Restricting agencies to their role
After ISI, it is the turn of the IB. The ex-ISI chief had admitted distributing money among PPP’s opponents on orders from the COAS. The PML-N had, meanwhile, complained that the PPP government had used secret funds at the disposal of the IB during its 1988-90 tenure and during 2008-09 to buy the loyalties of politicians. This has led the SC to probe the IB’s possible involvement in attempts to overthrow elected governments.
Complaints about the security agencies’ involvement in politics are galore. Now that an independent Election Commission is in place for the first time in the country’s history, hopes have been aroused about the forthcoming elections being fair and free. For this, all types of attempts to influence the outcome of the elections that include the use of money to buy loyalties have to be stopped. The apex court through its verdict in Asghar Khan case has abolished any possible political cells set up by the ISI, MI or Presidency. It has ordered legal proceedings against the 1990 recipients of the funds as well as against former COAS Aslam Beg and former ISI chief Asad Durrani.
While deciding the Asghar Khan case the apex court had ordered to delink the case of doling out money from the accounts of the IB to topple the PML-N’s Punjab government. The case was based on a newspaper report subsequently corroborated by the reporter before the SC bench. While the SC has sought reports from two former and one serving IB DGs, only one of them who was serving as chief in 2008 might be able to make a knowledgeable comment regarding any possible misuse of funds during his tenure spread over five months in 2008. None of them was holding a position of authority in IB during 1988-90 period. After the apex court’s orders against top army officers involved in funding the politicians, the IB officers are likely to act more discretely. The mere fact that they have been summoned would however strengthen the message in the verdict on Asghat Khan case i.e., the agencies, whether military or civilian, must stay neutral in elections.
One expects from the apex court that there is no perception of partiality in the conduct of the case. What remains to be done is for the Parliament to pass a law defining clearly the scope and limits of the security agencies, both military and civilian. With a proper charter governing these bodies, the agencies would be able to concentrate better on the role allotted to them instead of straying into politics. The charter should also ensure that a parliamentary committee is assigned the function of overseeing the performance of these agencies.
