Editorial

The DG ISI’s offer

The ISI chief is reported to have admitted that the agency had failed in its duty.

Editorial May 13, 2011

The offer by the head of the ISI during a closed-door briefing to members of Parliament on May 13 to resign, if Parliament orders him to, perhaps amounted to throwing the ball back into the latter’s court over the Abbottabad issue. The ISI chief is reported to have admitted that the agency had failed in its duty but is also reported to have said that this was “unintentional” and did not amount to negligence. Without getting into the semantics of the whole situation, it is perhaps worth saying at the outset that had such a security lapse happened in a truly democratic country, the heads of the institutions responsible for the lapse usually resign on their own, without offering caveats and/or qualifiers. If failure is being admitted to, then it is unclear why the nation’s forgiveness is being sought because the issue of protecting the frontiers of the country from external threat is related to the preparedness of our defence forces, and, in this particular case, our intelligence and radar systems.

If the head of the country’s premier intelligence agency is admitting before Parliament that his institution failed in tracking the world’s most-wanted terrorist then perhaps the sensible thing would be to resign. In any case, the offer by the head of the ISI does not, and should not, take away from the fact that an independent inquiry into the failure of intelligence and the radars should be carried out, which means that it should be conducted by civilian organs of state. There is another, perhaps even more important, issue that will have to be touched upon very soon by both the legislature as well as the executive. And that has to do with the fact that what has happened is perhaps an outcome of our security and strategic doctrines as well as chunks of our foreign policy relating to our neighbours, in which, by and large, elected civilian governments have had little or no role or say. Questions such as whether Osama bin Laden was in fact sheltered by elements sympathetic to his cause and ideology, or why we don’t hunt down terrorists hiding in veritable sanctuaries on our own soil, also need immediate answers.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 14^th, 2011.

COMMENTS (10)

Riz1 | 12 years ago | Reply @V S S Sarma: Check this out http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/india-red-faced-as-most-wanted-fugitives-are-found-not-in-pakistan-but-at-home/2011/05/20/AFbnHm7G_story.html East Pakistan was an outright aggression by Indian forces. While it resulted in the dismemberment of Pakistan as it was in 1971, it also resulted in creation of the brotherly country of Bangladesh. We are proud of the brotherly relationship that we have with Bangladesh, in spite of the differences that may have surfaced in 1971. On the other hand, with India, there is a continuous environment of mistrust and enmity based on both sides. India has consistently tried to associate a legitimate indigenous freedom struggle in Kashmir with terrorism. It is true that some of the tactics adopted by the freedom fighters were not legitimate; however, the human rights atrocities committed by the Indian occupation forces were also not legitimate and this fact has been highlighted by many human rights groups. I suppose you would right these off also as 'incidents'. Your constitution is probably silent on the issue of human rights in Kashmir and the right to self-determination that was rightly recognized by Nehru and the UN. In the end, all I can say is that I hope there are no other terrorists in Pakistan. I may be wrong, as was India (according to Washington Post). However, now is the time to move forward and jointly take on the threat of militancy while recognizing the legitimate rights of the people of Kashmir.

V S S Sarma | 12 years ago | Reply Khalid Masood: I don't live in a small house. I pay a rent of about Rs. 300,000 per month and live in a big house. But I am not aware if Pakistanis in Abbottabad live in houses built on a plot of 1.5 acres of land. Affluent pathans may live in big houses but do they have security cameras all round them and barbed wire fencing above 18 feet walls ? And it was known that the ladies in the house spoke Arabic, not Pashtun. As for people like Dawood Ibrahim, Chota Shakeel are not being in Pakistan - this is what they said about Bin Laden. Hafiz Saeed is a learned man because every time he speaks, it is all vitriol. Regarding the incidents you mentioned of India - remember that India is a country of 1.21 Billion people and incidents do happen. Our constitution doesn't permit them. In the case of Pakistan, not long ago, what their own army did to their masses in East Pakistan is fresh in memory.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Ashutosh | 12 years ago | Reply @SharifL: No one in Pakistan has the guts to speak against the Army or the ISI and he the the DG! ... nor any one ever resigned in Pakistan .... ever ! Asking them to resign will invite marshal law in Pakistan ... you know history ? I mean ... those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it ...

Khalid Masood | 12 years ago | Reply @V S S Sarma: You are from different society having different culture and living style. For you the house of OBL is very big because you people live in small holes. If you use some sense and just use Google Earth, you can see many houses of same or bigger sizes in many areas of Abbotabad. Affluent Pathan people like such big houses with higher perimeter wall and all security gadgets are installed. People like Dawood Ibrahim, Chota Shakeel are not in Pakistan so stop ranting. Hafiz Saeed is a learned man. He is not terrorist. India only talk against him without proof. Instead of telling us to fix responsibility - you better tell you Govt to first fix the responsibility of the case of Burning of Samjota Express and the case of Killing of 3000 pluss Muslims in Gujarat in front of Police.

V S S Sarma | 12 years ago | Reply A fort-like house, 8 times the normal size of the house in the area, with 18 feet walls, barbed wires and security cameras around it gets constructed within meters of the Army Command centre and army institutions in a garrision city in which the world's number one terrorist starts living with 3 wives and umpteen number of own children who never venture out to mix with other children. When a cricket ball falls into their compound, they do not return it but pay Rs 100 in lieu of the ball. The domestic waste gets burnt inside the compound and nothing comes out of the house. For a house that is worth Millions of USD, it has neither a telephone nor an internet connection. What makes this dreaded terrorist think that the house is safe for him if he is not assured of the same by the military and political top brass of the country ? It is not possible that some lower level people in the military have provided refuge to this terrorist because they can not have an authority and voice in a centralised power structure of the armed forces and the intelligence system of Pakistan. Indeed, it is not the failure of the intelligence but it is an intelligent failure that protects strategic assets like OBL in order to milk USA and also to keep the assets safe for a rainy day, when USA leaves Afghanistan. Terrorists like Dawood Ibrahim, Chota Shakeel, Hafiz Saeed, Salahuddin, Ilyas Kashmiri, Masood Azhar, Lakhvi, etc., who are enjoying safe heavens in Pakistan after committing heinous crimes are not strategic assets. Whole world condemns Pakistan for its convenient marriage with terrorists. If Pakistan doesn't realise that the strategic depth is no more a necessity and surrender these terrorists to India, it has the prospect of further balkanisation and destruction of its economy. Pakistan can be declared a country that sponsors International terrorism by UN and population of Pakistan will have to bear the consequences. Which civilised country condones terrorism even if committed on its neighbour ? Responsibility for the 'failure' should be fixed. The minimum that Pakistan can do is to ask Kayani and Shuja Pasha to go and institute an inquiry into the OBL episode by the SC Chief Justice, but not by a minion of the same army that failed the country again and again.

Aristo | 12 years ago | Reply He must resign to safe guard the long term interest of Pakistan.

Riz1 | 12 years ago | Reply At the end, the parliament will agree with the suggested resignation of the ISI chief! The politicians will be content with their own inaction, claiming that justice has been served, and that will be it. They will make loud proclamations of the supremacy of parliament without taking any actual decision. There will be a new ISI chief and the whole nation, including Ch Nisar and Imran Khan, will go back to sleep!

SharifL | 12 years ago | Reply I think Pasha will resign, just wait.

l. Khan | 12 years ago | Reply Resigning is the least that the army cheif and DGISI should do after this collossal national shame. They sank to a new low organising rallies in support of army and ISI,but then this cesspool is bottomless. Both are responsible for the dance of death with Taliban when they staged the Swat rebellion to scare USA, but quickly lost control and thousands died and 3 million were displaced.They must see the limits of their competence and let better men come forward.The Taliban-Military allaince is broken down and our national strategy must address it with a new approach and leaders.

Malik | 12 years ago | Reply Did in Pakistan History any body resigned at ever ? Just offers ......

Replying to X