Pakistan Army: Damned if they do and Damned if they don't!

 Being a cantonment rat because my father was in the army, throughout my life the din of army life was always present. Studying in Cadet College Petaro (yes Zardari and I were batch mates), the expectation was to join the army. However my father, who had an illustrious military career talked me out of it with the words, "you are too political to serve in the army". Through the tumultuous history of Pakistan we have had four military governments and through each civilian government the feeling has been that generals have been in the shadows. 

Relations between civilian governments and the military has been shaped by many factors, largely shaped by the perception of stability or lack of it and how it can develop into threats to the country. At other times divergences on national security issues ( Nawaz Sharif and General Musharraf) had resulted in military assuming power. At other times political interference in the affairs of the military as did Z. A Bhutto resulted in the rise of General Zia ul Haq, an officer who superseded more competent officer to rise at the top created conditions that affected civilian-military relationships. 

Today social media is flooded with people debating the role of the Army in the ouster of Imran Khan. Before assuming the office of PM Imran himself has stated that the army chief was neutral and not political, and today it seems his ardent supporters are talking of the betrayal of Imran by the army chief. For the record this seemed the second time in Pakistan history where the army has remained neutral (General Aslam Baig was the other). I support Imran and while I have not heard any comments, so far, from him blaming the army for his ouster, he has made snide references to traitors and turncoats which can be seen a wild broadsides to any and everyone. 

From what one can glean the army remained neutral through the whole saga of the non confidence motion and it all may have encouraged a final nudge after Imran had lost the vote. As a supporter of democracy one can only be satisfied that the army was not the kingmaker in this instance. As a supporter of Imran one feels wronged by the non confidence motion but that is a part of the parliamentary democracy. Party members change sides, for whatever reason, this is what democracy is about, and of there is or was a foreign conspiracy then there is a different forum to debate and deliberate in. 

In a country where almost every institution has been plagued with corruption, nepotism and divisiveness along ethnic and religious affiliations, the Pakistan army remains very different. It is the only institution where your ethnic and religious background do not matter. It remains the one body has has internal remained stable and provided the edifice of security in a country where direct and indirect threats are numerous. 

Indeed this is a different army from the one my father served in where certain norms of conduct were rigid. I never ever sat in my father official car and one time I asked his military batman to polish my shoes i was severely punished by my father with the words 'he is here to look after me, not you'. Perhaps today batman's in many military homes are used as personal servants of the whole house and no one may consider that wrong. There have been rumblings that some officers live beyond their means etc. etc. However there is a process to within the military code to bring such officers to task and as per military protocols this is not plastered in newspapers. 

One wants to see the military out of politics and thus when they have done so this time, we should not damn them for this role. By constitution the army is expected to stay out of politics and it has largely done so this time. Imran Khan would be in his right to blame his former alliance members and party members for being traitors to him and his party and were he to have enough members in the next assembly he can reform the constitution to deal with floor crossing and it would be within their rights to do so. 

While this piece may not find many friends on both sides of aisle, I do feel that at times we have to think of Pakistan first and then parties and individuals. We should not allow needless attacks on the role of the army when it has shown it can stand away from the political process as this plays into the hands of the enemies of Pakistan. There are ample professional soldiers in the Pakistan army who will continue the tradition of professionalism and shun politics and that is the continuity that Pakistan needs more than ever. 

In the same vein the Sharif government should not try and milk this situation by passing resolutions condemning Imran Khan and the PTI for alleged insults to the army. Certainly the PMLN is aware of its own castigation of the army during the Musharraf era, and it needs to concentrate on governance rather than immature politics. 

Indeed Imran Khan has created political awareness in droves of the youth who were apathetic towards politics and this is a good thing. He also bears the responsibility to guide these youth to positive change and not engage in an emotional narrative that defiles the one institution, the military, which was neutral and continues to provide the stability that is needed. These are delicate times for the country and many, including myself, hope that elections are held and this mess is cleared up. By the same token we need to be careful not to ignite emotions that can cost the country dearly. 

Is Imran Khan a military stooge? Myth or Reality!

