Monday, January 6, 2020

Battle For Pakistan 2007-2019: Pak-US Ties and Civil-Military Relations

Shuja Nawaz's "The Battle For Pakistan: The Bitter Friendship and a Tough Neighborhood" looks at key events of the last decade that have characterized US-Pakistan ties and civil-military relations in Pakistan.  One of the biggest developments in the period covered by Shuja Nawaz's book is the rise of Narendra Modi and the Hindu Nationalists in India. His book is a well-written treatise but it is strangely silent on the implications of this major development for South Asia region and the world.

Author Shuja Nawaz

US Raid in Abbottabad:

On May 2, 2011, US commandos raided a house in Pakistani city of Abbottabad and killed Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden. There are many stories about who led the Americans to Bin Laden's hideout. The story that Shuja Nawaz appears to confirm is the one about ex Pakistani spy Lt Col Iqbal Saeed Khan walking into the US Embassy in Islamabad to tell the CIA station chief the exact location of Bin Laden. This spy was apparently well rewarded for it. He now lives in San Diego, California where he owns a multi-million dollar home and drives a BMW convertible.

“Col. Saeed, who ran a security firm in Islamabad, may have been responsible for providing logistic and surveillance assistance to the Americans in tracking and locating movements related to what turned out to the final lair of bin Laden in Abbottabad,” says Shuja Nawaz in his book. “Col. Saeed’s office in Abbottabad is reported to have been used as a listening and staging post. He is reported to have been recruited by Lt. Col. Hafeez, his predecessor at the helm of the 408 Intelligence battalion, who had been hired by the U.S., and according to one report, was even in the U.S., and that CIA Director George Tenet once brought him to a meeting with Gen. Kayani,” it adds.

Imran Khan's 2014 Dharna (Sit-in):

Shuja Nawaz confirms what was widely reported by Pakistani media in 2014: Pakistan ISI was behind Imran Khan's Islamabad dharna. He cites US Ambassador Richard Olson as his source. Olson said the following in a January 2017 interview with the author:

"We received information that Zahir [-ul-Islam, the DG-ISI] was mobilizing for a coup in September of 2014. [Army chief] Raheel [Sharif] blocked it by, in effect, removing Zahir, by announcing his successor...[Zahir] was talking to the corps commanders and was talking to like-minded officers....He was prepared to do it and had the chief been willing, even tacitly, it would have happened. But the chief was not willing, so it didn't happen."

Pakistan Military Dominance:

Shuja Nawaz argues in the book that "the armed forces, and in particular the army, continue to dominate decision making in Pakistan" in spite of the fact "the constitution of Pakistan established civilian supremacy". He explains that it is "largely because of its (army's) experience in running the country through successive military regimes and, to some extent, by the inability of civilian regimes to exhibit the political vision and will necessary to exert their constitutional control over the military".

Going back to the 1970s, Shuja Nawaz says in his book:

"The elder Bhutto (Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) had wished to cut the military down to size, demoting the commanders-in-chief of the services to chiefs-of-staff. But, he failed to understand that their power stemmed from their disciplined and organized institutions, while the political party that he headed, not unlike other political parties, tended to be fractured and weak, especially on rule was the order of the day. Civilian leaders failed to empower the people who elected them time and again, and they failed to deliver on the promise of economic development."

Shuja Nawaz's Silence on Rise of Hindutva:

The biggest development in the period covered by Shuja Nawaz's book is the rise of Narendra Modi and the Hindu Nationalists in India. His book is strangely silent on the implications of this development for South Asia region and the world.

Clearly, Nawaz did not foresee what has happened in India and Indian Occupied Kashmir with the revocation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution and the passage of highly discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act. Nor did he see Modi's dangerous gambit with attack on Balakot in Pakistan. The Indian action drew strong Pakistani response with Pakistan Air Force crossing the Line of Control in Kashmir and shooting down two Indian fighter jets.  Pakistan also captured an Indian fighter pilot shot down down in Azad Kashmir. It was Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan's deft handling of the regional crisis that prevented further escalation into a full-blown India-Pakistan war that could have gone nuclear.


"The Battle For Pakistan" by Shuja Nawaz covers the period from 2007 when President Musharraf fired former Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to the beginning of 2019 before Balakot attack by Indian Air Force. The book is strangely silent on the implications of far-right Indian Prime Minister Modi's rise for South Asia region and the world.  Most of the book is devoted to discussion of US raid on Osama Bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad, Salala incident that took the lives of 24 Pakistani soldiers, Memogate that led to Husain Haqqani's ouster, Dawn Leaks incident that soured relations between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the military and Pakistan Army operations to defeat Pakistani Taliban. The author appears to confirm stories about an ex ISI colonel helping CIA find Bin Laden and Pakistan ISI's instigation Imran Khan's 2014 Islamabad  dharna (sit-in). One of the biggest developments in the period covered by Shuja Nawaz's book is the rise of Narendra Modi and the Hindu Nationalists in India. His book is strangely silent on the implications of this development for South Asia region and the world.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

India: A Paper Elephant?

Modi's Hindutva

Imran Khan's 2014 Dharna in Islamabad

Seeing Bin Laden's Killing in Wider Perspective

Top US CIA Agent on Pakistan ISI

Shuja Nawaz on Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

Ownership of Appliances and Vehicles in Pakistan

CPEC Transforming Pakistan

Pakistan's $20 Billion Tourism Industry Boom

Riaz Haq's YouTube Channel

PakAlumni Social Network


Rashid A. said...

Thank you Riaz Sahib for this great review of this excellent book.

It was well known the it was a former employee of Army/ISI who told CIA about OBL. Even PMIK admitted/claimed that ISI informed CIA.

Ziaul Islam was very ambitious and was making moves. His shenanigans were revealed during Dharna.

I have no respect for these military dictators, but Shuja Nawaz is spot on when he says,

"The elder Bhutto (Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) had wished to cut the military down to size, demoting the commanders-in-chief of the services to chiefs-of-staff. But, he failed to understand that their power stemmed from their disciplined and organized institutions, while the political party that he headed, not unlike other political parties, tended to be fractured and weak, especially on rule was the order of the day. Civilian leaders failed to empower the people who elected them time and again, and they failed to deliver on the promise of economic development."

It is lack of values, conviction and courage coupled with greed for money or power that invites military.

Riaz Haq said...

I think the book is definitely worth reading for anyone interested in Pakistan affairs.

Shuja Nawaz's credibility comes from his family background and his inside connections in the military.

His father, uncles and grandfather all served in the military.

His cousin Asif Nawaz served as Army Chief briefly before he died under mysterious circumstances.

We had a couple of conversations with him in 2014 when dharna was going on. Here are the links:

BTW, the ISI chief was Zahir ul Islam, not Zia ul Islam.

Rashid A. said...

Pakistan Army Act Amendments have been approved by both houses and signed by the President.

Any comments from this esteemed group?

My thoughts:

Given their past noise, the speed at which this was “processed” and how PMLN and PPP turned around to support it was surprising.

The language of the act has already become controversial, technically. It seems like it was hastily drafted. The constitution says President “shall” appoint but this law says, he “may” appoint. Also this law says Appointing authority (President) has discretion, whereas the constitution gives no discretion to the Pres.

The law says the appointment /extension of Army Chief cannot be challenged in any court. That is also questionable. I wonder if the law itself can be challenged. Don’t know for sure.

