In the volatile arena of Pakistani politics and military dominance, General Syed Asim Munir, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) since November 29, 2022, has emerged as a polarizing figure. Critics, particularly supporters of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, have begun to draw parallels between Munir and the late General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the military dictator who ruled Pakistan from 1977 to 1988. They argue that Munir’s mindset—marked by a blend of strategic nationalism, religious undertones, and political maneuvering—echoes Zia’s authoritarian and ideologically driven leadership. This perception is amplified by the current political landscape, where a weakened Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and a fractured civilian government have ceded significant influence to the military. This investigative article delves into Munir’s background, leadership style, alleged ideological parallels with Zia-ul-Haq, and the political context that has led some to brand him the “New Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan.”
Background: Who is Syed Asim Munir?
Born in the late 1960s, likely in Punjab, Syed Asim Munir hails from a religious family with reported Sufi and Shia affiliations. Commissioned in 1986 into the 16th Battalion of the Frontier Force Regiment, Munir rose through the ranks with a reputation for professionalism, earning the prestigious Sword of Honour at the Pakistan Military Academy (PMA) in Kakul. His career spans critical roles, including Commander of Force Command Northern Areas (FCNA), where he honed expertise in high-altitude warfare in Kashmir, and Director General of Inter-Services Intelligence (DG ISI) from 2018 to 2019. Appointed COAS over more senior Lieutenant Generals, Munir’s ascent was seen as a strategic choice by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, reflecting his alignment with the military’s institutional priorities.
Munir’s tenure as COAS has been marked by a hardline stance on national security, intensified counterterrorism operations in Balochistan, and a confrontational approach toward India, particularly over Kashmir. However, his leadership has also sparked controversy, with allegations of political interference, orchestrating terror attacks, and consolidating power in a manner reminiscent of Zia-ul-Haq’s era. The current political weakness of the PML-N government, coupled with the X ban in Pakistan since February 2024, has fueled speculation that Munir is exploiting civilian fragility to emulate Zia’s authoritarian model.
Zia-ul-Haq’s Legacy: A Framework for Comparison
General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who seized power in a 1977 coup, is remembered for his 11-year rule, which profoundly shaped Pakistan’s political, social, and ideological landscape. Key aspects of Zia’s mindset and governance provide a lens to evaluate Munir:
1. Islamization and Ideological Zeal: Zia pursued an aggressive Islamization policy, introducing Sharia-based laws, promoting Sunni orthodoxy, and fostering madrassas that later fueled militancy. His support for the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets cemented Pakistan’s role as a hub for jihadist movements.
2. Authoritarian Control: Zia marginalized civilian institutions, banned political parties, and ruled through martial law, presenting himself as a protector of national and Islamic values.
3. Strategic Nationalism: Zia’s foreign policy prioritized confrontation with India, support for the Kashmir cause, and alignment with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, leveraging Pakistan’s geostrategic position.
4. Political Manipulation: Zia orchestrated elections (e.g., the 1985 non-party polls) to install pliable civilian governments, ensuring military dominance.
Critics argue that Munir’s actions—his religious rhetoric, alleged political overreach, and focus on Kashmir—mirror Zia’s approach, particularly in the context of a weakened civilian leadership.
The Case for Munir as the “New Zia-ul-Haq”
Several factors contribute to the narrative that Munir’s mindset and leadership style resemble Zia-ul-Haq’s, particularly given the current political vacuum:
1. Religious and Ideological Undertones
While Munir has not pursued overt Islamization like Zia, his religious background and public persona have drawn scrutiny. As a Shia Muslim with reported Sufi affiliations, Munir is distinct from Zia’s Sunni orthodoxy, yet critics point to his use of religious and nationalist rhetoric to rally support. For instance, his emphasis on transforming Pakistan into a “hard state” to combat terrorism, as stated after the Baloch Liberation Army’s train hijacking in March 2025, evokes Zia’s portrayal of the military as a guardian of Islamic and national values. Posts on X by PTI supporters and diaspora critics, like author Harris Sultan, label Munir a “Jihadi General,” accusing him of cloaking political ambitions in religious zeal.
