Connect with us

Pakistan News

When Law Wears a Uniform

Published

on

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 : A state does not collapse the moment tanks roll into the capital or a general announces the suspension of the constitution. History shows that the most enduring and damaging forms of authoritarianism often emerge quietly, through legal amendments, institutional rearrangements, and the gradual subordination of civilian authority to military command. Pakistan today stands at precisely such a juncture. Without a formal declaration of martial law, the country exhibits nearly every substantive characteristic by which political scientists, constitutional scholars, and international legal bodies define military rule. The façade of civilian governance remains, but the substance of power has decisively shifted.
At the heart of this transformation is the structural reconfiguration of the state itself. Across established democracies, civil–military relations rest on a clear and universally accepted principle: the military serves under civilian supremacy, operates within defined constitutional limits, and remains institutionally subordinate to elected authority. Whether in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, or even semi-authoritarian systems, military chiefs hold fixed tenures, retire on schedule, and answer to civilian defense ministers and legislatures. There exists no precedent in functioning constitutional governance for a serving army chief, paid from the civilian treasury, to hold office indefinitely or for life.
Yet Pakistan has moved dangerously close to precisely this anomaly. Through constitutional amendments passed under conditions widely perceived as coercive, the tenure of the army chief has been repeatedly extended, while public discourse has been deliberately conditioned to normalize permanence in a role that, by its nature, must be temporary. When asked about retirement, the response is not institutional humility but visible irritation, coupled with claims of higher national missions that render accountability irrelevant. In comparative constitutional terms, this is not stability; it is personalization of power.
Even more striking is the concentration of military command itself. In established systems, the separation of services—army, navy, and air force—is not a matter of tradition alone, but a safeguard against absolute control. Joint coordination exists, but supremacy does not. No single uniformed officer simultaneously dominates all branches without civilian oversight. Such consolidation is historically associated not with national defense, but with military autocracy. Pakistan’s recent constitutional restructuring, which elevates one office above all armed services, represents not administrative efficiency but a profound distortion of command balance, extending martial dominance even within the military itself.
This internal militarization has been matched by an external economic takeover. Across the world, armed forces may execute infrastructure projects during emergencies or provide logistical support for development, but they do not own, manage, or monopolize the national economy. Pakistan’s experience diverges sharply from this norm. Military-controlled entities now dominate infrastructure development, often without competitive bidding, while strategic sectors such as agriculture, logistics, and industrial development—particularly under the second phase of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor—have been effectively absorbed into a corporatized military ecosystem.
International development models recognize Special Economic Zones as civilian-led instruments for industrial growth, foreign investment, and employment generation. Their capture by military institutions transforms them from engines of inclusive development into closed systems of rent extraction. This shift does not merely distort markets; it entrenches a new political economy in which economic power reinforces coercive authority, and civilian institutions are hollowed out from within.
Equally consequential is the erosion of judicial independence. A functioning judiciary is not defined by the existence of courts, but by their capacity to restrain power. Where judges operate under intimidation, where constitutional amendments are insulated from challenge, and where prolonged detentions persist without due process, the rule of law becomes performative rather than real. International legal doctrine is unequivocal: when courts can no longer check the executive or the military, constitutional order has collapsed in substance, regardless of its textual survival.
Parliament, too, has been reduced to form. Comparative legislative studies demonstrate that assemblies lose legitimacy when they cease to deliberate freely and instead function as instruments for retroactive legal cover. When amendments are passed not through consensus but under duress, law itself becomes a weapon rather than a restraint. In such conditions, elections do not restore democracy; they merely legitimize its absence.
Control over media completes the architecture of undeclared martial rule. Authoritarian systems rarely silence all voices; instead, they curate narratives, elevate loyal platforms, and delegitimize dissent by branding it treasonous. The role of the military spokesperson in Pakistan has evolved from institutional communication to overt political arbitration, publicly condemning one political force while sanctifying another. This is not information management; it is narrative command.
Taken together, these developments satisfy every internationally recognized criterion of martial law as defined in political theory and comparative governance. Civilian supremacy has been replaced by military dominance. Economic control has shifted from elected institutions to uniformed management. Judicial independence has been neutralized. Parliamentary authority has been subordinated. Media freedom has been constrained. Political opposition has been criminalized. The absence of a formal proclamation does not negate these realities; it merely disguises them.
History offers a sobering warning. States that normalize indefinite military rule do not achieve stability; they accumulate fragility. Institutions decay, merit collapses, economic confidence erodes, and society internalizes fear as a governing principle. Even the armed forces suffer, as blocked promotion pathways and personalized command undermine professionalism and morale. What begins as control ends as corrosion.
Pakistan today stands not at the edge of a constitutional crisis, but deep within one. The question is no longer whether martial law exists, but whether the nation can reclaim civilian sovereignty before irreversible damage is done. Democracies are not destroyed in a single night; they are dismantled piece by piece, until law itself wears a uniform and authority answers to no one.
And history is unambiguous on one final point: no state can endure indefinitely when the gun replaces the constitution as the final arbiter of power.

