Daily Times

Much has been written on the challenges to the newly appointed DG ISI Lieutenant General Zaheerul Islam but little has been written on the challenges to the perception and the consequent role of the ISI. This write-up tries to address the latter.

The first challenge to the ISI is to comprehend the grounds on which the fidelity of a national can be questioned, and the grounds on which it cannot be. The ancillary challenge is the modus operandi that is supposed to be adopted to bring an alleged person to a court of law to be arraigned for his deeds. The ISI may be following the old manual written perhaps for the Cold War era — how to label a national as a foe to win the war at all costs. Contrarily, the post-Cold War era is quite different. It is tolerant to numerous human aberrations. It is lenient to several human anomalies. It dampens political ultra-nationalism. It discourages religious fanaticism. It values independent human thinking. The readjustments actuated by the absence of the Cold War are still affecting one area or another of society. The ISI needs to keep itself abreast of those changes to appreciate the flexible boundaries of loyalty of citizens, including the Baloch, to their country.

Secondly, the post-Cold War era has redefined the boundaries of human rights and readjusted the margins of dissent. In all societies, both human rights and dissent have now acquired more space to thrive than ever before. Human rights are considered absolute and dissent is regarded as a way of life — and not a matter to be condemned and dispatching a dissenter to a death cell. The ISI needs to understand the concept of human rights afresh and the definition of violation of human rights anew. It will be pathetic if the ISI seeks refuge in the comparison of how many people were rendered missing by the intelligence agencies of other countries with its own performance in doing so. There is no need for any such contest. The comparison is absurd and justification is abominable. Further, a malevolent act carried out by a country does not permit another country to ape the same. The US has already been reviled both at home and abroad for its Guantanamo Bay policy. There is no room for any Guantanamo Bay in Pakistan. To muffle the dissenting voice of Pakistanis, including the Baloch, was not the objective of the constitution of the ISI. To compare the role of the ISI with foreign intelligence agencies, there are available other better areas of performance, which need not be mentioned here.

Thirdly, the post-Cold War era has brought forth a phenomenon (which enfolds a paradox) the understanding of which is another challenge to the ISI. On the one hand, there is happening a trans-continental migratory movement of people while on the other, there is emerging an ethnic nationalism at home. The ISI needs to study the similarities and differences (which are numerous) between both parts of the phenomenon. The ISI should also conduct a study what role grievances and deprivation play in necessitating both sections of the phenomenon. It is a shame that the military gave a guard of honour to General Pervez Musharraf, who abrogated the Constitution of Pakistan on November 3, 2007, but has been dealing with human beings living in Balochistan as if they were animals. Apparently, the abrogation of the constitution is a lesser evil but raising voice for one’s rights is a bigger one. Not ethnic nationalism and its manifestations but the appearance of mutilated dead bodies in Balochistan is an antithesis to the theme of oneness of Pakistan.

Fourthly, the ISI is surrounded by sycophants existing in the domain of politics. They are there with an axe to grind. How come Sheikh Rashid of Awami Muslim League knows the way the military or the ISI works? Is he briefed on that? He seems hell bent on becoming a blue-eyed chap of the Corps Commanders Rawalpindi. Ironically, on any TV talk show, he can speak on Balochistan at length to defend the military and the ISI but he shies away from speaking on the problems of and solutions for the railways as its ex-minister. He does all that obsequiousness not for any altruistic cause but to meet his selfish motive: to persuade the ISI to rig the next elections for him to bring him into power. These sycophants engender more harm than benefit to the ISI and need to be kept at arm’s length.

Fifthly, the ISI seems to have fallen prey to certain defence analysts who now are in abundance around. The other day, one such defence analyst was found proclaiming that the idea of the Dubai model was spawning unrest in Balochistan and unless this idea fizzled out, no peace could be introduced in Balochistan. The answer is very simple: if Balochistan has the potential to become Dubai, Pakistan should take the initiative and make this dream come true. Why is Pakistan faltering on that account? Another defence analyst has been trying to find the path of making another martial law possible. The pathfinder is determined to justify abrogation of the constitution under the trite excuse of ‘national interests’. Perceivably, the worth of a defence analyst is to grasp the seat of a director at some defence institute, deliver lectures at some war college, secure a position in some government-owned organisation including the state-run TV or acquire a piece of land at a nominal price in a DHA. These defence analysts feed on the vulnerabilities of the ISI and promote their own interests.

In fact, the glass of the media is also half-full of ISI’s toadies. It is understandable that in Pakistan to comment as a sycophant on the perceived challenges to the ISI is one thing but to comment on the ISI as a critic is a different ball game, called a risky business — the cost of which may be a critic’s scalp.

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com