Last October, daily Dawn carried an exclusive story about deliberations from a meeting on national security, chaired by the prime minister. The meeting was called to review the results of Pakistan’s diplomatic outreach to the world for countering India’s avowed plan to isolate it internationally in the backdrop of Pathankot Attack. India had claimed that the attack was carried out by terrorists who infiltrated its territory from the Pakistan side. Indian efforts had intensified following a subsequent attack at the Uri Base in Indian-held Kashmir. It was in the background of this Indian reaction that apart from initiatives through foreign office diplomats, delegations of parliamentary members were sent to important capitals to plead the Pakistani case. The then Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry had informed the participants of the October meeting that the country found no eager recipients of its view across world’s most influential capitals, and that Pakistan was facing diplomatic isolation. And that these capitals stipulated action against Masood Azhar and his Jaish-e-Mohmmad, Hafiz Saeed and his Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the Haqqani network. Reportedly, there had been a verbal altercation between the Punjab chief minister and the then DG ISI when the former complained of the counter-productive actions from latter’s organisation. As if reporting of such a rift between civilian and military views were a secret, the military establishment dubbed the news story a ‘leak’, equated it to a breach of national security and demanded an inquiry to fix responsibility. Seeing the military’s aggressive posture and a campaign in media, the government succumbed and formed a committee. Rather than taking corrective measures to win the world’s favour, as recommended by the foreign secretary, the civilian government was bogged down with appeasing the khakis on the so-called breach. When the report of inquiry was agreed upon and a notification of punitive action was issued from PM’s Office last week, all hell broke loose. Without having any regard for professional, organisational, and constitutional requirements, the DG ISPR, Army’s public relations wing, rejected the notification in most indignant expression and that too publicly on Twitter, a social media website. This caused an understandable ruckus in journalistic and social media circles. While the government sulked, disoriented in dumbness, civil society activists, and political commentators took to satire suggesting that Article 243 (1) of Pakistan’s Constitution may be amended to offer the Armed Forces a formal control of the government. It goes without saying that the PML-N’s performance in office merits strong criticism as it is guilty of lacking political and administrative acumen, and also of being so short in confidence to stand for its rightful issues in front of the military establishment. All this, and add more, in any case, doesn’t constitute a justification for an outright and public insubordination by the military and its staff. What this tweet has reassured is that the security establishment hardly values an elected prime minster worth a dime, and that the military establishment continue to define terms of reference for political governments, and that it has an almost unquestionable sway over all matters of national security and foreign policy. Ironically, it presents a situation so akin to pre-independence days when under the British Viceroy the civilian set ups only played with leftover bones in areas of local government, municipal services, economy, infrastructure and civil works. One doesn’t have to be a clairvoyant to see the ‘psychic’ visions from the ISPR tweet that, for some time, the country will continue to exist as a security state. Such a state will have to constantly portray itself surrounded by its existential adversaries — thus jingoism will form a pivot to determine country’s neighbourly relations — and will have hardly any appetite for peace. Internationally, world will continue to lend credence to what India would like to say about Pakistan and to the accusations that Pakistan has a rogue military. As this jingoism will be inculcated more in the minds of gullible populace without having the need to enter the actual battle ground — Pakistan will see increased intolerance among its very own sections of population. Those urging for peace, democracy, coexistence and respect for diversity, and those minority groups which are in need of continuous acceptance by the majority, will continue to be seen as ‘suspicious’ or backed by Pakistan’s real and imaginary nemesis. Pakistan will continue to see the rise of religious and sectarian intolerance because such ideologies will continue to find shelter within the greater façade of security-driven state policies. Certainly such a scenario is never desirable. Almost 58 percent of Pakistanis are food insecure and around 44 percent of children under five years are stunted due to malnutrition. These Pakistanis expect their state institutions and leadership to be kinder on the masses and prefer a pro-people, pro peace and democratic Pakistan over anything else. The writer is sociologist with interest in history and politics. He’s accessible on Twitter @Zulfirao1