The theory that Parliament is supreme, and hence it can make laws that are not subject to judicial review, may allow such exemption from judicial review. Yet, the other theory is that Parkuamebt cannot make laws that are ultra vires if the Constitution, and the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. Hence the law cannot escape the judicial review.

The parliament can change the constitution, but that is a different exercise.


Riaz Haq said...

Rashid A: " Pakistan Army Act Amendments have been approved by both houses and signed by the President."

It’s the triumph of Shahbaz Sharif/Chaudhry Nisar wing within PMLN....a step toward reconciliation with the military

I think Shahbaz Sharif and Chaudhry Nisar are very wise. They know the alternatives are far worse for their party and for Pakistan as a nation-state.

Compromises are the only way to make gradual progress toward a better future for democracy in Pakistan.

Confrontation has not and will not work.

Meanwhile, the politicians need to work on the best ways to deliver for the people to wean them off direct/indirect military rule.

BTW, have you heard about Concordance theory on civil military relations?

After observing that most civil-military theory assumes that the civilian and military worlds must necessarily be separate, both physically and ideologically, Rebecca L. Schiff offered a new theory—Concordance—as an alternative. One of the key questions in Civil-Military Relations (CMR) theory has always been to determine under what conditions the military will intervene in the domestic politics of the nation. Most scholars agree with the theory of objective civilian control of the military (Huntington), which focuses on the separation of civil and military institutions. Such a view concentrates and relies heavily on the U.S. case, from an institutional perspective, and especially during the Cold War period. Schiff provides an alternative theory, from both institutional and cultural perspectives, that explains the U.S. case as well as several non-U.S. civil-military relations case studies.

While concordance theory does not preclude a separation between the civilian and military worlds, it does not require such a state to exist. She argues that three societal institutions—(1) the military, (2) political elites, and (3) the citizenry must aim for a cooperative arrangement and some agreement on four primary indicators.

1. Social composition of the officer corps.
2. The political decision-making process.
3. The method of recruiting military personnel.
4. The style of the military.

If agreement occurs among the three partners with respect to the four indicators, domestic military intervention is less likely to occur. In her book, The Military and Domestic Politics, she applied her theory to six international historical cases studies: U.S., post–Second World War period; American Post-Revolutionary Period (1790–1800); Israel (1980–90); Argentina (1945–55); India post-Independence and 1980s; Pakistan....


Just as there are many versions of democracy, Schiff argues that there may exist
various types of civil-military relationships and that these arrangements are rooted in the
cultural and historical experiences of the nations they serve. Concordance theory relies on
the agreement of the ''three social partners" with respect to ''four indicators": the social
composition of the officer corps, the political decision-making process, recruitment
method, and military style. If there is general acceptance among the partners with respect
to these indicators, then the likelihood of military interventions is diminished. The theory
has the additional value of explaining the institutional and cuhural conditions that affect
relations with the military.
The pmpose of this thesis is to test Rebecca L. Schiff's ''Theory of Concordance"
against the case of Argentina. I use the case study method to determine whether this
relatively neglected theory of civil-military relations accounts for the occurrence of
military interventions in the past and the subsequent return to democracy. Secondary to
this, I examine whether the theory provides a better tool than separation theory by which
to analyze civil-military relations in this case and the suitability of its generalization to
other cases both within Latin America and trans-regionally.

Ahmad F. said...

Civil-Military convergence

The theory that perhaps responds best to the peculiar security and political environment of Pakistan is Rebecca Schiff’s Concordance theory. According to that theory for best civil-military relations there should be complete concordance between the political elite, the military and the people on four indicators ie social composition of the officers corps, political decision making process, method of recruitment and the style of the military.

The allegory does not end with military oppression alone but the economic and political exploitation of hapless Pakistanis too. The concordance as per Rebecca Schiff’s theory between Pakistan Army, the political elite and the hapless citizen is fraught with discordance between the citizen and the rapacious political elite. It is within this externally threatened and internally fractured politico-economic milieu that the appointment of the COAS assumes the greatest salience. The need of the hour in this critical juncture for Pakistani “anocracy” (mixture of democracy and autocracy) is of a sheet anchor that can provide stability to the political sailboat of a fledgling democracy being buffeted by the winds of democratic turbulence. The change of a military helmsman at this crucial juncture would be a risky proposition considering the fragility of the slim majority political parvenus of PTI who are up against an obstreperous sea of political opposition infested by the sharks of status quo.

Riaz Haq said...

Senior #US Diplomat Alice Wells in #Pakistan Amid Warming Mutual Ties that have followed meetings between #Trump and PM #ImranKhan. The warmth stemmed mainly from #Islamabad’s facilitating US-Taliban peace talks bringing an end to the war in #Afghanistan.

The Trump administration last month announced it would soon resume International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs for young Pakistani army officers. U.S. officials say they are also working together with counterparts in Islamabad to boost bilateral trade and commercial ties.

"We expect our bilateral relationship to continue to mature to one more focused on trade than aid, and we are continuing to target investments in ways that help improve the overall business climate,” a State Department spokesperson told VOA in an email.

She noted there is much room to grow the current $6.6 billion annual bilateral trade relationship, adding Washington looks forward to working together with Islamabad on energy and agricultural exports in 2020. The Trump administration sees the U.S.-Pakistan relationship as one of potential, she added.

"We have made clear that fulfilling that potential requires progress on our joint efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan and on Pakistan taking sustained and irreversible action against the militant groups and terrorist groups that destabilize the region from its soil,” the spokesperson stressed.

Pakistan hails IMET

The IMET was a part of U.S. security assistance for Pakistan worth some $2 billion that Trump suspended in January 2018 to press Islamabad to crackdown on militant groups on its soil and help in Afghan peace-building efforts. The overall security assistance remains suspended, however.

U.S. officials maintain the resumption of IMET, administered by the State Department, was meant to boost military-to-military cooperation between the two countries to advance “our shared priorities” of regional security and stability through concrete actions.

“U.S. decision to revive IMET is one more step in the right direction and reflective of our growing bilateral relationship,” Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesperson Aisha Farooqui noted in her official reaction.

Farooqui emphasized, however, the two countries needed to work for a “broad-based and enduring relationship, based on mutual trust and mutual respect.”

Washington credits Islamabad with helping to facilitate U.S. negotiations with the Afghan Taliban, mostly held in Qatar, to help bring an end to the 18-year-old conflict, America’s longest.

U.S. officials have long alleged the Taliban insurgency has organized itself militarily and logistically on Pakistani soil with covert support from the neighboring country’s military. Islamabad rejects the charges.

Latest round of meetings between U.S. and Taliban negotiators underway in the Qatari capital of Doha are said to have brought the two adversaries on the verge of signing a peace deal.

Khan 'Sort of' Trump of Pakistan

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, has also called for offering more economic incentives to Pakistan to encourage it to do more to bring stability to Afghanistan. Graham noted after his last month’s visit to Islamabad that Pakistani leadership wants an end to the Afghan war to promote national and regional peace.“

Prime Minister Khan is a different kind of politician. In many ways he is sort of Trump of Pakistan. So, we got a magic moment here where we could persuade Pakistan to do things differently and give them an economic incentive they never had before to do things differently,” Graham told reporters after his last month’s visit to Islamabad.

Senator Mushahid Hussain, who heads the foreign affairs committee of the upper house of Pakistani parliament, says Washington’s emphasizes on broadening bilateral ties beyond Afghanistan and security-related cooperation will go a long way in resetting relations between the two nations.

Riaz Haq said...

