NEW CRISS IN

CIVIL-MILITARY
RELATIONS IN PAKISTAN
Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi

Pakistans political leaders have learnt the art

of creating political crisis which ultimately hurts
them. On the Independence Day, August 14, Federal
Minister Mushahidullah Khan blamed former ISI Chief
Retired Lt-General Zaheerul Islam for planning to
knock out the civilian government and the Army
High Command during the sit-in by the Pakistan
Tehrik-i-Insaf in Islamabad, August 2014.

This was the most critical statement by any close

associate of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the
so-called military conspiracy against his government
while it faced the sit-in by Imran Khan. The
statement also implied that Imran Khan was staging
the sit-in with the blessings of a section of senior
Army officers. Mushahidullah Khan maintained
that his claim was based on a tape recording of the
said generals conversation on phone which was
known to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Army
Chief General Raheel Sharif.

This statement was completely rejected by the

Prime Ministers office as well as by the Army.
Federal Information Minister, Pervez Rashid, also
denied the statement of his colleague.

These statements ended the controversy caused on

Mushahidullah Khans claim. However, it is beyond
comprehension that a federal minister would make
such claim that threatens to upset the currently
stable civil-military relations in Pakistan.

Mushahidullah Khan is not the only federal

minister who has issued anti-military statement.
Two federal ministers, Khawaja Asif and Khawaja
Saad Rafique, have made their reputation for
publicly criticizing the top brass of the military for
their role in politics. They have also blamed the
military for quietly supporting Imran Khans sit-in,
August-December 2014. The major source of this
charge against the ISI and the Army is Javed Hashmi,
who defected from Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf in the
early stages of the sit-in and pointed his figure
towards the ISI and some unidentified generals of
encouraging and supporting Imran Khan for his
agitation against the Nawaz Sharif government.

This issue was taken up by Khawaja Asif and

Khawaja Saad Rafique not only for criticizing Imran
Khan but also to embarrass the Army, especially the
ISI. In this respect, the case of Khawaja Asif is very
peculiar. He is Defense Minister but he is not viewed
as a desirable person by military circles. He has never
been individually invited to the Army headquarters;
nor has there been any formal individual meeting
between him and the Army Chief. He does not always
attend the meetings between the Prime Minister and
the Army Chief.

It seems that the government of Nawaz Sharif is

pursuing a two-track policy towards the military. On
the one hand, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
maintains a close and cordial relationship with the
military, especially with the Army Chief. They meet
either in exclusive meetings or along with their senior
advisers from time to time to discuss national
security and terrorism related matters. The federal
government has given a lot of space to the Army in
managing internal and external security and
counter-terrorism affairs. This has increased the
Armys role in internal and external policy making
and management.

On the other hand, some the federal ministers

criticize the military in public, mainly with reference
to Imran Khans sit-in. They target both Imran Khan
and the military for conspiring against Nawaz
Sharifs elected government. Mushahidullah Khan
went a step further by accusing a former ISI Chief of
even planning to throw out the Army top command.

Such a dual track policy can be interpreted in

two ways. First, it is a conscious PMLN government
policy of talking in a friendly manner with the top
brass of the Army to keep them on its side but, from
time to time, let the federal ministers or some party
leaders to criticize the Army top commands
involvement in politics in the past as well as their
alleged support to Imran Khan. This gives them two
advantages: Imran Khans democratic credentials are
questioned and the Army top brass are put to
embarrassment so that they do not think of going
against Nawaz Sharif.
 The other interpretation is that Nawaz Sharif has
a number of hawkish ministers who enjoy freedom to
target the top commanders of the military. Nawaz
Sharif maintains a distance from their statements
but does not stop them from public criticism of the
military.

The resignation of Mushahidullah Khan is a

damage control effort on the part of the government.
However, his statement has greatly damaged the
relationship between the Prime Minister and the
military, especially the Army. Both, the civil and
military authorities may continue to work together
for fighting terrorism, their mutual distrust will
haunt them. The military top brass will exercise a lot
of caution in their interaction with the civilian
government and seek to know if their periodic
outburst against the military is a carefully
orchestrated policy?

The Army backed efforts to check corruption in

official circles and the on-going security operations in
Karachi have created a conflict between the military
and the political forces. The MQM parliamentarians
have resigned because they think the Karachi security
operation is only targeting them. This is a wrong
perception of the MQM. However, the security
operation in Karachi has broken the overall MQM
control of the city and the state is asserting its
primacy. The decline of their monopoly of power in
Karachi has upset the MQM. It also wants to shift
attention from Altaf Hussains latest controversial
statements.

Similarly, the fear of corruption related targeting

led Asif Ali Zardari to publicly criticize the military.
Later, he left the country to avoid any embarrassing
situation with the military or the National
Accountability Bureau. Now, the PMLN has gone
the MQM and the PPP way of blaming the military of
partisanship. The PMLN fears that they may not face
similar pressure on corruption and the activities of
religious hardline groups in the Punjab.

If the Prime Minister does not control these

negative trends, it may be difficult to sustain the
currently smooth civil-military relations. Any
adverse change in civil-military relations can cause
instability and threaten the already faltering
democracy.