Which is where "its the bigger fish" comes into play. The "braderi" in the establishment also has circles - first preference is force to force.. so any business(or even civil posts) goes first to Army.. and they will cut out PAF or PN.
Then within Army it would be "from my unit"..
Then even there are "my buddies".
No different than any other tribal loyalty structure.
I can understand the frustration, but this is a discussion that Pakistan needs to have sooner rather than later.
If the military is already deeply involved in the commercial sector, then it should focus on areas where it possesses genuine comparative advantages rather than remaining concentrated in rent-seeking sectors. For example, Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) has decades of experience in manufacturing and maintaining heavy military vehicles. Yet despite this accumulated expertise, it never seriously expanded into civilian heavy machinery, industrial equipment, construction vehicles, or related downstream industries where its technical capabilities could have been leveraged.
There are international precedents for such a model. Many of China's major industrial firms trace their origins to state-owned enterprises, military-industrial organizations, or individuals with strong links to the Chinese state. Over time, these entities expanded beyond their original mandates, entered competitive markets, and became globally significant manufacturers. The key difference was that they gradually adopted professional management practices and commercial discipline.
Pakistan needs a similarly professional approach. The Fauji Group itself eventually recognized this reality and brought in civilian professionals to manage several underperforming businesses. There is no reason organizations such as HIT, NASTP, or other military-owned enterprises cannot follow the same path.
This does not necessarily mean removing retired military officers from these organizations altogether. They can continue to occupy governance, oversight, liaison, and strategic roles where their institutional knowledge and networks add value. However, operational management, product development, marketing, finance, and business expansion should be entrusted to professionals with relevant industry experience.
The objective should not be to reduce the military's economic footprint overnight, but rather to make existing military-owned enterprises more productive, innovative, and globally competitive. A professionally managed organization that grows, exports, and creates jobs contributes far more to the national economy than one that merely protects existing rents.
Ironically, successful commercialization would also benefit the military itself. Larger and more profitable enterprises would create more high-quality positions for retiring officers while simultaneously strengthening Pakistan's industrial and technological base. In that sense, professionalization is not a threat to military interests; it is a way of aligning those interests with the country's broader economic development.
