It looks all quiet for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government on all fronts after many turbulent months. Gone is the tension with the military establishment and the fear of yet another intervention. That fear had panicked the government and the opposition alike, and united them in the defence of the “democratic system”, as Imran Khan and Dr Tahirul Qadri descended on Islamabad with thousands of their supporters in mid-August to demand “change” and a national government.

They are still camped out on Constitution Avenue, but only symbolically. The campfire has gone cold, even if their rhetoric continues in other cities. Still, telltale signs of change are visible.

“Civil-military relations are back to normal” is what one hears from members of the federal cabinet and office holders in the ruling party. They refer to the neutral position that the top brass has maintained through the ongoing political deadlock in the country, the smoothly-concluded appointment of the new director-general of the all-important Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the tough stance the prime minister has shown towards India on the Kashmir issue as evidence of a rapprochement between the two sides.

That is a change, because no government or PML-N leader had ever admitted to strained relations with the military before.

But the question remains: what understanding defused the all too apparent tension, and for how long?

In background discussions, senior ruling party leaders asserted that the rapprochement was not tactical and whatever trust deficit existed had been removed “200 per cent”.

“Yes, a majority in the party believe our decision to try former President and Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf for high treason was taken in haste. Also Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif should not have gone to India to attend the oath taking ceremony of newly elected PM Narendra Modi,” said a well-connected PML-N office bearer explaining how these acts led to mistrust.

Mr. Nawaz Sharif took oath of his office in the first week of June 2013 and in the third week he told the National Assembly that he intended to try Gen Musharraf for treason under Article 6 of the Constitution, which carries death penalty. The decision, according to political analysts, sowed the seeds of distrust between the PML-N government and the army.

Insiders say the prime minister’s insistence on running the foreign policy of the country independently and engaging the officially banned Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in a dialogue widened the differences. The saga of ISI versus Geo TV channel played out in April this year, in which the government sided with the media giant, virtually turned the differences into a raging fire. It was burning until June, when the prime minister quietly sent ally Mehmood Khan Achakzai as his special emissary to Afghanistan to discuss post-US military withdrawal matters with outgoing Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Tension between the government and Sharif government reached its peak in early August when some cabinet ministers talked indiscreetly about ISI orchestrating Imran Khan and Dr Tahirul Qadri’s street protests against the government.

But once the army’s statements and stance that it would stay clear of politics and political battles dissipated the government’s fear of a coup in the making, both sides seem to have mended fences. PML-N leaders feel that the appointment of the new ISI chief by consensus played a key role in soothing their frayed tempers.

“Unlike his address to UN General Assembly last year, the prime minister forcefully spoke on the issue of Kashmir,” a sitting PML-N lawmaker said, admitting that the army wanted him to talk tough.

Last year, the tone of his address to the UN General Assembly was conciliatory and he had also met the then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the occasion. This year Prime Minister Sharif unequivocally spoke on the need of holding the promised plebiscite in the disputed Kashmir.

The two countries are now engaged in bloody clashes across the working boundary and Line of Control for weeks now.

At home, however, a “feel-good” civil-military working relationship prevails.

Asked about the chances of mistrust returning to the relationship, defence analyst and retired Gen Talat Masood advised the civilian side to perform better for the good working relationship to last. He quoted the examples of South Korea and Turkey where civilians slowly gained the upper hand by putting up good governance.

Published in Dawn, October 17th, 2014