Province-like admin structure approved for NAs. Thank you, PPP.

Long live democracy, long live PPP. Historical reforms for the Northern Areas of Pakistan approved by the PPP Government.

Province-like admin structure approved for NAs

ISLAMABAD: The province-like administration structure has been approved in federal cabinet with Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani in chair, Geo News reported Saturday.

Addressing a press conference flanked by Federal Information Minister Qamaruz Zaman Kaira, he said 15-member administrative council will see about the matters of Northern Areas; the council will choose the chief minister.

The PM said a committee has been constituted for the Northern Areas, adding all the stakeholders have been taken in confidence on Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment Act.

Previously, it was Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) that worked for Northern Areas, the PM said.

The Northern Areas, renamed in cabinet meeting as Gilgit-Baltistan will have a Chief Minister and six ministers along with three technocrat seats and two women seats, he informed.

The cabinet of Gilgit-Baltistan will approve their budget; however, the federation will appoint the governor.

He said Auditor General and election Commissioner would be appointed in Gilgit-Baltistan.

Commenting on secrets unfolded by former military officers, he said these statements should lead us to question why these today’s speakers kept silent for that long period, adding, ‘We want to abolish 17th amendment and 58-2B.’

‘We want harmony in powers of President and Prime Minister..and all the national institutions including military are working in their deputed jurisdiction,’ he added.

Cabinet approves self-rule for NAs

* Northern Areas to be named Gilgit-Baltistan
* Governor to be appointed by president, CM to be elected by legislative assembly
* Kaira to act as governor until elections in region

By Irfan Ghauri

ISLAMABAD: In its special meeting on Saturday, the federal cabinet approved the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order 2009, which would be implemented through a presidential ordinance to be promulgated shortly.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who chaired the meeting, later told reporters that replacing the Northern Areas Governance Order 1994, Gilgit-Baltistan had been proposed as the new official name of the Northern Areas where a governor would be appointed by the president to represent the federation.

Kaira: Until elections for the legislative assembly take place, Federal Minister for Kashmir and Northern Areas Qamar Zaman Kaira would act as governor.

The new order also proposed that the Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly – whose elections are likely to be held by the end of the year – should elect a chief minister.

The legislative assembly would consist of 30 members, 24 to be elected directly and six on reserved seats for women and technocrats. The chief minister would be assisted by six ministers and would be authorised to appoint two additional advisers. The Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly would have powers to make laws on 61 subjects while the council would deal with 55 subjects.

To empower the council and the assembly on financial matters, there would be a council-consolidated fund under Article 54, and the Gilgit-Baltistan Consolidated Fund under Article 55 of the 2009 law. The annual budget would be presented before the Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly as is the practice in the provinces.

The chief judge of the Supreme Appellate Court would be appointed by the chairman of the council on the advice of the governor. The number of judges would be increased from three to five and the tenure of the present judges of the superior judiciary would be protected under the new order. (Daily Times).

Rescuing the Northern Areas

Some people think that the self-governance reforms package for the Northern Areas announced on Saturday is already too little too late. But given how many things are nowhere near solution in the country, the PPP government has taken the right step. The Northern Areas will be Gilgit-Baltistan from now on, with its own elected Assembly, albeit in parallel to an independent Council working under a centre-appointed governor.

The PMLN could have opposed it simply because the change will favour the PPP, but it hasn’t, which is a sign of maturity. In its earlier tenure in power, the PPP had allowed party politics in the region, which had immediately led to the dominance of the party there. But in democracy, some things done for short term political gain finally turn out to be good for everyone in the long run. The important thing for this increasingly disturbed border region is that it has got self-rule.

The PMLN has welcomed the big change of status. It is quite clear why it has done so. During its rule it had discovered that the Northern Areas were ruled entirely from the point of view of “national security” and there was little that the central government could do — despite the political parties’ activities there — because the locus of power in Gilgit was firmly in the hands of the army.