Pakistan News

New Chapter for Dragon Boating in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial associations officially set up with sights locked on national competitions and international representation.

Published

on

By

Dragon Boat Associations Established in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
PSHAWAR/LAHORE: Dragon boat associations have been established in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, marking a step towards organising and promoting the sport across Pakistan.
Prominent political and social figure Ameer Bahadur Khan Hoti will serve as president of the Punjab Dragon Boat Association (PDBA), while a notification has been issued confirming the election of former bureaucrat Javed Marwat as president of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Dragon Boat Association (KPDBA). At a meeting in Lahore, prominent sports journalist Muhammad Yousuf was elected secretary general of the Punjab association. Uzma Zaidi will serve as senior vice president and Naveed Akhtar Malik as treasurer.
At a separate meeting in Peshawar, Javed Marwat, who previously held several senior administrative positions in the province, was unanimously elected president of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa association, while renowned sports organiser Naeem Gul was elected secretary general. Shamim Akhtar Jadoon will serve as senior vice president, Junaid Khan vice president and Bilal Aslam as treasurer. Newly elected Punjab association president Ameer Bahadur Khan Hoti said Pakistan’s first dragon boat festival and competitions on the Kabul River had opened new avenues for the sport’s development. He said the enthusiasm shown by participants and the sport’s promising prospects had highlighted the need to establish a Pakistan Dragon Boat Federation to coordinate training, organise competitions and support athletes. Dragon boat associations would be established in all four provinces and the federal capital, Islamabad, before the formal announcement of the national federation, he added.
Newly elected Khyber Pakhtunkhwa association president Javed Marwat said efforts would focus on introducing the sport at the provincial level and providing athletes with opportunities to compete nationally and demonstrate their abilities. Teams would also be sent to represent Pakistan in international competitions. He said the sport would help strengthen people-to-people exchanges and further promote Pakistan-China friendship. Marwat expressed confidence that dragon boat racing would soon gain popularity throughout Pakistan.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan’s Yemen Dilemma

