On Aug. 14, Pakistan celebrated its 78th Independence Day against the backdrop of a widening ideological and societal divide between proponents of Islamic nationalism and those championing democracy. Seizing the occasion, both the military and political leaders, recognizing Pakistan’s vulnerability to political instability and eroding social cohesion, have sought to shape the national discourse and sway public opinion with their respective narratives.
Politicians’ democratic principles vs. military’s Islamic nationalism
As politicians rely heavily on the democratic framework for their survival, they have portrayed their allegiance in terms of the fundamental principles of democracy, constitutionalism, and the separation of powers, linking these values to the legacy of the historic political struggle of Pakistan’s founding fathers. By contrast, the military, which often operates independently of the democratic system, has stressed the Islamization of Pakistan’s ideology and its centrality to shaping national identity. This close relationship between Islam and the military's strategic vision has been articulated by the army from time to time, most clearly during the Zia-ul-Haq years in the late 1970s and 1980s.
Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Gen. Asim Munir is known for his strong conservative religious beliefs and, as a Hafiz-e-Quran (one who has memorized the Quran), consistently infuses his statements with religious appeals. He frequently references Islamic scripture and draws analogies from Islamic history, reflecting his effort to position himself as a military leader with profound Islamic knowledge, capable of providing religious guidance to his troops. Under his leadership, Pakistan’s military has presented itself as agents of God engaged in a righteous struggle against God’s enemies, with victory assured by divine promise.
Gen. Munir's Independence Day address: Key highlights
In keeping with this tradition, Gen. Munir, in his latest Independence Day address, once again invoked Islamic principles and linked them to national ideology and identity, delivering a rhetorically powerful speech that can be divided into four distinct parts. His speech, blending offensive and defensive rhetoric, served as a direct rebuttal to many of Imran Khan’s accusations against the military.
In the first part of his speech, Gen. Munir articulated his vision of Pakistan’s national ideology, reaffirming the country’s founding as a purely Islamic state established to preserve a separate Muslim identity. He rejected Western ideals as unsuitable for the country, using this to justify the army's role as the sole guardian of the state and Islam. Equating Pakistan's stability and progress with the strength of its military, he warned that undermining the armed forces was tantamount to weakening the state itself.
In the second part of the speech, Gen. Munir addressed Pakistan’s threat landscape, focusing on internal strife and anarchy. He identified two key internal enemies: what he called politically motivated “digital terrorists” — those conspiring against or defaming the army using social media platforms — and violent extremist groups, or Fitna al-Khawarij — a term used by the army to describe the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). He condemned these digital terrorists for allegedly carrying out anti-state activities that violate the constitution by misusing freedom of speech for destructive purposes. Similarly, he denounced violent extremist groups as un-Islamic, saying that their actions were contrary to shari’a.
In the third part of his speech, Gen. Munir presented the military’s solution to these challenges through the recently launched Azm-e-Istekham (Resolve for Stability) vision, which involves a coordinated multi-dimensional approach combining kinetic military actions with non-kinetic measures to combat terrorism and political polarization alike.
In the final part of the speech, Gen. Munir outlined the military’s demands for the nation, calling for the people’s unwavering trust. He emphasized that mutual trust and a strong relationship between the people and the armed forces are the state’s most valuable assets. He urged the public, especially the youth, to remain vigilant against hostile propaganda aimed at the military. Instilling hope for a brighter future and commending the sacrifices of the people and armed forces in combating terrorism, Gen. Munir concluded his remarks with a warning that the enemies of God and Pakistan, who spread hopelessness and anarchy, would fail miserably, promising a swift and decisive response from the military, whether in conventional or unconventional forms.
Imran Khan’s counter-narrative
Khan's populist narrative focuses on portraying the military establishment as responsible for leading the country to a dangerous crossroads. He not only accuses the military of imposing undeclared martial law and waging an oppressive campaign against him and his party, but also characterizes his resistance as righteous — a jihad (holy war) for Haqeeqi Azadi (true freedom), aimed at defending the constitution and restoring democracy.
Khan has dismissed the military’s claims of “digital terrorism” as counterproductive, arguing that it fuels the growing divide between the military and citizens. He contends that 90 percent of Pakistanis support his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party and warns of repercussions if his supporters are labeled as terrorists. Khan maintains that the current political system, controlled by the military, is a mockery of democracy and alleges that an illegitimate authoritarian regime usurped the PTI’s majority mandate in a rigged election on Feb. 8, 2024. Recently, Khan accused Pakistan’s Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa of bias against his party and of acting under military orders. Khan calls for very different solutions from Gen. Munir — namely that he and other political prisoners be immediately released and his claimed political mandate be restored by holding fresh elections. Drawing parallels with the recent regime change in Bangladesh, Khan has argued that Pakistan’s situation is even more dire, warning of potential widespread unrest if his proposed solutions are not implemented.
