Daily Times

In the aftermath of the attack on the journalist and anchorperson Hamid Mir, which he thankfully survived, people are falling over each other to express their support to Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency. In a first of its kind even by Pakistani standards, and certainly unprecedented anywhere else in the world, banners have popped up in Islamabad pledging support to the ISI, complete with its director’s photograph splashed across them. I doubt that Lavrentiy Beria’s KGB or Allen Dulles’ CIA ever got such spontaneous outpouring of love and support. If the traders of East Berlin had similarly venerated the Stasi, the German Democratic Republic may have survived a few years more. Well, good to know that those who one thought were feared are actually so overwhelmingly loved. Clearly the number one intelligence agency in the world — the Pakistani internet chatter clearly says so — is also the most adored outfit in its own country. The high and mighty would be squirming with sheer envy in the pantheon of spooks.
The traders were not the only ones gushing over the agency. The political and religio-political leaders and parties ranging from Imran Khan, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Ahle-Sunnat-wal-Jamaat formerly known and banned as the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, all the way to the Sindh Provincial Assembly have put their weight squarely behind the country’s top sleuth enterprise. And, above all, the media, especially three rivals of Hamid Mir’s employer media house group, are firmly perched in the khaki corner. They all crawled out of the woodwork just in time to defend what they call a national asset and a ‘sensitive agency’. The term ‘sensitive agency’ is interesting in its own right. It has been used in the Pakistani media since at least the 1980s and was translated verbatim from the phrase ‘hassaas idaray’ deployed by the Urdu press then.
Perhaps no other spy outfit in the world has ever appropriated the expression ‘sensitive agency’. The work they do and information they gather is of sensitive nature but that adjective never appears prior to any intelligence agency’s name. But, then again, none of them are as soft, cuddly and, of course, sensitive either. On the contrary, sleuths around the world are rather thick skinned and not flustered that easily. They generally keep a poker face and almost never show their hand quite so blatantly as has been happening in Pakistan. The bottom line is that if the private television channel’s transmission right after the attack on Hamid Mir was a serious lapse in editorial judgment, the response, whether spontaneous or orchestrated, has been utterly farcical. However, farcical or not, the message is highly malicious and zeroes in on a handful of dissenters. For example, a jingoistic rant against the president of the South Asia Free Media Association Imtiaz Alam published in a newspaper run by the group he had just resigned from in protest virtually makes him a marked man. The ease with which a man of Imtiaz Alam’s political and journalistic stature was slandered as an ‘Indian agent’ by his former colleagues no less, raises serious concerns about his safety and what the future portends for those few who still speak their mind in Pakistan.
Decades ago, the Pakistani security establishment appointed itself as the sole arbiter of defining the national interest and then pushing the dissenters outside its pale. What is worrying is not just that the establishment is steadfastly refusing to relinquish its chokehold but that its own thinking and description of that national interest has not changed one bit despite its fanfare to the contrary. The television transmission pointing the finger of blame at the mighty intelligence agency perhaps was just the last straw that broke the camel’s back but the so-called red lines remain what they always have been: a military dictator cannot be tried in court for usurping power by subverting the constitution, making peace with India through commerce is unacceptable, not meddling in Afghanistan is not an option and, above all, highlighting that Balochistan continues to bleed is a cardinal sin. The hullaballoo about a change in the security establishment’s internal thinking and its doctrinal course correction focusing on domestic jihadist terrorism as the existential threat seems like eyewash.
The security establishment does not appear to have come to terms with the media and media persons who, it seems to think, were its creation, bucking it at whim. What seems most upsetting to the establishment is when those who once played footsie with it veer from the national security gospel. The ultimate wrath is usually reserved for those who do venture out on their own and take sides against their former benefactors. It has happened with politicians, media persons and jihadists. Whenever a set of protégés becomes too unruly to manage, a new batch is raised to upend the previous one. The first generation Kashmiri jihadists and Afghan mujahideen were replaced with the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Ansar types and the Taliban, respectively. The bad Taliban are to be managed through the good ones. The blatant effort to tame the dissenting elements in the media is no different. The narrative will be controlled through the carrot when possible and a massive stick when needed. The establishment-media standoff will probably settle down sooner rather than later but not without a Michael Corleone telling a Fredo: “But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever.”
Regardless of how the current confrontation ends, it has exposed vulnerabilities on both sides. The old order is down but not out. However, it still could not fully restore the status quo ante despite taking both the gloves and the fig leaf of tolerance off. The 20th century-style muzzle and gag does not work quite that effectively anymore. Taming or banning media outlets can get the security establishment a temporary respite but will invariably backfire. Technology makes it possible to circumvent almost all barriers erected by national security states. Zero sum games in domestic and foreign policies simply do not work. Adapting to new realities may be a better option. The civilians, including the media, on their part should refrain from shooting from the hip. Reacting to circumstances is not the way to fix the perennially lopsided civil-military balance. Politicians cannot expect the intelligentsia to do the heavy lifting; they will have to get their ducks in a row proactively. A few liberal voices that were also overcome by a warm and fuzzy feeling may wish to consider that no one in their right mind has ever opted for the