Khalai Makhlooq, Pakistan’s Civil-Military Imbalance and its Implications

Introduction

In the turbulent political history of Pakistan, one theme remains consistent: the overbearing influence of the military establishment over civilian institutions. Popularly referred to in political circles and satire as the “Khalai Makhlooq” (literally “aliens”), Pakistan’s generals have often operated as the ultimate arbiters of political power, deciding which civilian leaders can rise, fall, or merely survive in office.

This concept of “Khalai Makhlooq” became widely used during elections, as political parties accused the military of manipulating outcomes behind the scenes. The article in question reflects on this persistent phenomenon—drawing parallels from Pakistan’s history of military dominance, citing examples from Field Marshal Ayub Khan to General Musharraf, and now focusing on General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s current Chief of Army Staff (COAS).

The discussion also situates this narrative within a global context, particularly US–Pakistan relations, and touches on the troubling consequences of this military-political nexus for regional peace, democracy, and India-Pakistan ties.

The Persistent Role of Pakistan’s Military in Politics

1. Historical Background

From the very beginning, Pakistan’s political system has been heavily influenced by its army. Weak civilian institutions, coupled with the country’s early security concerns vis-à-vis India, created fertile ground for the military to project itself as the guardian of national interest.

• 1958: Pakistan’s first coup, led by General Ayub Khan, set the tone for decades of direct or indirect military rule.

• 1977: General Zia-ul-Haq overthrew Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and initiated a long period of martial law, embedding the military deeper into governance.

• 1999: General Pervez Musharraf toppled Nawaz Sharif, ruling directly until 2008.

Even when not ruling directly, the military has often manipulated elections, curtailed dissent, and sidelined civilian leaders who threatened its supremacy.

2. The Metaphor of Khalai Makhlooq

The term “Khalai Makhlooq” was popularized in recent years by Nawaz Sharif and his supporters, who accused the military of being the unseen hand behind political engineering. It symbolizes:

• The invisible but omnipresent influence of generals in elections and governance.

• Their ability to prop up or dismantle governments as per their tactical interests.

• The enduring perception among Pakistanis that real power lies not with elected leaders, but with the GHQ in Rawalpindi.

3. Current Context: General Asim Munir

Today, General Asim Munir, the incumbent Army Chief, finds himself in a similar position as his predecessors—balancing internal politics, external relations, and the military’s corporate interests. He is seen as:

• A key player in shaping Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s coalition government.

• A decisive figure in sidelining Imran Khan, whose meteoric rise and eventual fallout with the army re-exposed the fragility of civilian rule.

• Someone who continues the tradition of generals delivering politically loaded speeches, often couched in nationalist rhetoric.

The Civil-Military Faultline: Key Illustrations

1. Ayub Khan and the Politicization of the Military

Field Marshal Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s first military ruler, is infamous for declaring that “the Hindu has no stomach for a fight and can be subdued with a few blows.” Such statements symbolized not just hostility towards India but also reflected the fusion of military dominance with politics and propaganda.

2. 1971 and General Niazi’s Surrender

General A.A.K. “Tiger” Niazi, despite his bravado, oversaw Pakistan’s humiliating defeat in the 1971 war and signed the surrender in Dhaka with 93,000 troops. His earlier claim—“Dacca will fall only over my dead body”—exemplified the gap between military rhetoric and ground realities.

3. Zia-ul-Haq and the Islamization of Politics

General Zia not only ruled with an iron fist but also systematically reshaped Pakistan’s politics by embedding Islamist ideology into governance. His interventions continue to influence Pakistan’s domestic politics and external postures even today.

4. Musharraf and the Kargil Adventure

General Pervez Musharraf, architect of the 1999 Kargil War, showcased how reckless military adventurism undermined Pakistan’s democratic process and regional stability. His eventual coup against Nawaz Sharif reaffirmed the military’s centrality in political decision-making.

5. The “Alien” Interventions of Today

In today’s setting, Asim Munir’s role mirrors his predecessors—whether in orchestrating Imran Khan’s ouster, managing civil unrest, or asserting dominance in foreign affairs. Civilian leaders, despite being in office, often appear as secondary actors under the military’s shadow.

The Role of the United States and External Players

The United States has historically been a crucial ally of Pakistan’s military. Successive American administrations, from the Cold War through the War on Terror, have relied on Pakistan’s generals as reliable partners.