The Northern Areas’ nationalism has developed in opposition to the constitutional limbo in the region. It was accepted by the state as a part of Kashmir in international treaties. Azad Kashmir claimed it for that reason and challenged an early law of 1949 that had separated it “administratively”. The people of Gilgit-Baltistan claim they had liberated themselves from Kashmir at Partition and want the status of a separate province. Like Balochistan and the NWFP, this nationalism too is focusing on the possession of natural resources and water and energy assets. Because they were representationally suppressed, a fringe began to call for “Free Balawaristan”.

Representation and freedom of party politics will undo some more serious damage done by two military rulers. General Zia-ul Haq, fighting a relocated Iran-Saudi sectarian war, allowed Sunni lashkars into the region in 1988 to cut the Shia majority down to size. This was a useless bloodletting in an area where the people were generally peace-loving. The Ismaili ethos of tolerance and tranquility represented by Hunza prevailed even among the Twelver Shia.

The tragedy of Gilgit-Baltistan sprang from its designation as an area of “strategic importance”. It faces Ladakh across the border in Indian-administered Kashmir. For countless years, the Pakistan Army eyed Ladakh for a set-piece battle with India, and each army chief was presented with a scenario of victory. Then General Musharraf came along and thought he could pull it off. In the process, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan went into another phase of sectarian massacres.

General Musharraf did not care that some of the “non-state actors” he was using at Kargil were savagely anti-Shia. After the fiasco of Kargil, sectarianism has never stopped raising its ugly head in the region and will take the salve of democracy now to heal. Religious leaders were killed under General Musharraf. Textbooks prescribed by bureaucrats were rejected. People arose against choices made in Islamabad of fundamentalist commissioners at Gilgit. And the local military commanders applied the iron fist indiscriminately.

If there is extremism in Gilgit-Baltistan today it should not surprise us. But the process of election, good governance and sense of participation will gradually lead to acceptance. The Karakoram Highway has opened up the region economically; the construction of Basha Dam will bring wealth and prosperity. Above all, the opening up of this heretofore “strategic” area to the media will tell the people of Pakistan for the first time what has been going on there and what should be done to bind the old wounds.

The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) has opposed the self-governance package because it hopes to liberate Jammu & Kashmir from both India and Pakistan and give it the status of a sovereign state. But anyone who has taken a close look at the people of Gilgit-Baltistan knows that their demand has been for a separate province within Pakistan, based on their belief that they are not Kashmiris. The JKLF can fight the next Gilgit-Baltistan election and see where it stands with the people. That is its right. (Daily Times)

A step in the right direction —Rasul Bakhsh Rais

Since Gilgit-Baltistan was part of the Jammu and Kashmir state, its fate became linked to which way the disputed state would go. This was implicitly the reason for the six-decades-long delay in restructuring the governance of the region

Granting a sort of autonomy, or self-rule, to the Gilgit-Baltistan region is the first critical step in the right direction. This is something that the people of the region have been demanding for a very long time.

But is the proposed structure of self-governance that is going to be implemented through a presidential ordinance enough, or do we need more in terms of autonomy from the outset of reforms than wait for further political demands? Have we, in this sense, neglected Gilgit-Baltistan?

The people of this rugged and difficult region have their own individuality and a sense of ethnic identity that has been shaped by history and geography over a long period of time. There is no doubt that this sparsely populated, vast region has diverse communities within it, but at the same time there are overlapping bonds of religion, language and social networks.

Parallel to unifying themes, there are also distinctive feelings among communities at the local level, a pattern similar to the social patchwork that we see in mountain communities.

Unlike tribal communities, the social networks that we have observed in Gilgit-Baltistan are essentially non-feudal, less hierarchical and more open to social change and development than even mainstream areas in the rest of Pakistan. One is greatly impressed by how local communities have embraced the idea of education, community organisation and development, often in competition to outdo others in achieving social and developmental objectives.

The people of Gilgit-Baltistan rightly take pride in liberating themselves from the Raja of Kashmir in 1947 and unconditionally acceding to Pakistan. This region like many others in the subcontinent had changed hands among local and foreign rulers before the Raja of Jammu and Kashmir annexed it in his ambitious quest of empire building.

