Share on Facebook
> Monitor on Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan | October, September and August 2016
CMR Monitor
November 14, 2016

Download October 2016 Monitor [PDF]
Download September 2016 Monitor [PDF]
Download August 2016 Monitor [PDF]

Monitor on Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan
October 2016

PTI: It is time to sign the Charter of Democracy!

Given PTI’s announced lockdown of Islamabad on November 02, 2016, old fears of alleged covert support of military behind the PTI agitation resurfaced again.

Although PTI has a democratic right to protest, and it is a totally different debate whether it should protest inside the democratic forums it is elected to or disrupt citizens lives, it has been observed that the party and its Chairman show little, if any, restraint towards leaning on the military to oust what it has termed to be its key foe – the elected Federal Government of the PML-N. Mr. Imran Khan’s penchant for using cricket terms in politics such as the ‘Umpire’s Finger’ to wrap up the elected political system were on full display ahead of the November 2 planned lockdown of the country’s capital, just as those were extensively used before and during the 126-day long Dharna in 2014.

In what perhaps defines PTI’s leading strategy of the end justifying the means, it appears that the party has no qualms in exploiting the not-so-hidden differences in civil-military relations at this time. Consider for instance, the statement by PTI’s Senior Vice President, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, MNA that ‘the current distance between the military and civil government is not of ordinary nature’. According to a leaked video of his address to party workers on October 17, 2016 in Islamabad, Mr. Qureshi reportedly said the ongoing relations between the civil and military leadership were not different than those in 1999. In the context of Mr. Imran Khan’s earlier statement of endorsing a military coup against the civilian government led by prime minister Nawaz Sharif when he said “people would celebrate and distribute sweets if there was a military takeover in Pakistan,1  he seemed to be echoing the same when he said that if anything happened to the country’s democratic setup, the Prime Minister would be responsible for it.2

In the checkered history of fledgling democracy between 4 coup d’états in 7 decades of Pakistan’s history, espousing and advancing of such a policy for a political party that is a recipient of 16.92% of the popular votes in General Election 2013, along with the party forming the government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is not just inappropriate for the party and its democratic ethos but extremely dangerous for the country. Two leading political parties of Pakistan, having learnt their respective lessons at the cost of huge disruption to democratic process during the decade of 1990s, signed a Charter of Democracy 3 essentially agreeing to respect electoral mandate of representative governments and not to undermine it through extra constitutional means. Isn’t it time that as a popular political party with a trailblazing record of galvanizing public support and changing its fortunes from 1 seat in the National Assembly in 2002-2008 to 33seats in the current National Assembly, PTI should have faith in its own popularity, mandate and policies, and sign the Charter of Democracy?

'Military Forced and Sucked into the Political Environment in Pakistan': Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf

Macintosh HD:Users:mackbook:Desktop:Screen Shot 2016-11-10 at 10.28.33 am.png

The former President and COAS, Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf in an interview on September 29, 2016 with Mr. Robert Siegel of the Atlantic’s Washington Ideas Forum stated that ‘the Army has always played a prominent role in the governance of Pakistan, mainly because of the mis-governance of the democratically elected governments… the Military is forced and sucked into the political environment, especially when miss-governance is going on and Pakistan is going down in various socio-economic indicators’.4

PILDAT believes that the former President has raised some probing questions regarding civil-military relations in Pakistan.

Dawn’s Exclusive Story and its Aftermath

While PILDAT expressed and shared its opinion on the need to remove Mr. Cyril Almeida’s name from the ECL, 5 there are many questions that are important to be raised with regards to the unusual hullabaloo and developments following Dawn’s exclusive news story of October 06, 2016 titled Exclusive: Act Against Militants or face International Isolation:

