To even frame the establishment as an ethnicity thing is stupid, it has many different factions that all compete.
Some are motivated by business interests, some are Islamists, some liberals, some indeed ethnic interest motivated. But this idea that like a group of Punjabis sit at a table running a Punjabi agenda is so funny because the Punjabi elites are one of the most corrupt and least ethnically conscious on the planet, they don't give a **** about no poor Punjabis lol. I'd argue Pashtun establishment members are far more ethnically motivated than their Punjabi counterparts who care about their temporary funds
There is an actual establishment.
It is a loose but powerful network of senior military leadership, bureaucracy, intelligence, parts of the judiciary, big business and aligned media. Over time it has developed its own institutional interests which often override the preferences of elected governments.
Yes, Historically, its core has had a predominantly Punjabi composition, especially in the higher ranks of the army and bureaucracy, partly because of colonial-era recruitment patterns, population share and better access to state institutions in Punjab. Over time, Urdu-speaking elites who were once very prominent in the early decades have been relatively diluted in this power structure. Pathans have their own significant presence, particularly in the officer corps and security apparatus, and Sindhis and others have also entered the fold depending on shifts in power and patronage. So while there is an ethnic pattern, ethnicity is just one factor and not the primary motivation in how the establishment behaves.
What really holds this establishment together is a shared outlook and set of red lines that go into both a security centric worldview, a particular idea of national identity, continuity of certain economic and foreign policy directions, and a desire to retain decisive influence even when civilians are nominally in charge. Individuals from different ethnic backgrounds can be absorbed into it as long as they align with these institutional priorities. That is why you can see politicians, judges and media figures from multiple provinces effectively working in sync with establishment preferences.
Because it is not a formal body, its influence shows up indirectly. Governments rise and fall based on how acceptable they are to this network. Policy U-turns, sudden corruption drives, media narratives and court decisions often make more sense when viewed through the lens of establishment interests than through party manifestos. At the same time, it is not omnipotent or a uniform entity; there are internal rivalries, generational differences and occasional miscalculations that backfire.
If you understand the establishment as this evolving coalition of institutions and elites, rather than just “the army” or just “Punjabis,” it becomes easier to see why the same patterns repeat across different parties and eras. Faces change, slogans change, and ethnic mix shifts at the margins, but the underlying logic of preserving control over key levers of power remains surprisingly consistent.
So If you are inherently someone with victim complex through upbringing/environment through early years coupled with racism and bias - then yes, you will NEVER understand this concept.
