The general’s statement

Raises many questions

The statement before the memo enquiry commission by the former DG ISI raises a number of questions of public importance. The retired general has stated that he had taken every step with the approval of the military high command “from the beginning of the investigation to his meeting with Mansoor Ijaz and the decision not to probe the issue any further.” Pasha briefed Kayani about his interview with Ijaz on October 24. The latter, however, brought the matter to Gilani’s notice three weeks later on November 13. Why did the COAS and DG ISI keep the PM in the dark while preparing a case that could lead to the government’s removal?

In his statement before the Supreme Court the COAS maintained that “the memo episode has an impact on national security as inter-alia (it) unsuccessfully attempts to lower the morale of Pakistan Army whose young officers and soldiers are laying down their lives for the security and defence of territorial integrity and political independence and sovereignty of Pakistan.” Broad sections of the media went haywire over the ‘revelations’. Mian Nawaz Sharif took the matter to the Supreme Court. Ambassador Haqqani was called home and made to resign. A judicial commission to probe the memo affair was set up and was twice granted extensions to complete the probe. The way statements by the COAS and DG ISI were filed led the PM to dismiss the Defence Secretary. Gilani’s interview to a Chinese daily led the ISPR to issue a threatening statement underlining that it would have “very serious ramifications with potentially grievous consequences for the country.” The level of tensions rose so high that the army chief’s meeting with top commanders raised speculations about the future of the government. There were rumours of a coup being imminent and the COAS had to issue a statement denying any threat to democracy.

And now we learn from Pasha that the probe was suddenly called off. Did the army decide not to pursue the investigation any further because it became convinced that a case could not be made out of it? Or did it decide that the issue was not that much of a threat to national independence and sovereignty as it had been considered earlier?