PAKISTAN’S politics has long been closely linked with its military, shaped by decades of turbulent history. Since its creation in 1947, the country has seen repeated interventions in which the armed forces acted beyond their constitutional mandate, often justifying their actions as necessary for the survival of the state. From dismissing elected governments to imposing martial law, the military’s involvement has left lasting impacts on Pakistan’s political, economic and social development.
The past few decades illustrate this complex relationship vividly. The 1990s, for example, saw successive governments struggle under political instability, but it was Nawaz Sharif’s leadership that catalysed economic growth and infrastructure development. Sharif, often criticized for political missteps, nonetheless spearheaded projects that transformed Pakistan’s highways, energy sector and industrial base. Yet, it was also under the shadow of military influence that his governments faced immense pressure, ultimately leading to his removal. History reminds us that in Pakistan, politics and the military have often existed in a delicate, sometimes contentious balance.
In the late 2000s and early 2010s, the military’s role evolved further. General Pervez Musharraf’s decade-long rule underscored the reality that governance in Pakistan cannot be disentangled from military influence. Yet, post-Musharraf, a new political dynamic emerged. Imran Khan, a charismatic former cricketer turned politician, capitalized on widespread disillusionment with traditional parties, promising a ‘Naya Pakistan’ and the eradication of corruption. There is little doubt that Khan reshaped Pakistan’s political narrative, but history shows that no political figure in Pakistan has been immune to scrutiny or the consequences of challenging established state institutions.
It is in this backdrop that Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, DG ISPR, recently addressed a press conference. His statements, stern yet precise, underline a fundamental principle: while democratic debate is essential, freedom of expression is not absolute when it threatens the security and integrity of the state. By highlighting what he termed a “creeping national security threat”, Gen Chaudhry pointed to a phenomenon that Pakistan has experienced repeatedly, political actors creating narratives that, intentionally or unintentionally, erode public confidence in the institutions responsible for safeguarding the nation.
The DG ISPR’s criticism of Imran Khan and his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), must be understood in this light. Khan’s persistent anti-army rhetoric, particularly from the confines of Adiala Jail, challenges the constitutional framework by attempting to position the military as antagonistic to the people. As Gen Chaudhry rightly emphasized, the army is not a political entity; it is an institution that unites Pakistanis across regions, religionsand political affiliations in defence of national sovereignty. To undermine the army is not just a political act, it is a threat to the very security and continuity of the state.
The military’s historical interventions, though sometimes controversial, have often been driven by the imperative of survival in a region marked by existential threats. India, Pakistan’s eastern neighbour, has long pursued policies that challenge regional stability, most recently engaging in war that tested Pakistan’s defence capabilities but the armed forces responded decisively, securing a significant victory that safeguarded the nation. Meanwhile, militant networks operating from Pakistan’s western neighbour Afghanistan, have attempted to destabilize Pakistan internally, but the army’s strategic posture, counterterrorism operations, and border management have effectively neutralized these threats. The military has shielded the country from far greater crises, creating the conditions under which civilian governments can function. This is not to romanticize military rule, but to acknowledge that the institution has consistently played a protective role, even when its actions intersect with politics.
The lesson is clear. Pakistan has seen the pitfalls of politicizing the military in the past and the instability it has wrought. Yet, it is equally important to recognize that the armed forces today are not a political party but a guarantor of Pakistan’s survival. When the DG ISPR underscores the strategic threats facing the nation, ranging from militant proxies to regional hegemonic designs, he is highlighting the realities that every Pakistani must understand. Supporting the state, respecting the institutions, and ensuring that political differences do not spill into the realm of national vulnerability are essential for the country’s continued stability.History, therefore, offers both caution and clarity. While past interventions remind us of the complexities of military involvement in governance, today’s challenges necessitate unity and trust in the institutions designed to protect Pakistan. The ISPR’s warning is not a political manoeuvre but a call for national prudence, politics must operate within boundaries that preserve the country’s security and sovereignty. In this moment, alignment with the state and understanding the army’s constitutional role is not a question of ideology, it is a question of national survival.
—The writer is PhD in Political Science, and visiting faculty at QAU Islamabad.
