What's new

Pakistan’s ISI from the inside

This is a misunderstanding of my position - My position is not that the Pakistan army is responsible for all that is wrong in Pakistan. My position is that by patronizing Islamism and incorporating it within the ethic of the Army, the army has helped propel Pakistani society into Islmaism, it has given Islamism a legitimacy that now so confuses Pakistanis, that they now are fighting about which Islam, Which shariah, Which sect -- the very source that we were told would unite us, now serves to divide us.

We were Muslims before 1979, weren't we?? and the army was all of Pakistan's army - the armed forces was home of all Pakistanis, not just Muslims, primarily Sunni? What was so wrong with that Pakistan or that army that the Jamaati ideology was supposed to be medicine for??

On my point 1. 1979 was more than just a coup, it was the imposition of an ideology by force on Pakistan - it is essentially wholly illegal, an illegitimate ideology. This illegitimacy taints the army and gives ammunition to our enemies - we are now in the position where a jihadi islamist armyis fighting a jihadi Islamist Pakistani insurgent -- consider the policemen executed by the Talib, for being apostates, that is to say serving the Pakistani state is apostacy, can you get your head around that?? And look in Balouchistan, not only insurgency but Sunni extremists financed by the Banker of islamism, Wahabi Arabia, kill Shi'ah - again, Pakistanis killing Pakistanis because of confessional and sectarian considerations.

Now if the Army, with the influence and esteem it hold in society were begin to shed herself of this ideology, she would lead, just as she did in bringing Islamism into society, to lead society out of Islamist extremism.

Power of decision is quality which can either direct to paradise or to hell, in 1979 Pakistan selected direction to hell saying that this way to paradise and now when we are on the edge of hell we are trying to turn back. We have right to blame past and people who are cause of all this mess but now it is time to do right decisions but this is also reality that we stand in status where total Islamization will not help and total non islamization also useless so we should find the way in between them.
 
.
in 1979 Pakistan selected direction to hell saying that this way to paradise and now when we are on the edge of hell we are trying to turn back. We have right to blame past and people who are cause of all this mess but now it is time to do right decisions but this is also reality that we stand in status where total Islamization will not help and total non islamization also useless so we should find the way in between them.

That is the heart of the argument, excellent.

To clarify a point so that you can understand the argument better - Islam is the religion of faith in God -- Islam-ism (it's an ISM) is a political ideology that uses the idiom of Islam to cloak it's political agenda -- see, these are two different things --- Yes, we are all for being the best Muslims as we understand that to mean, but we do not have wear it on our sleeves - Islam is primarily about Faith in God, Islam-ism is a about ideological coercion to control society - Where as Islam is Freedom, Islamism is about tyranny, Where as Islam is about voluntary association (Dawa), Islam-sim is about coercion, the Prophet of Islam is Mohammad (pbuh), The prophets of islamism are Maududi and Qutub ---- never allow yourself to be confused about how these are fundamentally different.
 
.
I agree, but you can't really go back and 'kil Zia again', nor are any of his 'Lieutenants' in power in the military currently. The current COAS was appointed with the agreement and approval of the daughter of the man killed by Zia, and the same COAS had his term extended by another three years by the Son in Law of ZA Bhutto.

Kayani and the Army under him have tangibly removed themselves from domestic politics - I don't see any reason to place the current set of Army leadership in anywhere close to the same category as Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf, and you have yet to demonstrate how these 'retired Generals are still influencing government'.

The military leadership has changed significantly, and it will continue to change, and hopefully bring fresh minds and policies to the job as time passes. I see nothing of the sort happening with the major political parties, which look to remain in the hands of the Sharif's, Zardari's, Chaudhries, Wadera's and Sardar's for decades to come.

While these institutions fight, Pakistan burns and support for democracy continues to deteriorate. This 'fight' is unnecessary, and is happening only because the PPP is trying to save its corrupt leadership and policies. The current 'executive vs Judiciary' tensions arise out of the executive's decision to ignore judicial instructions. There is no justification for the PPP's behavior on this count (just as there was no justification for the PML-N and Musharraf's behavior in ignoring the Judiciary) - we cannot pick and choose what decision's by the court we wish to abide by. Whether we like it or not, the Supreme Court's decision's need to be respected and implemented.

Zia's physical demise means nothing, his legacy of "islamization" is still thriving and to solve the quagmire he left behind will cost this nation at least one more decade ( and that too only then if it has been decided at the highest level that the overdose of religion has turned this country into a living hell and we want to be like Turkey, not like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan).

