Is Pakistan Army a Non-Political Institution?

Our generals and intelligence agencies never need ‘friends’ in politics and journalism; they always require ‘agents’ within both circles.

The spokesperson of the Pakistani Army, Major General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, has stated that the Pakistani Army is a non-political institution. He said that whenever the military has been used for political purposes in any country, it has caused turmoil. He stated that the armed forces of Pakistan and the elected government have a non-political and constitutional relationship, and it is not appropriate to politicize it. He said that all politicians and political parties are respected by us. The Pakistani Army is not inclined towards any particular group, ideology, or theory. He urged politicians to strengthen the concept of the military’s non-political role. He claimed that the demand for the military’s supervision in elections is the right of the government. (Jang Karachi, Roznama Khabrein Karachi, April 26, 2023)

Islamic History is not the history of the supremacy of generals and the army but the history of civilian supremacy. The greatest example of this was the initiative taken by Hazrat Umar (RA). During Hazrat Umar’s time, there were numerous conquests. At that time, the leadership of the Islamic army was in the hands of the illustrious companion Hazrat Khalid bin Walid (RA). As a result, it became a common belief among the people that all the conquests of the Islamic army were solely due to Hazrat Khalid bin Walid (RA). When Hazrat Umar (RA) observed this situation, he dismissed Hazrat Khalid bin Walid (RA). The companions inquired from Hazrat Umar (RA) about the reason for this, to which he replied, “All the conquests of the Islamic army are due to Islam, not because of Khalid bin Walid (RA).” Unfortunately, in Pakistan – a country that came into existence in the name of Islam, the generals did not let the Islamic ideology remain important, nor did they let its culture and history become the central reference point of our lives. They made it common in society that whatever exists is due to the military. Thus, the army has become our ideology, nation and the state became the Army. A classic example of this was our professor Matin-ur-Rahman Murtaza at the University of Karachi. Although Matin-ur-Rahman Murtaza used to write the editorials for Jasarat and Weekly Takbir, but his mind was indoctrinated by the army’s narrative. One day, when I criticized the military in his presence, he frowned upon it and said, “Son, if there is a military, there is Pakistan. If there is no military, there would be nothing.” To which I replied to him that if we are such a poor and oppressed nation that our strength is neither in our ideology nor our culture,  history,  or our national unity and all we have is the military. Then it makes the task of our enemies very easy because if our enemy may want to destroy us, all they would need to do would be gain control over the Pakistani military, just as they did in 1971 when they gained control over the military and the country was split into two. We told him that he had burdened the military with more responsibility than it could bear. The strength of nations lies in their ideologies, values, their commitments, determination, their unity, and their creative power that keeps them alive. Upon hearing our words, Mateen-ur-Rahman fell silent. However, Mateen-ur-Rehman is not the only person affected by the narrative of our army generals but its influence is still the same for many politicians, scholars, and journalists, who insist “all we have is the military.” Whereas the military is not the whole nation, it is just a part of it. The importance of the nation lies in the fact that in 1965, the entire nation stood behind the military, and as a result, the military demonstrated better performance against India. However, in 1971, 56% of the nation stood against the military, and as a result, the country split into two, and our 90,000 soldiers in a humiliating way surrendered before India.

Regarding the statements made by the spokesperson of the Pakistan Army, every statement, except for one, is incorrect. Major General Ahmed Sharif claims that the military is not a political institution, even though the military has been a political institution since 1954. A few years ago, through the publication of classified American documents, it became evident that General Ayub though imposed martial law in 1958, but he had established “political contacts” with Americans since 1954. At that time only 7 years had passed since Pakistan came into existence and apart from the Muslim League, there was no significant political party or power in the country. However, General Ayub was acting as the leader of a political group, whispering in the ears of Americans. He was telling them that Pakistani politicians were incompetent and would destroy the country. General Ayub was assuring Americans that the military would not let politicians ruin the nation. While General Ayub’s enthusiasm was commendable, he did not have a mandate to engage in such conversations with Americans. General Ayub was an army general; he was neither the president nor the prime minister. He did not have the authority to speak on behalf of the nation in political matters, yet he considered himself a politician and turned the military into a political group. In 1958, without any mandate, he imposed martial law on the country and granted the military the right to interfere in state affairs, thereby incorporating it into a political group. In the civilized world, the responsibility of governing and leading a state lies with politicians and political parties. Since General Ayub took on both of these roles himself, he became a politician and turned the military into a political group. General Ayub’s political circus lasted for more than ten years, but then General Yahya conspired against him and forced him to step down from the presidency. Now General Yahya had taken his place, but it should be noted that he was also just a colonel; who appeared and acted as a politician for more than three years and kept the military as a political group.