How Pakistan’s Politicians Help the Military
Every time civilian politicians bend laws to accommodate the generals, they damage long-term prospects for democracy.

By Aqil Shah

Since its foundation in 1947, Pakistan has spent more than three decades under military rule. Even when out of power, the military has exerted behind-the-scenes influence to maintain its firm grip on politics and national security. Establishing democratic institutions, including civilian control of the military, has thus been an arduous process riddled with uncertainty, backsliding and reversal.

The military has often found civilian politicians willing to do its bidding. Every time civilian politicians bend laws to accommodate the uniformed autocrats, they undermine the trust of the people, damage the long-term prospects for democracy and further enhance the military’s power.

On Aug. 19, Prime Minister Imran Khan extended the term of Gen. Qamar Bajwa, the chief of the country’s army, by three more years. General Bajwa was supposed to retire in November, but the decision was made in view of the “regional security environment.”

Two days before General Bajwa’s extension was about to kick in, the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered a petition challenging it and suspended the extension. Eventually, the Supreme Court gave the general a six-month extension and ordered the government to get the Parliament of Pakistan to decide on such an extension and its duration.


On Jan. 7, the Parliament hurriedly passed the legislation as the country’s main opposition parties voted in support of the law. They are the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistan People’s Party run by the slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s son Bilawal Bhutto, which have alleged that the 2018 elections which brought Mr. Khan to power were rigged by the military under General Bajwa.

The supporters of Mr. Sharif’s P.M.L.N., Mr. Bhutto’s P.P.P. and the country’s beleaguered civil society activists interpreted it as a stark betrayal of their apparent commitment to the democratic process. They seem particularly disappointed with Mr. Sharif, who has popularized the slogan, “vote ko izzat do” or “honor the ballot,” a thinly veiled rebuke to the military’s habitual political meddling.

Mr. Sharif stepped down as prime minister in 2017 after the Supreme Court of Pakistan disqualified him from holding public office after a corruption inquiry linked to the Panama Papers. Mr. Sharif was not named in the Panama leaks and there is no evidence that he abused public office for private gain, but the judges disqualified him for hiding assets, and therefore failing to being “honest,” a constitutional requirement for being a member of Parliament.


Pakistan’s army has long been the ultimate arbiter of politics in the country, which has tilted the political playing field against its opponents with detrimental consequences for democracy. Politicians have turned to the military as a shortcut to power and their politically expedient knocks on the doors of the barracks have allowed the generals to divide and rule.

Mr. Sharif’s seemingly steely defiance of the military had raised hopes that Pakistan’s most popular opposition leader had learned his lesson. Democracy does not necessarily need principled democrats, but it does need determined political leaders who can rise to the occasion.

Even though democracy requires compromises and accommodation between authoritarians and democrats, politicians of all persuasions must commit to civilian supremacy as the only game in town.

Pakistan’s politicians have chosen to reward the military’s egregious violations of the sanctity of the vote, a principle they had sworn to stand by no matter what. Their abject betrayal of their own word augurs ill for the future of democracy in Pakistan.

Riaz Haq said...

Top #US general warned of a #coup in #Trump’s last days. General Milley: “They may try, but they’re not going to fucking succeed. You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with guns” #biden

Shortly before the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Mark Milley, told aides the US was facing a “Reichstag moment” because Donald Trump was preaching “the gospel of the F├╝hrer”, according to an eagerly awaited book about Trump’s last year in office.

The excerpts from I Alone Can Fix This, by Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, were reported by New York magazine on Wednesday. The authors’ employer, the Washington Post, published the first extract from the book a day earlier. It will be published next week.

Milley’s invocation of Germany under the Third Reich follows a report in another book, Frankly, We Did Win This Election, by Michael C Bender, that Trump told his chief of staff, John Kelly, “Hitler did a lot of good things”.

Trump denies having made the remark.

Leonnig and Rucker report that Milley spoke to an “old friend”, who warned the general that Trump and his allies were trying to “overturn the government” in response to Joe Biden’s election victory, which Trump falsely maintains was the result of electoral fraud.

Milley is reported to have said: “They may try, but they’re not going to fucking succeed. You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with guns.”

Reportedly calling Trump supporters “Brownshirts”, a reference to paramilitaries who served Hitler in Germany in the 1930s, Milley is reported to have believed long before the Capitol attack that “Trump was stoking unrest, possibly in hopes of an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the military”.

Milley notoriously appeared with Trump in Lafayette Square in Washington in June 2020, after anti-racism protesters had been aggressively cleared and as Trump walked to a church to stage a photo op with a Bible.

The general apologised for that incident. It has been widely reported that he resisted Trump’s efforts then to invoke the Insurrection Act and crack down on the protests.

Milley’s “Reichstag moment” remark refers to a fire at the German parliament which the Nazis used to consolidate their authoritarian rule in 1933.

Trump’s supporters attacked Congress on 6 January, the day the electoral college results were certified . Five people died.

Leonnig and Rucker report that Milley called the attackers “Nazis” and, in reference to two far-right groups, said “they’re boogaloo boys, they’re Proud Boys”.

“These are the same people we fought in [the second world war],” he reportedly said.

According to New York magazine, the authors also report that Milley, who made headlines and stoked rightwing ire last month by defending teaching about historic racism in army educational establishments, met former first lady Michelle Obama at the Capitol on 20 January, the day Biden was inaugurated.

“No one has a bigger smile today than I do,” Milley reportedly said. “You can’t see it under my mask but I do.”

Riaz Haq said...

Military got tap equipment illegally, says V.K. Singh

Published : January 26, 2013

The Indian military acquired phone tapping equipment illegally, said former Army chief General V.K. Singh in an interview with The Sunday Guardian, but claimed that he had nothing to do with it. He also owned up for the first time to a shadowy spy agency — the Technical Support Division (TSD) — which has been accused of misappropriating secret military funds and bugging the political leadership. However, the general, who is now a political activist, strongly protested his innocence and insisted that the spying charges against him were the result of a conspiracy to tarnish his image. He alleged that sophisticated phone tapping equipment, including off-air interceptors, was acquired by “one particular DG DIA” without the government’s authorisation and that he was not responsible for it.


Snoop List Has 40 Indian Journalists, Forensic Tests Confirm Presence of Pegasus Spyware on Some
Those on leaked list of potential targets include journalists at Hindustan Times, The Hindu, The Wire, Indian Express, News18, India Today, Pioneer, besides freelancers, columnists and regional media.

The phone numbers of over 40 Indian journalists appear on a leaked list of potential targets for surveillance, and forensic tests have confirmed that some of them were successfully snooped upon by an unidentified agency using Pegasus spyware, The Wire can confirm.

The leaked data includes the numbers of top journalists at big media houses like the Hindustan Times, including executive editor Shishir Gupta, India Today, Network18, The Hindu and Indian Express.

The presence of a phone number in the data does alone not reveal whether a device was infected with Pegasus or subject to an attempted hack. However, the Pegasus Project that analysed this list believes the data is indicative of potential targets identified in advance of possible surveillance attempts.

Independent digital forensic analysis conducted on 10 Indian phones whose numbers were present in the data showed signs of either an attempted or successful Pegasus hack.

Of equal importance is how the forensic analysis shows a strong correlation between the time a phone number appears in the leaked records and the beginning of surveillance. The gap usually ranges between a few minutes and a couple of hours. In some cases, including forensic tests conducted for two India numbers, the time between a number appearing on the list and the successful detection of a trace of Pegasus infection is just seconds.