The reports emerged after the Mehran naval air base attack clearly indiacte towards the presence of the Jihadi elements within the armed forces whose sympathies don't lie with the country that is feeding them. No wonder the secular minded sane people want to get rid of every iota of Islamization started by Zia whereas the Jihadis or neem-jihadis cum nationalists adamantly oppose any such kind of move.

I don't know whether Kiyani was made COAS with Benazir's consent, but it sounds quite preposterous to me. The way his three years term was extended raises many questions, but only time will tell why his term was extended to another three years in such a mysterious way.

It is also too early to say that the army has stopped interfering in Pakistani politics, but without any doubt it still controls the national security, defense and foreign policies. The musical-chair it played with the political parties in the 90s is not possible in the current political scenario. The substitute is less accepted and Zardari is also not a political illiterate, he is playing his cards very cleverly. I will rather wait and see how the things evolve in the next two or three years.

Pakistan was still burning when the omnipotent Musharraf was sitting on the throne of Islamabad. With his full consent MQM demonstrated its street power and the tinpot dictator had celcebrated it overtly. Democracy is an evolving process and I hope the army will not interrupt this evolving process once again under the pretext of saving the country.
 
.
............... Democracy is an evolving process and I hope the army will not interrupt this evolving process once again under the pretext of saving the country.

It would be hard to resist taking over if an "arrangement" can be made with the Supreme Court, no matter how unconstitutional it might be.
 
.
It would be hard to resist taking over if an "arrangement" can be made with the Supreme Court, no matter how unconstitutional it might be.

An agreement can always be arranged because there is no dearth of black sheep within judiciary. Those who resist are sidelined and the opportunists never hesitate to avail this once in a lifetime opportunity. They not only legitimize the military rule but they also allow the dictator to tinker with the constitution. The real resistance should come from the masses but have you ever met any other people in this world who are more irrational than Pakistanis are? BTW, did you read this article in today's Daily Dawn?
 
.
It would be hard to resist taking over if an "arrangement" can be made with the Supreme Court, no matter how unconstitutional it might be.

I doubt the current Supreme Court would support a military coup, or validate it, given the opposition of the majority of the current SC Justices to Musharraf's attempts to retain power.

At best the Supreme Court might ask for the military/security forces to assist in implementing SC decisions, if the GoP blatantly refuses to do so. If that happens, the GoP might fall, but there is no reason to believe, at this point, that parliament would be dismissed and the military would take over, rather than parliament electing another prime minister and cobbling together a new coalition, if necessary.
 
.
Zia's physical demise means nothing, his legacy of "islamization" is still thriving and to solve the quagmire he left behind will cost this nation at least one more decade ( and that too only then if it has been decided at the highest level that the overdose of religion has turned this country into a living hell and we want to be like Turkey, not like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan).
My point is that while Zia is dead and gone, the current corrupt political leadership is still very much alive. I agree that 'Zia's poison' continues to exist, but the fact that Pakistan's military leadership has been, is, and likely will be, continuously changing, means that the process of 'new thought and new policies' in military leadership is very much in place.

'New thoughts and new polices' in the political leadership are unlikely to occur at this point, given that the parliamentary structure of government and the hold of certain influential families/groups on their respective constituencies will continue to perpetuate the rule of the 'same old faces' in government.

That is the difference between the military and the civilian leadership - the former continues to change and bring forth 'fresh faces and ideas', while the latter has stagnated because of dynastic politics.
 
.
A country sans leadership —Shahzad Chaudhry

This is heretical to Pakistan’s civil society elite; or perhaps not, depending where lies their present fancy, Nawaz Sharif or Imran Khan. Choices beyond are unmentionable: the Chaudhries, a Maulana from some of the various factions that inhabit Pakistan’s political scene, or a breakaway Makhdoom from the main fold of the larger political parties. And yet, every time that Pakistanis sit together to lament the state of their country, and when bolder, to seek a way out, they stumble across the leadership conundrum.

Recent weeks have been kinder; only the Pakistanis have shellacked Pakistan — both India and the US have been rather self-consumed; the US with its fiscal and budgetary woes, and India dazzled by our foreign minister (pun intended for both the FM and India). Handled with kid’s gloves and oodles of media attention it was a case made for, “anokha ladla khelan ko maange chaand” (the unique spoilt one wants to play with the moon). Wait till you hear more from Bollywood.