Since Gilgit-Baltistan was part of the Jammu and Kashmir state, its final fate became linked to which way the disputed state would go. This was implicitly the reason for the six-decades-long delay in restructuring the governance of the region. In fact, equally crucial was the act in 1948 to separate Gilgit-Baltistan from what became known as Azad Kashmir or the Pakistani part of the disputed Jammu and Kashmir state.

It is interesting that Kashmiri nationalists on both sides of the Line of Control claim Gilgit-Baltistan as an inherent part of the Jammu and Kashmir state. The Indian government also took a similar position when it raised questions about Pakistan’s border demarcation agreement with China in 1963. In fact, Pakistan and China while signing the border agreement added a proviso that it was subject to the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

In the coming weeks and months, we will see a storm of protest from Kashmiri nationalists and even mainstream Kashmiri leaders over granting self-rule to Gilgit-Baltistan. One of the fundamental reasons Gilgit-Baltistan couldn’t get the status of a province was our interest in placating Kashmiris’ feelings.

There are two important issues that we need to discuss in this regard. First, who should really determine who the people of Gilgit-Baltistan are? No external power and group can fix the identity of any community. What is important in this case and universally acknowledged is how the people define themselves and the identity they give to themselves.

In our part, there are two sides to such identities, territorial and linguist-ethnic. The latter is much fuzzier because the territorial units we have evolved over centuries are not ethnically exclusive but contain other ethnic and linguistic groups. Gilgit-Baltistan has a territorial identity and a deep sense of historicity. But its linguistic particularities that are natural features of mountain communities living in isolated valleys are not too sharp to divide them into smaller identities.

How do the people of Gilgit-Baltistan define themselves? They may have petty regional differences, and sub-regional identities like Hunza and Nagar, but they don’t refer to themselves as Kashmiris. The only thing apparently common with the state of Jammu and Kashmir is their being subject to foreign rule against their will, and against which they rebelled and secured their freedom. But their freedom from the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir was unfortunately followed by direct federal rule from Islamabad in an independent Pakistan. But then the complex triangle of Kashmir, India and Pakistan and the sensitivities of the Kashmiri leaders that we have supported unconditionally at a great cost and may continue to do so were resistant in recognising the historic name and character of Gilgit-Baltistan.

The name sounds so natural and comes so easy on tongue than the bureaucratic characterisation of this historic people as the “Northern Areas of Pakistan”. The title Islamabad gave to this region and its people was devoid of human touch, as if territory mattered more than the people who have lived there for thousands of years.

The people in fact matter when they are granted the identity they wish to adopt, freedoms, and autonomy within a national framework of the state. There is no conflict and cannot be conflict between a national government and a region and province when powers are adequately devolved to the units to their satisfaction. This kind of federalism is a necessity in ethnically diverse countries like Pakistan.

Recognising self-rule for Gilgit-Baltistan should be considered a first instalment of governance reform with the objective of giving it the full status of province. The region has all the essential features, strengths, resources and more importantly political aspirations to become a province. The size of population should never matter in recognising such an historical realities; just cast a look at the variations in the sizes of American states: what matters is history for Rhode Island, Delaware and New Hampshire and not their demographic strength compared to California and New York.

The decision that the PPP and its coalition partners have taken in recognising rights of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan is courageous and politically mature. More than that it will pull the people of this region out of administrative mumbo-jumbo and set them on a clear path of political evolution to a province. It would be better and more far reaching if provincial status for Gilgit-Baltistan is settled in the constitutional reform package now, than to leave it for future political dispensations.

Finally, Kashmiri nationalists lack sound reasons for tagging Gilgit-Baltistan to Jammu and Kashmir. In their own struggle, what matters is their sense of identity, constitutive elements of community and historical facts that they believe separate them from the rest. Why then do they deny the same right to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan to define who they are and what type of political arrangements they want for themselves?

Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais is author of Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan (Oxford University Press, 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at rasul@lums.edu.pk (Daily Times)

گلگت بلتستان: اصلاحات پر تحفظات

اعجاز مہر

بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، اسلام آباد

ہنزہ کو ایک سے زائد نشستیں دینے کے مطالبے کے لیے تمام جماعتوں نے بدھ کو ہنزہ میں ہڑتال اور احتجاجی جلسہ بھی کیا: مقامی صحافی

چھ اضلاع پر مشتمل پاکستان کے شمالی علاقہ جات کو’گلگت بلتستان‘ کے نام سے نئی انتظامی حیثیت دینے کے بارے میں جاری کردہ صدارتی آرڈیننس پر متعلقہ علاقوں کے زیادہ تر لوگ تو خوش ہیں لیکن اب بھی کچھ معاملات کے بارے میں جہاں گلگت اور بلتستان کے لوگوں کو تحفظات ہیں وہاں بیشتر کشمیری رہنماؤں کو بھی سخت اعتراضات ہیں۔

بیس لاکھ سے زیادہ آبادی اور اور تقریباً تہتر ہزار مربع کلومیٹر کے رقبے پر پھیلے’گلگت بلتستان‘ کے بعض فریقین کا مطالبہ ہے کہ سابق فوجی حکمران پرویز مشرف کے دور میں ہنزہ اور نگر کو ملا کر ’ہنزہ نگر‘ کے نام سے جو ساتواں ضلع بنانے کا وعدہ کیا گیا تھا وہ صدر آصف علی زرداری کی جاری کردہ اصلاحات کا حصہ نہیں ہے۔

بعض مقامی صحافیوں کا کہنا ہے کہ سب سے زیادہ اعتراض ہنزہ کو قانون ساز اسمبلی میں صرف ایک سیٹ دینے پر ہے۔ ان کا کہنا ہے کہ حکمران پیپلز پارٹی سے لے کر مذہبی جماعتوں تک سب اس بارے میں متفق ہیں کہ ہنزہ کی ایک سیٹ بڑھائی جائے کیونکہ ہنزہ کی آبادی اب سوا لاکھ سے بھی زیادہ ہے اور محض ایک سیٹ کافی نہیں۔

ان کا یہ بھی کہنا ہے کہ جب ہنزہ سے ملحقہ علاقے نگر کو قانون ساز اسمبلی میں دو نشستیں ہیں تو ہنزہ کی کیوں نہیں؟۔ تمام جماعتوں نے اپنا مطالبہ منوانے کے لیے بدھ کو ہنزہ میں ہڑتال اور احتجاجی جلسہ بھی کیا۔ لیکن تاحال پاکستان کی حکومت نے اس بارے میں کوئی ردِ عمل ظاہر نہیں کیا۔

’گلگت بلتستان‘ کے نام سے صوبے نما انتظامی حیثیت سے نئی بننے والی اس اِکائی کے متعلق کشمیر کی بیشتر سیاسی جماعتوں کے اعتراضات متعلقہ علاقے کے لوگوں سے یکسر مختلف ہیں۔ علیحدگی پسند کشمیری رہنما امان اللہ خان سے لے کر جماعت اسلامی کے عبدالرشید ترابی سمیت اکثر کو اعتراض گلگت اور بلتستان کو پاکستان کے زیر انتظام کشمیر سے جدا کر کے علیحدہ انتظامی حیثیت دینے پر ہے۔

’گلگت بلتستان‘ کے نام سے صوبہ نما انتظامی حیثیت سے نئی بننے والی اس اِکائی کے متعلق کشمیر کی بیشتر سیاسی جماعتوں کے اعتراضات متعلقہ علاقے کے لوگوں سے یکسر مختلف ہیں۔ علیحدگی پسند کشمیری رہنما امان اللہ خان سے لے کر جماعت اسلامی کے عبدالرشید ترابی سمیت اکثر کو اعتراض گلگت اور بلتستان کو پاکستان کے زیر انتظام کشمیر سے جدا کر کے علیحدہ انتظامی حیثیت دینے پر ہے۔

