Pakistan’s Militarisation and Regional Impact Under Munir

Recent developments in Pakistan reveal shift towards military dominance under Field Marshal Asim Munir. His rise marks a constitutional and ideological transformation that threatens democratic institutions and regional stability. This shift echoes past military regimes but with a stronger religious dimension. The implications extend beyond Pakistan’s borders, affecting South Asia’s geopolitical landscape.

Asim Munir’s Rise and Military Supremacy

Asim Munir became Pakistan’s second-ever Field Marshal, gaining unprecedented authority. The 27th Constitutional Amendment legally enshrined military supremacy. This amendment weakens civilian oversight and judiciary power. Munir’s position now surpasses all civilian institutions, granting him lifetime protection and control over the armed forces. This consolidates power reminiscent of Pakistan’s past military rulers.

Ideological Militarisation and Religious Framing

Munir, a Hafiz-e-Quran, openly integrates Islamic ideology into military strategy. He uses historical Islamic concepts such as Fitna al-Khawarij to label insurgents as heretics or foreign agents. This religious framing justifies military actions in internal conflicts. It casts Pakistan as a defender of the Muslim Ummah against both internal and external threats, particularly India. This ideological shift intensifies the military’s role beyond traditional defence.

Judicial Erosion and Constitutional Changes

The judiciary’s role has been curtailed by creating the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), which holds primacy over the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is now limited to civil and criminal appeals. This shift reduces judicial checks on military and executive powers. Legal experts warn this undermines constitutional balance and democratic norms, paving the way for authoritarian governance.

Economic Challenges Amid Military Control

Despite claims of investment and resource wealth, Pakistan’s economy remains fragile. Poverty exceeds 25 per cent and capital formation is weak. Military involvement in business and ideological governance deter economic reforms. Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb acknowledges growth struggles, raising doubts about sustainability. The military’s dominance complicates efforts to stabilise and grow the economy.

Regional Implications and Foreign Policy

Pakistan’s foreign policy under Munir prioritises countering India and encouraging alliances with China, Saudi Arabia, and potentially the US. Cooperation with Bangladesh’s interim government aims to counterbalance India. However, ideological militarisation risks nurturing extremist groups. Cross-border tensions with India remain high, as seen in the May 2025 conflict. Munir’s military-led approach increases unpredictability in South Asian security.

Historical Patterns and Future Risks

Pakistan’s history shows military takeovers promise reform but deliver repression and instability. Munir’s rule repeats this pattern with added religious zeal. The militarisation of state institutions weakens governance and fuels extremism. India’s assertive regional policies further complicate the situation. Attempts to gain strategic depth through ideology and alliances may backfire, escalating regional tensions.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Point out the causes and consequences of military interventions in Pakistan’s political history with examples from Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf.
2. Critically analyse the impact of constitutional amendments on judicial independence in Pakistan and their implications for democracy.
3. With suitable examples, estimate how ideological militarisation influences domestic security and foreign policy in South Asian countries.
4. What are the challenges in balancing civilian governance and military authority in South Asia? Discuss with reference to Pakistan and India.

Answer Hints:

1. Point out the causes and consequences of military interventions in Pakistan’s political history with examples from Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf.

1. Causes – Political instability, weak civilian governments, corruption, and perceived chaos often justified military takeovers.
2. Ayub Khan (1958) cited need for stability and economic reform but led to authoritarianism and suppression of dissent.
3. Zia-ul-Haq (1977) imposed Islamisation, dismantled democratic institutions, and entrenched military dominance.
4. Musharraf (1999) promised modernisation and counter-terrorism but curtailed civil liberties and judiciary independence.
5. Consequences – Repeated cycles of military rule weakened democratic institutions, eroded civil rights, and delayed sustainable development.
6. Military regimes often increased regional tensions and internal instability despite promises of reform.

2. Critically analyse the impact of constitutional amendments on judicial independence in Pakistan and their implications for democracy.

1. The 27th Amendment institutionalised military supremacy, elevating military authority above civilian institutions.
2. Creation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) with primacy over the Supreme Court reduced judicial checks on military and executive power.
3. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction limited to civil and criminal appeals, undermining its constitutional oversight role.
4. This judicial restructuring weakens separation of powers and erodes democratic checks and balances.
5. Legal experts warn it facilitates authoritarianism by diminishing judicial independence.
6. Overall, these amendments consolidate military control and marginalise civilian governance, threatening democratic norms.

3. With suitable examples, estimate how ideological militarisation influences domestic security and foreign policy in South Asian countries.

1. Pakistan under Munir integrates Islamic ideology into military strategy, framing internal conflicts as religious struggles (e.g., Fitna al-Khawarij).
2. This religious framing justifies harsh counter-insurgency measures and delegitimises dissent as heretical or foreign-backed.
3. Ideological militarisation fuels extremism and blurs lines between security operations and ideological warfare.
4. Foreign policy becomes driven by ideological narratives, intensifying hostility toward India and encouraging alliances to counterbalance it.
5. Examples – Pakistan’s cooperation with Bangladesh interim government and courting China and Saudi Arabia reflect strategic moves tied to ideological posturing.
6. Such militarisation risks regional instability, cross-border terrorism, and unpredictable conflicts, as seen in the May 2025 India-Pakistan clash.

4. What are the challenges in balancing civilian governance and military authority in South Asia? Discuss with reference to Pakistan and India.

1. In Pakistan, military dominance is constitutionally and institutionally entrenched, marginalising civilian leadership and judiciary.
2. Military’s ideological agenda complicates civilian oversight and politicises security matters.
3. India faces civil-military coordination challenges amid regional security threats but maintains stronger civilian control.
4. Both countries struggle with mutual distrust, cross-border insurgencies, and political pressures influencing military roles.
5. Balancing requires robust democratic institutions, transparent civil-military relations, and respect for rule of law.
6. Regional rivalry and internal political instability exacerbate difficulties in establishing sustainable civilian supremacy over military.