by Muhammad Bilal Nazir 26 October 2023
A nuclear weapon country’s command-and-control structure (CACS) plays a pivotal role during a crisis. It is paramount to investigate such CACS for plotting the probable course of action of nuclear weapon state during escalation or de-escalation. Among non-kinetic factors for deterrence stability and escalation control during the crisis, the composition of CACS and the mode of government are crucial in avoiding deterrence failure. Every war is ultimately fought to achieve specific political goals through military victory. Understanding this process of defining national interest and the degree to which the military influences this outcome in Pakistan is significant because there is a strong correlation between mature democracies and escalation control during a crisis. Understanding this correlation mandates a deeper look into the nuclear CACS of Pakistan and democracy for the legitimate exercise of state power during an emergency or war. The National Command Authority (NCA) of Pakistan is the apex body tasked with the policy formulation for developing, deploying, and using nuclear weapons in case of deterrence failure. Headed by civilian Prime Minister members include Defence, Foreign, Interior, and Finance ministers, whereas, on the military side, members have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, the Director General of the Strategic Plans Division, and the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Unlike many nuclear weapon countries, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are not just political weapons for maintaining deterrence vis-à-vis India but for actual use when such need arises. The façade that Pakistan’s military establishment has created in the form of NCA is to show the world that the civilian leadership exercises ultimate control over Pakistan’s nuclear program. The hollowness of this façade becomes apparent because little military establishment honours the principle of civilian supremacy in a democratic Pakistan. Though on the face, this apex security body has the Prime Minister of Pakistan, an elected civilian leader, as its chairman. I argue that such a structure without the deep-rooted democracy in Pakistan in the face of the ever-powerful military establishment is highly fragile at best. This institution for exercising state policy during a crisis or war can quickly be usurped by the military establishment when deemed suitable for safeguarding the military’s institutional interest.
It is essential to investigate some aspects of the strategic culture of Pakistan’s military concerning democracy and civilian supremacy. Unlike Pakistan, the military in India, after independence, accepted civilian leadership supremacy. Pakistan’s democratic journey went to the dogs at the hands of the military establishment. The institution of democracy has suffered since Pakistan became an independent state in 1947. The British colonizers developed state institutions essential for the continuation of occupation. Despite the fallacy that few colonist apologists seem to present in defence of the British in India, communication networks, especially railways, were designed to exploit occupied India’s resources for colonizers’ prosperity. The welfare of the masses of imperial India under the yoke of the British Raj was never the priority of foreign rulers. The law enforcement institutions that the British gave to the subcontinent, especially the police and military, were structured to protect the interests of the British ruling elite. The local law enforcement personnel of imperial India were made to believe in their superiority over the masses and that they were answerable only to the British. Oppression of the groups, superiority complex, and accountability to foreign lords became structured in the training of law enforcement personnel. Growing agitation and political awareness against foreign rule eventually forced the British to give more and more control to the local political elite over the governance of imperial India, which ultimately resulted in the independence of the sub-continent. The newly independent states of India and Pakistan inherited the vital institutions of military trained by the British.
Despite inheriting many problems compared to India, Pakistan’s nascent state was hindered right from the beginning. The nation’s founders and the political elite of Pakistan wanted to deliver the salvation of the masses promised in the form of independence from the British. The demise of independence leaders like Muhammad Ali Jinnah and later the assassination of the first prime minister, Liaqat Ali Khan, damaged the firm rooting of democracy in Pakistan. The undermining of the political elite at the hands of the military in Pakistan had started right from independence. The military leadership of that time first undermined the country’s civilian leadership and then exploited the political vacuum to the fullest to entrench its grip on power. What was done behind the curtain was openly done when dictator General Ayub Khan imposed the first martial law on 27 October 1958.
The military establishment prides itself on the fact that after the militarization of the nuclear programme in the aftermath of the fall of Dhaka, the atomic programme was deliberately kept secret and beyond civilian oversight. There may be some merit to the covert nature of this nuclear programme, but always keeping the country’s civilian leadership in the dark reflected the military’s culture of undermining the civilian leadership that had been entrenched by then. This covert nature of the programme meant massive resource diversion but without any scrutiny or accountability whatsoever. To date, the military’s budget and supplementary budgetary grants and expenses cannot be scrutinized by the civilian leadership or audited by the auditor general of Pakistan. It is undeniable that Dr. A. Q. Khan was made a scapegoat after the CIA unearthed the nuclear black market. One man can’t use military planes for transporting sensitive dual-use equipment without the authorization and supervision of military leadership. The military higher-ups stood to make millions of dollars through this illicit nuclear technology trade.
The military in Pakistan has become a big corporation that controls the economy of Pakistan for its benefit. The elections are rigged, and the military steals the mandate of people when they do election engineering and bring their political cronies. to power. Pakistan is now undergoing time worse than overt martial law. Political parties, elections, and leaders are being managed. It’s absurd to imagine that Pakistan’s military would allow civilian leadership to make decision-making in any military crisis vis India. Often, those political leaders who try to normalize relations with India and seek a resolution of Kashmir as per the realities of our times are presented in the media as traitors. The biggest beneficiary of the ongoing conflict in Kashmir since independence has been the military of Pakistan, which has been exacting huge chunks of economic resources for the country’s defense. The country’s civilian leadership believed in the argument for developing nuclear weapons that would bring exponential savings on the spending for procuring conventional weapons to counter Indian overwhelming traditional weapons superiority. No military chief has presented the idea of reducing the military strength after Pakistan became a nuclear weapon state. Pakistan’s military can be expected to use escalation to impose its military policy and demand an increased military budget for civilian leadership. Interests in this money-making resource-guzzling corporation are presented as national interest. Often, the detractors of the military who reject the idea of the military’s institutional interest as national interest are termed traitors and silenced through abductions and killing. Under these circumstances, democratic leaders are handpicked through rigging and sent home when they lose utility. In the foreseeable future, the role of civilian leadership in NCA will be as fragile as that of democracy in Pakistan. The puppet leaders keep giving speeches about military and civilian leadership on the same page, but the fact remains that the military establishment is Pakistan’s most potent political actor. The likelihood of rushed use of nuclear weapons vis a vis India during war becomes potent in the absence of solid democracy and civilian control and oversight of the military policy of Pakistan.