No..The Swedish doctrine can't be compared to the one Pakistan has when facing India.
The difference is the Soviet Union wouldn't invade the Nordic countries first, but Western Europe. So the defence of the Nordic countries lay in the defence of Western Europe. And the Swedes aimed to pepper the Soviets with some attacks in order to keep them out of their area of interest.
But in the Indo-Pak scenario, Pakistan has to face the full brunt of the attack, so in the event of a successful push from the Indian side, you can expect that most of the motorways of eastern half of Pakistan will have fallen under Indian control in just a few days, because unlike in Sweden, India can actually use battle tanks effectively in Pakistan.
It's more accurate to say PAF has created options in the event the Indian side screws up and allows the PAF some flexibility to operate some jets from some motorways that have not yet been captured. But this is not like the Swedish doctrine at all.
The fact is Pakistan needs the doctrine that NATO used to combat the Soviet Union in Western Europe, because any attempt to use the Swedish doctrine against India will end in utter failure. But PA/PAF know that they can't afford to employ such a doctrine, so they have decided to fool people like you by claiming they will use the entirely unworkable Swedish doctrine instead.
PA and PAF have outdated and obsolete tanks and aircraft, and PN has small ships, not because they are following the Swedish doctrine, but that they are too poor and cannot stay up to date. What you actually need to be is like the French. You need advanced tanks and aircraft, SSNs and CBGs, along with plenty of force multipliers in order to combat India. Otoh, your "Swedish doctrine" will fail once India crosses the border.
At the time USSR was sitting in Finland which borders Sweden.
India Pakistan is different, I agree . India is no USSR and Pakistan is no Sweden.