  • While violative of rules and contrary to the entire principle of in-camera meetings, leaks emanating from such meetings are not a novel phenomenon and have, in both the recent and distant past, emanated not only from security related in-camera sessions of the Parliament and All Parties Conferences, but also from one-on-one interactions between the Prime Minister and the Chief of Army Staff. Indeed one cannot fail to recall the insider account of the Prime Minister and COAS’ one-on-one meeting on May 10, 2016, published in the very same newspaper, citing the COAS ‘weighing in’ on the elected Premier of this country to ‘resolve the Panama Papers issue at the earliest’ whereas the presser issued by the Prime Minister Office gave out no such details.6

    In fact, there is a penchant for such leaks to surface after national security huddles, highlighting differences of civil-military leadership, especially in the case when the Military leadership is seen to be sitting in judgment of the elected Government’s performance. In the sad reality of what constitutes the lop-sided civil-military relations in Pakistan, such leaks apparently constitute ‘business-as-usual’ and either the elected Government chooses to ignore them or thinks unwise to depict similar outrage.

  • Contents of the said news report yet again signify a broad problem that besets civil-military relations in Pakistan. As PILDAT had stated in its Report on State of Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan 7 there is often a disturbing divergence between civil-military leadership on how to conduct the affairs of the State with regards to our foreign policy (especially vis-à-vis India) and security policy. Although a divergence of opinion is not necessarily something undesirable, the mandate for final decisions on national security, as on other policies, resides with the elected Government though it is seen to be exercised by the Military, as Pakistan moves further away from a constitutional equation on civil-military relations. Military is a crucial and well-recognized part of national security of Pakistan and its views should be regularly sought and given the most serious consideration but it is not and should not be the final arbiter on national security decision-making.

  • Since the publishing of story and resulting developments, many journalists have publicly shared that they also had the contents of the same story as Mr. Almeida, thus providing a tacit support to the veracity of the story. While one may or may not agree with Mr. Almeida’s judgment to file the story, and the newspaper’s editorial decision to carry it as important for public consumption regardless of the national security considerations, the news story, in the judgment of some readers, may have carried slightly sensationalist and vivid hue, which may not have been desirable in reporting on such sensitive matters. However, the real issue of concern is that a participant at the meeting disclosed in such vivid detail what should have been kept behind closed doors. The development may take away from the atmosphere of trust and official secrecy that are crucial to such meetings and therefore, PILDAT supports an investigation into where the leak emanated from and holding those responsible accountable as a matter of paramount importance. However, the inquiry needs to be focused on where and how the leak has occurred.

  • The sacking of the Federal Minister for Information, Senator Pervaiz Rasheed for allegedly not being able to stop the newspaper from publishing the story was also particularly perplexing. Isn’t it the Honourable Minister’s job to ensure coverage of Government’s activities instead of working to promote a blackout?

Simply due to the cleavages it exposed in civil-military relations, we believe a timeline of development emanating from publication of Dawn’s exclusive news story of October 06, 2016 is important to be produced in PILDAT’s Monitor on Civil-Military Relations:

Table 1: Timeline of Developments on Dawn’s Story





October 06, 2016

Reported by Mr. Cyril Almeida, daily Dawn ran a story titled Exclusive: Act Against Militants or face International Isolation.8 It contained details of the deliberations that took place apparently in a meeting of the National Security Committee on Monday, October 03, 2016.

Two main actions emanating from the meeting, according to the report were that firstly, the DG ISI accompanied by the NSA would visit each of the four provinces with a ‘message for the Provincial Apex Committees’; secondly, apparently, the Prime Minister ordered that fresh attempts be made to resolve the Pathankot investigations.

The news report also contained a dramatic and vivid account of an altercation between the Chief Minister of the Punjab, Mr. Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, MPA and the DG ISI, Lt. Gen. Rizwan Akhtar over rounding up of non-state actors in the Punjab.


October 06, 2016

First rejoinder issued by the Spokesman of the Prime Minister saying the story is ‘an amalgamation of fiction and half-truths which too are invariably reported out of context. It is imperative that those demanding the right to information at par with the international best practices also act in a manner, which is at par with international reporting norms and standards’.


