'Pakistan Generals Are Unhappy With Munir'

'Pakistan's army has got a streak of democracy. It is more democratic than the country.'

IMAGE: Then general Syed Asim Munir, right, with some of his top generals. Photograph: Pakistan military

Syed Asim Munir must have been chuffed as he boarded the flight to Islamabad last week.

None of his immediate predecessors as army chief -- not Ashfaq Kayani, not Raheel Sharif, not Qamar Bajwa -- had been hosted at a private lunch by America's president. Ayub Khan (John F Kennedy), Zia ul Haq (Ronald Reagan) and Pervez Musharraf (George W Bush) had been entertained at the White House after they stepped down as army chief.

No serving Pakistan army chief had been accorded such a privilege of lunching with POTUS, and that was certainly acknowledgement that he -- the son of a maulvi, the alumnus of the Officers Training School and not the hallowed Pakistan military academy in Kakul where most of his corps commanders graduated -- was the real power in his country. Not Shehbaz Sharif, the prime minister; certainly, not Asif Zardari, the president.

After being anointed field marshal -- the first serving Pakistan army chief to acquire 5 star epaulettes; Ayub Khan, the only other field marshal in Pakistan's history rose to that rank after he stepped down as army chief -- Trump's invitation was an unexpected bonus. So did he have anything to worry about, apart from the likelihood of Indian military aggression in the weeks to come?

"His corps commanders won't be happy with Munir's promotion," explains a life-long observer of Pakistan's army, the ISI and its politicians, speaking on condition of strict anonymity.

"Pakistan's army has got a streak of democracy. It is more democratic than the country. The corps commanders are important. The decisions taken by the corps commanders are by consensus. The army chief only implements them. Of course, once the decision is arrived at, you can do it any which way."

"There is a story that it (the field marshal's rank) was offered to Munir. He must have been flattered and accepted it. If Shehbaz gave it to him, it was in recognition that he had done a good job (in the recent conflict with India). Shehbaz is not a fool, but what about his corps commanders?"

"There is no rank of field marshal at the head of the army. A field marshal no longer commands troops. A field marshal only commands troops in war. Ayub Khan only became field marshal after Musa Khan took over as army chief."

"It is going to be difficult for Munir. His own doctrine seems uncomfortable with the rank, his corps commanders are unhappy, his extension is coming up in November. I don't think he can be pushed aside in November, but it is going to get a little complex for Munir."

IMAGE: Then general Munir with some of his troops. Photograph: Pakistan military

So could he stage a coup?

"No way! How can he stage a coup? For what purpose? The politicians are doing exactly what he wants. Why would he stage a coup? If he staged a coup, the World Bank would cut off aid to Pakistan. He will become a pariah. The Americans would not look kindly, but I can't say about Trump."

"The Americans were there from the beginning (of last month's India-Pakistan conflict). The Americans can't be disinterested in a war between two nuclear neighbours. They were in contact with both sides."

IMAGE: Then general Munir, right, with General Michael Kurila, commander, United States Central Command, who recently told the US House Armed Services Committee that Pakistan was a 'phenomenal partner'. Photograph: Pakistan military

So who planned the horrific Pahalgam attack? And what was the motive behind it?

"It was planned by some people who had some sort of relationship with the ISI. To what degree I don't know. We don't have any evidence. We have not been able to prove our case. You and I know it was the ISI, but we haven't been able to convince the jury. It is not like Mumbai where we had evidence."

"If we had caught even one of them (the killers in Pahalgam), we could have made out a case."

What did India achieve by striking Muridke and Bahawalpur?

We hit the Lashkar headquarters in Muridke. We hit the Jaish headquarters in Bahawalpur. That's enough to let them know we can hit them. It's like Balakot. We didn't get anything there, but we sent a message. The message that we can hit you wherever you are."

"It is an effective message, but will it stop terrorism, I don't know."

"We had a terror strike in Pahalgam, which means our counter terrorism policy has to be strengthened, not our military policy (referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's declaration that future terror attacks will be dealt with militarily)."

"Should we resort to military means or strengthen our counter terrorism apparatus? What are the various means where we send a message to Pakistan? We are sending a message at this moment to the ISI."

IMAGE: Then general Munir, right, with US troops in Pakistan. Photograph: Pakistan military

What is the point in speaking to Pakistan?

"You cannot ignore them, you can't but talk to Pakistan. We may not solve the Kashmir issue, but we have to keep some dialogue going. We should have an exchange of ambassadors, we should have a visa policy, medical tourism. We can't say you guys are bad, so we are not going to talk to you ever."

"One of the theories after August 2019 (when Article 370 was abrogated in Jammu and Kashmir) was that they (Pakistan) would give us space and we would talk to them."

"I believe a framework was being worked upon where Kashmir would be put on the backburner. We wanted 20 years, they suggested 10 years. Some kind of bargaining was going on. We lost one opportunity under Bajwa (General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Munir's predecessor as Pakistan's army chief) who had a geo economic focus. They (Pakistan) also missed a lot of opportunities."