Of late US media and Indian media has been flooded with articles and opinions asserting that Imran Khan, the newly elected Prime Minister of Pakistan is supported by the military and his election is a staged event. At the outset we should appreciate that this is the second election conducted in Pakistan where power transfers from one civilian government to another through a process of elections. While we may argue the legitimacy of election being fair, it is not proven that rigging was on a massive scale. Without going into massive detail on that point just the fact that the press has pointed to ballot boxes with votes discarded outside polling stations as proof of rigging, people don't stop to notice that the photos show the votes paper to be 'white' while this election national assembly votes were cast on green paper!

Perhaps Pakistan and Turkey rank as the two countries where military governments and/or influence from the military in politics has been the highest in their history. The military has, historically, nurtured political figures; Bhutto post 1970 election, Nawaz Sharif by General Zia, and many others. Sadly the performance of elected governments has been so terrible that the people have generally looked to the military as the only institution that can provide stability. Yet after the two long reigns of General Zia and General Musharraff, subsequent heads of the military have taken pains to encourage the political process to gain roots and is borne out by the 2013 and 2018 elections.

It would be fair to say that the military within Pakistan, while protective of their own franchise, also have little wish to be directly in power. They are aware that Generals Yayha, Zia and Musharaf, eroded the standing of the military within the country. The emergence of a stable political process is still far from there and it is amusing that one leader of a political party who could not even secure 6 seats out 272 is calling for agitation on the streets. There is a need for the parties to look beyond this and accept the results and allow a government to be formed and then work within the parliament towards their agenda. This is the hallmark of a democracy and it needs to be understood with maturity.


To insinuate that the military would have chosen Imran Khan is stretching the conspiracy theory a bit too far and basically assuming that 100 million plus voters of which 55% voted are all sheep who will do what they are told. Yes there can be no denying that the military may well prefer to see a certain political figure succeed rather than someone else, but to assume that they would rig the election to that extent is really not possible. One could argue that Nawaz Sharif, a creation of the military, especially the Zia frame of mind military, would have always been the choice even though his spate with Musharraf and his ouster by the latter might have lost him favor with the military, he would have been a more known choice than anyone new.

Imran Khan in  a sense will be a more difficult political figure for the army to control should they not see eye to eye with each other, and I am sure the military would have assessed that too. Secondly, in a country were not one political leader can come clean on the issue of their financial impropriety Khan has a clean record in this respect. His appeal to the younger generation is also a key factor that can stir them away from the politics of the militant political groups. Finally, Imran Khan seems to talk the talk in matter of foreign policy and restoring the status and economic welfare of the country.

The army from their assessment must clearly also see, like people have seen, that he is perhaps the best of the current lot of political figures to give a sense of direction to the country. Much like Nawaz Sharif's government had their tacit support any new civilian government should be seen to also have the military support. After all given the corruption cases going on in the courts if the army wished they could have taken over and not done a charade of an election to install 'their' man! After all it has happened before. Given the crisis in the last government the military, supported by the judiciary, could have imposed a national coalition government especially as it was evident that the scandals being unearthed were of a magnitude that brought into question key political figures.

Powerful institutions in democracies have a view on political affairs, this is even normal to the US and even India. General Manekshaw often expressed his views to Mrs Indira Ghandi especially on the matter of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh and some even suggest decided on the scope and timing of the action that India took. We have to recognize that two elections do not make a complete democracy and the military has to show it will support civilian governments and the political parties have to show they are mature to govern also.

Imran Khan and the military have to develop a trusting relationship and if he does hold democratic principles in high regard and runs a clean government that performs to its agenda then Pakistan as a whole will benefit. If this means he is a stooge of the military then one can argue he would be a better stooge than those who were installed by the military in the past. I personally doubt that Imran Khan, knowing him as little as I do, would so easily be malleable to pressure. I may not entirely agree with many of his political statements and while I sincerely hope for the sake of Pakistan he does well, there will be many a step he may falter on. How he handles those faltered steps will show his maturity in this political process.

There will be areas of friction between Imran Khan and the military and may well cover the issue of dealing with the militants, the role of the military intelligence, normalization of relations with India and Afghanistan and most importantly the scope and depth of relations with the United States. However, none of these issues is likely to upset the apple cart and especially if Khan can quickly and smoothly establish the rule of law and the clean functioning of government. Imran must also work with the opposition parties at a time like this and not simply go it alone, and for this a national consensus on key issues will be needed.