Pegasus is sold by the Israeli company, NSO Group, which says it only offers its spyware to “vetted governments”. The company refuses to make its list of customers public but the presence of Pegasus infections in India, and the range of persons that may have been selected for targeting, strongly indicate that the agency operating the spyware on Indian numbers is an official Indian one.

Riaz Haq said...

#US Joint Chiefs chairman General Milley was so fearful #Trump might spark a #nuclear war that he made secret calls to General Li, his #Chinese counterpart, to reassure him, new #WoodwardBook says. General Li remained rattled even after Milley's calls.

‘Peril,’ by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, reveals that Gen. Mark A. Milley called his Chinese counterpart before the election and after Jan. 6 in a bid to avert armed conflict.

Twice in the final months of the Trump administration, the country’s top military officer was so fearful that the president’s actions might spark a war with China that he moved urgently to avert armed conflict.

In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, that the United States would not strike, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa.

One call took place on Oct. 30, 2020, four days before the election that unseated President Donald Trump, and the other on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after the Capitol siege carried out by his supporters in a quest to cancel the vote.

The first call was prompted by Milley’s review of intelligence suggesting the Chinese believed the United States was preparing to attack. That belief, the authors write, was based on tensions over military exercises in the South China Sea, and deepened by Trump’s belligerent rhetoric toward China.

“General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay,” Milley told him. “We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you.”

In the book’s account, Milley went so far as to pledge he would alert his counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, stressing the rapport they’d established through a backchannel. “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

Li took the chairman at his word, the authors write in the book, “Peril,” which is set to be released next week.

In the second call, placed to address Chinese fears about the events of Jan. 6, Li wasn’t as easily assuaged, even after Milley promised him, “We are 100 percent steady. Everything’s fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes.”

Riaz Haq said...

"Hands Were Tied, Blackmailed": Imran Khan's All-Out Attack On Pak Army
Imran Khan, who came to power in 2018, reportedly with the backing of the military, is the only Pakistani Prime Minister to be ousted in a no-confidence vote in Parliament. He was replaced by PML-N's Shehbaz Sharif.

Imran Khan said that if Pakistan were to lose its nuclear deterrent capability, it would be fragmented into three pieces. "If the right decisions aren't made at this time then the country is going towards suicide," he warned.

Prodded further to share his thoughts on the night of the no-confidence vote, Imran Khan declined to go into details and said: "History never forgives anyone. Things come out. If you ask me, I won't go into details, but when history will be written then it'll be counted as such a night in which Pakistan and its institutions were damaged a lot."

"Those same institutions weakened Pakistan which gave it its foundation and strengthened it," he said.

Imran Khan said he had "clearly told the neutrals" that his government's economic performance, despite the Covid-19 pandemic, was nothing short of a "miracle".

"I told them if you do this and if this conspiracy (to remove my government) is successful then our economy will go down," he said.

Imran Khan said the country stood on the cusp of a "defining moment", calling it a "trial for the establishment". "Everyone knows they're the powerbrokers, so they're on trial. This is a trial of the judiciary and the Supreme Court (as well)."

Riaz Haq said...

The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) on Monday took strong exception to the recent remarks by PTI Chairman Imran Khan regarding the appointment of the new army chief, saying that it was “aghast at the defamatory and uncalled for” statement about the institution’s senior leadership.

“Regrettably, an attempt has been made to discredit and undermine [the] senior leadership of [the] Pakistan Army at a time when the institution is laying lives for the security and safety of the people of Pakistan every day.

Senior politicians trying to stir controversies on the appointment of the chief of army staff (COAS), the procedure for which is well defined in the constitution, is most unfortunate and disappointing, the ISPR said.

It went on to say that the army’s senior leadership had a decades-long, impeccable and meritorious service to prove its patriotic and professional credentials beyond any doubt.

“Politicising the senior leadership of Pakistan Army and scandalising the process of selection of [the] COAS is neither in the interest of the state of Pakistan nor of the institution. Pakistan Army reiterates its commitment to uphold the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” the statement concluded.

The development comes a day after Imran, at a rally in Faisalabad, alleged that the PPP and PML-N were opposing fresh elections, because they wanted to “appoint an army chief of their choice” in November to save their skin in corruption cases.

“They want to bring their own army chief…they are afraid that if a strong and patriotic army chief is appointed then he would ask them about the looted wealth,” the former prime minister said.

“They are sitting [in the government] because they want to bring in an army chief of their choice through joint efforts,” Imran claimed, adding that the army chief should be “appointed on merit … whoever is on the top of the merit list should be appointed” to head the institution.

COAS Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, who was appointed in 2016, is set to retire in the last week of November. The army chief’s appointment is meant to be for three years, but Gen Bajwa was given an additional three-year term in 2019 after a bit of political drama.

She said the press release was “of concern because it seems to have misunderstood what Imran said despite clarifications”. The ex-human rights minister maintained that the PTI chief had not criticised the military or its leadership in his Faisalabad speech.

PTI’s Asad Umar said the context of Imran’s statement had already been clarified. “There was never an intent to cause harm to the reputation of the institution or its senior leadership,” he said.

He went on to say that the party and its chief had always “fully appreciated” the professionalism and sacrifices of army personnel.

“The emphasis on upholding the principle of merit is consistent with the desire to protect the professionalism of the force which provides security to the nation,” he said.

PTI Vice President Fawad Chaudhry said the ISPR would not have felt the need to issue the press release if it had listened to what he had said in Islamabad earlier today.

In his press conference, Chaudhry had attempted to explain and defend Imran’s remarks.

Criticising the coalition government and its leaders, Chaudhry said Imran had meant that the decision to appoint the next COAS could not be left to the government since it lacked “political legitimacy”.

“We have raised questions on the legitimacy of the politicians who are making decisions,” Chaudhry said.

He added that the PTI felt the army should not be involved in the political process.

“There is no doubt about the patriotism of the army’s leadership. There can be no doubt or suspicion about it,” Chaudhry asserted.

Coalition govt slams Imran
Earlier today, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and other coalition leaders castigated Imran for levelling “poisonous allegations” against the armed forces and “putting blots” on the appointment of the new army chief.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan’s Military Is Here To Stay
Imran Khan’s agitations won’t change how his country functions.
By Husain Haqqani

Pakistani politics have always revolved around the country’s military. Civilian politicians compete for support while criticizing—or seeking covert help from—a ubiquitous security establishment. Since his ouster as prime minister last April, cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan has become the latest to challenge this system. But Khan’s polarizing rhetoric is only adding to Pakistan’s chaos—not marking the advent of a revolution.

The government elected after Khan’s removal via a no-confidence vote initially tolerated the former prime minister’s attacks on generals, judges, and political rivals in addition to his conspiracy theories about his ouster being the result of a U.S.-backed plot. Unlike previous civilian leaders who fell afoul of the military, Khan was not immediately arrested, charged with corruption, or disqualified from future elections by judicial fiat. But now, Khan and his close aides are beginning to face the wrath of the state apparatus. Both the security establishment and the civilian government seem to have realized that Khan’s populist influence will not diminish without prosecuting him and his associates.

On Oct. 12, Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency charged Khan with violating laws barring foreign funding for political parties. Since Khan first ran for public office in 1997, he has raised funds for his Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party from foreigners and overseas Pakistanis, many of whom had donated to charities he started after retiring from cricket in 1992. Although some of this fundraising has likely always violated Pakistani law, prosecutors long held off disciplining Khan or his party because they enjoyed the establishment’s blessings.

