Dawn 29 Dec 2011

Beyond the mandate

ASMA Jahangir, legal counsel[1] of Husain Haqqani in the memo[2] hearings in the Supreme Court, may have had in mind a robust[3] defence of her client while making strong statements about the political role of the ISI but her remarks in Courtroom No 1 on Tuesday are worth reflecting on in a wider context. Also, while ‘memogate’ may have pitched[4] the elected government against the powerful army, the hearings in the Supreme Court could become a way of addressing hitherto[5] taboo[6] subjects, such as the responsibilities of the ISI, official and otherwise. The rub[7] of the present matter is that the ISI appears to have ‘investigated’ its own political leadership and determined that the political leadership has grave charges to answer. In fact, from the statements of ISI chief Lt Gen Pasha filed in the Supreme Court, it would appear that the army prima facie[8] believes the allegations of Mansoor Ijaz regarding the role of Husain Haqqani, and someone more senior to him on the civilian side, in the drafting of the now-infamous memo.

---

[1] a lawyer or group of lawyers representing somebody in court

[2] an official note from one person to another in the same organization

[3] strong and full of determination; showing that you are sure about what you are doing or saying; vigorous

[4] throw somebody/something with force

[5] until now; until the particular time you are talking about

[6] a general agreement not to do something or talk about something

[7] a problem or difficulty

[8] at first sight (= based on what seems to be the truth when first seen or heard)

Did the ISI itself transgress official boundaries in the present instance? Also, what is the ISI’s legal mandate[1]: is it a counter-intelligence[2] and external-oriented organisation or does it have a more expansive[3] domestic role? Part of the problem is historical. While there is some irony[4] that the PPP’s founder, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, is believed to have given the ISI a larger role and ingress[5] into domestic politics, the real boost for the organisation proved to be the Afghan war in the 1980s. Organising and equipping the Afghan jihadis while serving the domestic needs of dictator Ziaul Haq, the ISI was an infinitely more fearsome[6] institution at the end of the ’80s than it was at the start. By the time the so-called decade of democracy rolled around[7], the ISI was confident and capable enough to aggressively intervene in the democratic process. As the self-appointed custodians of the national interest, the army and the ISI established their own rules that only as a matter of convenience appeared to fit into the scheme of a constitutional democracy.

Inevitably, perhaps, the courts also must shoulder[8] some of the blame. Had the verdict in the Asghar Khan case, which looked into the manipulation[9] of elections by the ISI in the 1990s, been handed down,[10] the hearings into the memo affair may not have become necessary. Having said that, the present hearing could be used to try and establish the mandate and parameters[11] of the ISI.

---

[1] authorization

[2] secret action taken by a country to prevent an enemy country from finding out its secrets, for example by giving them false information; the department of a government, etc. that is responsible for this; efforts made by intelligence organizations to prevent hostile or enemy intelligence organizations from successfully gathering and collecting intelligence against them

[3] including many things or a large area

[4] the amusing or strange aspect of a situation that is very different from what you expect

[5] the right to enter a place

[6] making people feel very frightened

[7] arrive

[8] accept the responsibility for something

[9] behavior that influences someone or controls something in a clever or dishonest way

[10] announce; officially give a decision/statement, etc.

[11] a limit that affects how something can be done