The controversy surrounding the alleged Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025, where 26 people were killed in Jammu and Kashmir, has intensified these claims. Unverified allegations from retired officer Adil Raja on X suggest Munir ordered the ISI to orchestrate the attack to escalate tensions with India, a tactic critics compare to Zia’s support for militant proxies in Afghanistan and Kashmir. While no evidence substantiates these claims, the narrative portrays Munir as ideologically driven, willing to use militancy to advance strategic goals.
2. Political Overreach and Civilian Weakness
The current political landscape, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif leading a coalition government plagued by economic woes and PTI’s opposition, has created a power vacuum that Munir is perceived to exploit. Sharif’s perceived weakness—stemming from his reliance on military support to counter PTI’s popularity—echoes the pliable civilian governments under Zia, such as those led by Muhammad Khan Junejo. Munir’s term extension to five years in November 2024, enabled by amendments to the Pakistan Army Act, is seen as a consolidation of power, reminiscent of Zia’s indefinite rule post-coup.
PTI supporters accuse Munir of orchestrating Imran Khan’s ouster in April 2022, rigging the February 2024 elections, and suppressing dissent through arrests and the X ban. These allegations, amplified by hashtags like #PakistanBehindPahalgam, paint Munir as a Zia-like figure who undermines democracy to entrench military dominance. The brief tenure as DG ISI (2018–2019), where tensions with Khan reportedly led to his removal, further fuels PTI’s narrative of Munir as a politically ambitious general.
3. Kashmir and Anti-India Posture
Like Zia, who prioritized the Kashmir cause and confrontation with India, Munir has maintained a hardline stance on the issue. Through DG ISPR Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, the Army has accused India of state-sponsored terrorism, particularly in Balochistan, while framing Pakistan as a victim of Indian aggression. This rhetoric, coupled with ongoing tensions along the Line of Control (LoC), mirrors Zia’s era, when the military supported Kashmir-focused militant groups like Hizbul Mujahideen.
The Pahalgam attack allegations, though unverified, reinforce perceptions of Munir as a Zia-esque figure willing to risk escalation with India to bolster nationalist credentials. Critics argue that his focus on Kashmir distracts from domestic issues, much like Zia’s foreign policy deflected attention from internal dissent.
4. Control Over Narrative**
Zia tightly controlled media and public discourse, using state propaganda to project his regime’s legitimacy. Munir’s leadership coincides with the X ban in Pakistan, implemented in February 2024 for “national security” reasons. Critics, including PTI and diaspora voices, argue this was a deliberate move to suppress anti-military sentiment, particularly after Khan’s arrest and allegations of election rigging. The ban parallels Zia’s censorship of press and political parties, reinforcing the “New Zia” narrative.
Counterarguments: Why Munir is Not Zia-ul-Haq
Despite the parallels, several factors distinguish Munir from Zia, suggesting the “New Zia-ul-Haq” label may be an oversimplification:
1. Lack of Islamization Agenda: Unlike Zia, who reshaped Pakistan’s legal and social fabric through Sharia laws, Munir has not pursued a religious transformation. His Shia background and Sufi affiliations make him an unlikely proponent of Sunni militancy, and his public statements focus on security rather than ideology.
2. Professionalism Over Ideology: Munir’s career—marked by international training in Japan and Australia, UN peacekeeping experience, and a reputation for discipline—suggests a professional soldier rather than an ideologue. His counterterrorism operations against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Baloch separatists contradict the “Jihadi General” label.
3. Geopolitical Constraints: Zia operated in a Cold War context, with U.S. and Saudi support for the Afghan Jihad. Munir faces a different reality, with Pakistan under scrutiny from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and global pressure to curb militancy. Orchestrating attacks like Pahalgam would risk international isolation, an unlikely move for a strategic thinker like Munir.
4. No Martial Law: Zia imposed martial law and ruled directly, whereas Munir operates within a hybrid democratic framework. While critics accuse him of manipulating politics, he has not suspended the constitution or dissolved civilian institutions, suggesting a more restrained approach.
