Civilian Resentment over Military Human Rights Violations by the Pakistani Army Has Raised Questions.
Pakistan, as a country, has institutionally failed under military rule. The relationship between civilians and military authorities has historically been complex, marked mostly by periods of military rule interspersed with civilian governments. Since independence, Pakistan has struggled to establish democratic institutions and ensure stability and safety for its people. Instead, it has often been considered a haven for terrorism. Over the years, the military has wielded significant influence over political affairs, at times ruling the country directly through coups or exerting control indirectly behind the scenes. In recent years, there have been efforts to strengthen civilian governance and reduce military interference in politics. However, the military continues to play a significant role in Pakistan’s political landscape, often influencing major policy decisions and security matters.
This has led to concerns about the consolidation of power within the military and the erosion of democratic principles. Overall, the relationship between civilian and military authorities remains a central dynamic in Pakistan’s political scenario, with ongoing implications for the country’s democratic governance. As such, historically, the relationship between civilian and military authorities in Pakistan has been characterized by a history of military coups, interventions, and periods of civilian rule. Over time, there have been attempts to strengthen civilian governance and reduce military interference, particularly after the so called transition to democracy in the early 2000s. However, the military continues to wield significant influence in Pakistani politics, often behind the scenes.
The recent military intervention in civil law and order during Imran Khan's government was among the worst instances. Pakistan has been labelled a military state, where extensive human rights violations are openly conducted. People are subjected to egregious violations such as rape, killings, and harsh treatment by the military. Military interventions have resulted in political instability, weakening civilian governments and hindering the development of a robust democratic culture. Furthermore, the military's involvement in security and foreign policy decisions has often marginalized civilian leadership, limiting their ability to govern effectively. Overall, the relationship between civilian and military authorities remains complex and contentious in Pakistan's political landscape, with implications for the country's democratic trajectory. The actions of the Pakistani army have fostered animosity among the populace and led to a consensus that Pakistan could pose a significant threat to world peace in the future.
Military interventions have occurred multiple times in Pakistan's history. The first coup took place in 1958 when General Aayub Khan seized power, setting a precedent for military involvement in politics. Pakistan has experienced direct military rule for a significant part of its existence. Generals like Aayub Khan, Yahyah Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Parvez Musharraf ruled as military dictators, exercising control over the government and sidelining civilian institutions. Even during civilian governance, the military wielded considerable influence, often through military-led intelligence agencies like the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), involved in both domestic and foreign affairs. Pakistan's military sees itself as the guardian of national security interests, influencing decisions on security, foreign policy, and relations with neighboring countries like India and Afghanistan. The military's influence extends to economic sectors, with its involvement in businesses and corporations, enhancing control over resources and institutions.
The military's sway also extends to political parties, media, and public perception, affecting civil-military relations. These repeated interventions have disrupted democratic processes, hindering the development of stable civilian institutions. Military rule is often linked to restricted civil liberties, media censorship, and human rights abuses. Criticism has been directed at the military's economic ventures, seen as benefiting only a small segment of society and lacking transparency.
It's often said that while most countries have an army, Pakistan appears to be a case where the army has its own country. The Pakistani military exerts colossal influence as a kingmaker, even when not formally in power – a situation that has recurred for nearly half of Pakistan's 76-year history. The Pakistan Army is not just a guardian; it's a state within a state, a force that consistently intervenes in political affairs.
Pakistan's military has faced allegations of supporting and providing safe havens for various extremist and terrorist groups. This support has led to regional instability and international pressure on Pakistan to combat these groups effectively. For instance, Pakistan's alleged support for the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network has strained its relations with the United States and disrupted the peace process in Afghanistan.
The military's approach to handling the insurgency in Baluchistan has resulted in accusations of human rights violations, destabilizing the region. Reports of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and crackdowns on dissent have raised international concerns about the situation in Balochistan.
The military's grip on power in Pakistan has eroded democratic rights and imperiled both the lives and prosperity of its citizens. Instead of combating global terrorism, the Pakistani army has turned the country into a rogue state, threatening global peace. Recent military intervention led to the removal of Imran Khan, disrupting political stability.
Human rights violations persist due to military interference in the democratic setup, according to Amnesty International. These violations include enforced disappearances, torture, crackdowns on protests, attacks on journalists, and violence against minorities. The ousting of Imran Khan was driven by his opposition to military influence, denial of supporting terrorism, and exposure of military rule.
The lack of continuity in democratic governance and repeated military interventions raise concerns about Pakistan's future. As a nuclear-armed nation, it poses a danger to regional stability, especially for countries like India. Speculation about Pakistan becoming a rogue state or falling under Chinese influence highlights the need for global attention and coordination.
Comments