Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI)’s onslaught on the country’s armed forces installations in response to party chief Imran Khan’s arrest has sparked a fierce debate among progressives and liberals who have long wished for an end to the military’s influence in Pakistani politics. As protesters took to the streets across the country, they stormed the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi and also ransacked the Corp Commander’s house in Lahore. The assault on military installations was unprecedented, more so because these buildings were symbolically and strategically significant for the armed forces. Several areas in Lahore Cantonment were blocked while vehicles were set ablaze across Pakistan.
The backdrop to the latest round of public protests is dominated by simmering tensions between ousted prime minister Imran Khan and the military leadership. So much so that PTI leaders themselves admit efforts to mend ties with the military remain unsuccessful since the baton was passed to General Asim Munir last November. It is also evident that Imran Khan’s accusation against a key military intelligence officer of conspiring to murder him took matters to a boiling point and subsequently led to his arrest in the Al Qadir trust case.
It is clear that the armed forces are intolerant towards dissenting voices and any sort of protests against them. For a closed yet all-powerful institution, verbal critique has been unable to achieve the intended results. Critiquing the military has now become a norm rather than an exception. But naming the generals still remains inadequate to loosen their grip on Pakistan’s political sphere. The PTI took social media criticism of the military to another level altogether. The argument in favour of breaking down the gates of GHQ or pelting stones at military officers is that it will sensitize them to public opinion and transform their attitude towards civilian leadership.
A deeper dive into motivations behind these protests reveals they weren’t designed to replace the existing power structure with a pluralist setup, rather they were orchestrated to bend the military into supporting one political party over all the others – PTI in this case. At a personal level, it would have been preferable to see Shehbaz Sharif lead a protest against the military when Nawaz Sharif landed in Lahore from London in 2018 to present himself for arrest. Similarly, Pashtun Tahafuz Movement’s protests against army checkposts across North and South Waziristan were also a welcome sight. But the fundamental difference between the Pashtun activists’ protest against the military compared to PTI’s onslaught on 9th May is not just limited to the violent nature of the protest.
The difference extends to the nature of critique as well. The PTI has effectively outflanked the military into becoming a completely right-wing party by monopolising the right to call people traitors and corrupt. The party has morphed into a civilian band that utilises and unleashes all those accusations the military has used on its adversaries, only far more effectively owing to Imran’s appeal and the party’s strong social media presence.
In the past decade, it has become evident that Imran Khan’s politics is largely centred on demonising political parties and leaders by labelling them corrupt groups who are worthy of banishment. Take for example the targeted accountability carried out under state supervision when he was the prime minister. These accusations took a turn for the worse when PTI labelled an entire political class ‘traitors’ over an American cypher fiasco. It is abundantly clear that Imran Khan’s politics capitalises on the base sentiments of many disillusioned Pakistanis by pitting them against a traditional political class. It doesn’t however stop there. It goes on to create enemy images out of other political players in the arena, mainly Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz). The constant beratement of other political players has led to severe polarisation in society at large.
A deeper dive into motivations behind PTI’s protests reveals they were not designed to replace the existing power structure with a pluralist setup, but to bend the military into supporting one political party over all the others.
Few, however, imagined that the same narrative could be weaponised against military leadership. It is no secret that PTI targeted General Qamar Bajwa (during his tenure) as ‘mir sadiq’ and ‘Mir Jaffer’, a reference to subcontinent traitors. Similarly, it’s been argued by PTI’s top leadership that military leadership were complacent in curbing foreign conspiracy against Imran Khan. It’s also been hinted that key military intelligence officers are out to murder Imran and that the current Chief of Army Staff is executing a high-level ‘London Plan’. In effect, PTI has mastered the military’s 70-year playbook, which works because of Imran Khan’s mass appeal. Whereas PML-N’s critique centred on the military staying out of politics and PPP maintains the same, the PTI has been criticising the military for backing ‘traitors’ and ‘corrupt’ individuals in government and by extension, being guilty of the same.
This is perhaps why attacking the GHQ, Corps Commander’s house in Lahore, and pelting stones at army officials are damaging to Pakistani politics, even though it holds the military to account. It effectively means one party’s policy of demonisation and vilification will remain unsparing for anybody who refuses to either support them or doesn’t act as their proxy in dirty politicking in Islamabad.
PTI’s narrative is that it is unfair to subject Imran Khan to standards applied to Nawaz Sharif because the latter is vehemently more corrupt whereas the former is destined to be the leader of Pakistan. This argument itself is a function of years of indoctrination.
The military is now on the receiving end of the same strategy it employed against adversarial political parties in the past. The only difference is that their once-allied political party has turned against them. The narrative furthered by the PTI is that it is unfair to subject Imran Khan to standards applied to Nawaz Sharif because the latter is vehemently more corrupt whereas the former is destined to be the leader of Pakistan. This argument itself is a function of years of indoctrination via social and traditional media aimed at discrediting and delegitimising political parties like PML-N, PPP and others. Imran Khan can be disqualified in multiple cases like the Toshakhana reference. The current chaos hence poses a tricky question for those who seek an end to the military’s influence in Pakistan’s politics: who does one choose between an uncompromising right-wing populist leader versus a traditionally brutal military? Would you prefer an oversized military balanced by multiple parties in our political landscape? Or would you prefer one party state who wants the military to operate under its purview to execute its high-handed agenda? There are no easy answers to who one should pick in Pakistan’s latest edition of the game of thrones.
There is however a third alternative. And that involves all political parties toning down the rhetoric, admitting to mistakes of the past, and indulging in truth and reconciliation to lead Pakistan out of this crisis. But history tells us this one is unlikely to materialise.
The writer is co-founder Future of Pakistan Conference and a graduate of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
’s onslaught on the country’s armed forces installations in response to party chief Imran Khan’s arrest has sparked a fierce debate among progressives and liberals who have long wished for an end to the military’s influence in Pakistani politics. As protesters took to the streets across the country, they stormed the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi and also ransacked the Corp Commander’s house in Lahore. The assault on military installations was unprecedented, more so because these buildings were symbolically and strategically significant for the armed forces. Several areas in Lahore Cantonment were blocked while vehicles were set ablaze across Pakistan.){kind=link}