• During the Afghan jihad, the US and Pakistan’s ISI coordinated extensively.

• After 9/11, General Musharraf became America’s indispensable partner in the “War on Terror.”

• Even today, Washington often engages Pakistan through its military establishment rather than civilian governments.

This external validation has only strengthened the military’s dominance, allowing it to operate unchecked at home while projecting itself as Pakistan’s legitimate representative abroad.

Implications for India

The civil-military imbalance in Pakistan carries direct consequences for India:

1. Hostile Posturing

   • Generals continue to adopt aggressive rhetoric towards India, often invoking nuclear threats (“We will destroy India with 10 missiles”).

   • Such language sustains hostility and undermines peace efforts.

2. Cross-Border Terrorism

   • Pakistan’s military-intelligence establishment has historically supported militant groups targeting India.

   • Weak civilian oversight ensures that such policies remain entrenched.

3. Negotiation Challenges

   • India’s attempts at dialogue often falter because elected leaders in Islamabad lack real authority.

   • Even peace overtures are at risk of reversal if the military feels its dominance is threatened.

4. Regional Instability

   • The military’s fixation on India diverts Pakistan from domestic development, fueling instability in South Asia as a whole.

The Democratic Dilemma in Pakistan

The recurring pattern of military dominance has created a vicious cycle:

• Civilian leaders rise with the military’s backing.

• Once they attempt independence, they fall out of favor and are ousted.

• The military then props up a new civilian face, continuing the cycle.

This has prevented Pakistan from developing stable democratic institutions. The paradox is that even as elections are held, sovereignty lies not in parliament but in Rawalpindi.

The Future of Pakistan’s Political Landscape

The question remains whether Pakistan can break free from this entrenched cycle. Some possible trajectories include:

1. Continued Military Dominance

   • The most likely scenario, given weak civilian institutions and external support for the army.

2. Civilian Pushback

   • Leaders like Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan have challenged the military’s supremacy, but both faced severe pushback.

   • A coordinated civilian front may someday curb military excesses, though history offers little hope.

3. People’s Power

   • Grassroots dissatisfaction, particularly among youth, could gradually erode the military’s unchecked power.

   • However, repression and propaganda make this an uphill battle.

Conclusion

The metaphor of “Khalai Makhlooq” aptly captures the essence of Pakistan’s politics: an unseen yet omnipresent force controlling the nation’s destiny. For decades, generals have dominated civilian politics, using nationalist rhetoric, external alliances, and coercion to maintain their grip.

This imbalance has stunted Pakistan’s democratic evolution, fostered instability, and complicated relations with neighbors like India. As General Asim Munir carries forward this legacy, Pakistan once again stands at a familiar crossroads—trapped between the mirage of democracy and the reality of military supremacy.

Until Pakistan resolves this civil-military faultline, its politics will remain unstable, its economy fragile, and its foreign policy adversarial. For India and the region, this means continued vigilance and cautious engagement with a neighbor whose politics remain hostage to the “Khalai Makhlooq.”

Five Exam-Ready Questions and Answers

Q1. What does the term “Khalai Makhlooq” signify in Pakistan’s political discourse?
A: The term, meaning “aliens,” is used to describe the invisible yet dominant role of Pakistan’s military establishment in controlling politics, elections, and civilian governments.

Q2. How has the military shaped Pakistan’s political history since independence?
A: Through direct coups (1958, 1977, 1999) and indirect manipulation of elections, the military has positioned itself as Pakistan’s ultimate power center, weakening civilian institutions and fostering instability.

Q3. What role has the United States played in strengthening Pakistan’s military dominance?
A: By treating Pakistan’s generals as primary partners—whether during the Cold War, the Afghan jihad, or the War on Terror—the US has legitimized and empowered the military at the expense of civilian governments.

Q4. How does Pakistan’s civil-military imbalance impact India?
A: It perpetuates hostility through aggressive rhetoric, sustains cross-border terrorism, undermines dialogue efforts, and destabilizes regional peace by prioritizing military agendas over civilian cooperation.

Q5. What possible futures exist for Pakistan’s political system regarding civil-military relations?
A: Scenarios include continued military dominance, potential civilian pushback from leaders, or gradual erosion of military power through public resistance—though history suggests the military’s supremacy will persist in the near term.