It was not entirely unpredictable still the news that Prime Minister Imran Khan has given Chief of the Army Staff Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa a three-year tenure extension came as a jolt to many. The cozy civil-military relationship under the present dispensation suggested Khan would like to see the general stay on for another term – which is now to end only a year before the PM’s own tenure in office. Yet he was expected to uphold the principles he emphasised while in opposition. In an obvious attempt to justify the decision, the official notification said “the decision has been taken in view of the regional security environment.” Indeed, the security environment is both challenging and dangerous. While Pakistan is playing a key role in bringing the Afghan conflict to a negotiated settlement, tensions with India have escalated to a high risk level. As the Army chief, Gen Bajwa has been deeply involved in helping the government deal with the situation on both fronts.

However, the argument that security environment necessitates his continuation in office does not cut much ice with sceptics, who have been quick to remind the PM that when in 2016, the then army chief Gen Raheel Sharif had issued a statement quashing rumours about him seeking an extension, he had welcomed it saying it would strengthen the institution of the Army, and that “nations are built on strong institutions.” Before that in 2010, Imran had criticised the PPP government for giving an extension to Gen Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani saying “institutions function according to their laws and when laws are changed for a person, what Gen Pervez Musharraf did [by giving himself term extensions] and what all dictators do, institutions are destroyed.” People also recall numerous examples wherein generals were changed in the middle of a conflict. For one, during the 1965 war with India, Lt-Gen Akhtar Hussain Malik, Commander of Operation Grand Slam on the Kashmir front, was replaced with Gen Yahya Khan in the midst of fighting despite having achieved success in the initial phase of the operation. In 1951, the feisty US Gen Douglas MacArthur, a popular World War II hero, was relieved of his command in the Korean War for making controversial statements. Similarly, ISAF commander in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley McChrystal, much respected for his military services, was recalled by the then US President Obama and made to resign for his unflattering remarks about politicians. The last example, however, is relevant only as far as the security aspect is concerned.

Although those looking for meaning in the PM’s decision point to the opposition’s threat to launch an agitation movement against his government, it is not convincing enough. For bringing down an elected government is not in the interest of the opposition leaders, either. In fact, they have consistently been saying they do not want to harm the system. So far, none of them has taken issue with Gen Bajwa getting a second full term in office, for reason of expediency, though. Many others, especially in business circles, have welcomed this decision of the government at time the country faces an economic crisis as well as a serious security situation. Gen Bajwa has contributed a lot to the government’s efforts to secure financial support from Pakistan’s friends in the Gulf, and also in maintaining a neutral position despite pressure to take sides in that region’s fights for influence. Surely, institutional rules should not be changed to suit individuals. But in extraordinary situations like the present one, extraordinary step may be justified to ensure sustained momentum in overcoming hardships and maintaining continuity.