Of our recent desires within the country our death wish is to somehow make a case for Article 190: all institutions of the state (read army) to come to the assistance of the superior courts in implementing its decisions. That would be kind of strange because just about a few weeks back we all, liberal and conservative as well as neutrals, had lambasted the military as ‘the’ problem of our state. You can hear this still across most op-ed pages. Why in the world would we then like to invite the same military to assist the most revered institution, the judiciary? That is a mismatch for sure; and the history of such union is not good either. Just ask Mian Nawaz Sharif of the PMLN. And to what purpose? To dislodge a democratic government through the judiciary-military combine? Horror of horrors; it is sacrilegious even to consider. Yet we clamour for it.

We make a strong case against our democratic government on corruption too. It is rampant without a doubt in its multifarious forms. The elite remain its principal beneficiaries; particularly when almost zero benefit has gone to the people because of the eminent absence of governance in the last three years. It sure makes the case stronger but then what is the alternative; more of the same? Who in the stock would you imagine to lead the nation away from its predicaments? Any election, full or medium-term will only bring forth the same faces. Sometime they sit on the right and at other times on the left of the aisle. It is a matter of shared stakes for this polity; to consider that somehow a change of face may mean a change of fortunes is the most fallacious but often travelled road. Each want their turn at the till and that alone is what matters to this brand of polity. It is such a frustrating but equally foregone conclusion that it only engenders further despondence. Those who take up cudgels on behalf of the people in the popular media by themselves reflect the privileged. What remains a hogwash of a popular appeal is the pain that each of these worthies feels for the poor and the dispossessed.

Leave the people aside; they have been duped often and without relent. Consider the state; it almost sits on the brink of a grand failure. Our stock in the world today is in the pits in practically every facet of statehood, and yet not an eyebrow moves on such misfortune. Practically all players of this great circus, which we like to call variously as democracy and a government sanctified by an electoral process, are out to carve their own pound of flesh — euphemism for intimate proximity to the till. If by any chance we are driven by an illusion that the alternate in power will mean greater fidelity, it shall remain the most quoted case for exemplary self-delusion. Perhaps, there remains no other choice; we must hold onto every hope that comes our way, but then soon enough it shall be the same again. Somewhere out there the gods remain entirely unhappy with our doings. We know what ails, but can do precious little to alleviate it. In such matters, escapism remains our only option and this gets manifested in rampant accusations as indeed in seeking false dawns and raising ordinaries to demigods.

States and nations remain tied in only so many mechanisms of interplay and God knows we have tried all. Yet we search for that super-kernel that just might put our maladies to heal knowing well that none exists. The military is not coming back for if that had been their wont it would have played itself out many times over the last few years of our misfortunes. Imagine the environment that we suffer today in times past and before one woke up the Brigades would have simply marched up the Constitution Avenue. Not this time, leaving the ball fully in the court of our worthies to sort.

We have often made the point that Pakistan sits at its most transformational moment in history. A lot needs to be corrected, paradigmatically and in disposition. With pervasive perfidy that would mean a wholesale change. Who is going to do it? Not this polity bereft of both will and capacity. Not all is bad but what is bad rises as scum drowning the good to the bottom. Tied in hierarchical structures of dynastic politics there is not a chance that younger, brighter minds might just find a mention. A few that do find some prominence become as stale and rotten as fish let to waste. New entrants? No chance. If there was one I would have asked all talk-show pundits to adorn the robes and replace Dastis in parliament. It is another matter if they too would soon be flavoured similarly. More likely since that is the nature and tradition of our political destiny.

My mind goes repeatedly back to the one-time American Senator, Barack Obama, who through sheer brilliance of modern-day campaign planning, not to mention his intellectual brilliance and oratory, emerged as the president of the US. Just as he is up for re-election more than a year from now his campaign has already kicked off, not speechifying since that still remains in the future, but resurrecting his campaign offices all across the US with its band of volunteers bidding on his behalf for electoral preparation, awareness, commitment and financial donations. Our very own Imran Khan, no match by any stretch of imagination, but surprisingly the more often stated savoir against other poor choices, continues to remain ambiguous on almost every other issue, making it difficult for the voters to choose between him and the others. ‘Since it is him it should be enough assurance’ could work on a cricket field but not with an oft-bitten and stung electorate. More importantly, he has little organisational detail to support either him or his candidates. It remains a no-brainer that he promises another false dawn.