Khan’s support base comprises middle-class urban Pakistanis disenchanted with the country’s two traditional political parties, the center-right Pakistan Muslim League (PML)—dominated since the 1980s by the family of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and current Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif—and the center-left Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), led by members of the family of late Prime Ministers Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto.

Prime ministers from both the PML and PPP have been ousted from office multiple times by the Pakistani military, which routinely influences Pakistan’s superior judiciary. Supreme Court judges then often provide legal cover for otherwise undemocratic and unconstitutional actions initiated by generals. The Supreme Court endorsed Pakistan’s four military coups in 1958, 1969, 1977, and 1999, as well as accepted the generals’ right to suspend the constitution under its so-called doctrine of necessity. On other occasions, the military orchestrated palace coups in 1990, 1993, and 1996, resulting in dismissal of elected prime ministers by the president and with the support of the Supreme Court. In 2012 and 2017, prime ministers were removed from office at the behest of the military through direct intervention by the Supreme Court. Together, the Pakistani military and judiciary have never allowed a PML or PPP prime minister to stay in office for the full five-year term of parliament.

Khan presented himself as the military-backed alternative to the PML and PPP’s perceived corrupt, dynastic politics. His populist rhetoric appealed to young middle-class Pakistanis as well as those who had been more comfortable during the country’s past periods of military rule than under its civilian democrats.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan’s Military Is Here To Stay
Imran Khan’s agitations won’t change how his country functions.
By Husain Haqqani

Khan at first failed to get traction as a politician, losing all seats his party contested in the 1997 parliamentary elections. He managed to enter parliament in 2002 in elections organized by the military regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Only in 2013 did Khan’s party win a significant number of seats in parliament for the first time. In 2018, he finally translated his celebrity status into high political office with direct help from Pakistan’s intelligence services and the military. In that year’s elections, the PTI emerged as the single-largest party in the lower house of parliament, but it could not form a government without the support of smaller parties. The military overcame this last hurdle by advising three such groups to form a coalition with the PTI.

Khan’s ascent to the office of prime minister became possible because of a controversial Supreme Court ruling that disqualified Nawaz Sharif without trial as well as a spate of corruption cases hobbling most of Khan’s other opponents in the PML and PPP. To get to this point, the military had ensured favorable media coverage for Khan and his party, helped prosecute his opponents, and directed locally influential candidates to join the PTI. Opponents and foreign observers also alleged selective rigging on election day.

Those corruption cases against PML and PPP leaders failed to make much headway in trial courts and are currently being thrown out for lack of evidence. But Khan continued to rail against his opponents, telling his supporters that Pakistan was destined for greatness under his leadership. Like most populist leaders, however, he had no answers for Pakistan’s problems and governed poorly. Khan often addressed the nation on television and rallied his supporters with a mix of Islamist and nationalist grandiloquence. The military gradually lost faith in the former prime minister as Pakistan’s economy took a nosedive and its foreign relations suffered.

The value of the Pakistani rupee eroded after Khan reinstated fuel subsidies that had been eliminated as part of the country’s commitments under an International Monetary Fund program. Khan had managed to antagonize the leaders of China, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates so much so that these traditionally friendly countries would not help Pakistan service its $126 billion in foreign debt. His open support for the Taliban and criticism of U.S. leaders and policy, meanwhile, left Pakistan with little support in the United States.

Ever the narcissist, Khan ran a one-man show­—shuffling his cabinet often and skipping sessions of parliament. He also displayed little respect for lawmakers or the generals who helped bring him to office. Meanwhile, Khan’s opponents peeled off support from his coalition and—once the military withdrew its backing by publicly declaring itself politically neutral—ousted him in the April no-confidence vote. Khan’s effort to nullify the vote by claiming that it was U.S.-backed regime change did not survive legal challenges.

Out of office, Khan has turned on his former benefactor, the military high command, claiming that Pakistan’s army chief ousted him to bring “traitors” back to power at the behest of the United States. Khan feels no need to offer evidence of his conspiracy-mongering because his followers have become a personality cult, willing to follow him to the gates of hell. But despite Khan’s vaunted popular support and vast social media presence, his promises to mobilize a revolution will most likely remain unfulfilled.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan’s Military Is Here To Stay
Imran Khan’s agitations won’t change how his country functions.
By Husain Haqqani

Out of office, Khan has turned on his former benefactor, the military high command, claiming that Pakistan’s army chief ousted him to bring “traitors” back to power at the behest of the United States. Khan feels no need to offer evidence of his conspiracy-mongering because his followers have become a personality cult, willing to follow him to the gates of hell. But despite Khan’s vaunted popular support and vast social media presence, his promises to mobilize a revolution will most likely remain unfulfilled.

Pakistan has had popular leaders who challenged the military’s dominance on politics and policy before. They did not succeed in weakening this stranglehold—and Khan’s chances are no better. In railing against the military leadership, Khan is simply doing what Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif did before him. All three of them rose to power with the help of the military and then turned around to confront it.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif attracted huge crowds at rallies, yet their parties survived only through compromises with the Pakistan Army. However, unlike them, Khan’s opposition to the military’s role in Pakistani politics is not rooted in conviction. Bhutto and Sharif, as well as their supporters, firmly believed in democracy and civilian supremacy over the military rooted in Pakistan’s constitution; their collaboration with the military was strategic and did not reflect ideology. Khan and his supporters, by contrast, hope that the Islamist, anti-American elements of the military will intervene to help Khan return to power.

That is unlikely to happen. Pakistan’s military is not prone to factional divisions and remains unified despite Khan’s provocations. The former prime minister’s cult followers might believe he is the only patriotic and honest political leader in Pakistan, but the military seems to have moved on.

Unlike Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, or many other Pakistani politicians, Khan has never faced adversity in his career—so far. He has never faced criminal cases or gone to prison. Nor has he been banned from holding public office, appearing on television, or traveling—restrictions that others daring to take on Pakistan’s establishment have faced in the past. Khan may have a political future if he gets through the hardships that await him. He remains popular with his base and was recently able to win back most—though not all—of the parliamentary seats in recent by-elections on seats vacated by the PTI.

As Khan and others nurtured by Pakistan’s military establishment turn against it, some might be tempted to write the obituary of military dominance in the country’s politics. As someone who has advocated and fought for the supremacy of civilian rule and constitutional democracy in Pakistan for decades, I am not sure Khan’s agitation will truly change how Pakistan functions. The country is likely to witness some more chaos—rallies and media noise by Khan’s supporters, political disputes playing out in court, the specter of debt defaults, continuing inflation and erosion of the value of the Pakistani rupee, threats of violence by the Pakistani Taliban, and extreme political polarization—before the military steps in again, most likely indirectly, to restore order.

Riaz Haq said...

Army, ISI in unprecedented presser question Arshad Sharif's exit from Pakistan, point to PTI's involvement

In an explosive and unexpected press conference, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt Gen Nadeem Ahmed Anjum joined Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) DG Lt Gen Babar Iftikhar to speak about journalist Arshad Sharif’s killing and former premier Imran Khan’s confrontational narrative against the military, as well as a host of other related topics.

This is the first time in Pakistan’s history that the head of the country’s spy agency has directly addressed the media.

At the outset of the press conference, Gen Iftikhar said the purpose of today’s media talk was to shed light on the killing of journalist Arshad Sharif in Kenya and the circumstances surrounding it.

This press conference is being held in the context of presenting facts so that “facts, fiction and opinion can be differentiated”, he said, adding that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had been “specially informed” about the sensitivity of the press conference.

Key points from joint presser

March 27 narrative built through a piece of paper ‘far from reality’
Arshad Sharif was fed propaganda on cypher by Imran Khan
Facts behind the cypher and Sharif’s death have to be determined
ARY News played the role of a spin doctor in targeting the army; CEO Salman Iqbal should be brought back to Pakistan
KP govt in August issued a letter stating TTP splinter group was looking to target Sharif
No one forced Arshad Sharif to leave Dubai
Sharif did not face any threat in Pakistan
COAS presented ’lucrative offer“ for extension in March
Besides, it is necessary to determine the factors due to which a particular narrative is being built and people are being misled, he said.

“Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa was also targeted and faced criticism. An attempt was made to create a divide in society.”

He said that Sharif’s death was an “unfortunate incident” and called him an “icon of journalism in Pakistan”. He noted that members of the late journalist’s family had served in the army, adding that he always felt the pain of martyred officers.

Gen Iftikhar went on to say that Sharif’s popularity was based on being an investigative journalist and when the cypher — which PTI chief Imran Khan has touted as evidence of a foreign conspiracy to oust his government — surfaced, he conducted several programmes on the issue.

He held several meetings with the former premier and interviewed him, the DG ISPR said. “As a result, it was stated that he was shown meeting minutes and the cypher.”

The facts behind the cypher and Sharif’s death have to be determined, he said.

Talking about the cypher, Gen Iftikhar said that the army chief had discussed it with Imran on March 11 when the latter had termed it to be “not a big thing”.

“It was surprising for us when on March 27 a piece of paper was waved and an attempt was made to build a narrative that was far from reality.”

He said that several facts had come to light regarding the cypher revealing the “baseless and unfounded” narrative surrounding it. The ISPR informed the National Security Committee that no proof was found regarding the conspiracy against the PTI government, he said, adding that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) also did not find any evidence regarding the conspiracy.

“This is all part of the record. We wanted to bring this to the public. And we left the decision to the-then government.”

However, this did not happen and more rumours were spread for political mileage, he said, adding that the Pakistan Army was also targeted.

At this time, Sharif and other journalists were fed a particular narrative and an attempt was made to defame Pakistan and the country’s institutions across the world, he said.

“In this media trial, ARY News played the role of a spin doctor in targeting the army and promoting a false narrative […] the NSC meeting was presented in the wrong context.”

Riaz Haq said...

Army, ISI in unprecedented presser question Arshad Sharif's exit from Pakistan, point to PTI's involvement

Gen Iftikhar stated that the army was expected to intervene in domestic politics. “The word neutral and apolitical was turned into an abuse. To all this baseless narrative, the army chief and the institution showed restraint and we tried our level best that politicians sit together to resolve their issues.”

He noted that Sharif made strong comments regarding the army during this time but added that “we did not have any negative sentiments about him and we don’t have such feelings now”.

Threat letter for KP
During the press conference, the DG ISPR revealed that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government on August 5 issued a threat letter on the directives of Chief Minister Mahmood Khan which stated that a Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) splinter group was looking to target Sharif.

“In this regard, no info was shared with the institutions who provided them the information.”

This shows the threat alert was issued with the aim to force Sharif to leave the country, Gen Iftikhar said.

“There was reports that he (Sharif) did not want to leave the country but he kept being reminded that he was facing a threat” to his life, he said.

He went on to say that on August 8, Shahbaz Gill’s statement on ARY News regarding the country’s institutions was condemned and the politician was arrested a day later.

He said that when ARY News head Ammad Yousuf was arrested in August, it emerged that ARY CEO Salman Iqbal had asked the former to send Sharif abroad as soon as possible.

The DG ISPR stated that a manager in the ARY Group booked a ticket for Sharif for Dubai, according to which he was supposed to be back on September 9.

“On Aug 10, he left Peshawar airport thorough EK-637 for Dubai. He was provided complete protocol by the KP government,” he said, adding that the late journalist was escorted by KP officers to the airport.

“Arshad remained in the UAE until he had a valid visa. He left for Kenya when his visa for Dubai expired.”

He said that no one “forced” Sharif to leave Dubai at a government level and questioned who exactly forced him to leave. He also questioned who processed the journalist’s documents in the UAE, who looked after his accommodation, who forced him to not return to Pakistan and who assured him that he was safe in Kenya.

He also questioned who was in contact with Sharif from Pakistan and who was hosting him in Kenya.

“Kenyan police accepted their mistake and it has to be examined whether this is a case of mistaken identity or one of targeted killing. There are several questions that have to be answered,” he said, calling for a “transparent and fair probe”.

Therefore, the government has been requested to form a high-level inquiry commission, he said.

‘Salman Iqbal should be brought back’
The DG ISPR went on to say that the name of the ARY CEO was surfacing again and again. “He should be brought back to Pakistan and made part of the probe.”

He said that after Sharif’s death, people had started pointing fingers at the army. “It has to be determined who exactly benefitted from his killing.”

“It’s your responsibility now unearth the facts and bring them to light. We have to wait for the report from the inquiry commission. Until the report is released, it is not appropriate to make allegations”.

He said that Pakistan was a “dignified and independent nation”, urging people to “have belief in your institutions”.

“No one wants to be labelled a traitor after serving for 30-40 years. We can be weak, we can make mistakes, but we can never be a traitor or conspirator. The army is nothing without the people,” he said, adding that now was the time for “unity and discipline”.

Riaz Haq said...

Army, ISI in unprecedented presser question Arshad Sharif's exit from Pakistan, point to PTI's involvement

DG ISI’s first public appearance, says COAS presented ‘lucrative offer’ for extension in March
In an unprecedented move, the ISI chief also made an appearance in today’s press conference — the first time in Pakistan’s history.

“I am aware that you are surprised by my presence,” he said, adding that he had appeared for his institution and the officers who were sacrificing their lives. “As chief of this agency, I cannot remain silent when they are targeted for no reason.”

Lt Gen Anjum said the nation had given him the responsibility to take secrets to the grave. “But when needed and when necessary, I will bring those facts to light”.

Talking about the officers martyred in Lasbela, he said that they were mocked. Therefore, it is highly condemnable to speak without proof, he said, adding that words like “neutral and janwar” were meant to illustrate that the institution was indulging in sedition.

He added that these words were also being used because the institution refused to bend to an “unconstitutional and illegal act”.

“Last year, the establishment decided that it would restrict itself to its constitutional role […] The army had an intense discussion and we reached the conclusion that the country’s benefit lies in us restricting ourselves to our constitutional role and remaining out of politics.”

He said that in March, there was “a lot of pressure” but the institution and the army chief decided to limit the military to its constitutional role.

If Gen Bajwa wanted, he could have spent the last few months of his tenure comfortably but he made sacrifices in the country’s best interest, he said, adding that the army chief’s family was also targeted.

Lt Gen Anjum also made the revelation that in March, Gen Bajwa was given a “lucrative offer” for an extension in his tenure. “It was made in front of me. He rejected it because he wanted the institution to move forward from a controversial role to a constitutional role.”

Seemingly talking about former premier Imran, the ISI chief said that while citizens had the right to their opinion, why did “you praise him so much in the past if he was a traitor?”

“If you see him as a traitor, then why do you meet him through the back door? […] Don’t do this where you meet quietly at night through the back door and express your unconstitutional wishes but call [the army chief] a traitor in broad daylight. That’s a big contradiction between your words and your actions.”

