minister Rana Tanveer Hussain has already announced plans to rebuild the Muridke structures destroyed in the Indian missile strikes, offering Rs 1 crore compensation for each deceased, including Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar’s family members killed in the strike. While India’s new “Terror Equals War” doctrine, emphasising swift and decisive retaliation for any cross-border terrorism, reflects a more assertive approach, it may also be just the kind of response terrorists aim to provoke. Clark McCauley and Sophia Moskalenko, experts in the psychology of terrorism, call this “Jujutsu Politics” — the art of using the enemy’s strength against them. Jujutsu tactics are deliberate provocations designed to elicit a harsh overreaction from the state — one that will mobilise public sympathy for the terrorists and fuel their recruitment. Arie Kruglanski, professor, Maryland University and Principal Investigator at NC-START; Clark McCauley, professor of psychology at Bryn Mawr College and a former Lead Investigator at NC-START; and Sophia Moskalenko, research fellow at Georgia State University cyber security group and program management specialist at the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism are among the world’s foremost experts on the psychology of terrorism. START, a US Homeland Security department initiative, leverages behavioural and social science to understand terrorism, its impacts, and counterterrorism strategies, shaping global policies with data-driven insights.

McCauley and Moskalenko explained the strategic logic behind Jujutsu Politics in their highly acclaimed book, “Friction: How Conflict Radicalizes Them and Us”. On November 13, 2015, seven Islamic State attackers struck Paris, killing 130 and wounding 358. Why would a group fighting for a Sunni state in Syria and Iraq target France? Because IS wasn’t just waging war — it was baiting one. It sought harsh government backlash in response to the terror attack – crackdowns, heightened surveillance, and public outcry against Muslims. Its aim: to deepen alienation, strengthen anti-immigrant forces, and drive European Muslims to abandon Europe for its envisioned caliphate.

Going by the outcomes, the Pahalgam attack bears all the hallmarks of a Jujutsu tactic at play. It was able to mobilise the Pakistan government and its army to come out in the open and wage a battle against India instead of providing just clandestine support to the terrorists. It also managed to bring the Kashmir issue back into the international arena. The Pakistani army, long a clandestine supporter of terror, has now received a major surge in public popularity. In India, the attack triggered increased hostile feelings against a section of Kashmiris – precisely the kind of internal division the attackers hoped to provoke, with the goal to further alienate them.

In a recent conversation with Arie Kruglanski and Sophia Moskalenko following the Pahalgam terror attack, I asked what steps the Indian government can and should take to address the ongoing challenge of cross-border terrorism, without falling into the trap of fighting terror with terror. The unique difficulty in this context is that radicalisation, and the subsequent transition to active terrorism, occur entirely on foreign soil, beyond the reach of the Indian state. This reality precludes typical counter-terrorism measures such as identifying and preventing radicalisation before it turns into terrorism, or implementing deradicalisation programs. Moskalenko agrees. “Under these circumstances, building psychological resilience among Indians is probably the best investment,” she says — a theme she explores at length in her book Radicalization to Terrorism: What Everyone Needs to Know. She and co-author, McCauley captures the essence of psychological resilience in these words:

“Radicals, extremists, and terrorists want to push us in directions that we don’t want to go. Our enemies succeed when they divide us, inciting internal conflicts that consume our attention and resources. They succeed when we begin believing that political challengers (including our compatriots) are crazy or evil. Political resilience is building bridges across internal divides that separate Muslims from non-Muslims, rich from poor, Republicans from Democrats.”

These are trying times. To thwart the terrorist designs to divide and destroy through jujutsu tactics, building psychological resilience seems the best bet. Psychological resilience may not make headlines, but it may just win the war.

The writer is an industrial and organizational psychologist and is affiliated with PeopleProfit Group. Views expressed are personal