پاکستان میں جمہوریت عبوری دور سے گزر رہی ہے، اور اس کا مستقبل غیر یقینی ہو سکتا ہے۔ اپنی اس دلیل کی وضاحت میں اس طرح 
کروں گا کہ پاکستان میں سیاسی قیادت نے سیاسی خلاء تو پُر کر لیا ہے جس کا اس سے پہلے کوئی وجود تک نہیں تھا، لیکن سیاسی قیادت ابھی ریاست کے تمام شعبوں پر مکمل کنٹرول نہیں کر پائی ہے۔ سیاسی جماعتوں کی فتح آٹھ سال کی طویل آمریت کے بعد جمہوریت کے لئے منزل ثابت ہوئی تھی۔ پاکستانی عوام کو یہ فتح اس لیے نصیب ہوئی کیونکہ چیف آف آرمی اسٹاف جنرل اشفاق پرویز کیانی نے انتخابات میں جان بوجھ کر غیر جانبدار رہنے کا فیصلہ کیا تھا۔ اُن کے اس فیصلے کا مقصد اپنے پیش رو جنرل ریٹائرڈ پرویز مشرف سے مختلف ہونے کا تاثر دینا تھا۔
اس پیش رفت کے باوجود فوج اور حکومت کے تعلقات میں اداروں کی سطح پر نہایت معمولی تبدیلی آئی ہے۔ فوج پاکستان کی سیاسی زندگی میں اب بھی مرکزی کردار ادا کرتی نظر آتی ہے۔ پاکستان کے خفیہ اداروں میں اصلاحات کے حوالے سے سیاست میں فوج کا کردار نہایت اہم معاملہ ہے۔ خفیہ اداروں کا کردار ہمیشہ سے بے انتہا متنازع رہا ہے کیونکہ یہ ادارے متعدد بار ملک کی اندرونی سیاست میں مداخلت کے لئے استعمال کیے گئے۔ جنرل ایوب خان، یحیٰ خان، ضیاء الحق اور پرویز مشرف کی فوجی حکومتیں ہوں یا ذوالفقار علی بھٹو کی سیاسی حکومت، تمام حکمرانوں نے خفیہ اداروں کو سیاسی مقاصد کے لئے تواتر سے استعمال کیا، تاہم خفیہ اداروں کو اپنے اپنے مقاصد کی خاطر استعمال کرنے کے لئے اُن پر سول اور فوجی حکومتوں کی جانب سے کنٹرول کی حد الگ الگ رہی ہے۔
اختلاف رائے رکھنے والے سیاستدانوں، دانشوروں اور معاشرے کے دیگر سرگرم افراد کے خلاف کئی آپریشن کیے گئے جن میں باقاعدہ نظام کے تحت انہیں ہراساں کرنا، ڈس انفارمیشن، جعلی مقدمات کا قیام، اغوا، تشدد اور قاتلانہ حملے تک شامل ہیں۔ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیاں باقاعدہ نظام کے تحت سیاسی رہنماؤں کی وفاداریاں خریدنے کے لئے بھی استعمال کی جاتی رہی ہیں۔
م
لٹری انٹیلیجنس (ایم آئی) اور انٹر سروسز انٹیلی جنس (آئی ایس آئی) جیسے خفیہ ادارے اپنی پیشہ ورانہ ذمہ داریاں ایک طرف رکھ کر فوجی حکومتوں کے سیاسی مخالفین کی نگرانی کرتی رہی ہیں۔ یہی خفیہ ادارے سول حکمران مقرر کرنے کے لیے اُن کے انتخاب کے ماسٹر مائنڈ بھی رہے ہیں۔ انہوں نے مذہبی اور نسلی جذبات سے بھی فائدہ اٹھایا اور پاکستانی سوسائٹی کی اُن تمام کمزوریوں کو بھی استعمال کیا جن کی وجہ سے معاشرہ پہلے ہی تقسیم ہو چکا ہے۔ ملٹری ایجنسیوں نے ایسے طریقے اپنائے جو دراصل اُنہیں پاکستانی عوام کے خلاف ہونے والی دہشت گردی کو ختم کرنے کے لئے استعمال کرنے چاہیے تھے۔