Published

on

By

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 : Pakistan’s military commitment to Saudi Arabia raises a question that cannot be answered simply by identifying where its soldiers are stationed. Modern warfare allows forces to attack through aircraft, missiles, drones and targeting support without sending infantry across a border. The decisive issue is whether Pakistani personnel and capabilities will participate in hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis—and what consequences could follow.
Scott Ritter, renowned American podcaster, military and geopolitical analyst captures the central danger: Saudi Arabia could obtain through collective defence the Pakistani involvement in Yemen that Islamabad previously resisted. An initially limited commitment could expand through casualties, retaliation and demands for reinforcement, leaving Pakistan responsible for a war whose objectives it does not control.
CNN reported on October 7 that Pakistani troops were already stationed in Saudi Arabia. In the interview, Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, director general of Inter-Services Public Relations, declined to disclose their numbers or capabilities. Asked about operations across the Yemeni border, he invoked military confidentiality, explaining that participating countries do not publicly disclose how and where they will employ their forces. His response offered no categorical exclusion of ground operations or offensive action inside Yemen, even as he described Pakistani involvement as defensive.
That distinction matters. Operational secrecy may protect military personnel, but it also leaves the public without clear answers about the mission’s boundaries. The description “defensive” cannot establish those boundaries by itself. Governments routinely invoke defence to justify attacks beyond their territory; the relevant questions concern what forces actually do, whom they target and under whose authority.
Pakistani forces operating from Saudi territory could potentially support or conduct attacks inside Yemen without deploying infantry there. Air operations and targeting assistance could carry substantial consequences. If Pakistani personnel participate in attacks against Houthi positions, Ansarullah could regard Pakistan as belligerent. Tehran could interpret the same activity as participation in a campaign against Iranian regional interests.
The Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, signed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye on August 7, 2026, reportedly treats an attack against one member as an attack against all three. Its deterrent promise is substantial, but so is the danger of importing one member’s confrontation into the security calculations of the others.
An October 5 statement published by Türkiye’s Foreign Ministry committed the partners to implement collective defence arrangements and rapidly deploy agreed military forces and capabilities to Saudi Arabia, subject to national legislation. Türkiye therefore shares the deployment commitment. However, the evidence reviewed does not establish a Turkish ground combat commitment against the Houthis or an equal distribution of operational risks.
For Islamabad, the unanswered questions are fundamental. Who authorizes Pakistani involvement in cross-border attacks? Can Pakistan refuse a particular operation? Who finances a prolonged deployment, and what conditions permit withdrawal? Confidential operational details need not be published to explain the political mandate governing the use of force.
Pakistan brings potential strengths to the alliance: experienced personnel, established military institutions and longstanding cooperation with Riyadh. Saudi infrastructure and financing could support a substantial deployment. Islamabad’s relationships with both Riyadh and Tehran might also create diplomatic opportunities, provided military involvement does not undermine its credibility as an intermediary.
Yet those strengths do not resolve the weaknesses of an extended campaign. Destroying particular weapons or positions is different from ending an adversary’s ability and determination to fight. Dispersed forces, local networks and adaptation can frustrate superior firepower. Tactical gains could therefore coexist with an expanding mission and an elusive political settlement.
Ritter’s warning is strongest when understood in these terms. Predicting inevitable Pakistani defeat is less useful than asking what victory would require. Protecting defined facilities offers measurable objectives. Permanently eliminating the Houthi threat could entail commitments far beyond what Pakistan initially intended—and costs that additional military capability cannot necessarily overcome.
Saudi financial assistance complicates Islamabad’s freedom of choice. The State Bank of Pakistan confirmed that a $3 billion Saudi deposit maturing in December 2025 was extended for another year. Such support gives Pakistan a substantial interest in maintaining Saudi confidence.
Saudi’s financial influence does not require an explicit threat. A government facing external financing pressures may find it difficult to reject security requests from an important creditor. The danger is that short-term economic reassurance encourages military obligations carrying much greater long-term costs.
Iran introduces a further risk. Pakistani attacks against an Iranian-supported movement could damage relations with a neighbouring country and generate security pressures closer to home. The Houthis also possess their own Yemeni objectives, and attacking them is not automatically equivalent to attacking Iran. Political escalation, however, can advance through perceptions and retaliation before governments agree on legal distinctions.
International law offers no reliable assurance that this confrontation would remain contained. Legal obligations persist, but their enforcement is uneven, and states may invoke self-defence while pursuing military objectives beyond their borders. Pakistan therefore cannot assume that legal distinctions between defending Saudi territory and attacking Houthi positions would restrain retaliation. If Tehran perceives Pakistani operations as threatening its interests, the danger would turn on strategic calculations, perceived threats and the risk of escalation—not simply on competing interpretations of the UN Charter. Shared religion and geographical proximity would offer no dependable protection against that outcome.
Pakistan’s domestic divisions make a widening conflict especially consequential. The supporters of imprisoned former prime minister Imran Khan began marching from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa toward Islamabad on October 4, demanding his release, hospital treatment and family access. An overseas campaign would impose additional demands on resources and political legitimacy amid an already polarized environment.
Parliament’s April 2015 resolution remains relevant. It supported neutrality in Yemen alongside solidarity against threats to Saudi territorial integrity and the holy sites, while urging diplomacy through the United Nations and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. That distinction deserves renewed parliamentary examination before military commitments overtake political debate.
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye should pursue an emergency OIC initiative linked to UN diplomacy, involving Iran and meaningful Yemeni participation. Reciprocal de-escalation, civilian protection and humanitarian access should take priority. Their collective influence should also sustain action for Palestinian rights rather than dissipate through another prolonged regional confrontation.
The Makkah Pact’s credibility will depend on whether it improves security. Secrecy about military methods cannot replace clarity about political objectives. Before Pakistan’s commitment deepens, its leaders must explain what they are defending, how far that obligation extends and how they intend to prevent it from becoming an open-ended war.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan Reaffirms Commitment to Multilateralism, Peace and International Cooperation at the Executive Board of UNESCO

Published

on

By

Paris ( Imran Y. CHOUDHRY):- Advisor to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Representative of Pakistan to UNESCO, Syed Tauqeer Hussain Shah, delivered Pakistan’s national statement at the 225th Session of the UNESCO Executive Board in Paris, France, reaffirming its steadfast commitment to multilateralism, international cooperation and the promotion of peace through dialogue and mutual understanding.

In his statement,

  • Underscored Pakistan’s firm support for multilateral institutions, South-South cooperation and collaborative efforts to address global challenges, particularly those confronting developing countries;
  • Highlighted the urgent need to protect human life, educational institutions and cultural heritage amid conflicts and crisis, especially in Gaza;

-Called for an international action plan to confront the challenge of out-of-school children;

  • Stressed the importance of equitable access to scientific knowledge, international scientific collaboration and reducing technological inequalities;

-Underlined the need to combat racism, misogyny, Islamophobia, disinformation and hate speech, while encouraging responsible and ethical governance of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies; and

  • Expressed support for institutional reform of UNESCO to enhance its effectiveness and impact worldwide.

Continue Reading

Trending