The Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT) has raised concern over the over-involvement of the military in political issues in its latest report on civil-military relations in Pakistan. The report outlines the involvement of the military in affairs that are outside its professional scope and competence.
The report states that the Supreme Court should not have inducted members of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Military Intelligence (MI) in the proceedings of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). It says that the military should not have been made a part of the highly political inquiry in the Panama Papers case. Also, these military institutions do not have the expertise required in the complex investigation process. Furthermore, it lamented that a member from the premier intelligence agency, the Intelligence Bureau (IB), had not been inducted into the JIT.
The report also raised alarm over the failure of the civilian government to negotiate with the protesters in Parachinar. The protests, that erupted following the bomb blasts in Parachinar, ended after the COAS General Bajwa visited the area, held negotiations with the protesters, and announced a compensation and security package for the area. The assumption of responsibilities that are primarily civilian by the military is not in the interest of democracy, it adds.
The report further mentions that the military must clarify its position on the role played by certain military officials in the release of American spy Raymond Davis. The spy had stated in his recently released book that former DG ISI General Shuja Pasha played an important role in his release. He also stated that the ISI threatened the family members of the victims to receive blood money.
The report raised questions about the announcement of Umrah for the Pakistan cricket team after their Champions Trophy victory on behalf of the COAS. It questioned whether the army chief should have such discretionary powers over public funds. The report also called forth for the abolishing of all discretionary funds, whether in the hands of the military or the civilians.
Moreover, the report criticised the ISPR for comparing the Balochistan issue with the Kashmir issue in an unprofessional manner. It suggested that such sensitive issues lie within the domain of the Foreign Office, and the military should not discuss it in such an undiplomatic manner.
However, the report appreciated two positive developments. It cited the holding of the National Security Committee’s meeting on June 7, 2017, after a week of the previous meeting as a good step. The commencement of the fencing of the Pak-Afghan border, as declared by the ISPR, has also been praised.
The report has mentioned that Army is playing outside its orbit rather pruding in Civ responsibilities. How can we say that once Civ administration was a clear failure in Parachinar. What should have been the army’s stance there while it was also employed there. Moreover, in Panama case, please go through the expertise and credentials of all members. They all were well qualified and capable for undertaking the investigation.
Comments are closed.