Barely three months into his job as arguably the most powerful man in Pakistan, Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa is facing his first major test of leadership as a fresh wave of bombings and attacks rattled the country. In the immediate aftermath, the new chief tried not to overshadow the prime minister and appeared to let him take the lead in devising a joint civil-military response to the latest violence. With the civilian government on board, this week came the army’s announcement of a new nation-wide anti-terror operation called “Radd-ul-Fasaad”.
So far, so good. Except in Pakistan, the idea of an army chief who genuinely respects the civilian authority is seen as too good to be true. Conventional wisdom suggests that Pakistanis generally admire army chiefs who appear tough and lead from the front, invariably with little or no regard for the elected leadership.
Gen Bajwa’s predecessor, General Raheel Sharif, was a perfect example. Under him, the army unilaterally launched “Operation Zarb-e-Azb” in the North Waziristan tribal region. The offensive had been long overdue and was widely welcomed at home and abroad. The political class was left with no choice but to own the operation and subsequently draw political mileage out of its success. The army’s PR machinery used the military successes to cultivate a larger-than-life image of General Sharif. It was done through a highly organised and resourceful media management. Gen Sharif was thus seen as the nation’s saviour who could do no wrong.
Small wonder then, that at a time when we were being bombed across the country, there was a yearning among some for his return. It was reflected in some discussions on TV talk shows and on social media—at one point last week the retired general became the top trend on Twitter, as admirers promoted hash tags such as #missURaheelSharif and #bringbackRaheelSharif. It was a sinister campaign, seemingly run from dodgy or fake accounts of people often describing themselves as “patriotic” Pakistanis. It implied that the current army chief, with his happy-go-lucky demeanour, was no match for his predecessor’s towering tough guy image.
Every army chief is different—in personality and style. Sure, they are a product of a deeply conservative institution with a particular worldview. But they are also individuals who bring their own strengths and priorities to the job, which in turn determines how they shape and influence events. From what little we know about General Bajwa, he’s an avid reader; he is someone who apparently believes that politics should be left to the politicians, that the army’s job is to secure Pakistan from within, as well as from external threats. If true, this can only be good news because the role of the armed forces is supposed to be to defend the country, not define it.
But army chiefs also evolve into the job. They take time to consolidate their position, especially if they were not the obvious choice and are promoted over other more ambitious colleagues. Since he was appointed, Gen Bajwa has been doing just that: trying to put together a team that would be loyal and committed to his vision of the army for the next three years. Such an exercise inevitably involves sidelining those seen to be close to the previous set-up; and that doesn’t always go down well with officers who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they deserved better.
Much as we like to think of the army as a highly disciplined force and a monolithic institution, the fact remains that every change of leadership brings with it a period of transition and realignment. The transition has to be swift and decisive for it to be smooth; for the disgruntled lot who prefer continuity over change, a slow and prolonged transition is often seen as an opportunity to be exploited. The apparent whispering campaign involving the new army chief could be indicative of such a situation.
Divisive issues such as the capture of the alleged Indian spy Kulbhushan Yadav, or Dawnleaks for that matter, were propped up by the previous chief’s team to keep the civilian government under pressure. This chief may not be interested in dragging such non-issues, but the powerful institutional machinery would be keen to make sure they are not thrown onto the back burner.
And so, in Pakistan, we often blame the “deep state” for derailing peace initiatives with neighbours, undermining civilian governments and of engineering elections. It would seem there’s another, deeper layer, within the security establishment, with the sole aim of preserving the institution’s core interests that often define the reason for its existence. Army chiefs who owned, championed and even expanded those interests drew strength from that powerful institutional machinery. But a chief seen as out of sync with the obsessive anti-India sentiment within the military machine could have a harder time in consolidating his position.
@ShahzebJillani is a former BBC correspondent currently working as a senior executive editor for a primetime news show
So far, so good. Except in Pakistan, the idea of an army chief who genuinely respects the civilian authority is seen as too good to be true. Conventional wisdom suggests that Pakistanis generally admire army chiefs who appear tough and lead from the front, invariably with little or no regard for the elected leadership.
Small wonder then, that at a time when we were being bombed across the country, there was
a yearning among some for Gen Raheel Sharif's return
Gen Bajwa’s predecessor, General Raheel Sharif, was a perfect example. Under him, the army unilaterally launched “Operation Zarb-e-Azb” in the North Waziristan tribal region. The offensive had been long overdue and was widely welcomed at home and abroad. The political class was left with no choice but to own the operation and subsequently draw political mileage out of its success. The army’s PR machinery used the military successes to cultivate a larger-than-life image of General Sharif. It was done through a highly organised and resourceful media management. Gen Sharif was thus seen as the nation’s saviour who could do no wrong.
Small wonder then, that at a time when we were being bombed across the country, there was a yearning among some for his return. It was reflected in some discussions on TV talk shows and on social media—at one point last week the retired general became the top trend on Twitter, as admirers promoted hash tags such as #missURaheelSharif and #bringbackRaheelSharif. It was a sinister campaign, seemingly run from dodgy or fake accounts of people often describing themselves as “patriotic” Pakistanis. It implied that the current army chief, with his happy-go-lucky demeanour, was no match for his predecessor’s towering tough guy image.
Every army chief is different – in personality and style. Sure, they are a product of a deeply conservative institution with a particular worldview. But they are also individuals who bring their own strengths and priorities to the job, which in turn determines how they shape and influence events
Every army chief is different—in personality and style. Sure, they are a product of a deeply conservative institution with a particular worldview. But they are also individuals who bring their own strengths and priorities to the job, which in turn determines how they shape and influence events. From what little we know about General Bajwa, he’s an avid reader; he is someone who apparently believes that politics should be left to the politicians, that the army’s job is to secure Pakistan from within, as well as from external threats. If true, this can only be good news because the role of the armed forces is supposed to be to defend the country, not define it.
But army chiefs also evolve into the job. They take time to consolidate their position, especially if they were not the obvious choice and are promoted over other more ambitious colleagues. Since he was appointed, Gen Bajwa has been doing just that: trying to put together a team that would be loyal and committed to his vision of the army for the next three years. Such an exercise inevitably involves sidelining those seen to be close to the previous set-up; and that doesn’t always go down well with officers who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they deserved better.
Much as we like to think of the army as a highly disciplined force and a monolithic institution, the fact remains that every change of leadership brings with it a period of transition and realignment. The transition has to be swift and decisive for it to be smooth; for the disgruntled lot who prefer continuity over change, a slow and prolonged transition is often seen as an opportunity to be exploited. The apparent whispering campaign involving the new army chief could be indicative of such a situation.
Divisive issues such as the capture of the alleged Indian spy Kulbhushan Yadav, or Dawnleaks for that matter, were propped up by the previous chief’s team to keep the civilian government under pressure. This chief may not be interested in dragging such non-issues, but the powerful institutional machinery would be keen to make sure they are not thrown onto the back burner.
And so, in Pakistan, we often blame the “deep state” for derailing peace initiatives with neighbours, undermining civilian governments and of engineering elections. It would seem there’s another, deeper layer, within the security establishment, with the sole aim of preserving the institution’s core interests that often define the reason for its existence. Army chiefs who owned, championed and even expanded those interests drew strength from that powerful institutional machinery. But a chief seen as out of sync with the obsessive anti-India sentiment within the military machine could have a harder time in consolidating his position.
@ShahzebJillani is a former BBC correspondent currently working as a senior executive editor for a primetime news show