Now, why cannot a civilian head the ISI — because simply the ISI abbreviates ‘Inter-Services’ Intelligence. No, the ISI was not a devious conception to be used to upstage sitting political governments, and neither is it there to assist the military governments support nervy politicians to seek legitimacy and political support. It was meant to assist the military — yes, the military, and hence the Inter-Services nomenclature — in providing intelligence about perceived threats to the mission in war. As for Mr Shafi’s mentioning of MI5 (counter-intelligence), MI6 (intelligence), the BND, the DGSE, the CIA and the RAW all are arms of their respective civilian political governments and hence have civilian bosses. Mossad is a different kettle of fish — a halfway house in its mission; part military, part civilian — and that is why it is mostly commanded by military men. The ISI is only military but a twist of fate brought it under the Cabinet Division of the Government of Pakistan, meaning the prime minister.
The ISI, formed in the 1950s, was initially commanded by a colonel with the mission and objective to assist the armed forces in their war mission by providing them intelligence on the enemy. The colonel became a brigadier under Ayub Khan and its mission stayed the same. Around this time, despite martial law, which was first imposed in 1958, the dirty political legwork was restricted to the Intelligence Bureau and before it to the Special Branch, both civilian entities with officers mostly pulled out of the Police Service of Pakistan.
Come 1973; along with the birth of a new Constitution came the repositioning of the ISI under Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. That is also when its political wing was set up. Prime Minister Bhutto did some more restructuring, too, to the military system and the military adjusted well to these changes.
Between 1972 and March 1973, there was a major mutiny in the armed forces that rebelled against the leadership, both political and military, whom the rebels held responsible for the dismemberment of Pakistan. The rebellion, fairly advanced into its planning stages, was infiltrated and exposed, and all culprits held and punished with long banishment. Raja Nadir Parvez, a former military man and a current politician was a part of this largely popular group. This is when the military intelligence agencies acted to save a political government.
Since the ISI is an inter-services department, it is heavily populated by uniformed people. A small percentage, probably much lower than 30 per cent, is civilian and that too because they provide the essential elements of continuity to very essential work in support of the military mission — most others are on rotational assignments except in the past few decades where a core uniformed group has come into place for the sake of continuity. The ISI, as its prime mission, supports the offensive operational role of the Pakistani military that remains crucial to its overall mission. How the ISI gets introduced, however, to our people is as the ‘deep state’. Why one may ask and that will always remain a million-dollar question.
Two military men have also contributed to bringing the ISI into disrepute — Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf — when both tended to use the agency to bolster their political standing through manipulation of the political environment. Air Marshal Asghar Khan’s case, pending in the Supreme Court, has enough fat on it to prove such a contention.
What then is the solution? The answer: disassociate the ISI from any political work. That will mean moving it back to the military in an organisational correction and tasking it only with its original foundational purpose. Under the current structure, it could easily move under the chairman joint chiefs as an inter-service entity. As for the political leadership, if it still needs to manipulate the political environment, the task can be given to the Intelligence Bureau. A ‘bloody civilian’ may still not be able to head the ISI.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 2nd, 2012.
COMMENTS (45)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
What then is the solution? The answer: disassociate the ISI from any political work
Is the Army and particularly the COAS willing to do so?
If yes, Who is preventing this 'purification'?
If No, How do you propose carry out this 'disassociation'?
And the 100 million US Dollar question is, Is the 'political work' being done at the behest of the politician or is it on the instructions of the GHQ?
Can the writer define the role of "S" Wing in our ISI??? I am not saying this, the whole world is asking this question. Making and breaking of civilian governments along with their sleeping partners (Judiciary) is still in its full swing. Yes, we do need to redefine their original role with watchful eyes.
Brilliant piece sir. Thank you for bringing this to the table - much needed!
Reply in words of Habib Jalib.
Tum nay loota hai sadyon hamara sakoon, Ab na hum per chalay ga tumhara fasoon, Chara gar main tumhain kiss tara say kahoon? Tum naheen charaagar, Koi maanay magar, Main naheen maanta, Main naheen jaanta.
For centuries you have all stolen our peace of mind But your power over us is coming to an end Why do you pretend you can cure pain? Even if some claim that you’ve healed them, I refuse to acknowledge, I refuse to accept.�
I am no Shafi fan, but his point was ISI and the military should come under civilian control just like every other country in the world.
@cautious, can you go to the article about human sacrifice of a child in India --- we need your missing wisdom there...
In democratic nations, unlike those where the military has an outsize influence or dictatorships, the head of the national intelligence agency is normally a civilian appointed by the PM and an approved by the peoples elected representatives To insure this is nothing more than a political appointee this person’s appointment normally exceeds the term of the current elected government. This head can be removed but it takes the efforts of both the elected representatives and the judiciary.
Of course none of this works in PAK because there is no history of democratic institutions, the military has outsize influence is not answerable to the elected civilian government. The military and by extension the ISI are a government unto themselves answerable to no one.
'dissociate the ISI from any political work,' Sir, who will bell the cat? Do you think sleuths are as naive to be manipulated by the political governments?
Let's change the name of ISI to make it civilian. That will appease the writer who is making case of non civi head of intelligence because of agency's name. Besides name how else ISI is different from any other agency in the world??
Once a platoon was trying to measure a pole height and trying various ways of jumping up, finally a contractor engineer passing by pulled the pole down and measured it laying on the ground 11ft 6 inches. After he left the Platoon head remarked " Bloody civilian the Major asked us the height of the pole and he gave us the length. .
@Maryam: And since when did the term 'internal threat' be defined as the need to create new parties by bribing saleable politicians and doling out money to make certain politicians/ parties lose elections??? we don't need to get over our biases regarding military, you need to shed your myopic view of the military as a holy cow that cannot be questioned.
@Cautious: The person heading the ISI is "more probable" to be genuine/legit/deserving than a person heading the government.
An civilian must not only head ISI but also rewrite the rule book clearly spelling out what is their mandate and what they cannot do. The nation may not be able to accept disappearances of their loved ones in National interest any longer. Private interest must be clearly differentiated from National interest.
Wonderful approach and a deeply thought idea, Mr Baloch.@Baloch Nationalist:
In the constitution, miltitary is responsible for both internal and external threats. And i guess the dilemma of Pakistan is that it has always been threatened more internally than externally. We all need to get over the biases against military and see the bigger picture.
ISI working under the Joint Staff Headquarters without any political role is the answer to correct the anomly as suggested by Shahzad Chaudry.
We have seen the fate of INSTITUTIONS under civilian control. Do we want the ISI to become PIA/RAILWAYS/STEEL MILL ?
You wrote "The ISI, as its prime mission, supports the offensive operational role of the Pakistani military that remains crucial to its overall mission." And how did ISI ever succeed in “its prime mission, supports the offensive operational role”? There has been no war where the army won and did not surrender. So much for the ISI and its prime mission to support the offensive operational role! Are there any victories that I have missed under the microscope?
Good job, Mr. Chaudhry. After all loyalty to one's constituency is important. Mr. Kamran Shafi has the courage speak the bitter truth.
What a joke!!!!!
"The ISI, formed in the 1950s, was initially commanded by a colonel with the mission and objective to assist the armed forces in their war mission by providing them intelligence on the enemy." Most of the time ISI is fighting its was in Islamabad!
So Shahzad Chaudhry, why should the ISI have no accountability to the elected government of Pakistan? (In other words, be a state within a state)?
"disassociate the ISI from any political work. That will mean moving it back to the military in an organisational correction and tasking it only with its original foundational purpose. Under the current structure, it could easily move under the chairman joint chiefs as an inter-service entity"
I doubt the ISI would give up its role merely by proclamation or law. There is really only one solution I can think of, which is to establish civilian accountability: parliament-appointed and parliament-responsible inspector generals whom ISI whistleblowers can appeal to in case of conflict with their superiors.
Some countries have armies while some armies have countries. Pakistan Army has Pakistan as its conquering ground, that it keeps on invading every now and then. Allah may save this unfortunate nation. Amen
i'm not sure the part about president musharraf bringing the ISI into disrepute is exactly accurate. president musharraf did use the ISI in the beginning in order to get the PML-Q to come together. but the ISI was not allowed to operate by harrasing political leaders or do other things that are so unordinary. the PPP and PML-N have used the ISI for their own narroe means much more than someone like president musharraf.
A civilian heading a pack of people in uniform may not make much difference, then letting ISI do it 's military duties and having political consensus not to drag ISI into political matters. It is the depoliticization of ISI and returning it to do the job to support the armed forces in war and peace. If our political leadership has come to the conclusion not seek help from the military to change governments, they should also solemnly declare that when in power they will never use ISI for political advantage over the opposition and political rivals. It should be a part of their manifesto to never drag ISI into politics.
ISI should be divided into 2 separate agencies -- an internal intelligence and an external intelligence agency. As the existing name has come into disrepute, it should be renamed. There should be a higher focus on permanent civilian staff in both the new agencies.
For the internal agency, there should be clear rules where it has to work within the confines of the law. Any agent harming a resident of Pakistan should be held culpable and prosecuted. This will ensure that the agency cannot pursue any kill-and-dump like policies against the Baloch or journalists.
The external agency should be under the Prime Minister so that it can work to support the Pakistan foreign policy as defined by the head of the state.
The author gives the impression that ISI is an isolated entity that has been politicized, as if the Army leadership has no vested interest in keeping the ISI politicized. True that intitially ISI was politicized by a civilian, but today's ISI we all know is the Army's tool, not the PM's or President's tool. The Army has illegally become the number one power broker in the country over the last few decades. It wants to maintain this status quo. And ISI helps it maintain that status quo through its politcal wing. It is called the Deep State because the Army considers it its business to formulate key internal and external policies. But since the Constitution won't let it do so, it gets what it wants surreptitiously through the ISI. So it is the Army that has ISI in its clutches, and what Kamran Shafi means when he talks about a civilian head is that perhaps this will be a way to get ISI out of the Army's clutches. Personally, I don't think that ISI will be de-politicized just by appointing a civilian - as sold-out civilians come dime-a-dozen. It will be de-politicized only when the Army wants it to be so. And that is what the author circumvents with great finesse.
As a civilian, I strongly condemn the term 'Bloody Civilian". Those who use this term are not civilized. We Civilians pay for all the luxeries these :Nopoleans" enjoy and they use derogatory words for their masters. Shame on anyone who uses this term.
One Advice: Politician, grow the balls (if you can) and you may take the ISI/Army/Whomever for a ride, until then (till the time our politicians are gutless), the ISI and others would keep on taking you for a ride, instead. The choice is all yours - It's that simple.
BTW, good response to Shafi, however he didnt deserve such attention.
"in the past few decades where a core uniformed group has come into place for the sake of continuity" - That is the core issue. Unless this group, sympathetic to Jihadists and Anti-Democratic forces is demolished, we might never see a peaceful and stable Pakistan.
Yeah! you one doesnt attack the livelihood of the keepers of the state who threaten anyone who questions their unaccountable powers and denounce them as traitors! Afterall, I mean, considering the efforts the ISI and by extension the Armys go's through to insure that everyone remains forever subservient to their awesomeness, one would think they would be compensating for something. Well ofcourse they are, the fact that they have badly failed in doing their job according to their job description, while playing politics and influencing matters of the state, Paksitan is indeed secure. I mean, Pakistan was created so it could serve the Army and ISI, is that how the story gos?
Dear Writer, Asgher Khan petition pertains to the events post Zia and pre-Musharraf (1988-90), then it was the honorable Hameed Gul and Asad Durrani. List of ISI interference in local affairs is endless but one stands out, East Pakistan 1971 debacle when State tried manipulating electoral results but failed miserably with terrible losses.
As per the writer, defined role of ISI "in providing intelligence about perceived threats to the mission in war". "The ISI, as its prime mission, supports the offensive operational role of the Pakistani military that remains crucial to its overall mission". Therefore, ISI involvement in local politics implies civilians cannot be trusted for they are a 'perceived threat' to the military, thus the state within the state philosophy! If we are to examine the East Pakistan loss, continued militancy in Pakistan, suicide bombings, sectarian murders and rebellion in Baluchistan one would be justified in saying performance for the premier agency has been mostly disappointing. Given a poor track record, continued charges of interference in local politics and loss of confidence change of guard at the top makes absolutely good sense.
@khan -- if a politician abuses his position or does a lousy job then you vote him out of office -- that's how a Democracy works. As it stands now the ISI meddles in politics all the time and holds itself accountable to no one - something no other Democracy tolerates.
@Mohammad Assad: ".....there is already a ‘bloody civilian’ who is the head of the ISI. His name is Yousaf Raza Gillani."
That is in name only. Does Gilani has any powers over the ISI? Hell no. Does the ISI report to Gilani in the real sense and take orders from him and be subservient to him? Hell no. In fact, in the bigger picture, does the Pakistani civilian government have the real powers to take major policy changes? Hell no. It is the army that is the true power behind the state and has always been the case. Any civilian government in Pakistan has always been just a facade, and not just in the case of the ISI
“It was meant to assist the military — yes, the military, and hence the Inter-Services nomenclature” “the ISI was not a devious conception to be used to upstage sitting political governments” because in reality it is other way around and that is a prerogative of section S or whatever the political wing of ISI is called now a days.
great read! something based on content and not emotions!
@cautious but then again, it will be used for political purposes, like what the author mentions about Zia and Mush. Tell the military to work for the country in the barracks and let democracy take it's course. More idealistically, everyone should be accountable before the judiciary equally President/COAS/DGISI.
Good article and strong reply to Kamran Shafi
What I mentioned in the Kamran Shafi article as well was that there is already a 'bloody civilian' who is the head of the ISI. His name is Yousaf Raza Gillani. We can play semantics all day long and then blame the 'deep state' for all our ills, but the fact of the matter is that till the elected government shows some guts..Erdogan style, there will continually be civil-military 'balance of power' problems.
Good response but I don't think much attention should have been given to Mr Shafi's lame article.
Who heads the ISI isn't important -- having the ISI report to the elected Civilian Govt is what is important and allowing that gov to hire/fire the head of that agency.