By Qamar Bashir
Personally for me and most patriotic Pakistanis, the army stands as the bulwark of a
nation;s sovereignty, defending its people and safeguarding its borders against external
threats. It embodies the collective strength and resilience of a nation, serving as a symbol
of unity and national pride. It embodies a profound appreciation for the soldier’s’
selflessness and bravery in the face of adversity. Equally significant is the reciprocal
relationship between the army and its people, where mutual respect and affection foster a
bond essential for the nation's stability and progress. As the guardians of national
security, the army's love for its people and their reciprocal love form the bedrock upon
which the prosperity and well-being of the nation rest.
As children, we were taught by our parents and teachers to hold the army in high esteem,
instilling in us a deep sense of love, respect, and pride for our valiant armed forces. I
fondly recall the days when we eagerly gathered to witness the army parade at Ayub
Stadium in Quetta, enthusiastically saluting the passing army vehicles and feeling a sense
of honor as the soldiers returned our salutes. Those moments filled our hearts with
admiration for what we believed, and still believe, to be the best military force in the
world.
However, recent events have left us heartbroken and disillusioned. Witnessing army
vehicles, once symbols of protection and security, subjected to derogatory slogans and
even targeted by violence from the crowd has shaken our faith and filled our hearts with
sadness and grief.
While soul-searching about why political leaders, certain segments of the general public,
elements in Balochistan and KP provinces, and social media activists criticize and
denigrate the army and its leadership, one glaring fact became apparent: the army is not
being criticized for its core function of defending the country from external aggression,
but rather for issues unrelated to its primary mandate.
The army has faced criticism for its alleged interference in political affairs, purported
human rights abuses in conflict regions like Balochistan and FATA, media censorship,
and its economic dominance across sectors, raising concerns about monopolies and lack
of accountability. It is perceived to prioritize security interests over diplomatic solutions,
handling Balochistan insurgency and imbalance of power favoring the military over
civilian institutions. . Debates persist regarding human rights implications of the army's
counterterrorism operations and its involvement in regional conflicts, such as its support
for militant groups in Kashmir and Afghanistan.
The criticism directed towards the army has intensified, becoming more aggressive and
vitriolic, particularly on social media platforms. Social media activists, both within the
country and abroad, seem to have free reign to express their grievances against the army
without fear of repercussions.
During a recent press conference, the Director-General of the Inter-Services Public
Relations (DG-ISPR) extensively addressed the harmful use of social media to spread
negativity against the army. He warned that existing regulations would be rigorously
enforced, and new laws would be proposed by the parliament to curb, silence, and
penalize those who were spreading malicious content against the army.
The tone and demeanor of the DG-ISPR strongly suggested that legislation to regulate
social media had likely already been drafted and would soon be presented to parliament.
Shortly thereafter, reports emerged that the Prime Minister had approved the
establishment of a social media authority despite the absence of formal legislation. This
move prompted criticism, with one Supreme Court judge remarking that the government
appeared to be hastily prioritizing the creation of a social media regulatory authority over
pressing issues such as climate change.
Unlike PEMRA, which possesses a range of punitive measures to discipline traditional
media, the tasks facing the social media authority will be considerably more challenging.
While PEMRA can impose hefty fines, revoke licenses, ensure compliance with codes of
conduct, and address violations through fines, suspensions, or license cancellations, the
social media authority may lack similar leverage due to many pressing reasons.
Social media is difficult to harness due to its globalized nature, constant evolution, and
the prevalence of anonymity and operating across national borders. The platforms like
Facebook and Twitter make it difficult to apply consistent regulations due to varying
legal jurisdictions, and the ever-changing landscape of social media renders regulations
obsolete quickly, as new features and formats emerge.
The anonymity and pseudonymity afforded to users further complicate matters, hindering
efforts to hold individuals accountable for harmful content, particularly in regions with
lax regulations.
The social media platforms rely heavily on algorithms which can inadvertently amplify
harmful content or create echo chambers, making it difficult to regulate their impact.
Besides, enforcing social media regulations can be resource-intensive especially in a poor
country like Pakistan, requiring dedicated teams and sophisticated technology.
This necessitates adopting a comprehensive protocol for disseminating the army's
perspective in the public domain through civilian or political leadership equipped with
the necessary skills and training to engage with the media in a manner that minimizes
controversy and backlash. Any potential backlash could then be directed towards the
civilian leadership, thereby insulating the army from direct criticism.
Later, It should minimize its overt supremacy over civilian institutions, such as the
government and judiciary and ensure a clear delineation of authority between military
and civilian spheres.
Simultaneously, the army should prioritize transparency and accountability, particularly
in matters concerning human rights. Any allegations of abuses must be thoroughly
investigated and addressed in accordance with international standards, fostering trust and
legitimacy.
Economically, the army's activities at least overtly should be subject to civilian oversight
to prevent monopolies and ensure fair competition.
The army should adopt a more professional and scientific approach towards public
relations and should minimize and finally stop altogether its overt interaction with the
public on political affairs or governance.
Above all, ISPR's public relations strategy, tactics, and methodology are attracting
unfavorable criticism across both traditional and social media platforms. Urgent action is
required to initiate a comprehensive reset of ISPR's approach for nurturing positive
relationships with its publics.
