Opinion | Why the United States Engages Pakistan’s Military over Its Elected Government: a Strategic Risk for South Asia

Pakistan is a nation in which generals are more powerful than the elected politicians. From politics to foreign affairs, and from media to the control of economy, Pakistan Army rules almost every aspect of public life. Through vast business ventures like the Fauji Foundation, Army Welfare Trust, Shaheen Foundation, and Bahria Foundation, it runs everything from milk factories and fertilizer factories to banks, insurance companies, and real estate empires.

This economic dominance and military control of national institutions enable the Army to function as a parallel state. There exist civilian regimes, but they function in continuous military coercion. No Prime Minister in Pakistan has completed a full term. Political leaders are constantly removed, exiled, or imprisoned every time they resist military rule. The recent imprisonment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, himself a military-backed leader at a time, is a chilling reminder of the speed with which the Army moves against civilians who try to become independent.

From General Ayub Khan in 1958 to General Pervez Musharraf in 1999, political evolution in Pakistan has been dictated by coups, military dictatorship, and puppet governments. Even in so-called democracies, important policies most concern towards India, the nuclear program, and terrorism are decided by generals in Rawalpindi, not by Parliament in Islamabad.

Such deep-seated military dominance is a regional issue rather than an internal issue in Pakistan. The Pakistani military has a historical record of using terrorism as an instrument of statecraft. Terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and the Haqqani Network have operated openly from Pakistani soil with the blessing of the ISI, Pakistan’s powerful military intelligence agency.

India has been hard hit as a result of this policy. The 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 2016 Uri and Pathankot attacks, and the 2019 Pulwama bombing are all attributed to Pakistani terror groups. The latest one was the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, when innocent tourists were attacked and murdered. Cross-border networks with Pakistan’s military-intelligence complex were fingered again. Pakistan refuses to accept even in the face of absolute evidence, and gives shelter to the perpetrators.

India and the United States share a solid and abiding relationship founded on mutual respect, democratic values, and convergences of strategy. From defense cooperation to technology transfer, the two countries have moved towards each other step by step. As natural allies, India trusts the United States with unmatched confidence and values frank and open communication.

The recent visit of General Asim Munir, the Pakistan Chief of Army Staff and the erstwhile chief of the ISI, to Washington, D.C., has raised many an eyebrow in South Asia. Although the visit seems to be part of routine diplomatic niceties, the symbolism is enormous. The United States’ interaction with Pakistan’s military is largely attributed to strategic interests. The Pakistani military dictates the country’s nuclear program and traditionally has the central role in regional issues such as Afghanistan and border defense. It is natural that security cooperation necessitates interaction with the military. This interaction must, however, be balanced with respect for democratic principles and lasting peace.

India, being a border nation which has experienced the brunt of cross-border terrorism, is still anxious about the signals such military intervention conveys. The Pakistan military and its intelligence arm, ISI, have been associated with all types of terror operations against India all along. From the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks to the 2019 Pulwama attack and the latest 2025 Pahalgam attack, civilian lives have been targeted because of networks which have been protected by the military-intelligence complex.

India has always produced robust evidence before global institutions like the United Nations and FATF about the activities of such outfits. Strategic interests override moral responsibility in such situations, especially for as sensitive and volatile a region as South Asia.

Apart from that, the engagement pattern also affects the internal democratic health of Pakistan. The Pakistan civilian government is not able to make itself heard in a context where the military is in control. Political opponents are jailed or isolated, the media operate in fear and intimidation, and the voice of civil society is silenced. When the international community only backs the military, it often sidelines democratic forces struggling to build a more open and peaceful Pakistan.

India and America, being two of the world’s biggest democracies, have a common duty to encourage democratic rule across the globe. Democratic institutions, and not military dictatorships, must form the foundation of efforts towards regional stability. It is not merely a matter of principle, but also a matter of experience.

The Afghan experience is a lesson. The United States spent nearly two decades of military and economic assistance to the Pakistani military, anticipating cooperation against terrorism. But subsequently, it became known that Taliban militants’ strongholds were permitted to function along the border, diluting global efforts. That double game paved the way to the Taliban’s revival and the agonizing U.S. withdrawal in 2021. It serves as a reminder of the danger of dependence on military autocrats.

India believes that true and sustainable peace in South Asia would only be achieved by not making tactical ententes with institutions that benefit from instability. The United States has been a beacon of freedom, justice, and democratic values of governance to which India is devoted. Through its more active engagement with the elected government and civil society of Pakistan, America can help create a vision for a stable, peaceful, and democratic South Asia.

This is not an appeal to retreat, but to balance. Strategic interests must be preceded by ethical commitments. Democracies must stand with democracies. Short-term cooperation can be produced by military power, but long-term peace comes from investing in institutions and people-driven governance.

India asserts this belief not in opposition, but in conviction. India and the U.S. can be a shining example to the world, demonstrating to the world that in the modern world, the real strength of a nation is no longer in the power of weapons, but in the people’s faith and the legitimacy of its government.

pirzadarehan52@gmail.com