General Yahya conducted elections based on Legal Framework Order (LFO) in 1970. In those elections, the Awami League secured a majority. The principle of democracy is that the majority forms the government, but General Yahya, instead of accepting the majority of the Awami League, like a typical military general, refused to acknowledge it. Consequently, the East Pakistan region was engulfed in a wave of popular sentiments. However, instead of accepting the principles of majority rule, General Yahya initiated a military operation to suppress the Bengalis. This way, General Yahya emerged as a “politician” in the political crisis, and the military became a “political party.” It is also recorded in history that until 1960, there was not a single Bengali in the military, despite Bengalis constituting 56% of the country’s population. This was during the time of General Ayub, and the absence of Bengalis in the military was a result of a “political perspective.” During General Ayub’s time, the experiment of One Unit had already taken place. This experiment was also a conspiracy to save the military from the majority of Bengalis and was politically motivated. After the separation of East Pakistan, a judicial inquiry commission was set up known as the “Hamoodur Rahman Commission” to ascertain the causes of the separation of Pakistan. This commission recommended court martial for several army generals, including General Yahya. However, no action was taken against General Yahya. The reason for this was also political. In a conversation with the prominent journalist Asif Jalani, Bhutto had once revealed that the United States had sent a message to Pakistan’s political leadership not to hold General Yahya accountable after the fall of Dhaka because he had rendered important services in establishing relations between the United States and China.

General Zia-ul-Haq, by imposing Martial Law in 1977 and after removing Bhutto from power, once again positioned himself as a politician and turned the military into a political party. Bhutto had engaged in electoral rigging, so the matter for Bhutto and the PNA leadership was to decide what to do next. Jamaat-e-Islami leader Professor Ghafoor himself told me that an agreement had been almost finalized between Bhutto and the PNA, but General Zia-ul-Haq imposed Martial Law. If General Zia-ul-Haq hadn’t become a politician and the military hadn’t turned into a political party, he should have fulfilled his promise by holding elections within 90 days and returning to the barracks. But that did not happen. Even if the elections were to be postponed, they would have been postponed, but General Zia-ul-Haq went ahead and hanged Bhutto. This was not the decision of a General, but the decision of a politician who knew that if Bhutto survived, he would surely seek revenge from General Zia-ul-Haq.

During Nawaz Sharif’s era, General Jehangir Karamat proposed the establishment of the National Security Council and provided constitutional protection to the political role of the military, which created a major uproar in the country, leading to General Jehangir Karamat resigning from his position. During Nawaz Sharif’s era, General Pervez started the “Kargil War” and kept Nawaz Sharif completely unaware of the actual plan. This way, General Pervez emerged as a “parallel government,” and the military became a “state within the state.” Nawaz Sharif dismissed General Pervez from his position and had the authority to remove him as the country’s administrative head. However, General Pervez did not accept his dismissal and once again formed a parallel government by overthrowing Nawaz Sharif and seizing power. This was an unconstitutional move, and if the military were not a political party, they would never have accepted General Pervez’s unconstitutional action.

This fact is also recorded in history that the military has turned itself into a factory for producing politicians. It was General Ayub who brought forth Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It was General Zia-ul-Haq and General Jilani who created Nawaz Sharif. It was General Zia-ul-Haq who molded Altaf Hussain and MQM. It was the army generals who initiated “Project Imran Khan.” It was General Bajwa who brought Imran Khan into power. It was General Bajwa who ousted Imran Khan and handed over power to the Sharifs. Major General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry claims that all politicians and political parties are respected by the military. The historical truth is that there are no respected political leaders or political parties for the generals and Intelligence agencies. They always require “agents” in both these circles, and this need itself is a political act. Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry also states that Pakistan’s armed forces and the elected government have a non-political and constitutional relationship. The reality is that the generals have never respected the Constitution. When General Ayub came to power, he abolished the 1956 constitution. When General Zia-ul-Haq came to power, he put the 1973 constitution under suspension; they used to mock the constitution and refer to it as a document consisting of a few pages. General Pervez also never honored the Constitution; instead, he respected the “Military Uniform” and referred to it as his second skin. Ahmed Sharif’s statement that the military is not inclined towards any party is also a hundred percent false. The truth is that the military is uncomfortable with the popularity of Imran Khan and is exercising complete control over the PTI.