October 06, 2016

Another rejoinder issued by the Prime Minister Office the same day, while the previous one was deleted from the website, decrying the news story as ‘fabricated’.

Meanwhile, the office of the Chief Minister of the Punjab also denied the comments attributed to Mr. Shahbaz Sharif in the news story. Dismissing it as a baseless story, he emphasized that besides his respect for the institution of the armed forces, on an individual level he also had ‘the highest respect for the present DG ISI for his professionalism, commitment to duty and sincerity of purpose’.9


October 10, 2016

Meeting held at the Prime Minister House, chaired by the PM, and attended by the Federal Minister for Interior, Finance, Chief Minister of the Punjab, the COAS and the DG ISI.

Presser released after the meeting stated that ‘the participants of the meeting expressed concern over the publication of a fabricated news story in Daily Dawn pertaining to security issues purportedly discussed in a meeting of National Security Committee in the last week and the participants were unanimous that the published story was clearly violative of universally acknowledged principles of reporting on National Security issues and has risked the vital state interests through inclusion of inaccurate and misleading contents which had no relevance to actual discussion and fact’.


October 11, 2016

Mr. Cyril Almeida’s name placed on the Exit Control List (ECL). However, after a meeting of the Federal Minister for Interior with representatives of APNS, CPNE and PFUJ on October 15, 2016, Mr. Almeida’s name removed from the ECL.


October 14, 2016

Corp Commanders’ Conference takes place at the GHQ, chaired by the COAS. The Press Release issued by the ISPR stated that ‘participants expressed their serious concern over “feeding of false and fabricated story10 of an important security meeting held at PM house and viewed it as breach of national security’.


October 28, 2016

The Federal Ministers for Interior and Finance, along with the Chief Minister of the Punjab ‘call on’ the COAS at the GHQ. According to the Press Release issued by the ISPR, the meeting took place between 4:00-5:30PM and stated that ‘the delegation briefed the COAS on the progress of investigation and recommendations related to planted story of National Security breach of 6 Oct 2016’. The DG ISI was also present on the occasion.

PILDAT believes that this particular development was peculiar, given that the Warrant of Precedence for Pakistan, issued on March 07, 1963 clearly places the Federal Ministers and Provincial Chief Ministers at a seniority as compared to the COAS and the DG ISI. Therefore, the members of Federal Cabinet and the Provincial Chief Minister calling on the COAS and briefing him on the investigation seem out of place with regards to official protocol.


October 29, 2016

A Press Release was issued by PMO stating that ‘the planted story related to the NSC and NAP meetings published in Daily Dawn on 6th October was a breach of national security. Evidence available so far points to a lapse on part of Information Minister, who has been directed to step down from office to enable holding of an independent and detailed inquiry. An inquiry committee including senior officers of ISI, MI and IB is being formed by the Government of Pakistan to clearly apportion blame, identify interests and motives and expose all those responsible for this episode for stern action in the national interest’.

Premier-COAS Interactions

The Prime Minister and the COAS met thrice during October 2016. In each of these meetings, Federal Minister of Defence was not present. The details are as follows:

  • According to the daily Dawn’s story, on October 03, 2016, during a meeting of the National Security Committee, although no official presser for this was issued

  • On October 04, 2016, when the Prime Minister chaired a meeting to review progress on implementation of the National Action Plan. The meeting was attended by Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Mr. Iqbal Zafar Jhagra; Chief Minister of the Punjab, Mr. Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, MPA; Chief Minister of Sindh, Syed Murad Ali Shah, MPA; Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Mr. Pervez Khattak, MPA; Chief Minister of Balochistan, Mir Sana Ullah Khan Zehri, MPA; Chief Minister of Gilgit Baltistan, Hafiz Hafeez-ur-Rehman; Federal Minister for Finance, Senator Muhammad Ishaq Dar; Federal Minister for Interior, Chaudhary Nisar Ali Khan, MNA; The then Federal Minister for Information, Senator Pervaiz Rashid; Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs, Syed Tariq Fatemi; the National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Nasser Khan Janjua; DG ISI, Lt. Gen. Rizwan Akhtar; the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Aizaz Ahmad Chuadhary; DG IB, Mr. Aftab Sultan; DG MO, Maj. Gen. Sahir Shamshad Mirza and DG MI, Maj. Gen. Nadeem Zaki Manj.