یہ اعتراض کرنے والے کشمیری رہنماؤں نے خدشہ ظاہر کیا ہے کہ اصل میں بیرونی دباؤ کی وجہ سے پاکستان کی حکومت نے یہ فیصلہ کیا ہے۔ ان کے مطابق اس سے ایک تو کشمیر کی تقسیم کی راہ ہموار ہوجائے گی اور بھارت کو موقع مل جائے گا کہ وہ کنٹرول لائن کو عالمی سرحد تسلیم کرانے کے لیے پاکستان پر دباؤ بڑھا سکے۔

جبکہ حکومت ان کے خدشات کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے کہتی ہے کہ پیپلز پارٹی نے شمالی علاقہ جات کے عوام کو سیاسی، انتظامی، مالی اور عدالتی طور پر خودمختار کرنے کا وعدہ پورا کیا ہے۔ صدر کے ترجمان فرحت اللہ بابر کے مطابق گلگت اور بلتستان کے متعلق پہلی بار ذوالفقار علی بھٹو نے انیس سو پچہتر میں اصلاحات کیں، بعد میں انیس سو چورانوے میں بینظیر بھٹو نے اور اب صدر آصف علی زرداری نے خودمختاری دی ہے۔

حکومتی اصلاحات کے مطابق ’گلگت بلتستان‘ کے لیے بالغ رائے دہی کی بنا پر چوبیس اراکین پر مشتمل قانون ساز اسمبلی ہوگی، ان کا اپنا وزیراعلٰی اور گورنر ہوگا۔ نئی انتظامی اِکائی کی اپنی سپریم کورٹ، الیکشن کمیشن، آڈیٹر جنرل اور دیگر اعلیٰ انتظامی افسران ہوں گے۔ اسمبلی کو اکسٹھ معاملات کے بارے میں قانون سازی کا اختیار ہوگا، وغیرہ وغیرہ۔

’گلگت بلتستان‘ کو آزاد حیثیت دینے کا حکومتی دعوٰی اپنی جگہ لیکن بعض ماہرین کا کہنا ہے کہ ان کی تمام تر آزادیاں اب بھی اسلام آباد کے ایک حکم کی غلام رہیں گی۔ لیکن اس میں کوئی شبہہ نہیں کہ اس طرح کی ملنے والی خودمختاری پر بھی بیشتر مقامی لوگ خوش ہیں اور مقامی صحافیوں کے مطابق ہزاروں شہریوں نے سڑکوں پر نکل اپنی خوشی کا اظہار بھی کیا۔

اگر تاریخی حقائق کو دیکھا جائے تو گلگت اور بلتستان کے لوگوں کی اس خوشی کے پیچھے ان کی ایک صدی سے بھی زیادہ عرصہ کی وہ محرومیاں ہیں جو ان کی کئی نسلیں بھگتتی رہی ہیں۔ سولہ مارچ اٹھارہ سو چھیالیس کو جب سکھوں کو شکست دے کر انگریزوں نے امرتسر میں گلاب سنگھ سے ایک معاہدے کے تحت کشمیر کی حکمرانی پچہتر لاکھ روپوں کے عوض گلاب سنگھ کے حوالے کی تو اس وقت گلگت اور بلتستان کشمیر کا حصہ نہیں تھا۔

پاکستان نے کشمیر کو جب ’آزاد درجہ‘ دیا تو کئی دہائیوں تک کشمیر کا دم چھلا بنے ہوئے شمالی علاقہ جات کو ’آزاد کشمیر‘ میں بھی کوئی مقام نہیں ملا

ڈوگرہ راج دریائے سندھ تک تو تھا لیکن بعد میں جب گلاب رائے کے صاحبزادے رنبیر سنگھ بادشاہ بنے تو ان کی افواج نے گلگت اور بلتستان کو فتح کرکے کشمیر کا حصہ بنا لیا۔ لیکن بعد میں ان کی گرفت کمزور پڑی اور حالات بدلتے رہے لیکن انیس سو سینتالیس کو جب پاکستان بنا تو سنہ اڑتالیس کی پہلی پاک، بھارت جنگ کی اقوام متحدہ نے فائر بندی کروائی اور کنٹرول لائن پر دونوں ممالک میں اتفاق ہوا تو پاکستان کے زیر انتظام آنے والے کشمیر کے ساتھ گلگت اور بلتستان کو بھی شامل رکھا گیا۔

