FIELD MARSHAL WITHOUT A BATTLEFIELD: PAKISTAN’S EMPTY TITLES IN AN AGE OF OPTICS

In an era when military titles should reflect national triumphs and battlefield achievements, Pakistan has taken a bewildering step. General Asim Munir, Chief of Army Staff, has been elevated to the rank of Field Marshal—the highest honorary military title in the country. The promotion was not earned through an act of military brilliance or a historic war victory. Instead, it was quietly approved by the Federal Cabinet under Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, without any clear justification or notable military feat.

A RARE TITLE, SQUANDERED?
This makes Munir only the second Field Marshal in Pakistan’s history. The first was General Ayub Khan, who unilaterally conferred the title upon himself in 1959—six years before leading Pakistan into the ill-fated 1965 war against India, which ended in strategic failure and international embarrassment. Ayub Khan’s legacy was defined not by heroism but by political manipulation and authoritarian rule.

The question is glaring: What exactly has General Asim Munir achieved to deserve the same exalted military title?

There has been no victorious war, no military modernization breakthrough, no strategic turning point. In fact, Pakistan’s current military narrative is marred by mounting internal unrest, counterinsurgency failures in Balochistan, and deteriorating civil-military relations. The country finds itself isolated on the global stage, with an economy in distress and a political system gripped by instability. And yet, its army chief now bears the badge of the highest military honour.

THE INDIAN PARALLEL: TITLES EARNED, NOT BESTOWED

Compare this with India—a country that has awarded the title of Field Marshal only twice in its 77-year history. Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw was honoured after leading India to a decisive victory in the 1971 war, which led to the creation of Bangladesh and altered the strategic map of South Asia. Field Marshal K.M. Cariappa, India’s first Commander-in-Chief, was recognized for his foundational role in building a professional, apolitical, and independent Indian Army.

These titles in India were not used as political currency. They were symbols of unparalleled national service, leadership in times of crisis, and legacies that shaped history. They were earned in war rooms, not cabinet meetings; in battles, not briefings.

A SYMBOLIC ELEVATION OR A SIGNAL OF DESPERATION?

What we are witnessing in Pakistan is not a celebration of military success—it is the manufacturing of stature to compensate for the absence of strategic substance. At a time when Pakistan faces domestic turbulence, ethnic unrest, and diplomatic isolation, the elevation of its army chief to Field Marshal appears more like a theatrical act than a historical moment.

It raises critical questions for Pakistan’s institutions and people:

Is the rank of Field Marshal now a tool of political appeasement?
Is the military being rewarded for loyalty rather than legacy?
Has Pakistan reduced its highest military honour to a public relations stunt?

WARFARE ON TWITTER, NOT ON TERRA
Pakistan’s military doctrine now seems more focused on media campaigns than military campaigns. It is scripting victories on television studios and social media feeds, rather than on ground operations or in strategic theatres. From a nation that once aspired for parity with global powers, it now risks becoming a case study in ceremonial bravado over credible strength.

CONCLUSION: TITLES SHOULD TELL STORIES OF TRIUMPH
In a world where military titles should be sacrosanct—signifying sacrifice, service, and strategic leadership—Pakistan’s decision to elevate General Asim Munir to Field Marshal stands out as a hollow gesture in search of meaning.

A Field Marshal without a battlefield is not a hero—he is a headline.

And headlines fade. Legacies don’t.

Issued by:

Global Counter Terrorism Council (GCTC)

India’s premier civil society think tank on national security, defence strategy, and geopolitical research

New Delhi | www.gctcworld.org