5. Evidence Gaps: Allegations of Munir’s involvement in the Pahalgam attack or election rigging lack credible evidence, relying on X posts from figures like Adil Raja, who are dismissed by pro-military voices as disgruntled or foreign-backed. The “New Zia” narrative may be a PTI-driven smear to rally support against the military.
The Role of a Weakened Prime Minister
The perception of Munir as a Zia-like figure is inextricably linked to the fragility of Shehbaz Sharif’s government. Elected in February 2024 amid allegations of rigging, Sharif faces economic challenges, including inflation and IMF bailout negotiations, and political opposition from PTI’s street protests. His coalition, comprising PML-N and smaller parties, lacks the cohesion to challenge military influence, creating a dynamic akin to Zia’s era, where civilian leaders were subordinate to the Army.
Sharif’s decision to extend Munir’s term to 2027, bypassing traditional three-year limits, is seen as a concession to military power, reinforcing Munir’s dominance. This mirrors Zia’s ability to dictate terms to civilian figureheads, though Munir’s influence operates through institutional leverage rather than outright rule. The X ban, widely attributed to military pressure, further limits civilian discourse, allowing Munir to shape narratives without direct governance.
Public Perception and Social Media Dynamics
The “New Zia-ul-Haq” label has gained traction on X, despite the platform’s ban in Pakistan. PTI supporters and diaspora critics, like Harris Sultan, use hashtags like #PakistanBehindPahalgam to portray Munir as a dictator undermining democracy. Sultan has called for an uprising against the “corrupt military elite,” drawing explicit comparisons to Zia’s regime. Indian commentators amplify this narrative, framing Munir as a “Jihadi General” to justify a hardline stance on Pakistan.
Pro-military accounts counter with hashtags like #ModiKeHaamiSabHarami, accusing critics of being Indian proxies or traitors. They highlight Munir’s counterterrorism efforts and Kashmir advocacy as patriotic, dismissing Zia comparisons as propaganda. The polarized discourse reflects Pakistan’s deep civil-military divide, with Munir at its center.
Implications for Pakistan
If Munir is indeed emulating Zia’s mindset, the consequences could be profound:
– Democratic Erosion: Continued military dominance risks further weakening civilian institutions, entrenching a hybrid regime where elections are managed rather than free.
– Regional Tensions: A Zia-like focus on Kashmir and India could escalate conflicts, particularly if allegations like Pahalgam are substantiated, though this seems unlikely given global scrutiny.
– Social Polarization: The military’s suppression of dissent, via measures like the X ban, may fuel unrest, especially among PTI’s youth base, echoing the resistance Zia faced from political parties.
– Economic Strain: Military priorities, if unchecked, could divert resources from Pakistan’s struggling economy, exacerbating public discontent.
Conversely, if Munir is a professional soldier navigating a complex landscape, his actions may reflect institutional imperatives rather than personal ideology. His counterterrorism operations and strategic restraint—avoiding martial law or overt militancy—suggest a pragmatic approach, distinct from Zia’s transformative zeal.
A New Zia or a Product of Circumstance?
General Syed Asim Munir’s leadership, set against a backdrop of a weakened civilian government, invites comparisons to Zia-ul-Haq’s authoritarian era. His hardline stance on Kashmir, alleged political interference, and control over public discourse through measures like the X ban fuel perceptions of a Zia-like mindset, particularly among PTI supporters and Indian critics. The Pahalgam attack allegations, though unverified, amplify the “Jihadi General” narrative, evoking Zia’s support for militant proxies. Yet, Munir’s professionalism, counterterrorism efforts, and geopolitical constraints distinguish him from Zia’s ideological crusade.
The label “New Zia-ul-Haq” reflects Pakistan’s polarized reality, where a fragile democracy, a powerful military, and regional rivalries shape perceptions of leadership. Whether Munir is a power-hungry general or a dutiful officer navigating a turbulent landscape remains debated, but his influence—bolstered by a pliant Prime Minister—underscores the military’s enduring grip on Pakistan’s destiny. As allegations and rhetoric swirl, only time will reveal whether Munir’s legacy will mirror Zia’s or carve a distinct path.