جس کی بڑی وجہ بھارت اور پاکستان کے درمیان منقسم کشمیر کے متلعق اقوام متحدہ کی اکیس اپریل انیس سو اڑتالیس کو منظور کردہ وہ قرارداد تھی جس میں کہا گیا تھا کہ منقسم کشمیر کا حتمی فیصلہ حقِ رائے دہی کی بنا پر کیا جائے گا۔

پاکستان نے اپنے زیر انتظام کشمیر کو جب ’آزاد درجہ‘ دیا تو کئی دہائیوں تک شمالی علاقہ جات کو ’آزاد کشمیر‘ میں بھی کوئی مقام نہیں ملا۔ اس پورے عرصہ میں شمالی علاقہ جات حقِ رائے دہی کے چکر میں برائے نام تو کشمیر کا حصہ رہا لیکن وہاں کے شہریوں کو بہت سے معاملات میں پاکستانی شہریوں جیسے حقوق یا درجہ بھی نہیں دیا گیا۔ لیکن اس کے باوجود بھی اس علاقے کے لوگوں نے کارگل کی جنگ میں پاکستان کی لاج رکھی اور لالک نامی سپاہی نے پاکستان کا سب سے بڑا فوجی اعزاز نشانِ حیدر حاصل کیا۔

انیس سو تریسٹھ میں جب اس وقت کے وزیر خارجہ ذوالفقار علی بھٹو نے اپنے چینی ہم منصب کے ساتھ سرحدوں کے متعلق ایک معاہدے پر دستخط کیے توگلگت اور بلتستان سے متصل پانچ ہزار ایک سو اسی مربع کلومیٹر کا علاقہ چین کے حوالے کیا گیا۔ اس معاہدے کے مطابق چین اور پاکستان نے طے کیا کہ جب مسئلہ کشمیر کا معاملات حل ہوجائے گا تو دونوں ممالک اس علاقے اور سرحدی حد بندیوں کے بارے میں دوبارہ مزاکرات سے معاملات طے کریں گے۔

انیس سو تریسٹھ میں جب اس وقت کے وزیر خارجہ ذوالفقار علی بھٹو نے اپنے چینی ہم منصب کے ساتھ سرحدوں کے متعلق ایک معاہدے پر دستخط کیے توگلگت اور بلتستان سے متصل پانچ ہزار ایک سو اسی مربع کلومیٹر کا علاقہ چین کے حوالے کیا گیا۔ اس معاہدے کے مطابق چین اور پاکستان نے طے کیا کہ جب مسئلہ کشمیر کا معاملہ حل ہوجائے گا تو دونوں ممالک اس علاقے اور سرحدی حد بندیوں کے بارے میں دوبارہ مذاکرات سے معاملات طے کریں گے۔

چار صفحات اور سات شقوں پر مشتل انیس سو تریسٹھ کے پاک، چین معاہدے میں یہ کہیں نہیں لکھا کہ چین کو دیے گیے علاقے میں آباد لوگ بھی کشمیر کی رائے دہی میں حصہ لیں گے۔ لیکن پاکستان کے زیر انتظام کشمیر کے ایک سیاسی رہنما سردار خالد ابراہیم کا دعویٰ ہے کہ اس معاہدے کی رو سے چین کے حوالے کردہ علاقے کے لوگ بھی حق رائے دہی میں حصہ لینے کے حقدار ہیں

Read more...

In search of peace: From Middle East to South Asia - By Khurshid Nadeem

The need for intra-Islamic dialogue





Read more...

The much waited change of command in ISI. What about the reforms?

