Pakistan’s Interior minister ought to be watching India closely. If he does, he could learn a thing or two about how democracy is supposed to work when debating the policies and actions of the Army. The Indian Army chief caused a ruckus when he refused to back down over his forces’ decision to use a human shield as a last ditch attempt to disperse protestors in Indian-held Kashmir. In fact, far from distancing himself from the brutality — he went as far as to sanction the practice, terming it an act of “innovation”. Naturally, his justification that this is a proxy war, a dirty war, with Pakistan over the disputed Kashmir region doesn’t cut it. It is unpardonable. And it is there for all the world to see. Nevertheless, Pakistan should resist the temptation to point score. It should, instead, try and take something away from this. Namely, how Indian opposition parties spoke with largely once voice in their condemnation of Gen Bipin Rawat’s comments. They urged him to refrain from issuing political statements on internal issues. But some went further, stressing that the state doesn’t have the right to wage a filthy war on its own people. For it is one thing to disengage from the political representatives of the Kashmiri people. But it is quite another to appoint the citizenry the status of a state enemy to be defeated and crushed. India, despite the polarisation under a hypernationalist government, is upholding the key values vital for a democratic polity. For across the border the political parties are not willing to assign the media or the people the role as custodians of the Army’s honour. The armed forces are there to defend the citizenry — not the other way around, as is happening in Pakistan. Here, our men in khaki are deemed so delicate that they need government directives to crush dissenting voices and muzzle debate on key issues. The government should avoid policing the social media and mainstream news outlets and encourage open debate. Of course, this does not imply a free-for-all slander spree, but due space and the right to dissent. *