Soldiering and Society in Pakistan

Reconciling Divergent Values

Theme

Soldiering and Society in Pakistan, the relationship between the civilian population and the military—especially its officer corps—has undergone a perceptible shift. There exists a widening gap, not merely in institutional roles but in worldview, emotional conditioning, and modes of communication. Military officers are trained to operate in high-stakes environments where precision, command, and emotional restraint are essential. On the other hand, civil society values empathy, open dialogue, and participatory decision-making. This divergence is not born out of malice or failure, but of necessity. The attributes instilled in military officers are vital for success in combat and national security operations. However, when these traits interact with civilian institutions and values, misunderstanding and mutual scepticism often arise.https://mrpo.pk/a-journey-from-diversity-to-divinity/

This study aims to explore the complexity of this transformation—from civilian to officer—and the resulting divergence of traits. It examines how this divergence affects institutional relationships, public perception, and strategic coherence. Ultimately, it argues for a model of mutual accommodation and alignment with national aims, ensuring that the military remains an integrated and respected pillar of the Pakistani state.

Aim

Soldiering and Society in Pakistan aims to analyse the transformation of military officers in Pakistan, evaluate the resulting divergence in values from broader society, and propose mechanisms for improving strategic alignment, institutional understanding, and civil-military harmony.

Scope of the Study

This study is primarily concerned with the recruitment, training, and institutional grooming of officers within the Pakistan Army. It addresses the psychological and sociological conditioning of officers and how these internalised traits interact—or clash—with societal expectations. Operational doctrines, political events, or tactical considerations are outside the purview of this research, which focuses instead on structural and cultural dynamics.

Pakistan’s growing dependence on the armed forces to provide a panacea for the crisis in civil administration appears to be sustaining its image of a “praetorian” or “garrison” state. ₁ Despite the military leadership professing no desire to rule the country after a decade of democracy, the government has sought military participation in administration, resulting in the creation of an armed bureaucracy since last year. This trend is evident from increasing military involvement in wide-ranging administrative activities, from managing essential services and monitoring state-owned schools to conducting the census and building non-military roads. Today, the military, under democratic governance, has a wider and deeper participation in civil administration than it had during the martial law regimes. As a result, two processes are simultaneously taking shape: the militarisation of civil society and the civilisation of the military community.

Officer’s Selection

The process of becoming a military officer in Pakistan begins with a rigorous selection mechanism through the Inter Services Selection Board (ISSB). Candidates are evaluated on leadership potential, composure under pressure, physical stamina, and group behaviour. Notably, this process tends to favour individuals who exhibit qualities such as emotional control, confidence, clarity in decision-making, and loyalty to hierarchy. By design, traits that encourage hesitation, over-deliberation, or emotional vulnerability may be screened out. This early filtering stage already initiates a psychological departure from the general civilian profile, establishing the foundation for a unique institutional identity.

Transformation Process

Once inducted, cadets undergo an intensive training regimen at institutions like the Pakistan Military Academy (PMA). The focus of this training is not limited to tactical skill or physical fitness. It extends deeply into emotional hardening, suppression of personal ego, and reinforcement of obedience to command. Recruits are taught to manage extreme stress, navigate simulated conflict scenarios, and accept hardship without complaint. This institutional grooming gradually redefines their understanding of leadership, courage, and duty.

Importantly, the military environment prioritises clarity, hierarchy, and collective mission over individuality, dialogue, or moral relativism. Cadets are taught to follow orders even in life-threatening situations. As a result, traits such as flexibility, empathy, and open-ended problem solving—which are vital in civilian institutions—may be consciously de-emphasised or even seen as liabilities within the military setting.

Traits at Variance with Social Norms

By the time an officer completes his formative years, he possesses a distinct personality that is shaped by the institutional imperatives of the military. Some of these traits—like emotional detachment, operational secrecy, and quick, unilateral decision-making—are vital for battlefield success. Yet these same traits can appear problematic in social or civilian settings.

For example, a civilian administrator may interpret an officer’s need for structure and clarity as rigidity. A journalist might perceive operational confidentiality as a lack of transparency. Likewise, an officer’s trained suspicion and command orientation may be misunderstood as arrogance in democratic forums where consensus and compromise are valued.

This divergence creates a situation where two equally patriotic segments of society function in partially incompatible ways, leading to frustration, misinterpretation, and sometimes open confrontation.

Civil-Military Perceptions

Civilian institutions and the military often perceive each other through a lens of scepticism. Civilians may view the military as overbearing, insulated, or reluctant to share power. Military officers, meanwhile, often see civilians as inefficient, emotionally reactive, or lacking in discipline and strategic foresight.

These perceptions are amplified by limited institutional exchange, a sensationalist media landscape, and a historical pattern of civil-military imbalance. As a result, what should be complementary roles often turn into competing visions for governance, national development, and security. Our reflections on the repeated political involvements, evolving internal dynamics, and resulting erosion of trust are critically required.

Strategic Alignment with National Policy

For a state to function cohesively, its military must operate within a clear national framework. This means that the National Aim should guide National Policy, which in turn informs Defence Policy. The military must not drift into defining its own objectives independent of this hierarchy.

Therefore, officer training must include strategic studies, constitutional education, and awareness of evolving national challenges—including economic, cultural, and diplomatic dimensions. Such training fosters not only better alignment but also greater empathy toward civilian constraints and democratic processes.

Mutual Accommodation

A functional relationship between the military and civil society does not require them to become alike—it requires them to understand each other. Accommodation means acknowledging the military’s need for certain traits, while also recognising the civilian demand for inclusiveness, debate, and moral nuance.

Under the prevailing circumstances, no in-house reform—military or civilian—will suffice in healing the divide unless these efforts are amplified through national educational platforms, institutional forums, and policy-level alignment. Institutions can facilitate this understanding by creating shared spaces: inter-institutional training programs, policy retreats, and joint academic forums. These interactions would allow each side to see the value—and the necessity—of the other’s perspective.

Recommendations

To improve institutional harmony, the following steps are recommended:

• National policy modules, including constitutional values and civil-military relations, should be integrated into officer training.
• Civilian institutions should introduce defence literacy and national security studies into public administration and political science curricula.
• Structured joint forums should be established for ongoing civil-military policy dialogue.
• Media training for military officers and defence literacy workshops for journalists should be introduced.
• Officers retiring from service should undergo reorientation programs to help them transition effectively into civilian roles.
• Think tanks and policy institutions must promote balanced discourse by involving voices from both military and civilian backgrounds.

Conclusion

Pakistan’s future depends on an effective partnership between its civil and military institutions. The military officer, trained to act decisively in crisis, and the civilian policymaker, trained to deliberate in complexity, both serve the same national purpose. Understanding their differences is the first step toward building a unified, strategic culture.

By fostering accommodation, promoting education, and aligning institutional behaviour with national aims at the highest levels, Pakistan can close the perceptual and operational gap between its military and civilian spheres, ensuring that both contribute harmoniously to the nation’s progress and stability.