Welcome change of guard at ISI

In a “major” reshuffle in the Pakistan Army, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director General Lt Gen Nadeem Taj has been replaced by newly promoted Lt General Ahmed Shuja Pasha. The change of guard at the ISI will attract attention because it formally required the approval of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani under whose constitutional tutelage the country’s top spy agency is formally supposed to function. If Mr Gilani had so wished, Gen Taj would have continued to remain in place. But this hasn’t happened because COAS Gen Ashfaq Kayani wanted it otherwise and the PM had no objection. Gen Taj’s move to the Gujranwala corps, however, is important for his career and will not be viewed negatively. The move is interesting because Prime Minister Gilani has been critical of the intelligence establishment of the country in general. He had made an attempt — unsuccessfully — to put the ISI under the Interior Ministry. However, after the Marriott Hotel blast on September 20, he had reason to complain once again, which added to the general public objection to the effectiveness of the intelligence agencies against terrorism in the country, which seemed to have a free hand in choosing and executing its targets. Above all, it was embarrassing that employees belonging to the ISI were attacked and killed repeatedly in Rawalpindi.

It would, however, be wrong to attribute this change to objections raised in Washington against the “double face” of the ISI, even if the change of the top man in the ISI will probably be looked at with favour by the US. The change should not normally be viewed as change of policy, but the exit of General Taj will be seen in some circles as a prelude to change of policy in the agency. Changes of personnel have taken place in the past. General Musharraf had announced during his tenure as army chief that purges had been carried out in the ISI to ensure observance of the changes of policy he had initiated after 9/11.

The US administration should normally have no basis for commenting on an institution created by the parliament in Pakistan, but comment did come on the basis of Pakistan’s commitment to war against terror. The plaint was indirect and it pertained to the leaking of information that the NATO-ISAF command in Afghanistan shared with Islamabad in respect of the planned attacks on the centres of Al Qaeda terrorists in the Tribal Areas. The implication was that the ISI was protecting the elements it was committed to fight. The reaction in Pakistan was understandable. Public support to the ISI increased and the American objection was rejected.

There is also reason to believe that the PPP cannot be too fond of the ISI as an institution. Past history clearly indicates improper use of the agency made by an establishment suspicious of the worldview of the PPP. Its leadership has been hounded by the improperly politicised officers of the ISI, starting from maltreatment received by the founder of the party, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and ending with its martyred leader Ms Benazir Bhutto, who actually accused members of the ISI of plotting her assassination. In her memoir she clearly hints at receiving inside information from the ISI revealing plans to harm her if she returned to Pakistan from her exile.

The ISI was misused during the sad years of the 1990s when the two mainstream parties, the PML and the PPP, were locked in a life and death struggle for power. The most embarrassing moment came when functionaries of the ISI were caught red-handed trying to overthrow the government of Ms Bhutto and had to be removed from service. It is in fact the ISI which is which is largely responsible for the general impression in Pakistan that the army doesn’t like the PPP as a party, a dangerous impression nurtured in Sindh pointing to the Punjabi prejudice against the smaller provinces. Intercepts of General Musharraf’s telephone conversations conveyed this message quite clearly; and General Nadeem Taj was known to be a protégé of General Musharraf.

There is no disagreeing with the general plaint about lack of counter-intelligence in Pakistan. While the ISI is vigilant about India and reacts swiftly to any moves made by it to harm the security of Pakistan, its ability to intercept and interdict moves by the terrorists — resulting in the death of a large number of people — remains limited if not suspiciously defective. This has led many to assess the ISI negatively, accusing it of not letting go of the former proxy elements it nurtured who have turned against Pakistan and are killing innocent citizens. Also, the ISI needs to work towards removing the general tendency of Pakistanis to hold the ISI responsible for bombings that are clearly the work of the enemy.