Escalating conflict and fears
The escalating conflict between Khan and the military leadership is seen as a primary cause of Pakistan's destabilization, with populism and authoritarianism locked in a potentially deadly confrontation. The polarized discourse from both sides reveals a deep internal fracture within Pakistan over long-standing concepts of patriotism and nationalism. Despite this tension, a mutual fear influences the behavior of both the populist PTI and the military establishment. On the one hand, the PTI fears that intensifying its rhetoric against the military might provoke an even harsher response, possibly leading to indefinite direct military rule. On the other hand, the military fears that Khan’s popularity could incite public protests, creating a chaotic situation akin to what happened in Bangladesh, and might even inspire sympathy and internal dissent within its own ranks. While Khan aims to confine the military establishment to its constitutional role of defense and eliminate its political influence, the military’s goal is not only to defeat Khan but also to prevent any future scenario where a politician’s popularity could threaten the status quo.
This fear may explain why, facing a legitimacy crisis, Gen. Munir has resorted to Islamic injunctions to reinforce hierarchy, discipline, and a sense of pride among soldiers, symbolically transforming their loyalty to the army chief into a matter of faith rather than just one of military duty. In the aftermath of Gen. Munir's speech, the military seems to be intensifying its efforts to root out those it believes are responsible for political instability and tightening its grip on Khan and his supporters, including within its own ranks. The arrest and court-martial of former spy chief Lt. Gen. (ret.) Faiz Hameed — whom Imran Khan refers to as an “asset” — along with three other retired military officers, on charges of abusing power and engaging in activities detrimental to national stability, is a clear example of this.
Government’s amplified support for the military
The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government, which has praised the army’s actions, has further claimed that Hameed and the other officers were acting under Khan's orders in an effort to create chaos in Pakistan, with the May 9 uprising — which saw nationwide attacks on army installations — being their most significant attempt. The government has hinted at major revelations and more arrests in the coming days. Optimistic about these developments, the PML-N is aiming to see Khan finally tried in a military court. If evidence emerges proving Hameed's connection to Khan in orchestrating the May 9 riots, the military, which has so far hesitated to prosecute Khan for various reasons, may finally take action. This would shift the case from civilian courts — where Khan has received rulings offering relief through the suspension of his sentences — to a military court, where overturning a conviction would be much more challenging.
A lose-lose situation
Khan appears to understand that his transfer to military custody is inevitable, which would deprive him of his last line of defense by severing his ability to communicate with the outside world — a connection he has managed to maintain effectively under civilian detention. Aware that reconciliation with the army chief is no longer an option, Khan is now relying on his party to forge alliances with other political groups that share similar grievances against the military establishment, in hopes of sparking widespread protests, particularly in the volatile regions of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. However, these protests alone will not be enough unless they spread on a massive scale to Punjab and Sindh, where the majority of Pakistan's population lives. The country's fragmented political landscape makes this a challenge though, reducing the likelihood of a nationwide uprising.
Khan is also counting on the incoming chief justice of Pakistan, Mansoor Ali Shah, whom he hopes will free him from the military's grip. But then he has reason to worry that the government could prevent this from happening by extending the tenure of the current chief justice, Qazi Faez Isa. As Khan reaches the final stages of his battle with the military establishment, he is still pinning his hopes on the fact that his overwhelming popular support will influence the military, mindful of the potentially irreparable damage his political decapitation could do to it.
In this looming confrontation between Khan and the army chief, it seems clear that, given the high stakes, the outcome will likely be a lose-lose situation. Neither Khan's goal of achieving constitutional supremacy and restoring democracy, nor the army chief's aim of instilling religiously inspired stability is likely to be realized. This confrontation will leave a lasting scar on the nation's collective memory, further eroding the reputation of state institutions and reducing the chances of national reconciliation and unity. While the state may survive this unprecedented crisis, a fractured and polarized Pakistan will fail to achieve the goals envisioned by its founders more than three-quarters of a century ago.
Naad-e-Ali Sulehria has over five years of involvement working with international organizations and think tanks in different capacities as a political researcher, policy advisor, peace strategist, and human rights practitioner. He currently serves as a Research Assistant to Dr. Marvin G. Weinbaum, director of the Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies Program at the Middle East Institute.
Dr. Marvin G. Weinbaum is the director of the Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies Program at the Middle East Institute.
Photo by AAMIR QURESHI/AFP via Getty Images
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is an independent, non-partisan, non-for-profit, educational organization. It does not engage in advocacy and its scholars’ opinions are their own. MEI welcomes financial donations, but retains sole editorial control over its work and its publications reflect only the authors’ views. For a listing of MEI donors, please click here.