Later in response to a question about who offered the extension to the COAS, he said that it was “evident” that it was the government in power at the time.

“The offer was made because the no-confidence motion was at its peak,” he said.

“Pakistan is a democratic country and deciding [about its] friends and foes is the domain of democratically elected government. The institution’s role is to present their analysis on the basis of their information. The decision will be the government’s.”

He went on to say that politics of hatred created instability and lamented that this was divisive in society.

The ISI chief said that when he was appointed, he was asked about the country’s main issue. “I said it was our economic woes, But those who asked the question did not agree. In their view, the opposition was the biggest problem.”

‘Not here for personal reasons’
He said that political intolerance causes instability, stating that constitutional and legal ways needed to be pursued. “When we go through the back door, it causes anarchy in the country.”

Talking about the decision to appear during today’s press conference, Lt Gen Anjum stated that it was in defence of the country’s institutions.

“I would often see that lies [were being perpetuated] and the youth was accepting it. I did not make an appearance for personal reasons. I saw the way the country and institutions were facing threats due to lies which is why I broke my silence.”

Riaz Haq said...

Army, ISI in unprecedented presser question Arshad Sharif's exit from Pakistan, point to PTI's involvement

Later during the presser, he said that he was not here for personal reasons.

“There were campaigns against me in March on social media. I got a call from the agency that a campaign was underway against me. I told them get in touch when the retweets exceed eight thousand million. Before that, I don’t care about myself”

He said that he would have addressed the media earlier if it was for personal reasons. “Those sacrificing their lives should not have to face these lies. Hence, remaining silence was morally unacceptable to me.”

‘Sharif was in contact with establishment’
Talking about Sharif, the ISI chief said he was a “competent, hardworking and able journalist”. “Some quarters may have differences with his political views but his dedication for work is undeniable.”

However, he stated that as per his reports, Sharif did not face any threat in Pakistan. Lt Gen Anjum said that members of Sharif’s family were martyred officers and the journalist had contacts with the establishment.

“When he went abroad, he was still in contact [with the establishment].”

The DG ISI said he was in contact with his Kenyan counterpart regarding the probe, adding that initial investigations said it was a case of mistaken identity.

“Perhaps we and the government are not fully convinced. That’s why the government has formed a team that will head to Kenya.”

He went on to say that intelligence officers had been removed from the probe teams so that a “fair probe” could be conducted. “Whatever conclusion is reached, the DG ISPR will inform you about it.”

In response to a question about the journalist receiving threats from the ISI, he reiterated that Sharif had “good contacts” with his subordinates. He also said that if the establishment did not want the journalist to leave the country, he would not be able to do so.

“We had no personal enmity with him. He had old contacts with our officers. Other journalists also say they receive calls. This is a lie,” he said, adding that there were apps that allowed the caller to conceal their identity.

Riaz Haq said...

Imran Khan has Pakistani army ducking & defending. Why it’s a historic moment for the subcontinent
The army's word used to be a command for any government of the day. It could hire, fire, jail, exile, or murder prime ministers. But now it fears defeat at the hands of politicians.
By Shekhar Gupta, The Print, India

Now, we had the ISI chief, institutionally among the most powerful men in the world at any time, at a press conference with a hand-picked friendly audience (most of the respected publications were excluded). Usually, his word and his chief’s were an order for Pakistan’s media, politicians, and often also the judiciary. The chief of ISPR was his constant messenger.

Now, both of them, speaking on behalf of their institution, were claiming victimhood. When the Pakistani army goes to the media complaining about a political leader who they evidently fear, you know that its politics has taken a historic turn.

Pakistan’s army is brilliant at scrapping with its political class and winning. Now it fears defeat at the hands of its politicians too. To that extent, Imran Khan might be on the verge of a victory that would mean even more in political terms than his team’s cricket World Cup win in 1992. If the Pakistani army can finally be defeated by a popular, if populist, civilian force, it’s a history-defining moment for the subcontinent.

It’s history-defining because an institution that was never denied its supreme power except for a few years after the 1971 defeat is now seeking public sympathy with its back to the wall under a mere civilian’s onslaught. Its word used to be a command for any government of the day. It could hire, fire, jail, exile, or murder prime ministers serving, former and prospective. To understand that, you do not have to go far.

In 2007, it looked as if Benazir Bhutto was on the ascendant, after her return from her second long exile (the first return was in 1986, which I had covered in this India Today cover story from Pakistan). She was assassinated despite so many warnings that her life was in danger. Nobody has been punished yet. It’s buried in Pakistan’s history of conspiracies and eternal mysteries like so many others. Her party’s government was kneecapped and her husband subsequently reduced to an inconsequential, titular president.

Nawaz Sharif came back with a comfortable majority. He too grew “delusional”, from his army’s point of view, in beginning to believe that he was a real prime minister. By 2018, this army, under a chief he had appointed, had conspired and contrived to get rid of him, jail and exile him. It ensured that his party didn’t get a majority in the election that followed. In the process, they also built, strengthened and employed Pakistan’s most regressive Sunni Islamist group, Tehreek-e-Labbaik.

Riaz Haq said...

Imran Khan Pushes Pakistan to the Edge
The former prime minister challenges the idea that it isn’t a state with an army but an army with a state.
By Sadanand Dhume

Despite this malign record, the army has also earned a reputation as the most functional institution in a dysfunctional country. Its officer corps has largely resisted factionalism and remains bound to its chain of command by intense unity and discipline. Moreover, though the army controls vast business interests, it is generally regarded as immune to the kind of day-to-day bribery that marks the country’s civilian institutions. Some scholars regard the military as the glue that holds the country together. If the army collapses, Pakistan might collapse along with it.

Mr. Khan’s public broadsides leave the generals with few good options. Firing or transferring Gen. Naseer, the ISI official responsible for domestic politics, would signal weakness in the face of Mr. Khan’s bullying. But not acting places them on a collision course with arguably Pakistan’s most popular politician. In either case, ordinary Pakistanis—already reeling this year from floods and a tanking economy—likely face even more instability.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan ordered an immediate investigation Monday into what the government said was an "illegal" and "unwarranted leakage" of confidential tax documents of the family of the country's powerful military chief.

The move came a day after an online investigative news portal FactFocus published a story about the accumulation of wealth and property worth nearly $56 million by family members of General Qamar Javed Bajwa during his extended six-year term in office ending later this month

Pakistani Finance Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar's office said in a statement he had taken "serious notice" of the leak, calling it a violation of the tax law and breach of official confidential data.

Dar directed the chief investigator officer, an adviser to the prime minister on revenue, to "affix responsibility and submit a report within 24-hours," the statement concluded.

FactFocus alleged in its report Sunday that Bajwa's immediate and extended family members had exponentially expanded their domestic as well as foreign property and businesses since he took command of the Pakistan military in 2016.

The report went on to claim, citing leaked tax documents, that Bajwa's wife transferred funds overseas, making investments in oil business and the real estate, even though she was not an income tax filer until her husband's appointment to the office of the chief of army staff.

A spokesman at the military's media wing, Inter-Services Public Relations, referred VOA to the finance ministry statement when asked for a response to the allegations.

The author of the report is a Pakistani journalist, Ahmad Noorani, who lives in the United States. Pakistani authorities allegedly blocked access to the online portal shortly after the report was published. Noorani also published the alleged wealth statements of Bajwa and his family from 2013 to 2021.