Pakistan’s political system, parliamentary in nature, is designed to keep outsiders out. Reversal of such inherent consequence is perhaps the greatest transformational change that is needed and, if made, can bring promise home. The military will change, has changed, but in the end it is the politicos alone who can deliver. To do so, politics will need to drastically reform.

The writer is a political and defence analyst

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
.
My point is that while Zia is dead and gone, the current corrupt political leadership is still very much alive. I agree that 'Zia's poison' continues to exist, but the fact that Pakistan's military leadership has been, is, and likely will be, continuously changing, means that the process of 'new thought and new policies' in military leadership is very much in place.

'New thoughts and new polices' in the political leadership are unlikely to occur at this point, given that the parliamentary structure of government and the hold of certain influential families/groups on their respective constituencies will continue to perpetuate the rule of the 'same old faces' in government.

That is the difference between the military and the civilian leadership - the former continues to change and bring forth 'fresh faces and ideas', while the latter has stagnated because of dynastic politics.

bhai sahib, how many times should I repeat that the new faces will appear if the military, that actually created and nurtured almost all the old faces like Sharifs, Chodhries or Altafs, keeps itself away from politics and political parties for at least twenty years. I also seriously think that the "the process of new thought and policies" should be left to civilian government, but I confess I am asking to much and too early.
 
.
bhai sahib, how many times should I repeat that the new faces will appear if the military, that actually created and nurtured almost all the old faces like Sharifs, Chodhries or Altafs, keeps itself away from politics and political parties for at least twenty years. I also seriously think that the "the process of new thought and policies" should be left to civilian government, but I confess I am asking to much and too early.
I have no issue with your point about 'the military staying away from domestic politics', in fact I have argued the same several times, even in this thread if you wish to go back and read my earlier posts. And I have argued that the current military leadership has taken tangible steps to remove itself from domestic politics, and there remains no evidence that it currently has reversed that decision to remain out of domestic politics. I believe that this was one major reason that BB approved of Kayani's appointment as COAS, and why Zardari chose to give him an extension - his aversion to involving the military in domestic politics is clear, and welcome, and hopefully will continue with the future military leadership as well.

I do agree that the electorate needs to 'understand the consequences of their decisions' - whether they 'vote for the same old faces' or choose to 'not vote', the electorate is in essence responsible for the perpetuation of the status quo. Again, I made this argument in another response of mine to VCheng - that 'change will come in Pakistan through the electorate educating itself and/or being educated on the consequences of the choices it makes.

But that does not invalidate my argument - that the current political system will perpetuate the 'same old corrupt dynastic political leadership' due to the parliamentary nature of government. 'Time will bring about change' is a fine argument to make, but how much 'time'? And will the current political leadership even allow 'free and fair elections', without which, military intervention or no military intervention, the system is not going to change.
 
.
But that does not invalidate my argument - that the current political system will perpetuate the 'same old corrupt dynastic political leadership' due to the parliamentary nature of government. 'Time will bring about change' is a fine argument to make, but how much 'time'? And will the current political leadership even allow 'free and fair elections', without which, military intervention or no military intervention, the system is not going to change.

It was Zia and ISI that nurtured the Sahrifs and Chodhries and then Zia chose a Sharif as his heir. The biggest responsibility lie on the shoulders of the military generals for this whole mess. I don't know how much time but at least three to five general elections are needed to bring some stability. If you are against Sharifs or Chodhries then you have many other options - like PTI or MQM.
 
.
It was Zia and ISI that nurtured the Sahrifs and Chodhries and then Zia chose a Sharif as his heir. The biggest responsibility lie on the shoulders of the military generals for this whole mess. I don't know how much time but at least three to five general elections are needed to bring some stability. If you are against Sharifs or Chodhries then you have many other options - like PTI or MQM.
Sure, but the 'Military General's' that 'caused this mess' are gone now - what can you do about it?

The 'creations' of Zia, whether extremists or the current political class, still exist - the problem is dealing with the challenges of the PRESENT to fix things going into the future - merely reiterating the same thing again and again (Ayub, Yahya, Zia, Musharaf did this did that) does not do anything. ZA Bhutto did a lot that I would consider downright 'evil and destructive' to the State of Pakistan, but I am not out here ranting about ZA Bhutto every single opportunity I get. The man is gone, and this is not a history class - I am trying to highlight the problems Pakistan faces TODAY and how to resolve them, and my argument is that TODAY's political leadership is corrupt, dynastic and unlikely to change.

