After the controversial general election in February, Pakistan appears to be going through a phase where the nominally civilian government led by Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif is operating under the strict control of the military. But while the military exerts its influence behind the scenes without any accountability, the government involved in the day-to-day functioning of the country is still accountable to its people.
The Pakistani military has directly ruled the country for more than half of its existence, with generals such as Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf holding power for a total of 43 years. In the remaining years, when the military was not in power, it maintained significant influence over political parties and indirectly controlled elected governments. Today, it is one of the most powerful, feared and unpopular institutions in Pakistan.
It may seem difficult to explain how an army that was so badly humiliated on the battlefield, lost a large part of the country and surrendered en masse to its arch rival in 1971, became the country’s main power centre. But, there is an explanation: Pakistan’s army is very grateful to the US and China, both of which helped it to stand up again. It also got a new impetus under the leadership of General Zia, who began Islamising the country and the armed forces. It got a boost when nuclear tests were conducted and another boost when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The US poured arms and money into Pakistan and boosted the military’s capabilities, supplying its air force with F16 fighter jets. After 9/11, Pakistan’s army also participated in the US-led global war on terror. For years, the US paid the Pakistani military $2 billion a year to be at the forefront of the global war on terror and support its operations and logistics in Afghanistan.
Grip like a vice
In practice, most of Pakistan’s security issues and foreign affairs are decided not in the capital, Islamabad, but at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, where the army chief (COAS) plays the role of kingmaker. The military has significant economic interests, controlling large sectors of real estate, agriculture, corporations, and industry.
The current political turmoil in Pakistan began when Imran Khan, who came to power with the support of the army, later began challenging the authority of the army. Many believe that if bilateral relations between India and Pakistan are cold today, it is because the Pakistani army seems reluctant to allow civilian governments to build cordial relations with India.
But in the West, the military is the key institution that holds Pakistan together. People from foreign policy think tanks I have spoken to in recent weeks believe that, for all its shortcomings, the Pakistani military is the only institution that can deal with forces that threaten the country’s future. They argue that the West needs a disciplined institution like the Pakistani military to safeguard the vast nuclear stockpile that Islamabad has amassed. They urge the military to improve ties with India and expect it to respond positively because the argument goes that a disintegrating Pakistan would wreak havoc in the region, with serious ramifications for India as well.
Democratic governance is in everyone’s interest
However, I think this is a narrow view. The West should make efforts to strengthen political parties and safeguard the autonomy of national institutions. Restoration of true democracy should be everybody’s aim. Any country, especially democratic India, will find it easier to work with an elected civilian government with no direct or indirect interference from the Pakistani army. Former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto felt heavy pressure from the army when they tried to initiate dialogue with India. During the two full-scale wars between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971, the country was ruled by the army.
The Kargil War of 1999 is widely seen as an attempt by Pakistan’s military to undermine the civilian government’s efforts to make peace with India. The war exposed tensions between Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership and the military’s willingness to pursue its own agenda, even if it meant undermining the country’s democratic institutions.
Root cause of terrorism in India
Meanwhile, the common people in India believe that the root of terrorism here is the Pakistani army. The Indian government has been largely skeptical about talks with Pakistan, which it accuses of exporting terrorism to its territories. Therefore, it is harsh for Western countries to ignore the fact that India has been a victim of terrorism over the last four decades, which India believes is being promoted by Pakistan. India has shared evidence with its Western allies and even Pakistan, which shows how the Pakistani army’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) plans and trains young boys to carry out terrorist activities in India. As expected, Pakistan has always denied the allegations.
But this denial is of little significance. On May 16, 2011, David Coleman Headley, one of the main planners of the Mumbai terror attack, appeared in a federal court in Chicago and revealed that two ISI officers were present during the planning and training of the attack. I was present in the court when he revealed this. In his lengthy testimony, he gave detailed details of what instructions he received from the ISI men and what places in Mumbai he was asked to target. In fact, the 10 heavily armed terrorists who attacked Mumbai came from Pakistan. This is a well-known fact that no one should dispute.
Terrorist camps and training
During my long years of reporting I have met many terrorists who have shared with me information about their training in camps in and around Muzaffarabad. I have met some journalists from Pakistan who have visited these camps organised by the authorities and Islamic organisations.
Civilian governments in Pakistan have largely been reluctant to befriend India. People also admire India’s progress. There has been a history of track-2 diplomacy between the two countries.
However, the Pakistani military’s obsession with Kashmir and its desire for parity with India has fuelled hostility and hindered regional peace and stability. And thus, peaceful negotiations to normalise bilateral relations can only succeed when the military’s influence is weakened.
India too must take certain steps to achieve this non-combat objective – something that will ultimately contribute to overall peace and stability in the Indian subcontinent. India must support Pakistan’s civilian leadership and democratic forces that seek to reduce the military’s influence on the country’s politics. This will include taking a stand against the Pakistan Army’s human rights abuses in Kashmir and Balochistan and rebuilding ties with countries like Iran and Afghanistan that share concerns about the Pakistan Army and its misadventures. India can also do more to invest in strategic communications to counter the Pakistan Army’s propaganda and disinformation campaigns. By pursuing these strategies, India can create an environment that undermines the dominance of the Pakistan Army and creates space for more constructive engagement between the two countries.
weakening of pak army
These strategies are not new. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, India supported the Mukti Bahini to undermine the Pakistani army’s control over East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Many major powers employ these strategies. The US has conducted cyber operations and supported opposition groups to weaken the influence of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran, while Israel has taken similar action against both the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Again, during the Cold War, the US employed a strategy of economic pressure, diplomatic isolation and ideological competition to weaken the Soviet military.
The Saudi Arabian military is an example of how things can go horribly wrong if things are acted too hastily. Its military campaign aimed at weakening the Houthi rebels’ control over Yemen and its support for opposition groups have not yielded any success.
So India has to adopt these strategies tactfully, without interfering in Pakistan’s internal affairs. Kashmir will always remain an issue for both countries, but it is possible to agree to work on other bilateral issues first to normalise relations. If there is political will on both sides of the border and Pakistani troops withdraw, peace may not be so impossible.
(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a senior London-based Indian journalist with three decades of experience in Western media)
Disclaimer: These are the personal views of the author