There are two points of note in this change of command. One, the new DG ISI is handpicked by COAS General Ashfaq Kayani, and not by PM Gilani. He was DGMO in charge of the anti-terrorist operations in FATA and directly responsible for implementing the policy of the COAS there, first under General Musharraf and then under General Kayani. He was scheduled to retire but has instead been promoted, indicating the degree of trust he now enjoys with COAS Kayani. Two, Maj-Gen Nusrat Naeem, who was DG-Counter-Intelligence, the number two position in the agency, has also been promoted and replaced by another hand-picked Kayani man, Maj-Gen Zahir-ul-Islam, who was GOC Murree. Significantly, neither the PM nor President Asif Zardari has tried to influence General Kayani’s choice, indicating a welcome degree of trust between the new military and new political leadership. This is also noteworthy because of the PPP’s earlier attempt to bring the ISI under the control of the interior ministry. Clearly, under Gen Pasha, the ISI will be retooled to deal with the internal threat to the state from terrorism in FATA. This is great news. (Daily Times)
Read more...

Reform ISI? Not like this

The US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Mr Richard Boucher, said Tuesday that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) needed to be reformed. He did not point to any specific flaw in the conduct of the ISI but the general impression is that his remark sprang from a deep US suspicion that the ISI “retained links to the Taliban”.

The initial reaction against the suggestion has been negative in the Pakistani media, and it was of a piece with the reaction that met Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s attempt in July to place the ISI under the control of the Interior Ministry.

The American press had charged earlier that the ISI was allegedly using the privileged information it had about American attacks against the Afghan Taliban to forewarn the latter. In fact, the American government and most Western governments believe that a recent suicide-bombing at the Indian embassy in Kabul was carried out by the ISI. In India, the case is even worse; the ISI is blamed for anything violent that happens inside India which the Indian government cannot explain.

There is no doubt that all state institutions need a periodic review of their performance and have to face internal changes to make them more effective and responsible. But the problem arises when someone else tells you to do it. The act of reforming the ISI has to be initiated by Pakistan and its elected parliament, and it should not be seen as prompted or “ordered” by another state. Since the US and Pakistan are partners in their fight against terrorism — and the success of this partnership in the past has depended solely on the ISI — it would be normal to consult on intelligence and its effectiveness. But it would be counterproductive to make public calls for corrections within the ISI. This is what has happened. If the idea was to bring the PPP government under pressure, the Boucher statement has in effect had the effect of putting it on the defensive. The PPP cannot afford to carry out any reform now.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that politicians across the political divide don’t have their complaints against the ISI. They have used the ISI against one another so many times that the ISI has to some extent become tainted because of the use that has been made of its “political wing”. (One suggestion of reform has been the clipping of this wing.) Political “signalling” has taken place through the sudden blowing up of a car’s tyres or the car catching fire all by itself; and the politicians have not minced their words in accusing the ISI of wrong-doing. The PPP has been specially targeted in the past and it has given proof that the ISI has its share of “rogue” elements. Remember Operation Midnight Jackals against the ruling prime minister, Benazir Bhutto?

Nor is evidence lacking about the ISI becoming subject to “reverse indoctrination”. Some retired ISI chiefs put off everyone when they appear on TV and speak unrealistically about what Pakistan should do to get out of trouble. If you dwell on the past, there is no doubt that these senior officers became infected with the dangerous virus of jihad they were handling. One army chief, General Asif Nawaz, had actually complained that an ex-ISI chief while still serving as a corps commander had advised the mujahideen to reject a change of policy mandated by the GHQ. Under General Pervez Musharraf, an ISI chief, sent out to Kandahar to advise Mullah Umar against war, gave him the opposite message!

Then there are some lower-ranking officers like Mr Khalid Khwaja who left the ISI to become mouthpieces of the very elements that the world associates with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Perhaps the most damaging aspect — which may need reform — is the amount of bragging some ex-ISI men do on TV channels, spreading doubt and disappointment about the ruling government by forwarding unrealistic prescriptions of what Pakistan could or should do but was “criminally” neglecting to undertake.

It is unfortunate that when terrorist blasts occur in Pakistan some people name the ISI as the culprit behind them. Just like the US, which has forgotten what the ISI did for it after 9/11, Pakistanis too often forget that the organisation has also done some good work in the cause of the security of Pakistan. (Daily Times)
Read more...