CNN's 'Peacemaker' Problem
The glaring insensitivity of turning General Asim Munir into a prime-time diplomat while whitewashing a legacy of war crimes and cross-border torture.
When CNN’s anchors took to the screen to profile Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir, the tone was nothing short of breathless. Described as a “great guy,” a “global peacemaker,” and “Trump’s new favorite strongman,” the network painted a portrait of a humble, self-made man from modest means who somehow charmed the American President and brokered peace in the Middle East. The segment featured journalists gushing over viral photographs of Munir presenting rare earth minerals at the White House and discussing the “romance” between Islamabad and Washington.
What the viewers of this high-profile broadcast did not see, however, was the dark, institutional reality of the uniform General Munir wears. By choosing to humanize the head of an institution with a deeply entrenched history of flouting the Geneva Conventions, state-sponsored terror, and the systematic dehumanization of its neighbors, the media engages in a dangerous game of historical erasure.
The Glaring Insensitivity of the “Peacemaker” Narrative
In the recently aired CNN segment, correspondents discussed Munir’s unexpected rise to power and his subsequent role in international diplomacy. The narrative focused heavily on Pakistan’s perceived “soft power” victory—how the country is allegedly winning the “war of narratives against incredible India.” The journalists laughed about the “elation and hope” in Islamabad, marveling at how a nation previously synonymous with Osama bin Laden was now sitting at the center of high-stakes diplomacy.
Yet, to frame General Munir merely as an “enigmatic” former intelligence chief turned diplomatic maestro is a profound failure of journalistic duty. It ignores the foundational ideology that Munir champions—an ideology that is actively hostile to millions of people across the border. By glossing over the Pakistan Army’s deeply problematic human rights record, CNN inadvertently acts as a PR wing for a military dictatorship wearing a democratic mask.
The Two-Nation Theory: An Engine of Dehumanization
To understand the mindset of the institution Munir leads, one must look at the ideological bedrock he explicitly defends. As reported by The Print, General Asim Munir recently chose to loudly reiterate the “Two-Nation Theory.” This is not a mere historical footnote; it is the founding political philosophy of Pakistan, which categorically states that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations that cannot coexist within a single state.
When the Chief of Army Staff highlights this theory in the modern era, it is a deliberate ideological dog-whistle. It frames India—and by extension, Hindus—not just as political rivals, but as existential, civilizational enemies. This rhetoric serves a very specific psychological purpose within the ranks of the Pakistani military: it inherently dehumanizes the adversary.
“When you teach a soldier that the enemy across the border is fundamentally incompatible with their existence on religious and civilizational grounds, you strip that enemy of their humanity. This is the exact psychological prerequisite required to commit unspeakable atrocities without remorse.”
This anti-Hindu and anti-Indian rhetoric is woven into the curriculum, the training, and the public posturing of the Pakistan Army. It transforms the Indian soldier from a professional adversary deserving of the respects defined in the Geneva Conventions into a religious and ideological target. This is the context that CNN completely ignored when presenting Munir as a moderate, charming diplomat.
A Legacy of Blood: The Violation of the Geneva Conventions
The practical result of this institutionalized dehumanization is written in the blood of Indian soldiers. When a military does not view its adversary as human, the international laws of war dissolve. The Pakistan Army and its Border Action Teams (BAT)—units comprised of special forces operating in tandem with radicalized militants—have a gruesome, documented history of capturing, torturing, and mutilating Indian soldiers.
The most harrowing and internationally recognized instance occurred during the 1999 Kargil War. Captain Saurabh Kalia of the 4 Jat Regiment, along with five of his men, was captured alive by Pakistani forces while on patrol. For nearly a month, they were subjected to medieval levels of torture. When their bodies were finally handed over to India, post-mortem reports detailed a horror that defied human comprehension: cigarette burns, eardrums pierced with hot iron rods, amputated limbs, gouged eyes, and fractured skulls, all inflicted before they were finally executed.
The Contrast of Conduct: 1971
To understand how severely the Pakistan Army deviates from professional military norms, one must look at how the Indian Army treats its captives.
In the aftermath of the 1971 war, the Indian Army took over 93,000 Pakistani soldiers as Prisoners of War.
Despite the immense logistical strain and the raw anger of the local Mukti Bahini, the Indian Army protected these prisoners, treated them with dignity in strict accordance with the Geneva Conventions, and earned the commendation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Captain Kalia’s case was not an isolated incident; it was a reflection of policy. Throughout the 2000s and 2010s, BAT actions along the Line of Control resulted in the repeated mutilation of Indian personnel. In 2013, Lance Naik Hemraj was decapitated. In 2016, Sepoy Mandeep Singh’s body was mutilated under the covering fire of the regular Pakistani army. In 2017, Naib Subedar Paramjeet Singh and BSF Head Constable Prem Sagar met the same fate.
These actions are severe, undeniable war crimes. They are the direct manifestation of an army that has been indoctrinated with the Two-Nation Theory’s dehumanizing tenets. They represent a blatant, systematic disregard for the Geneva Conventions, which mandate the humane treatment of prisoners and the dead.
The Moral Bankruptcy of Access Journalism
Returning to the CNN profile, the discrepancy between the man on the screen and the institution he commands becomes sickeningly clear. How does a major international news network justify dedicating a prime-time segment to the “charm” and “diplomatic sway” of a general without ever mentioning the blood on his institution’s hands?
The answer lies in the perilous nature of access journalism. In their eagerness to secure a front-row seat to geopolitical negotiations—such as the US-Iran mediation heavily praised in the segment—journalists often trade hard truths for access. By framing Munir as “Trump’s new favorite strongman,” the media falls into the trap of fetishizing authoritarian power.
The segment openly acknowledged that Munir is the head of Pakistan’s former intelligence services (ISI)—an agency internationally recognized for funding, training, and harboring terror groups. It noted his role in fighting India. Yet, it entirely sidestepped the brutality of those engagements. By omitting the history of torture, the mutilation of POWs, and the pervasive anti-Hindu rhetoric that fuels his army, the network effectively whitewashed a legacy of war crimes.
Conclusion: The Cost of Sanitization
While international outlets like the BBC have continuously documented the internal crackdowns and democratic suppression carried out by the Pakistani military establishment, this critical lens often vanishes when generals enter the diplomatic stage. When the cameras turn to high-level meetings, the grim realities of border barbarity are conveniently swept under the rug.
It is profoundly insensitive to the families of Captain Saurabh Kalia, Lance Naik Hemraj, and countless others to see the leader of the institution responsible for their loved ones’ torture paraded on global television as a “great guy.” True journalism requires holding a mirror to power, not serving as its makeup artist.
Until international media organizations are willing to confront the ideological bigotry of the Two-Nation Theory and the documented war crimes of the Pakistan Army, their profiles of strongmen like General Asim Munir will remain nothing more than complicit propaganda. The Geneva Conventions mean nothing if the international community—and its press—refuses to hold those who violate them accountable.