The FactFocus website calls itself a data-based investigative journalist platform. It has previously also published stories alleging corrupt practices of Pakistani officials and politicians while in power.

Bajwa is due to retire on November 29 and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's coalition government said Monday it was in the process of appointing the new military chief, possibly by the end of this week.

Criticizing the military or its leadership is an extremely sensitive issue in Pakistan. The army has staged four coups and ruled the nuclear-armed South Asian nation for about 33 years since it gained independence from Britain in 1947.

Former prime ministers and political parties lately and publicly have been regularly alleging the military institution continues to influence security and foreign policy matters and orchestrates the removal of elected governments if they don't fall in line.

Last month, the Pakistani spy chief, Lieutenant General Nadeem Ahmed Anjum, in a rare, televised news conference, stopped short of admitting the military had until last year been meddling in national political affairs.

"The army had an intense internal discussion, and [last year] we reached the conclusion the country's interest lies in us restricting ourselves to our constitutional role and remaining out of politics," said Anjum, the head of the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI.

Critics remain skeptical about those claims and stress the need for the military to end its involvement in political affairs if democracy is to take solid root in Pakistan. Politicians are also accused of secretly forming alliances with the military to destabilize and eventually topple governments of their rivals.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistani former spymaster Asim Munir takes over as country’s army chief
Appointment for three-year term gives general a central role in decision making over national challenges

Low-profile Pakistani former spymaster General Asim Munir donned his dress uniform this week for a parade-ground ceremony marking his rise to what is arguably his nation’s most powerful position: army chief.

The 500,000-strong army is widely considered Pakistan’s dominant institution, playing a crucial behind-the-scenes role in decision making in the nuclear-armed south Asian nation of 220mn people.

Munir, a former head of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, took control of the military for a three-year term at a ceremony on Tuesday that was attended by retiring head Qamar Javed Bajwa and top officers, ministers and diplomats.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif selected Munir, the most senior general, from a shortlist of candidates supplied by the army. Pakistani leaders, diplomats and analysts will now look to him for signs of policy direction not only on security, but also on a host of domestic issues and on the future of relations with friends and foes including the US, China and India.

Munir steps into the position as Pakistan grapples with political and economic crises and with talks with the IMF that observers say are crucial to avoid it defaulting on its debts.

One of Munir’s most important challenges, however, will be to defend the army itself, following months of intense public criticism from the wildly popular former prime minister Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party.

“Munir will have to try to restore confidence in the institution with a polarised public,” said Elizabeth Threlkeld, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center think-tank in Washington.

Since Khan was ousted from office in a parliamentary no-confidence vote in April, his supporters have alleged, without offering evidence, that the military enabled his removal. And Khan has blamed an attempt on his life earlier this month on a conspiracy involving a military official and his arch-rival Sharif.

Both strongly deny Khan’s allegations. But Hasan Askari Rizvi, a commentator on national affairs, said Munir would be under pressure to counter the view the military meddled in civilian politics. The new chief needed the armed forces to be “seen to have stepped back from politics and appear to be neutral”, Rizvi said.

Yet former generals acknowledge the army is central to national decision making. And they argue that it is the only institution with the clout to manage Pakistan’s competing political, ethnic and economic interests.

“There has to be someone who can bring diverse opinions on to a common platform,” said Ghulam Mustafa, a former lieutenant general. “In Pakistan, that duty has fallen on the army to hold things together.”

The army’s central role in governing Pakistan is not new. Generals have ruled openly through martial law for nearly half of the country’s 75-year history.

Since the last military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, stepped down in 2008, the country has moved towards what political scientists call a “hybrid” model that blends civilian electoral politics with military rule.

The military’s outsize role has long been subject to scrutiny at home and overseas. For example, while it was an important Nato partner during the war in Afghanistan, foreign officials repeatedly accused elements within the armed forces of quietly supporting Taliban militants.

After Bajwa was appointed for the first of two terms in 2016, he tried to restore western confidence in the army and also helped broker a ceasefire along the country’s contested border with India, with which Pakistan has fought multiple wars.

“Foreign policy [and] security issues inevitably bring the army to the table,” said Abdul Basit, a former Pakistani ambassador to India.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan’s army is back in charge of politics

The jailing of Imran Khan heralds a period of tighter military control

Fifty miles—and five years—separate Imran Khan’s greatest political triumph and the nadir, for now, of his political career. At one end is Parliament House in Islamabad, where the assembly that elected him prime minister of Pakistan in 2018 wrapped up its term on August 9th, with power due to be handed to a caretaker administration. At the other is the district jail in Attock in Punjab province, where Mr Khan began a three-year prison term for “corrupt practices” on August 5th.

Mr Khan denies wrongdoing and has unsuccessfully appealed the conviction. He says the charges are politically motivated, which the government denies. The conviction, which comes with a five-year ban from politics, is the culmination of a campaign by Pakistan’s powerful army to remove Mr Khan and his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (pti), from the political fray. It also heralds a period of more active involvement in politics by the generals.

The case has exposed a taste for cash and bling that is at odds with Mr Khan’s idea of himself as a pious anti-corruption crusader. Yet the nature of the conviction, for violating electoral laws that are rarely enforced, hints at the former prime minister’s true crime: challenging Pakistan’s army. Like many Pakistani politicians before him, Mr Khan started out as a general’s favourite. Yet the army eventually tired of his political grandstanding and his mismanagement of Pakistan’s faltering economy. In April 2022 he was removed from office in a vote of no confidence.

Unlike some of his predecessors, Mr Khan refused to go quietly, attacking the generals in a series of rallies across the country and claiming that they tried to assassinate him last November. After he was briefly arrested in early May, his supporters smashed up military installations. The army, unused to and enraged by such displays of defiance, dismantled his party and rounded up his supporters. Eventually, Mr Khan was nabbed for good.

Mr Khan’s forced exit from politics heralds more ambitious plans. Assisted by the outgoing prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, and a pliant parliament, the army has rearranged Pakistan’s hybrid system decisively in its favour. Among the scores of laws tweaked or introduced before parliament’s lights were switched off, several granted sweeping new powers to the armed forces and intelligence agencies, alarming civil-rights groups. The incoming caretaker government has been given the power to negotiate with the imf and sign foreign investment deals. It may also stick around for longer than the 90 days prescribed by the constitution. The day Mr Khan was arrested the government ratified a new census which could require a fresh demarcation of electoral constituencies. The outgoing law minister says this could delay elections by at least five months. The caretakers will in effect report to the army until then.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan’s army is back in charge of politics

The jailing of Imran Khan heralds a period of tighter military control

Mr Sharif’s indulgence of the army is explained by the state of the economy. He secured a $3bn imf emergency agreement last month to ward off the possibility of default. But the price is steep: higher energy tariffs, high interest rates and a market exchange rate, none of which is popular with voters. The later the election, the more time Mr Sharif and his allies will have to put distance between themselves and unpopular decisions.

Yet Mr Sharif may be tempting fate. Nine months into the job, newly victorious in his battle with Mr Khan and his supporters, General Asim Munir, who heads the armed forces, is growing assertive. He is spearheading a new economic council and is busy touting Pakistan’s investment potential to Gulf states that have grown tired of doling out cash to Pakistan. More than their money, he may be eyeing their political support. “We are probably moving towards a new political order, a controlled democracy where civil liberties are curtailed in the name of economic development,” says Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, president of the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency. In perennially chaotic Pakistan, order can seem attractive to an ambitious general.