Is Pakistan’s military establishment neutral in the ongoing political crisis in the country? The problem with answering this question is that, in our political discourse, neutrality, or lack of it, is judged by one's actions in support or against a political party, force or group. An institution is judged as neutral if its actions and assertions are not supporting one’s opponent.
By this standard, the PML-N accused that Pakistan Army was not neutral before the 2018 parliamentary elections when military spymasters were managing the ticket distribution of the PTI, and were part of the team investigating charges against Nawaz Sharif and his ouster from power. The PML-N also alleged the military spymasters warned judges of the superior courts to not grant Nawaz Sharif bail before the polling day.
On the same basis, this time, the opposition-led by the PML-N, and the PPP, perceive the military leadership to be neutral on the no-confidence motion tabled in the National Assembly. According to reports, the basis of their claim is either that they are not receiving mysterious or threatening calls from the intelligence sleuths anymore or a military spokesman declared it neutral.
The latest public assertion of the military spokesman might have satisfied the naïve political elite, mostly belonging to Central Punjab, that views the desertion of Imran Khan in dire times as yet another specimen of the military establishment’s neutrality.
This is a rather crude method of judging the neutrality of Pakistan’s military establishment. Consider this: Imran Khan used the presence of military officials as members of the National Security Committee to declare parliamentarians in opposition as traitors. At the same time, the opposition wants a military spokesman to clarify the military position on the issue.
One might argue that both the opposition and the government have exploited the military’s supposedly neutral stand. However, the military is evidently not neutral, as more than one senior military officials have told mediapersons that the military does not share Khan’s view on the opposition.
Pakistan military establishment is undoubtedly a political player. It has a geo-strategic vision not because its institutions have a sound intellectual base, as it is generally perceived in Pakistan’s political and media circles, but because the army leadership has to steer the ship of the state in harsh geo-strategic and geo-political environment. They are by default pushed into a situation where they have to envision the country's foreign policy and geo-strategy.
This becomes necessary as the political elite in the country lacks independent thinking on geo-strategic issues. None of Pakistan's major political parties have a vision on foreign policy. In fact they have outsourced it to the army.
Since the May 2011 raid in Abbottabad by the US commandos to capture Osama bin Laden, Pakistan’s military establishment has veered away from the West and has embraced China and Russia. Pakistan’s defense needs were growing when Russia, after intense lobbying by Pakistan military leadership in Moscow, lifted the arms embargo on Pakistan in 2014. Russian and Pakistani perceptions on Afghanistan moved closer as well. There is some convergence in thinking on nuclear strategy between Russia and Pakistan, according to an imminent Pakistan expert of nuclear strategy, Brig (retd) Feroz Hassan Khan. He recently claimed that the thinking of Pakistan and Russia on integration of tactical nukes in warplanes to neutralize conventional superiority of their respective adversaries is quite similar in Islamabad and Moscow.
Pakistan military seldom faces dissenting politicians on foreign policy and geo-strategic issues. Nawaz Sharif was one. He insisted on changes in the primary strategic goals vis-à-vis India. So, To counter such dissenting voices, the military establishment assumes it is in their primary interest to remain in control of domestic politics.
Pakistan Army's neutrality is a hoax. It is an imagined reality, a media construct, and the takers of this narrative are naïve political leaders unfamiliar with how their interests have been exploited by military leaders.
It’s a mystery that who will emerge as the next favourite leader. The decision will be made in the calm of heavily guarded offices. Meanwhile, the political elite will continue to engage in childish mudslinging.
By this standard, the PML-N accused that Pakistan Army was not neutral before the 2018 parliamentary elections when military spymasters were managing the ticket distribution of the PTI, and were part of the team investigating charges against Nawaz Sharif and his ouster from power. The PML-N also alleged the military spymasters warned judges of the superior courts to not grant Nawaz Sharif bail before the polling day.
On the same basis, this time, the opposition-led by the PML-N, and the PPP, perceive the military leadership to be neutral on the no-confidence motion tabled in the National Assembly. According to reports, the basis of their claim is either that they are not receiving mysterious or threatening calls from the intelligence sleuths anymore or a military spokesman declared it neutral.
The latest public assertion of the military spokesman might have satisfied the naïve political elite, mostly belonging to Central Punjab, that views the desertion of Imran Khan in dire times as yet another specimen of the military establishment’s neutrality.
This is a rather crude method of judging the neutrality of Pakistan’s military establishment. Consider this: Imran Khan used the presence of military officials as members of the National Security Committee to declare parliamentarians in opposition as traitors. At the same time, the opposition wants a military spokesman to clarify the military position on the issue.
One might argue that both the opposition and the government have exploited the military’s supposedly neutral stand. However, the military is evidently not neutral, as more than one senior military officials have told mediapersons that the military does not share Khan’s view on the opposition.
One might argue that both the opposition and the government have exploited the military’s supposedly neutral stand. However, the military is evidently not neutral, as more than one senior military officials have told mediapersons that the military does not share Khan’s view on the opposition.
Pakistan military establishment is undoubtedly a political player. It has a geo-strategic vision not because its institutions have a sound intellectual base, as it is generally perceived in Pakistan’s political and media circles, but because the army leadership has to steer the ship of the state in harsh geo-strategic and geo-political environment. They are by default pushed into a situation where they have to envision the country's foreign policy and geo-strategy.
This becomes necessary as the political elite in the country lacks independent thinking on geo-strategic issues. None of Pakistan's major political parties have a vision on foreign policy. In fact they have outsourced it to the army.
Since the May 2011 raid in Abbottabad by the US commandos to capture Osama bin Laden, Pakistan’s military establishment has veered away from the West and has embraced China and Russia. Pakistan’s defense needs were growing when Russia, after intense lobbying by Pakistan military leadership in Moscow, lifted the arms embargo on Pakistan in 2014. Russian and Pakistani perceptions on Afghanistan moved closer as well. There is some convergence in thinking on nuclear strategy between Russia and Pakistan, according to an imminent Pakistan expert of nuclear strategy, Brig (retd) Feroz Hassan Khan. He recently claimed that the thinking of Pakistan and Russia on integration of tactical nukes in warplanes to neutralize conventional superiority of their respective adversaries is quite similar in Islamabad and Moscow.
Pakistan military seldom faces dissenting politicians on foreign policy and geo-strategic issues. Nawaz Sharif was one. He insisted on changes in the primary strategic goals vis-à-vis India. So, To counter such dissenting voices, the military establishment assumes it is in their primary interest to remain in control of domestic politics.
Pakistan Army's neutrality is a hoax. It is an imagined reality, a media construct, and the takers of this narrative are naïve political leaders unfamiliar with how their interests have been exploited by military leaders.
It’s a mystery that who will emerge as the next favourite leader. The decision will be made in the calm of heavily guarded offices. Meanwhile, the political elite will continue to engage in childish mudslinging.