Security Discourses in Pakistan: Exploring the Marginalization of Non-Traditional Security in Pakistani Think Tanks

In the security discourse of Pakistan, the idea of non-traditional security has slowly but gradually gained traction. Even though the discussions on non-traditional security issues were not wholly absent before, it is the present government of Pakistan, led by Prime Minister Imran Khan, that has redefined the country’s national security orientation by including security visions based on economic security, food security, climate change, and the human welfare paradigm. In his address at the Islamabad Security Dialogue in March 2021, PM Khan contended that the new notion of comprehensive national security departed from the traditional understanding of the concept that was centered on military muscle and hard power and moved towards soft power based non-traditional security framework.1 With the revisionism in the security discourse in the country, knowledge centers in Pakistan broadened their understanding of security issues which was previously confined to discussions on the traditional aspects of security. Keeping this in view, there is a need to investigate the extent to which knowledge centers in Pakistan have adopted the non-traditional security agenda in the discourse they are generating.

In a research study which I recently concluded, I attempted to explore the incorporation of non-traditional security aspects in Pakistan’s security discourse, particularly the discourse produced by Pakistani think tanks. The role the think tank-academic collusion plays in the knowledge production processes in Pakistan has also been assessed carefully. The research analyses the coordinative and communicative discourse function of think tanks through the lens of discursive institutionalism2 and historical institutionalism.3 The concept is premised on the argument that think tanks can control discourse and promote certain agendas over others and that their roles and objectives are defined by the timing and sequence of events which generate these agendas.

The dataset for the research was extracted from eight prominent Higher Education Commission (HEC) recognized journals affiliated either with think tanks or university research centers in Pakistan. The data comprises research articles published electronically between the period 2015-2020. The journals affiliated with the think tanks in Pakistan are Journal of Strategic Studies affiliated with The Institute of Strategic Studies, Policy Perspective affiliated with Institute of Policy Studies, IPRI Journal affiliated with Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Margalla Papers affiliated with Institute for Strategic Studies, Research & Analysis (ISSRA), and NDU Journal affiliated with ISSRA. The journals affiliated with Pakistan’s university research centers are Pakistan affiliated with the University of Peshawar, Journal of European Studies affiliated with the University of Karachi, and South Asian Studies affiliated with the University of Punjab, Lahore. These journals were chosen based on their nature, scope, and production and circulation of knowledge in the academic and policy milieu in Pakistan. The data gathered was distinguished based on traditional and non-traditional security themes. The former consists of seven dominating aspects that are: Nuclear, Indo-Pak, Middle East, Afghanistan, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), International Security, and Regional (South Asian) Security. The latter incorporates seven prominent aspects that are: Environmental Security, Health Security, Food Security, Sustainable Development, Human Security, Water Security, and climate change.

The data collected demonstrates that between 2015 and 2020, the journal articles produced in the think tanks affiliated journals were 507 in total, out of which 211 articles were shortlisted based on their relevance to the research. Of the 211 journal articles, 191 were based on traditional security themes and 20 on non-traditional security themes. The journal articles published in university research centers affiliated journals amounted to 380, from which 56 articles were shortlisted for the study. A large number of 53 articles were based on traditional security themes and only 3 on non-traditional security themes. Think tank publications produced approximately 41% of articles on either of the two (traditional and non-traditional) security themes, whereas the university research centers produced approximately 14% of articles on security. This finding establishes think tank publications as the dominant source of security-related knowledge in Pakistan. In both the think tanks and university research centers, there was a heavy inclination towards traditional security issues, as can be noted in 90% and 94% of the security-related discussions in the journals produced by the two knowledge producers, respectively. The publications on non-traditional security remained at 9% and 5%, respectively. A substantial dearth of research on non-traditional security was observed in think tank and university affiliated journals.

Think tanks in Pakistan do not operate in isolation from the country’s political processes and political realities. They enhance their influence and push ideas into the national political agenda. There is an intertwined system of knowledge production in Pakistan, where think tanks comply with state preferences and receive the backing of the state in return.4 To further explore this relationship, the research incorporated concepts of the symbolic use of knowledge given by Christina Boswell,5 and Mann’s despotic power of the state.6 The symbolic use of knowledge helps understand the strengthening and legitimization of a policy position exercised by think tanks, while the despotic power of the state explains the nature of the regime that determines the knowledge climate prevalent in think tanks. It also provides the think tanks an easy passage to the corridors of power. This proximity to power is quite evident as the majority of Pakistani think tanks are located in the capital city of Islamabad and primarily presided over by former bureaucrats (as in the case of Institute of Strategic Studies, Institute of Policy Studies, and Islamabad Policy Research Institute) or by a military officer (as in the case of Institute for Strategic Studies, and Research & Analysis). Understandably then, most of the research produced by think tanks in Pakistan follows the policy preferences of the state. These preferences revolve around the traditional security conception, as my study revealed. This means that even if the state preferences shift towards a broader conceptualization on security issues to include non-traditional security dimensions, the absence of any substantial expertise within Pakistani think-tanks devoids it of the much needed knowledge inputs required to pursue such a shift. Essentially then, a move in the direct direction would be to first enhance the research base on non-traditional security issues within Pakistani think-tanks so that they provide the requisite research base for appropriate policy inputs on matters of non-traditional security.

About the Author

Gul e Hina

The author is a Junior Research Fellow at Roads Initiative.