The purpose of this discourse is to examine civil-military relationship in Pakistan, and to understand how it works in other countries. There are no two opinions that every organ of the state should work within the parameters outlined in the constitution, as overstepping into others’ domains in the name of activism — be it judiciary, military and even political leadership — can result in confrontation between them. It goes without saying that a successful relationship between the pillars and organs of the state hinges on the mutual trust and respect for each other. A prime minister is the chief executive of the country, and armed forces and the ISI are under him/her. One would not know why efforts were made to bring the ISI under the interior ministry. A notification was issued placing the ISI under the interior ministry during the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) tenure, which was later withdrawn on resistance from the military leadership. Indeed, it was a flawed decision. How could you put highly professional personnel dealing with sensitive information under people who are not professionally competent, given the calibre of our political leadership? According to defence analysts, the MI’s mission is to collect information at tactical level in the enemy’s territory, whereas the ISI is said to be eyes and ears of the armed forces. Its job is to collect information at strategic level to cater to the three armed forces. In other words, these agencies are an integral part of the armed forces, and any effort to dissociate them from the military’s chain of command is tantamount to weaken the armed forces. This should be understandable to intelligent leadership, and to make any issue a matter of ego is fraught. Since 2008, some analysts and “wise” panelists, many a time, wrote obituary of the PPP government, but were proven wrong. After the 2013 elections Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been at the helm, and the civil-military relations appeared to be reasonably good to start with. But after the anchorperson Hamid Mir was wounded in a gun-attack in April 2014, fingers of accusation were pointed towards the intelligence agencies. A couple of cabinet members expressed solidarity with the journalist and a media group, which day in and day out blamed the ISI for the attack. In August 2014, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek started a sit-in in Islamabad, and conspiracy theories abound that it was being done at the behest of the establishment. A joint session of parliament was convened where all political parties stood by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government, and vowed to protect democracy. But after the Panama Papers leaks, most political parties appear to be united against Prime Minister Sharif on his delay in agreeing to terms of reference (ToR) and formation of a judicial commission. Now it is up to the ruling and opposition parties to resolve the issue amicably, and not to create chaos to invite military to resolve the issue, as it did during movement for restoration of judiciary. Last month, the leader of the Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party (PKMA) Mahmood Khan Achakzai, in an interview with Afghanistan Times, had said: “If Afghans are harassed in other parts of Pakistan, they should come here to the Pakhtunkhwa province, where no one can ask them for refugee cards, because it belongs to them.” Earlier, the blame game was initiated by Muhammad Khan Sherani of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F), who first blamed the intelligence agencies of supporting terrorist networks. The JUI-F chief Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman also criticised the intelligence agencies for the failure. They are allies of Prime Minister Sharif, and there is a perception that he prompted them to criticise the establishment. Are they helping or putting Sharif in a difficult situation? Corps commanders had taken exception to these statements, and COAS Raheel Sharif reportedly took up the matter in a high-level security meeting. Interior Minister Ch Nisar Ali Khan, without naming anyone, condemned the remarks on the floor of the National Assembly, and there was no confusion that he was referring to the PKMP chief Achakzai’s address in the house last week. The PPP finds it an opportunity to put Sharif and the PML-N on the mat on the issue of the Panama Papers. One would not know if the opposition parties would unite to launch a movement if the government does not finalise terms of reference. The PML-N has been taking it easy, and has been prevaricating on the issue of framing ToR in consultation with the opposition. But the delay in reaching an understanding on ToR is fraught with dangers. It is true that politicians are concerned over the imposition of martial law thrice in the past. Since 2008, military has remained neutral during elections and formation of the government; hence, there should not be any fears that democracy would be derailed. In fact, political leaders were to blame in equal measure, as they had formed alliances on one-point programme i.e. to get rid of the elected governments. Reportedly, Air Marshal (Retd) Asghar Khan of the Tehreek-e-Istaqlal as a member of the nine-party alliance (PNA) had written a letter to the then COAS to overthrow, what he called, an illegal government. It is true that in democracies, military leadership has to obey the orders of political leadership, but the moot question is whether the heads of the armed forces — army, air force and navy — have the right to inform about its threat perception and advise the elected government about the dangers to internal and external security of the country. In the US, Britain and even in India, political leaderships take decisions on the basis of the information provided by intelligence agencies, and on the advice from the military leadership. The then Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh had in principle agreed to withdraw from Siachen, but the army had prevailed upon the prime minister, and convinced him that India would lose strategic advantage, and Indian forces would be vulnerable if India withdrew from Siachen. US and NATO’s admirals and generals often address press conferences, issue statements, and sometimes criticise their governments, like the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen did. In his essay, he was critical of government efforts regarding “strategic communication” with the Muslim world, saying that no amount of public relations will establish credibility if American behaviour overseas is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting. The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com