THIS refers to your editorial ‘A veiled warning?’ (April 9). In any other country under normal conditions the statement by Chief of Army Staff Gen Raheel Sharif about protecting the dignity of all institutions and especially the armed forces would have been taken as a normal statement by an army chief during an address to his troops.

But much controversy has been created because of two reasons. First, the statement was in response to a question by a young officer who had questioned the unjustified criticism of the armed forces.

Second, because while the ex-army chief is under trial under Article 6, two federal ministers gave controversial statements.

The press release by the ISPR is being taken very seriously because like some other countries such as Egypt and Indonesia, armed forces are the most powerful institutions and have the final say.

Because of their previous experiences, civilian political leaders who may also have some personal weaknesses, feel insecure.

The Musharraf factor is significant and it is quite obvious that the armed forces would like to save their ex-chief, who has already been indicted and his trial may have some political and vindictive angles.

The two ministers should not have given such provocative statements while the trial is under way and let the courts arrive at a just and fair outcome.

The army chief’s statement should not be taken as a hidden threat because it is quite natural for a head of an institution to react when the institution itself is being maligned.

Zaheer Ahmed

Islamabad