The recent remarks by Chief of Army Staff Gen Asim Munir, made during Pakistan’s 59th Defence Day ceremony, were certainly commendable. His call for internal harmony, urging citizens to avoid allowing political differences to turn into hatred, speaks to the country’s need for unity amidst its current challenges. Gen Munir’s vow to defeat those who spread chaos, despair, and uncertainty highlights the critical role of public support in overcoming internal strife and external threats. However, the big question remains: will these positive words translate into positive, actionable policies?
The relationship between the armed forces and the public has always been a cornerstone of Pakistan’s ability to overcome adversity, whether in combatting foreign threats or responding to natural disasters. Gen Munir’s words acknowledge the historical significance of this relationship, emphasizing its necessity in defeating efforts to divide and destabilize the country. In the current context, with rising security challenges and a resurgence of terrorism, strengthening this bond is more crucial than ever.
The federal government’s simultaneous launch of a campaign to engage religious leaders in combating extremism is a positive step toward addressing the ideological roots of terrorism. Religious leaders hold significant influence, and their involvement in counterterrorism efforts could help tackle the issue of extremism from within the communities most susceptible to radical ideologies. However, this ideological approach must be complemented by broader policies that address the root causes of militancy and insurgency.
While military operations may continue to be necessary in fighting terrorism, relying solely on kinetic operations risks repeating past mistakes. Previous large-scale operations in terrorism-affected areas, such as in the tribal regions and parts of Balochistan, led to severe collateral damage and long-lasting externalities that left local populations wary of similar initiatives. The displacement, loss of livelihoods, and destruction of infrastructure during these operations have made affected communities reluctant to support new military campaigns.
In particular, social movements in Balochistan, which have long called for constitutional rights, fear that their activism could be conflated with militancy. There is a genuine concern that legitimate demands for political and economic rights could be misinterpreted as acts of rebellion, leading to indiscriminate targeting under counterinsurgency measures. If the state wishes to secure the support of its citizens, it must address these fears with transparency and sensitivity.
The success of counterterrorism operations depends not only on military action but also on the trust and cooperation of the people. The state must assure all those who reject violence and militancy that their rights and interests will be protected. Without addressing the concerns of affected populations, the state’s counterinsurgency efforts risk alienating the very people it needs to bring lasting peace and stability to the country.
In conclusion, while the sentiment expressed by the army chief and the government’s engagement with religious leaders is encouraging, words alone are not enough. A holistic approach that addresses the underlying causes of extremism, protects constitutional rights, and fosters trust between the state and its people is essential for creating long-term peace. Only then can positive words be transformed into positive, sustainable policies.