1 response so far ↓

• 1 Zishan Suddle // Dec 28, 2009 at 6:05 pm

  This is with reference to Kamran Shafi’s article ‘Why not a civilian head of ISI ?’ (Nov 17) and Lt Col (R) Mukhtar Ahmed Butt and Rizwan Ashraf’s letters to the editor (Nov 19).

  Lot has been written on the role of ISI without knowing the inside story. The scope of ISI has never been to tackle internal politics of the country. Rather, this organization was established to thwart external elements from damaging the interests of our homeland; whether it be related to defence issues or to those pertaining to media warfare.

  The point under deliberation is having a civilian head of ISI for which I totally agree with Kamran Shafi and would like to add further. His facts about the leading Agencies of the world are absolutely right. And the question of a Civilian head is very much justified. I have a firm belief on the importance of military institutions and their role in strengthening the country’s defence, however, many people don’t know that ISI is constitutionally a ‘Civilian organization’ which was established with a view to support and share the burden of conventional intelligence organizations vis-à-vis military intelligence (MI). Furthermore, armed forces personnel were to serve in ISI on ‘deputation’ for a period of 3-3 1/2 years and then return back to their parent department. This practice aimed at having mutual cooperation and understanding between major pillars of the state i.e. armed forces and ISI.

  ISI has a permanent civilian cadre whose officers serve their entire life in the organization. The desired competency level as illustrated by my fellow friends Mr. Mukhtar and Mr. Rizwan would be more in a person who serves his entire life in one department with all necessary training and experience as compare to some one who is to serve for a limited period and lacks the desired expertise too. However, for the past many years, the irony of fate has been that majority of civilian organizations are headed by an armed forces personnel which is agitating to those who have served their entire life and have the right to be departmental head. If we think that armed forces personnel are the only ones who can run public organizations with the back ground and knowledge of a ‘military unit’, then I think we should not blame others for all the wrong doings in our country. As far as Mr. Mukhtar’s statement that ‘gathering intelligence and co-relating it with the geo political situation of the country is a complicated affair’, I put a question to him as to what is the qualification of a military man? Psc (staff course), war course and so on. Does this have any relation with international politics and diplomacy? Isn’t there any one in the country who is patriotic other than the armed forces personnel? These are the questions which have carved deep marks on the nation and are causing internal rift and hatred.

  I request all concerned to consider the civilians as equally patriotic and responsible as any soldier would be and the impression of ‘bloody civilians’ should be removed from the minds of our so called ‘God fathers’.

Leave a Comment