🎭 What Does a “Hard State” Really Mean?
Lately, everyone in Pakistan seems obsessed with this term — “Hard State.”
Imran Khan says Pakistan needs to become a hard state — a country where the law has teeth, where institutions are strong enough to protect the weak and punish the corrupt.
To him, a hard state meant a just state — not a cruel one. It meant ending the culture of impunity that lets the powerful walk free while the poor rot in jails.
But General Asim Munir’s interpretation seems… different.
When he talks about a hard state, it sounds less about justice and more about control — a nation where obedience is mandatory, dissent is treason, and criticism is silenced “for the greater good.”
And that’s the tragedy of Pakistan’s story:
Every time we try to build a state that’s strong in justice, someone in uniform builds one that’s hard in repression.
⚔️ The Mindset Problem
Soldiers are trained to obey, not debate.
A general’s command is law — questioning is insubordination.
That works on the battlefield, but not in a country where citizens aren’t subordinates.
Pakistan’s history is full of moments when generals mistook governing for commanding.
The result? Fear replaces dialogue, and silence becomes loyalty.
Every military general who becomes the military chief, believes he’s the savior — but the people now fully realize he’s just the latest occupier wanting to govern as a one man rule.
🧠 The Governance Gap
The problems created by the military’s governance gap are endless — corruption, instability, bad governance, you name it.
Each general who takes over claims noble intentions: “We only want to stabilize the country,” or “We’re just here to clean up politics.”
Maybe, in the past, there was a desire to move the country forward.
But today, that desire is lost to their real priority — keeping their rule intact, no matter what it costs the nation. Their rule was never challenged this much ever in the past. They are themselves perplexed why that is so, not able to understand that the people are much more aware of the sham governance going around.
Every era of regime change begins with promises and ends with denial.
The generals are running the country as if it’s a military unit — where silence is loyalty and criticism is mutiny. Do they really believe that people think their corrupt proxies are running the country?
They don’t realize nations can’t be commanded like soldiers.
You can control people for a while, yes, but you can’t govern them forever without their trust.
And so the cycle repeats: coups dressed as “reforms,” propaganda masked as patriotism, and the same hollow declaration at every turn — “We’re doing it for Pakistan.”
If only Pakistan could speak, it would reply, “Then please, stop helping me.”
💰 Economies Don’t Take Orders
Dictators can order a bridge built, but they can’t order an economy to grow.
Pakistan’s economy has always suffered under military regimes.
From Ayub’s “Golden Decade” (that wasn’t golden for the poor), to Zia’s debt-fueled Islamization, to Musharraf’s boom built on foreign aid and war-on-terror dollars — every bubble popped the moment the world stopped funding the façade.
Military rule loves grand projects and foreign loans but hates the boring, democratic stuff — taxation, education reform, and institution building.
That’s why Pakistan keeps floating, never truly swimming.
📉 The Fear Factor
Every dictator promises “stability.”
But stability through fear is just a calm before the storm.
In Pakistan, dissenters are abducted, journalists silenced, and citizens taught to whisper.
You can’t build national confidence in an environment of national fear.
A frightened society stops creating — it just survives.
And when fear becomes the default setting of governance, progress becomes impossible.
🏛️ Civil Institutions Rot Away
Every military regime in Pakistan weakened civilian institutions to secure its own throne.
Courts bent, parliaments were dissolved, and bureaucrats learned that promotion comes not from performance, but proximity to power.
Politicians behave like pawns, journalists self-censor, and judges look over their shoulders before they look at the law.
The result? A democracy that is actually on military life support.
🔥 Short-Term Order, Long-Term Chaos
Yes, martial law brings short-term order — traffic flows, corruption cases open, and people cheer.
But once the dust settles, it’s the same old story: a hollowed-out system, and citizens too scared or too cynical to rebuild it.
Pakistan has spent decades mistaking silence for stability.
But order enforced at gunpoint is not peace; it’s paralysis.
🪖 When a Real Martial Law Feels More Honest
Let’s face it — a real martial law at least has the decency to admit what it is. Under direct military rule, people know they have no rights, and the generals don’t bother pretending otherwise. But what Pakistan suffers today is worse — a fake democracy where a corrupt, handpicked civilian setup serves as a puppet, pretending to rule while the actual power hides behind the curtain. It fools no one, not the people, not the world.
In a true martial law, responsibility and authority sit in the same chair; in this sham arrangement, blame is outsourced while control remains unseen. It’s hypocrisy wrapped in democracy — and that, perhaps, is the most dangerous form of dictatorship.
📚 Lessons from History — and Pakistan’s Own
Globally, military rule is a failed experiment.
From Pinochet in Chile to juntas in Myanmar, authoritarianism left behind fear and failure.
Pakistan, sadly, has lived through this cycle repeatedly:
- Ayub Khan promised modernization, left us with inequality.
- Yahya Khan promised unity, left us with half a country.
- Zia-ul-Haq promised Islamization, left us with extremism.
- Pervez Musharraf promised enlightenment, left us with an economy on oxygen.
Each regime left the next one weaker, not stronger.
Each claimed to “save Pakistan” — yet each ended up saving only themselves.
🧱 “But the Army Is Still the Most Organized Institution…”
True — but being organized doesn’t make you democratic.
The army’s efficiency in battle doesn’t translate into empathy in governance.
You can’t rebuild a country the way you rebuild a bunker.
If Pakistan’s generals truly love the nation, the best service they can render is to return fully to their constitutional role — defending borders, not boundaries of speech.
⚖️ The Moral of the Story
A military’s strength lies in sacrifice, not supremacy.
The oath is to defend the constitution — not to rewrite it with every coup.
Pakistan’s problem isn’t lack of heroes; it’s lack of humility among those who think they’re heroes.
And until the military steps back and lets the people take ownership of their own destiny — through messy, noisy democracy — Pakistan will keep marching in circles.
🕊️ Final Note
This isn’t written to insult our soldiers — they’re sons of the soil, and their sacrifices are real.
But patriotism isn’t proven by running the state — it’s proven by protecting it, even from one’s own overreach.
It’s time to realize that the status quo is not stability.
A nation cannot prosper when its future is decided in barracks instead of ballots.
If Pakistan wants to move forward, the army must return to its barracks — not as a retreat, but as a victory for democracy.
Because only then will the people (and our military, who are people too) finally have a country they can truly call their own.
Leave a Reply to Qayyum Raza Mir Cancel reply