Of khaki and mufti
Has the time not arrived to review the working of the ISI and put it on a better footing.
A change of command has finally taken place at the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The outgoing chief, Lt-Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, retired from service after an extension given to him by the government ended. He has been replaced by Lt-Gen Zaheerul Islam, who’s last assignment was commander of the V corps based in Karachi. The change of commander of the agency has also been marked by a statement by the prime minister that while the ISI is an important national institution, it should not be “controversial”. And the PML-N chief has said that he hopes that under a new chief the agency will not interfere in politics anymore. The latter statement is particularly relevant given the ongoing hearing of Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan’s petition into the Mehrangate scandal, in which the agency paid hundreds of millions of rupees to politicians in a bid to dislodge the first Benazir Bhutto government.
These statements can be juxtaposed with Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s remarks of last week following the reopening of the so-called Mehrangate case at the Supreme Court. General Kayani said: “If you want to fight with history in this context, it’s your choice to do so. However, establishing institutions requires a lot of hard work and the media should be careful that their words do not undermine these [institutions]”. He noted that the American media did not criticise “as harshly as the Pakistan Army was criticised by Pakistanis”. He further elaborated: “Ruthless criticism of ISI in Pakistan was far higher than any criticism made on RAW, Mossad or the CIA in India, Israel or USA”.
First of all, let us look at his observations in the light of his decision as army chief not to interfere in the functioning of a democratic government despite provocations. In this context, since we are now embarked on a new era of civil-military relations, it is better to forget the past and look at the positive aspects of this new development and look ahead rather than back. What is unfolding now in the shape of media discussion is an act of reconciliation with the past with the intent of not repeating it. A judicial commission charged with the murder of journalist Saleem Shahzad was looking at the possibility of ISI having done the deed. In its final report it exonerated the ISI but what the commission went on to do was to propose the most far-reaching reform to-date of the ISI as an institution, which was to bring it under parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. Should that be considered a destructive act? Surprisingly, the media welcomed the proposal of reform and has asked the government to implement it.
For any meaningful reform and correction, investigation into any malfeasance of the past is needed so that remedial measures can be taken. Exemption, if that is what the army chief wants, is not the answer at all. Take the case of the money put together fraudulently for distribution to rig the 1990 election. The case was correctly brought up in 1996 after revelations were made inside parliament. It involved the then army chief and the chief of the ISI. Since the army was calling the shots and was able to dominate the judiciary — which served as handmaiden to military rulers till the emergence of the current Supreme Court — it is to be determined who was finally to blame. That would lead to correction called reform.
The finger is pointed persistently at the functioning of the ISI. Has the time not arrived to review the working of this institution and put it on a better footing so that it is viewed, not with misgivings, but with the same confidence that Indians repose in RAW and the Americans in CIA? We are lucky that we have someone like General Kayani leading the army in these difficult times who is determined to resist the temptation of staging a coup in the name of national security. General Kayani’s decision not to shelter his erstwhile boss General Musharraf from the consequences of his mistakes as military ruler has given rise to an independent judiciary which is now subjecting the democratic system to proper judicial oversight.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 20th, 2012.
These statements can be juxtaposed with Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s remarks of last week following the reopening of the so-called Mehrangate case at the Supreme Court. General Kayani said: “If you want to fight with history in this context, it’s your choice to do so. However, establishing institutions requires a lot of hard work and the media should be careful that their words do not undermine these [institutions]”. He noted that the American media did not criticise “as harshly as the Pakistan Army was criticised by Pakistanis”. He further elaborated: “Ruthless criticism of ISI in Pakistan was far higher than any criticism made on RAW, Mossad or the CIA in India, Israel or USA”.
First of all, let us look at his observations in the light of his decision as army chief not to interfere in the functioning of a democratic government despite provocations. In this context, since we are now embarked on a new era of civil-military relations, it is better to forget the past and look at the positive aspects of this new development and look ahead rather than back. What is unfolding now in the shape of media discussion is an act of reconciliation with the past with the intent of not repeating it. A judicial commission charged with the murder of journalist Saleem Shahzad was looking at the possibility of ISI having done the deed. In its final report it exonerated the ISI but what the commission went on to do was to propose the most far-reaching reform to-date of the ISI as an institution, which was to bring it under parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. Should that be considered a destructive act? Surprisingly, the media welcomed the proposal of reform and has asked the government to implement it.
For any meaningful reform and correction, investigation into any malfeasance of the past is needed so that remedial measures can be taken. Exemption, if that is what the army chief wants, is not the answer at all. Take the case of the money put together fraudulently for distribution to rig the 1990 election. The case was correctly brought up in 1996 after revelations were made inside parliament. It involved the then army chief and the chief of the ISI. Since the army was calling the shots and was able to dominate the judiciary — which served as handmaiden to military rulers till the emergence of the current Supreme Court — it is to be determined who was finally to blame. That would lead to correction called reform.
The finger is pointed persistently at the functioning of the ISI. Has the time not arrived to review the working of this institution and put it on a better footing so that it is viewed, not with misgivings, but with the same confidence that Indians repose in RAW and the Americans in CIA? We are lucky that we have someone like General Kayani leading the army in these difficult times who is determined to resist the temptation of staging a coup in the name of national security. General Kayani’s decision not to shelter his erstwhile boss General Musharraf from the consequences of his mistakes as military ruler has given rise to an independent judiciary which is now subjecting the democratic system to proper judicial oversight.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 20th, 2012.