So I hear our rather languid intelligence services have come up with a grand new strategy to catch all terrorists ever since they discovered that Osama and his ‘house-mates’ did not allow the neighbourhood kids to retrieve any footballs that accidentally landed in the now infamous compound. As we all now know, money was thrown over the wall at the children rather than the balls being returned. In view of this, a new strategy evolved by our intelligence agencies is called ‘Give me my ball back or else’. Droves of spies are now playing cricket and football in the sweltering summer heat outside every compound with walls higher than six feet. All foreign intelligence agencies have decided against adopting this method and will persist with the common sense, intelligence and curiosity one normally associates with spies. To each their own, I suppose.
Now all you need to be recruited as Pakistani spy is a ball (even a torn one will do) and a willingness to throw it into suspicious looking homes. After the recent embarrassment, it seems that our spies have finally decided that people whose identity is not even known to their neighbours and who live in highly fortified compounds should raise a flag of suspicion. Also, National Security for Dummies 101 now carries it in bold print: ‘If you know where the top Al-Qaeda leader is, don’t try to protect him’. Stating the obvious definitely has its place in life.
Since the introduction of the new ‘Give me my ball back or else’ policy, the economics of losing your ball has now changed. But if hiding the world’s terrorists was some grand plan hatched by our spies to ensure that our people become rich by turning them in then, just like so much else, the plan went horribly wrong. Could tossing balls to catch terrorists be the game-changing master-stroke our spies have waited for? No better way to deal with men previously thought to be hiding in caves.
Mr Nawaz Sharif too this week jumped on the bandwagon of people pretending to raise serious questions about the Abbottabad fiasco. He eventually focused on the wrong issue, infact a non-issue. If you want the military to answer tough questions about why and how Osama was in Pakistan then you cannot in the next breath question why our military did not detect or stop the American choppers.
Whenever we make the Abbottabad episode an issue of sovereignty we hurt only ourselves and insult our own intelligence. The real issue is not how the American choppers got to Abbottabad, the real issue is why and how did Osama survive here for long with the complicity of powerful elements from within Pakistan. It seems that an overwhelming majority of our politicians and media outlets are interested in deliberately confusing the real issue just to fan the anti-US sentiment. Anyone trying to defend the raid runs the risk of being painted by the local media as the worst thing to exist after Pakistan Railways. Or ineffective deodorant. Or both put together. It does not get much worse than ineffective deodorant while you travel on Pakistan Railways.
I am also quite baffled as to why the Privatisation Commission is not considering privatising our spying services. Our intelligence agencies seem to be rich when it comes to ‘assets’. Therefore, why not initiate a program of overhauling the corporate structure of each spying agency, carrying out a valuation of its assets and float their shares through an Initial Public Offering? Some of our spying agencies could well be the country’s richest corporations and can finally come out of the closet. They can advertise themselves as companies that value ‘human capital’ (albeit in the worst possible way). Audit-related issues may arise with certain ‘assets’ not reflected ‘on the books’ but when will that arm twisting come in handy? It is not as if it would be the first time that our spies would harass anyone wanting to know about their financials, right? This can actually work.
Summers often bring along allergies and this season the word ‘sovereignty’ already has me cringing. Under the military’s pressure, the Prime Minister’s speech waxed lyrical about the ISI with no answers forthcoming—all in the name of sovereignty. Before you launch into another diatribe about how we are the victims and not the perpetrators, do engage in some reflective thinking. Militant organisations here openly advocate ‘jihad’ in Kashmir and admit to contributing to it. They sport arms and run training camps.
If you indeed care about sovereignty, then honour the ‘sacred trust’ that the Constitution places in you. Also read Article 256 which says: ‘no private organisation capable of functioning as a military organisation shall be formed, and any such organisation shall be illegal’. Ask the State of Pakistan and its army to let you be sovereign. And let’s see if you can pull that off. Ask the right questions of the right people since that affects solutions. Uncomfortable task? More difficult than spewing mindless hatred against the USA? Oh well. Let’s just go back to tossing balls in each others’ homes.
The writer is a Barrister of Lincoln’s Inn and practices in Lahore. He has a special interest in Anti-trust / Competition law. He can be reached at [email protected]
