If the Ethnicity of Soldiers Determines the Identity of an Army, What Makes a National Army

The debate surrounding the ethnic composition of armed forces is not unique to Pakistan. Throughout history, militaries across the world have drawn personnel disproportionately from particular regions, communities, and socio-economic backgrounds due to historical traditions, geography, economic realities, and recruitment patterns. Yet a fundamental principle of statecraft remains unchanged: a national military derives its identity not from the ethnicity of its soldiers, but from the sovereign state, constitutional order, and political authority it is established to defend.

In a Facebook video recently circulated, a speaker who identifies himself as a founding father of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) advances the argument that the Pakistan Army cannot legitimately be called a “Pakistan Army.” He contends that because a substantial number of officers and soldiers come from Punjab, the institution is ethnically dominated and should instead be characterised accordingly, effectively reducing a constitutional body to provincial or ethnic ownership. This claim, presented as analysis, represents a conceptual misunderstanding of how military institutions are defined. It confuses the demographic composition of an institution with its institutional identity and reduces a sovereign national force to an ethnic category.

The reality is far more complex. Pakistan’s military recruitment patterns have historically been shaped by socio-economic factors, particularly in districts of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where rain-dependent agricultural economies, limited industrial opportunities, and long-standing traditions of military service encouraged generations of families to pursue careers in the armed forces. This historical pattern predates Pakistan and was institutionalized during the British Indian Army era, where particular regions became major recruitment zones.

At the same time, the argument that the Pakistan Army is exclusively dominated by one ethnic group ignores the diversity that exists within its senior leadership and rank structure. The representation of Pashtun officers, for instance, has historically been significant and is often cited as being substantial in comparison to their share of the national population. Pakistan’s senior military leadership has included numerous distinguished officers from different ethnic and regional backgrounds, including Pashtun officers such as General Ehsan-ul-Haq, Lieutenant General Muhammad Hassan Khattak, and Lieutenant General Shakir Ullah Khattak from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Likewise, senior commanders have emerged from Kashmir, including General Muhammad Aziz Khan and Lieutenant General Shahid Imtiaz, and from Gilgit-Baltistan, including Lieutenant General Inayat Hussain. Officers and soldiers from Sindh, Balochistan, Punjab, and minority communities have likewise contributed to Pakistan’s defence and institutional development.

The historical comparison with the British Indian Army also fails under closer scrutiny. The force was termed “British” because sovereignty, political control, strategic decision-making, and ultimate command rested with the British Crown and the colonial administration, not because of the ethnic composition of its soldiers. Pakistan, by contrast, is a sovereign nation-state, and its military derives legitimacy from the Constitution of Pakistan, the authority of the Pakistani state, and its responsibility to defend the country’s territorial integrity.

Comparative international examples further expose the weakness of defining militaries through ethnic arithmetic. The United States Army is not described as a “White Army” simply because White Americans constitute the largest racial category within its ranks. It is not called a “non-Hispanic Army” because most personnel are not Hispanic or Latino. The British Army is not renamed according to England’s demographic majority. The People’s Liberation Army of China is not called a “Han Army” despite Han Chinese constituting the overwhelming majority of China’s population. India maintains regimental traditions associated with Sikhs, Rajputs, Gorkhas, Jats, Marathas, Dogras, Biharis, Assamese and other communities, yet no serious scholar argues that it is anything other than the armed force of the Indian state.

Following the same logic, if institutions were renamed according to the largest demographic group within them, the very idea of a nation-state would become unsustainable. Would Pakistan itself be renamed according to its largest ethnic group? Would Khyber Pakhtunkhwa be reduced to the identity of its largest tribal groups, such as the Yousafzai or Khattak tribes? Such arguments reveal the intellectual inconsistency of reducing a political community to ethnic arithmetic.

This does not mean that questions regarding representation, diversity, recruitment patterns, and regional participation are illegitimate. On the contrary, these are important areas for serious policy research. A modern democratic state should continuously examine whether its national institutions provide equitable opportunities and reflect the diversity of its society. However, such discussions must be based on empirical data, historical context, and institutional analysis, not narratives that transform complex national institutions into ethnic possessions.

Pakistan’s strength lies in its diversity. Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Baloch, Kashmiris, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, and religious minorities are all equal stakeholders in the Pakistani state. Their sons and daughters have served in different capacities, and thousands of soldiers from every region have fought, sacrificed, and embraced martyrdom under one national flag.

The question, therefore, is not whether the Pakistan Army belongs to Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Baloch, Kashmiris, or any other community. The more meaningful question is what gives a national military its identity.

The answer is straightforward: a national army is defined by the state it serves, the Constitution it upholds, the flag it salutes, the oath its personnel take, the command authority it follows, and the territory it is entrusted to defend.

By these standards, it is neither a Punjabi Army, a Pashtun Army, a Sindhi Army, a Baloch Army, nor a Kashmiri Army.

It is the Pakistan Army because it belongs to Pakistan.