Dr Shazia Anwer Cheema
The world recognized Pakistan’s narrative during the battle with India. This was not the fruit of a day or a week. For the past three years, the State has been sharing required inputs with academicians, practitioners, and writers working in the domain of narrative building. This input, which is obligatory for harboring a sense of shared identity, the nation’s values, and security concerns, was missing in the media sphere in the past.
Now, the governance model is becoming coherent of civil and military quests to reshape economic, social, and security paradigms that are achievable and sustained. Ignorant minds can call it a hybrid system, but I, having experience of living in the European system for over a decade, understand that it is a “multi-domain-all-inclusive” system. Knowledgeable and literate politicians, administration experts, technocrats, diplomats, security experts, and academicians sit together with military and civil leadership, deliberate and design what is needed for decades, while bureaucrats have only the role of and that is executing policies designed by a “multi-domain-all-inclusive” system. I hope we are on this path at last, after going through many experiments conducted by civil as well as military leadership in the past.
In this cohesive system, a nation gets the sense of belonging and shared identity, and even a secondary school student feels that himself/herself an important component that is needed for the realization of national long-term strategic aims. A handy example can be a visit by DG ISPR to a school in Islamabad, where shared successes of the battle against India with students, telling them that they are as important for the security of the country as any soldier or officer of the Pakistan Army. This is what I consider “the best optic” that has been needed for a long time. I know ISPR has been inviting college students and academicians for special lectures, and ‘Hilal Talks’ are also a forum that injects a sense of shared future among Pakistan’s academic community.
In a recent Hilal Talk, Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir acknowledged the critical role that academia plays in national progress. He likewise appreciated academia to play a proactive role in promoting a national narrative of harmony, stability, peace, and progress. Such reach-outs to nation builders had been lagging in Pakistan in the past because the civilian institutions and civilian leadership did not consider such reach-outs significant. I am not complaining, but mentioning that taking academicians on board had never been considered important in Pakistan, while I always write that no narrative can be built unless students and academicians are included in the narrative-building process. A national narrative helps address national security concerns, particularly in regions such as the Indo-Pak subcontinent. Communication of military leadership with academia and students helps bridge divides within the nation, addressing issues like civil-military relations, and regional disparities, and giving special emphasis on participation from southern districts in Balochistan, AJK, and GB. Such arrangements would enhance a sense of ownership among participants. Reaching out to teachers and students and sharing the vision of the future with them had been a missing link in the past for creating a sense of purpose and direction for the nation, and this gap has been filled by military leadership. Inclusivity of academicians is a prerequisite for effective communication and building a public discourse, fostering engagement and understanding among youth as well.
The post-Pahalgam events testify that the world has already moved to the “expert era,” where diplomats, educated politicians, and media experts are needed to handle sensitive situations. Within the democratic system, generalists have no role to play when there are sensitive phases that need careful handling. Even the political face of a country needs an educated, cunning, and professional cadre, such as Deputy Prime Minister Senator Ishaq Dar.
The press briefing of DG ISPR Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, along with spokesperson of the foreign office (Career Diplomat) and Foreign Minister Senator Ishaq Dar on April 30, 2025, is a prime example. They explained Pakistan’s case to international media, and they flouted Indian lies with facts and figures. They did not use political rhetoric, long verbal statements, or emotionally charged comments; rather, they were focused on fact sheets during this two-hour interaction with foreign media. The results were amazing, and the next day, foreign media published Pakistan’s stance that practically buried the lies of the Indian media. Another example I can cite DG ISPR briefing along with the Secretary of Interior Secretary Captain (retd) Khurram Muhammad Agha, held on May 23, 2025. Both briefings focused on India’s irrefutable involvement in cross-border terrorism against Pakistan, and every point was supported by audio, visual, and content with minimum supplementary comments and with no political hearsay or political rhetoric. Moreover, 24/7 contact of the ISPR media corps with foreign and local media helped the flow of credible information to foreign media when India was provoking jingoism and providing lies to international media.
I have been writing that Pakistan needs an administrative and political system that can serve the nation in the 21st century. We should accept ignorant political cadre and, to some extent, generalists (commoners) bureaucrats have practically failed to cater to emerging realities. Whenever there is a threatening situation arises, such as Covid-19, locust attacks, floods, or earthquakes, politicians through civil administration call the Pakistan Army using Article 245 of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. Neither the civil bureaucracy nor the politicians are ready to accept the incompetence of the civilian administrative system they run. The Indo-Pak battle was a crisis that needed a mature media response and international engagement. Thank God our professional diplomats and skilled military media team fought from the front and won the diplomatic and narrative war.
If we talk about our political cadre, we have learned many lessons during the Indo-Pak standoff. In a democratic system, ruling political parties lead the narrative from the front (references can be found in European democracies over the Russia-Ukraine conflict and even the BJP in India), and civilian institutions lead the media sphere (as in India). Did we find such a political response in Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistan standoff?
We believe democracy is the best solution, yes, it can, provided we have trouble shooters and a well-educated cadre. We have seen that an educated cadre of politicians and technocrats, such as Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Defence Minister Kh Asif, Information Minister Atta Tarar, Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, SAPM Syed Tariq Fatemi, and many more like them, played a pivotal role during the crisis. Do we need a huge bureaucracy and cabinet, or are fewer but of high quality? The qualitative versus quantitative debate is needed in our political sphere. From foreign policy to internal management, from disaster control to terrorist neutralization, and from narrative building to media management, we only need effective groups of highly qualified professionals.
Some readers can argue that the reason our politically elected leadership is not capable because ‘someone’ is not letting them or giving them enough space to become able. I always find this argument out of place and biased. If the political system is firm and fair, no one can challenge its writ, but time has tested again and again that whenever we need real professional, equipped, resourceful help, we call upon the same very uniform and handful of qualified technocrats.
Should we not accept that Pakistan needs a qualitative administrative system, as our current format of administration is producing handicapped civil governments, corruption, unemployment, and poverty?
“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?”—-
Note: The writer is an author and Doctor of Philosophy in Semiotics and Philosophy of Communication from Charles University, Prague. She can be reached at shaziaanwer@yahoo.com
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article/Opinion/Comment are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk (DND). Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk.
