Daily Times

Let us assume, to please the secularists, that everyone deserves an opinion as a rule of democracy. The elite will harp on and on quoting events in history that favour their diatribe against the Pakistan army and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). A single question exposes them in a second: “If you want to berate the army, by all means do so but why do you not bring up the acts of sabotage and espionage conducted by forces outside the country with the same fervour?” Since they cannot outright deny the existence of such forces, they offer silent mutterings on how that part is too unclear and complex to be commented on.
This problem of murkiness continues without any signs of abatement. I keep hearing from elder global political analysts that the necessary first step for the army is to make an example of someone within their own ranks before they decide to mark civilians for corruption or betrayal. Without this, it would prove be difficult, if not impossible, to cleanse the system down to its roots in the way that is absolutely imperative as lawlessness runs amok, going from worse to horrific, and citizens are killed with impunity. And then, as if from the heavens, came Seymour Hersh’s article, ‘The killing of Osama bin Laden’ (London Review of Books, May 21, 2015).
A 10,000 plus word piece relying mostly on a single source, Hersh alleged that President Obama (not to mention the CIA, National Security Agency (NSA) and several other institutions) lied through their teeth about the events of the killing of bin Laden and, for the purposes of what is relevant to us, that “the most blatant lie was that Pakistan’s two most senior military leaders — General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, chief of the army staff, and General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director general of the ISI — were never informed of the US mission” whereas in fact “Pasha and Kayani were responsible for ensuring that Pakistan’s army and air defence command would not track or engage with the US helicopters used on the mission.”
Hersh, the most highly respected investigative journalist of his generation, is being attacked viciously in the US for his accusatory piece but stands by every word. Amongst other covert deals, he went on to say that “Kayani and Pasha knew of the raid in advance and had made sure that the two helicopters delivering the Seals to Abbottabad could cross Pakistani airspace without triggering any alarms” and “that there were also under-the-table personal ‘incentives’ that were financed by off-the-books Pentagon contingency funds”. Corruption and betrayal. Talk about a Godsend presented on a silver platter.
China’s presence in Pakistan is not entirely related to economics given its ‘string of pearls’ plan and it is indeed a game changer. And not the kind the BBC and other western press outlets are seemingly still wondering about. China has entered the stage in Pakistan at a time when nothing has changed for it in terms of reception in good faith from our end. The current civilian government — and all prospective ones on the horizon — does not appear any less subservient to the west. Perhaps the Chinese waited long enough and decided to move ahead; work with the devil, even one that does not seem to want to retire, even when knowing they will only be replaced by others who take their orders from the same page.
Pakistan’s leaders have too many masters. At least as many as the countries where they bank their cash and assets, and anyone with half a brain can do the math on that. But the Inter-Services Public Relations’ (ISPR’s) statement has now forced the issue. Anyone who wants to touch an issue of complexity should present both sides of the matter when conducting debate and/or seeking resolve in a public forum. Otherwise they publicly cast themselves in dubious light. If there are panels on controversial issues that involve the ISI there has to be some, if not equal, representation of those who can showcase what the enemies of the state are up to in the same context. That role has to be proactively played by the security apparatus itself and they have countless means to do that skilfully. Let it be said that the likes of Zaid Hamid with their ridiculed reputations are not going to cut it either. If the ISI refuses to participate, thinking they are above it or it is unnecessary because the nays constitute a tiny minority, and that too within the elite, then they risk, at worst, also alienating their most loyal supporters within that powerful strata and at least those sitting on the fence, of which there are many.
It is time for the protectors of Pakistan to come out of the shadows and into the light. As Hersh says in the words of his principal source, a retired senior intelligence official in the US, “The Pakistani army sees itself as family. Officers call soldiers their sons and all officers are ‘brothers’. The senior Pakistani officers believe they are the elite and have got to look out for all of the people, as keepers of the flame against Muslim fundamentalism.” Whether the form the country takes is as pure as the dreamers of its name suggest or it is the monster ‘failed state’ that the rest of the world has built it up to be, its citizenry deserves to have a line of defence inside the borders as well.
When the identity of the country hangs by a thread that only seems to tie it to its founder, Mr Jinnah, and its faith, Islam, those who believe not only in its continued existence but its potential role as envisioned in its foundation as a leader of the Muslim world, need a powerful voice from within the state that reverberates their own loud and clear. And, as for the disbelievers, they get yet another chance to decide which side of the line they want to stand on.

(Concluded)

The writer is a freelance columnist