    The Federal Minister for Defence, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, MNA, was conspicuous by his absence from the meeting.11

  • On October 10, 2016 when the Prime Minister chaired a meeting related to the news story published by Dawn. The meeting was also attended by the Federal Minister for Interior, for Finance, Chief Minister of the Punjab and the DG ISI.12

  • On October 17, 2016, during a one-on-one meeting chaired by the Prime Minister in which ‘matters pertaining to national and regional security’ came under discussion.13



Monitor on Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan
September 2016

Pakistan Rangers (Punjab) Deployed in Punjab

In a development, which has seemingly failed to catch the eye of observers amidst hostility between Pakistan and India, the Provincial Government of the Punjab called in the Pakistan Rangers (Punjab) for a limited operation against terrorist outfits in specifically ‘designated areas’.14 The Provincial Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Rana Sanaullah Khan, MPA, made an announcement in this regard on September 09, 2016, with the Federal Ministry of Interior issuing a notification on the same upon the request of the Provincial Government. The request was made under Section 7 and Section 10 of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959 15 for an initial period of two months.16

It must be noted that Rana Sanaullah Khan was particularly careful in establishing that the Rangers would only assist the Provincial Police and the Counter Terrorism Department in conducting operations, perhaps to guard against the larger-than-life role that the paramilitary force has attained in Sindh.

The Provincial Government of the Punjab had come under increasing pressure with regards to its somewhat lackluster performance in controlling the law and order situation in some parts of the province, especially during the past one-year. The two incidents of the blast in Lahore’s Gulshan Iqbal Park on March 27, 2016 and the assassination of the Provincial Home Minister, Col. (Retd.) Shuja Khanzada in Attock in August 2015 were particular causes of concern. Subsequently, the failure of the Provincial Government’s law enforcement apparatus to contain the Chottu Gang in southern-most part of Punjab also signified a centralized governance model, with the peripheries of the province apparently ignored.

In the larger context of policing in the province, it is important to note that with the requisitioning of Rangers, the Provincial Government of the Punjab has also resorted to a quick fix because of which the policing service in Pakistan, especially in Sindh, is suffering. The requisitioning signifies the policing woes of the Provincial Government of the Punjab, especially in the peripheries of the province, which came to the fore with the shameful resistance put up by the Chottu Gang in April 2016.

 The deployment of Rangers to aid with policing, and maintenance of law and order, might be an easy option, but it has long-term adverse ramifications. Consider the case of Karachi, where the Rangers have become a permanent feature of the law enforcement dynamics of the province for more than 20 years. What are required are certain reforms in the policing service of the province, which have already been outlined by PILDAT in the case of Punjab’s police.17

United Kingdom’s Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Calls on the COAS

Macintosh HD:Users:mackbook:Desktop:Screen Shot 2016-10-28 at 10.05.09 am.png

As noted previously, the centrality of the Military leadership in particular areas of our foreign policy, and the COAS’ resultant exclusive interactions with visiting foreign civilian leadership has become an established trend. In line with that, the United Kingdom’s Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Mr. Owen Jenkins, called on the COAS at the GHQ on September 05, 2016.

According to the presser issued by the ISPR, ‘Matters of regional security and mutual interest came under discussion during the meeting. The visiting dignitary appreciated Pakistan Army’s achievements and continuing efforts in fight against terrorism and contribution for regional peace and stability’.

It is interesting to note that during his one-day visit, Mr. Jenkins’ only official engagement was with the COAS. 

Premier-COAS Interactions

Macintosh HD:Users:mackbook:Desktop:pm_coasmeeting.jpg

The month of September 2016 saw the Premier and the COAS interacting twice.

  1. The first meeting between the two, a one-on-one interaction, was on September 16, 2016, when the COAS called on the Premier at the Prime Minister House. According to the Press Release issued by the PMO, ‘matters pertaining to internal and regional security were discussed during the meeting’.18

  2. The second meeting was held on September 28, 2016 to take note of the Indian hostilities in Kashmir. It was attended by Federal Minister for Finance, Senator Ishaq Dar, the National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Nasser Khan Janjua, the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhary, and the Director General Military Operation.19

In both the meetings, the Federal Minister of Defence, was not present.



Monitor on Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan
August 2016

Quetta Blast: Civil-Military Relations in the Aftermath of a Tragedy

Almost 70 people lost their lives, most of them lawyers, on August 08, 2016, when a bomb ripped through a civil hospital in Quetta, in the wake of the arrival of Mr. Bilal Anwar Kansi’s dead body after the target killing of the  leader of Balochistan’s legal community earlier in the day.20

Quetta blast brings us face to face with another heinous reminder that Pakistan is facing more than its fair share of security-related challenges, which are perhaps unique only to our case. Existing in a hostile neighborhood, with frayed regional relations, and a raging militancy amidst the larger context of proxy warfare, necessitate an enhanced role for not only the Armed Forces, but for the intelligence agencies who remain our first line of defence against the enemy’s nefarious designs, both seen and unseen. We, as citizens of this nation, stand proud of the services rendered in this regard, and duly recognize that in this line of work, recognition for achievements is hard to come by, whereas criticism for failure is easily made.

However, this does not mean that accountability of the intelligence agencies, and criticism directed at them at public fora amount to actions that necesserily damage our national interest. Therefore, Mr. Mehmood Khan Achakzai’s question of whether Quetta Attack was an intelligence failure, and if so, his demand that the Premier should initiate accountability of the concerned officers, was certainly not an unreasonable demand.

Unfortunately, it seems that his comments in the National Assembly attracted the wrath of not only the Interior Minister, who categorically stated that such remarks were ‘unacceptable’,21 but also the Prime Minister who stated in his address in the National Assembly on August 10, 2016 that ‘intelligence agencies are working day and night to defeat designs of the country's enemies’.22

This however was not where the reaction stopped. The Election Commission of Pakistan also sought a reply from the Pashtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party’s (PMAP) Parliamentary Leader over a disqualification petition filed with the institution against his allegedly anti-Pakistan remarks.23

PILDAT believes that the incidence of such terrorist attacks does necessitate robust soul searching and fresh look at the effectiveness of the intelligence agencies, which will not only result in an increased public confidence in them, but will also strengthen them. In fact such accountability, certainly at the Cabinet and at the Parliamentary level, should regularly and institutionally take place for Pakistan to avoid incidents such as the GHQ attack, Mehran base attack, raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Quetta, the APS Peshawar Tragedy, etc., to name a few unfortunate and damning incidents in a series of security-related threats that surround us.

It is not just ironic but reflects a deep institutional malaise in Pakistan that that while military remains in charge, and also wants to be seen to be in-charge24 questions on institutional accountability that come with authority, have not become an established norm until now.

In a very pertinent analysis, daily Dawn, in its Editorial of August 11, asked the following:

After more than a decade of near-total control of security policy and a dominant hand in the security arrangements of the province, why is Balochistan’s intelligence apparatus unable to detect a plan as sophisticated as the one that unfolded in Quetta on Monday? Surely, it is not unpatriotic to ask if everything possible is being done before deaths occur, and not after.25

Implementation of the National Action Plan: Still a Thorny, Public Issue

The Quetta Attack brought to the fore the latent civil-military friction with regards to the implementation of the National Action Plan, with the contention yet again spilling out into the public, with the Military leadership initiating public criticism of the elected Government.

Although a Press Release was not issued by the ISPR this time around, as on November 10, 2015, major newspapers quoted the COAS as saying ‘Unless all prongs deliver meaningfully and all inadequacies are addressed, remnants of terrorism would continue to simmer, and long term peace and stability would remain a distant dream’ in the aftermath of a security meeting held at the GHQ on August 12, 2016.26

Incidentally, the GHQ meeting came a day after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif chaired a meeting in Islamabad, which concluded with formation of a Implementation and Review Committee, to be led by the National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Nasser Khan Janjua, to oversee implementation on NAP.

PILDAT recognizes that the Elected Government appears to be unable to display the proactive leadership that is particularly required with regards to the implementation of the NAP. For example, there is no clear indication of the progress achieved by the various Committees formed by the Prime Minister to implement the NAP. Additionally, the Federal Government has also not yet brought a comprehensive package to reform Pakistan’s justice system, which necessitated the 21st Constitutional Amendment leading to the formation of Military Courts. It is hoped that the latest Implementation and Review Committee formed by the Premier is also not an eyewash measure, but actually leads to meaningful progress.

However, the military leadership has shown an unfortunate inclination to sit publically in judgment of the performance of the Elected Government, which, to say the least, certainly violates the Constitutional and institutional role and space of military. The result is Pakistan has to suffer at the hands of de-facto two parallel national regimes in place, with the military throwing its weight around as the senior partner reprimanding the elected Government publically at will as and when it pleases. Consider, on the other hand, the irony, that elected Government bears down with full force against even a question of accountability of military led-intelligence agencies against political veterans such as Mr. Achakzai demanding this in the publically mandated Parliament.

Despite this de-facto position, a civilized system would demand that differences in opinion and strategy are tackled inside official fora, in this case most-pertinently the National Security Committee that is very casually bypassed as Prime Minister and COAS meet frequently for one-on-one meetings. Even these official meetings offer an opportunity to be on the same page. One is sympathetic to and demands institutionalization of national security decisions through consultations but one is also compelled to ask what purpose is served, other than unfortunate attempts to humiliate elected leadership, when the military leadership, consistently and rightly proud of serving and maintaining the discipline of a fine national institution, resorts to public criticism instead of working within the system to build and strengthen it?

COAS’ Interactions with Foreign Political Leadership

The COAS held the following meetings during the month of August 2016 as a part of his foreign visits:

  • August 03, 2016: COAS arrived in Urumqi, China, for a daylong visit. Along with meeting Chief of General Staff of the Peoples Liberation Army, Gen. Fang Fenghui, the COAS also met the Party Secretary of the Xinkiang Province, Mr. Zhang Chun Xian.

  • August 17-18, 2016: COAS arrived in Malaysia for a two-day visit. Apart from the military leadership, also met the Defence Minister of Malaysia on August 17, 2016.

Apart from these, the GHQ also remained a must-visit, with the following foreign political dignitaries calling on the COAS:

  • August 05, 2016: Ambassador Tadamichi Yamamoto, Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Afghanistan, met the COAS at the GHQ.

  • August 25, 2016: US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Richard Olson and Commander of Resolute Support Mission and U.S. Forces Afghanistan General John W. Nicholson called on the COAS at the GHQ.

  • August 29, 2016: Saudi Defence Minister and Deputy Crown Prince, (who is commonly referred to as the most powerful person in the contemporary Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) Prince Muhammad bin Salman, called on the COAS at the GHQ.

Macintosh HD:Users:mackbook:Desktop:Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 5.16.50 pm.png
The Saudi Defence Minister and Crown Prince calling on the COAS at the GHQ on August 29, 2016.

Apart from this on August 25, 2016, the COAS also called the Afghan President, Dr. Ashraf Ghani, on telephone to express solidarity in the aftermath of the attack on the American University in Kabul the same day.

This brings the tally of COAS’ in-country meetings with foreign civilian dignitaries to 77, with 33 foreign visits since his appointment in November 2013.

Premier-COAS Interactions

For the month of August 2016, a total of three meetings took place between the Premier and the COAS, the details of which are as follows:

  • On August 09, 2016 in a meeting held at the Prime Minister House to review implementation of the National Action Plan.27

  • On August 11, 2016, during another meeting to review the implementation of the National Action Plan.28

  • On August 24, 2016, during the third consecutive meeting to review implementation of the National Action Plan, with the Prime Minister announcing the formation of a Implementation and Review Committee of the National Action Plan, with the National Security Advisor as its Convener.29

In all three meetings, the Federal Minister for Defence, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, MNA was absent, while the National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Nasser Khan Janjua was present.



1. For details please see Imran Khan accused of endorsing military coup in Pakistan, The Telegraph, July 19, 2016:

3. For details, please see Text of the Charter of Democracy, Dawn, May 16, 2006:
as accessed on November 11, 2016.

4. The complete transcript of the relevant part of Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf’s interview on September 29, 2016 with Mr. Robert Siegel at The Atlantic’s Washington Ideas Forum is below:

Mr. Robert Siegel: One thing that people say about your having been able to leave Pakistan despite of a no travel order is that it confirms whatever we think about Pakistan. This is that no matter what the Government of the day says, and no matter who may be the Prime Minister, the Army has the power in your country. You’re an Army guy and it helped you, despite the wishes of the Government. Fair?

Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf: Reasonably fair. The Army has always played a prominent in the governance of Pakistan, mainly because of the mis-governance of the democratically elected governments. Therefore, the Army enjoys a certain stature and the people of the nation love the Pakistan Army. They demand a lot from the Army. I am very proud of the fact that the Army has backed me, because I have been with them for over 40 years. I have fought wars and been part of various combats with them. I know they are my constituency.

Mr. Robert Siegel: You ruled as a military leader, and many of Pakistan’s leaders were military men. Apart from what you would say is the people’s love for the Army, does not this reflect some inherent weakness in Pakistan that it is ruled so often by the military?

Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf: I would agree. The inherent weakness is that the democracy in Pakistan has not been tailored according to the dictates of the environment. There are no checks and balances in the system. The Constitution does not provide the checks and balances. Therefore the Military is forced and sucked into the political environment, especially when mis-governance is going on and Pakistan is going down in various socio-economic indicators. The public massively runs towards the Army Chief and the Army gets involved. Therefore, may be we have to tailor the system according to the local dictates to introduce checks and balances so that mis-governance does not take place and the Army does not have to come into politics.

5. For details, please see PILDAT demands immediate removal of Mr. Cyril Almeida’s name from ECL; calls for investigating unauthorized leaks and resolving underlying issue:

6. For details, please see Raheel urges PM to resolve Panama issue, Dawn, May 11, 2016, which may be accessed at:

8. The complete story may be accessed at:

9. Ibid.

10. Parenthesis used by PILDAT

15. Section 7 of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959 titled Assistance to the Police states that:
The Force [Rangers] shall:
  1. Assist the Police in the prevention and detection of crime in the border areas;
  2. Reinforce the Police for the maintenance of law and order whenever it is necessary.

Section 10 of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959 titled Powers and Duties of Members states that ‘Government may, by a general or special order, confer or impose upon any member of the Force, any of the powers or duties conferred or imposed on a Police Officer of any class or grade by any enactment for the time being in force’.

17. For details, please see the PILDAT publication titled Policy Recommendations for Reforms in the Police System of Pakistan, which may be accessed at:

20. For details, please see:

21. For details, please see:

22. Ibid.

23. For details, please see:

24. Consider the COAS chairing a security meeting at the headquarters of the Southern Command on August 08, 2016, in the aftermath of the Quetta Attack,  even though Chief Minister of Balochistan, Sardar Sanaullah Zehri, MPA, was also present in the meeting.

25. The complete Editorial may be accessed at:

27. The Press Release issued by the Prime Minister Office in this regard may be accessed at:

28. The Press Release issued by the Prime Minister Office on the occasion may be accessed at:

29. The Press Release issued by the Prime Minister Office on the occasion may be accessed at: