Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis:- In recent days, a highly controversial and unprecedented development has taken place involving a top-ranking official of Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), holding a political meeting with influential members of the Pakistani diaspora in Washington, D.C. The event, arranged officially through the Pakistani Embassy’s military wing, has sparked intense debate both within the Pakistani community in the United States and across social media platforms.
What makes this meeting particularly concerning is not only its political nature but also the fact that it was led by an ISI official—a role that, by constitutional design, has no mandate in civilian governance or politics. Attendees included prominent Pakistani Americans—businesspeople, academics, community leaders—who were assured that the grievances of overseas Pakistanis, particularly regarding the political turmoil in Pakistan and the incarceration of Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister and founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), would be addressed. However, this assurance came not from elected representatives or diplomatic officials, but from a figure whose domain is intelligence and national security, not political arbitration.
Following the Washington meeting, a delegation of Pakistani Americans reportedly traveled to Pakistan, where they met senior military leadership, including a high-ranking general. Instead of constructive dialogue, they were met with harsh admonitions. They were criticized for what the military viewed as their inappropriate and damaging criticism of the armed forces abroad. They were accused of maligning the image of the state and acting against the “greater national interest.” The delegation returned empty-handed, with no progress made on their core demands—most notably, the release of Imran Khan.
This entire episode reveals an alarming shift in civil-military dynamics in Pakistan. Historically, the military has maintained significant influence over national policy, but efforts were made—at least superficially—to preserve a civilian face. In this case, the pretense of civilian oversight has been abandoned altogether. What should have been a diplomatic engagement led by elected officials or consular authorities turned into a direct political interaction spearheaded by the military intelligence apparatus.
The ISI has no legal or constitutional mandate to conduct political meetings, particularly abroad, with civilian populations. Matters concerning political grievances, democratic representation, and the justice system should lie exclusively within the purview of the elected civilian government. The ISI has no authority over judicial matters, prison administration, or legislative affairs—yet it is now evidently dictating or at least influencing all these domains.
This development raises profound questions about the legitimacy of the current civilian setup. It reinforces the perception that the government in Islamabad functions merely as a facade for the decisions made by Rawalpindi. The very spirit of democracy and constitutional governance is being undermined. It is not only a betrayal of Pakistan’s constitutional framework but also an insult to the intelligence of the Pakistani public, both at home and abroad.
Worse still is the military’s attempt to suppress overseas criticism. The diaspora, often considered Pakistan’s soft power and economic lifeline due to the billions in annual remittances, is now being warned against speaking out. Diaspora voices, especially in democratic societies like the U.S., have every right to engage in advocacy, raise concerns, and demand justice. To label such engagement as “unpatriotic” or “against national interest” is an authoritarian tactic that contradicts the values of democratic freedom.
This pattern of the military engaging directly with various sectors—students, businesspeople, religious leaders, now even the overseas community—without the involvement of elected officials, reflects a dangerous expansion of its political footprint. If this trend continues unchecked, the distinction between state and government, between military and civilian authority, will be completely obliterated.
It must be emphasized that Pakistan is a constitutional republic. The military, while an essential and respected pillar of the state, must maintain civilian face. Article 243 of the Constitution clearly outlines the role of the armed forces: to defend Pakistan against external threats and ensure its territorial integrity. Nowhere does it suggest that the military can hold political meetings, dictate civilian policy, or influence judicial matters.
In the current context, with Pakistan facing multiple external threats—from tensions with India, border instability with Afghanistan, and flare-ups with Iran—, threats of Donald Trump to Bomb Iran, if it doesn’t enter into negotiation on its nuclear ambition, act of cross border terrorism from Afghanistan and internal separatists movement demand that military remains focused on its core operational duties.
Our armed forces are a national asset. They must be shielded from political controversies so that their credibility remains intact when it is truly needed. The growing politicization of the military not only weakens civilian institutions but also erodes the public’s confidence in the armed forces—a cost Pakistan can ill afford.
It is equally important that Pakistan’s universities, Chambers of Commerce and Industry, professional bodies, and business leaders, when receiving invitations from the military, should insist on a civilian head leading such engagements. The military representatives should play a supplementary role, supporting—rather than substituting—civilian leadership. This approach would help deflect criticism that the military is directly assuming political responsibilities and would prevent the perception that it is defending government actions that fall strictly within the civilian domain and lie outside the military’s constitutional mandate.
A similar approach should be adopted in the case of meetings between foreign dignitaries and the Army Chief. Even if such meetings do occur, they should not be publicized in the media, in order to maintain at least the appearance of civilian leadership at the forefront. Engagements with the Pakistani state must be channeled through legitimate civilian representatives—not shadow figures from the security establishment. Diplomatic norms demand transparency and accountability—qualities sorely lacking in this recent episode.
Moving forward, the military leadership must reassess its approach. Rather than standing in front, it must step back and let the civilian government take the lead in political discourse, policy formulation, and international outreach. If coordination is required, it should happen behind closed doors and within the constitutional framework—not through public forums where military officials act as de facto heads of state.
A pragmatic path forward would involve restoring the primacy of civilian leadership. Let the foreign minister, ambassador, or prime minister engage with the diaspora. Let political grievances be addressed by elected representatives. Let the judiciary operate without interference. Let the media report without intimidation. In this model, the military would still retain its influence—but discreetly and constitutionally—thereby restoring a much-needed balance of power.
If this course correction is not undertaken, Pakistan risks further alienating its diaspora, losing global credibility, and deepening its internal political crisis. Civilian supremacy is not just a constitutional obligation—it is a democratic necessity.