By Qamar Bashir
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.
About writer: Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC
Macomb, Detroit, Michigan