The military leadership on the other hand has changed, several times, since Zia. That is why an individual like Kayani is COAS today, and why the military of today is unlike the military under Zia, and even unlike the military under Ayub.

BTW, you are incorrect that the vast majority of our feudal politicians are the 'creation of the military'. While people like the Sharif's indeed are, the various Makhdoom's, Chaudhries etc. are mostly 'old money', whose families have existed in positions of influence for decades because of their vast land holdings. Don't blame the military for that.

Bhutto destroyed the economy through his nationalization policies, but he couldn't pass meaningful land reforms - obviously since they would have affected Bhutto's family and political lackey's as well.
 
.
.............'Time will bring about change' is a fine argument to make, but how much 'time'? And will the current political leadership even allow 'free and fair elections', without which, military intervention or no military intervention, the system is not going to change.


Please do not get upset at me for sounding depressed, the time is already PAST. Look at the gathering storm clouds all around. This system MUST change for Pakistan to realize its potential. Otherwise:


"Tarreekh key aiwaanon mein aisa bhi hota he
Lamhon ney ghalati ki, sadiyon ney saza pai"
 
.
Sure, but the 'Military General's' that 'caused this mess' are gone now - what can you do about it?

The 'creations' of Zia, whether extremists or the current political class, still exist - the problem is dealing with the challenges of the PRESENT to fix things going into the future - merely reiterating the same thing again and again (Ayub, Yahya, Zia, Musharaf did this did that) does not do anything. ZA Bhutto did a lot that I would consider downright 'evil and destructive' to the State of Pakistan, but I am not out here ranting about ZA Bhutto every single opportunity I get. The man is gone, and this is not a history class - I am trying to highlight the problems Pakistan faces TODAY and how to resolve them, and my argument is that TODAY's political leadership is corrupt, dynastic and unlikely to change.

The military leadership on the other hand has changed, several times, since Zia. That is why an individual like Kayani is COAS today, and why the military of today is unlike the military under Zia, and even unlike the military under Ayub.

BTW, you are incorrect that the vast majority of our feudal politicians are the 'creation of the military'. While people like the Sharif's indeed are, the various Makhdoom's, Chaudhries etc. are mostly 'old money', whose families have existed in positions of influence for decades because of their vast land holdings. Don't blame the military for that.

Bhutto destroyed the economy through his nationalization policies, but he couldn't pass meaningful land reforms - obviously since they would have affected Bhutto's family and political lackey's as well.

The point is that it will take many decades to rectify the past blunders committed by various military dictators. All the Makhdooms and Chodhries may not be the creation of the generals but the dictators never hesitated to form a political party comprised of the most corrupt Makhdooms and Chodhries as long as it fulfils the purpose of its creation. I don't see any other solution but an uninterrupted civilian rule that may bring some positive changes. Just keep faith in democracy and say to hail with dictators. I also detest Zardaris and Sharifs but I have also faith in democracy.
 
.
Kayani and the Army under him have tangibly removed themselves from domestic politics - I don't see any reason to place the current set of Army leadership in anywhere close to the same category as Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf, and you have yet to demonstrate how these 'retired Generals are still influencing government'.

The military leadership has changed significantly, and it will continue to change, and hopefully bring fresh minds and policies to the job as time passes. I see nothing of the sort happening with the major political parties, which look to remain in the hands of the Sharif's, Zardari's, Chaudhries, Wadera's and Sardar's for decades to come.
.....“Frankly, the role of the military in foreign policy formulation is exaggerated,” says former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. “My experience was that no one told me what to say and what not to say. I acquainted myself with the Pakistan position and took input from everyone in the Foreign Office and security apparatus,” he says.

According to Qureshi, when he was preparing for the fifth round of talks with his counterpart in India, he reviewed the previous earlier rounds in preparation. “I was independent in determining the agenda,” he says....


And then;

There is no civil-military split, argues (retd) Air Marshal Shahzad Chaudhry. “It’s the media that has issues with the military and they tend to represent a certain segment of society,” he says, arguing that civil society elite is larger than it was earlier but still represents a minority opinion. He denies the existence of the infamous “bloody civilians” attitude among the armed forces. “That simply doesn’t exist. In the armed forces, you are wrapped up in your work and don’t have time even for your children.


But then;

"We find it strange how people don’t understand how the military works. Knowledge of the military is limited in the intellectual milieu.”


http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-forces/122827-pakistan-army-its-threat-board.html
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom