Daily Times

With India’s foreign minister, Ms Sushma Swaraj, declaring the corridor “unacceptable”, Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif finally decided enough was enough. He did not mince words at the all parties conference (APC) convened in Quetta by Balochistan’s Chief Minister (CM), Dr Abdul Malik, after the Mastung massacre as to the motivation behind the concerted campaign. Accompanied by the army chief, the Pakistani PM had been briefed on national security affairs. He vehemently decried the anti-Pakistan campaign that had markedly intensified after the launch of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Most of the media acts in good faith for the sake of democracy but a powerful and influential section of our fourth estate has been badly compromised. Is it coincidence that in line with forces inimical to the country some increasingly castigate Pakistan’s first line of defence — the army — and the country’s premier intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)? Anathema to the concept of various freedoms that both the intelligentsia and the masses expect in a democratic process, intelligence agencies all over the world operate in the shadowy embrace of a nether world by the very nature of their operations. Some transgressions taken to be interference in domestic politics are in keeping with realpolitik practices prevalent in most third world countries; going into details or specifics would be counter-productive to the national interest. Heeding their mission statement they must not indulge in vendettas, whether officially mandated and/or for private purposes, intelligence agencies invariably tend to exceed the letter, if not the spirit, of the law in the pursuit of their mission statement. A mechanism must exist to hold accountability for violations, quietly and effectively, without fanfare or irrelevant publicity in the national interest.

Power vested without any accountability whatsoever is an all-pervasive aphrodisiac. When exercised without restraint it tends to corrupt absolutely, a one-way street to disaster in the hands of self-seeking, greedy and narrow-minded individuals. After Zia’s martial law, the advent of democracy brought the PPP’s Ms Bhutto to power and exposed the silent sentinels of the dark to the bright light for the first time. In exposing erring individuals, it also exposed the institutions to media cynosure. To the nation’s detriment it thus gave space for manipulation by enemy agencies. It serves no useful purpose to belabour our spooks in public and emasculate their effectiveness. Blinding our eyes and deafening our own ears in the present volatile geo-political situation amounts to virtual sabotage.

Ms Benazir Bhutto sanctioned a commission headed by former Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Air Marshal Zulfiqar Ali Khan to recommend intelligence reforms but what she really wanted was to hold accountable the ISI’s blatant support to political rivals opposing her coming to power in 1988. Comprehensive and objective, the Zulfiqar Commission noted lack of (1) institutional coordination among the intelligence agencies at the national level, and (2) not so clear demarcation of responsibilities, resulting in duplication of efforts and omission of essential areas of coverage. The report suggested a regulatory mechanism and laws for intelligence agencies, criticising them for unauthorised and unnecessary internal political operations like surveillance and telephone tapping. It also recommended strongly that while the surveillance of normal political activities must be stopped, influence peddling through friends, family and business connections must not sidetrack investigations and accountability thereof. The Zulfiqar Commission specifically warned against the dangers of the client-patron relationship inherent in our system.

To quote my article, ‘The intelligence imbroglio’ of November 3, 1992, “The collection, collation, dissemination and distribution of information (CCD and D) are the four pillars of the intelligence system and lead to a deliberate analysis before a decision is articulated. Since these agencies serve as the barometer for mass perception and national aspiration, the importance of correct information and analysis thereof cannot be over-emphasised. Unfortunately, in many countries of the world, including the first world, information becomes slanted, doctored by vested interests to virtually influence policy into a desired direction for a specific purpose. Intelligence agencies are also crucially important in maintaining confidentiality for the state. No nation can afford that its secrets are easily accessible to either friend or foe. Our undercover services must provide (1) a screen against penetration; (2) actively ferret out the sources of leakage of information, and (3) neutralise enemy propaganda.”

Self-effacing professionals of the highest moral fibre and character must head intelligence entities. Men of vision, honesty and integrity, they must not only have a known penchant for holding national interest above individual likes and dislikes but the moral courage to tell blunt home truths to rulers in private conversations. This will force our leaders to govern correctly despite their given political compulsions and/or deep-rooted personal inclinations. Having the responsibility to protect the nation’s integrity, they need to positively support the process of accountability, guarding the nation’s frontiers from subversion from within and without, from enemies and friends alike in the national interest. They must be able to differentiate between anti-government and anti-state activity, anti-government activity not being automatically taken to be anti-state. Because the democratic process has not been institutionalised, any criticism levelled against the people in power is crassly labelled as unpatriotic, patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel. Our insecure leaders frequently turn to the intelligence agencies to actively label their critics unpatriotic. The intelligence agencies sometimes fall over themselves attempting to endear themselves to those in power. By ferreting out (or even inventing) information about vocal opponents and/or critics of the regime, an anti-government stance is easily transformed into an anti-state activity.

With jealousy imbibed in our national character, merit is usually suspect in Pakistan. When personnel of intelligence agencies deviate from this mission statement for ‘nothing official about it’ vendettas, it destroys their credibility. Self-accountability must be a constant process, including the carrying out of intelligence audits by third parties, an in-built standard operating procedure (SOP) system engaging in a constant self-cleansing process with an ombudsman type watchdog monitoring agency responsible for carrying this out as a fail-safe mechanism if self-accountability fails. They must be careful about subversives and those in their own hierarchy who tend to use the resources of their agencies for their own selfish and personal purposes.

No nation can afford that its intelligence agencies are subjected to the continuing drumbeat of criticism. Facing an implacable foe, their operations must not become the subject of public debate. This will play into the hands of the enemy. The very nature of cloak and dagger operations, ‘hybrid warfare’, which we have to confront on several fronts, requires that in supreme national interest our agencies must have the freedom to retaliate while remaining in the shadows.

The writer is a defence analyst and security expert