مختلف اوقات میں خفیہ اداروں نے سیاست دانوں کو آسان ہدف سمجھ کر قَصُور وار بھی ٹھہرایا ہے تاکہ سازشی گٹھ جوڑ کے ذریعے اُن کے سیاسی زوال کو درست ثابت کیا جا سکے، تاہم یہ بات بھی اہم ہے کہ انٹیلیجنس اداروں نے سیاسی پیش رفت کے متعدد معاملات میں مرکزی کردار ادا کیا ہے۔ ماضی کی حکومتوں میں یہ ادارے دوسروں کو کنٹرول کرنے کے دل پسند ہتھیار کے طور پر استعمال ہوتے رہے ہیں۔
ملک میں ابھی جمہوریت کمزور ہے، لیکن ان حالات میں اس جانب فوری توجہ دینے کی پہلے سے بھی زیادہ ضرورت ہے تا کہ کسی قسم کے پوشیدہ آپریشن کا پہلے سے سدباب کیا جا سکے۔ یہ نکتہ اس تناظر میں اہم ہے کہ ماضی میں پاکستان کی حکومتیں ایجنسیوں سے بُری طرح متاثر ہوتی رہی ہیں۔ اب اگر نئی اور بہت ہی کمزور حکومت ملٹری کنٹرول کا براہ راست مقابلہ کرنا چاہتی ہے تو اُس کو کسی طور پر بھی پاکستانی سیاست میں انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں کا نہایت اہم کردار نظر انداز نہیں کرنا چاہیے۔ خفیہ اداروں کی اصلاحات ناگزیر ہیں اور انٹیلیجنس کے عمل کو غیر سیاسی بنانا طاقت کے استحکام کی طرح قومی مفاہمت کا ہی ایک عنصر ہے۔
مغربی تجزیہ کار پاکستانی انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں کی بات کرتے ہوئے علاقائی سطح پر اس ادارے کا کردا اور شدت پسند اسلامی تنظیموں کی حمایت کو ہی مدنظر رکھتے ہیں، لیکن وہ یہ بھول جاتے ہیں کہ یہ حمایت ہی پولیٹیکل کنٹرول کے عمل کے اہم پہلو کا تعین کرتی ہے۔ آئی ایس آئی کی جانب سے اسلامی شدت پسند گروپس کی تشکیل صرف خارجہ پالیسی کے مقاصد تک ہی محدود نہیں، بلکہ یہی ملکی تناظر میں بھی استعمال ہوتی ہے۔
اگر ہم صرف اسلامی گروپس کی حمایت کا پہلو لے کر بیٹھ جائیں تو ایک اور بڑی حقیقت پس پردہ چلی جاتی ہے۔ وہ حقیقت بظاہر سیکولر جماعتیں ہیں جن میں ایک متحدہ قومی موومٹ (ایم کیو ایم) ہے جو سیاسی عمل کے تعین کی اہم کردار ہے۔ یہاں یہ بات بھی مدنظر رکھی جائے کہ ایک وقت میں یہ جماعت بھی اسی تشکیل کا شکار رہی ہے۔
اس کی مثال یوں لے لیں کہ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیاں ایک ایسے معاشرے میں شدت پسندی کے خطرے کا نظریہ پھیلاتی ہیں جہاں پہلے ہی یہ رجحان پایا جا تا ہے، اس طرح سیکورٹی کے لحاظ سے فوجی حکومت کا اقتدار میں رہنا ناگزیر ہو جاتا ہے، تاہم یہ بات بھی اہم ہے کہ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں میں اصلاحات صرف قانونی اور آئینی مسئلہ نہیں ہے۔ انیس سو نوے کی دہائی میں فوج نے نہ صرف کبھی آئی ایس آئی کے ڈائریکٹر جنرلز کی نامزدگی کی براہ راست مخالفت نہیں کی بلکہ ان عہدوں کی منظوری بھی نہیں دی۔ اس لحاظ سے دیکھا جائے تو اس نے کبھی قانون شکنی نہیں کی، لیکن دوسری جانب نہ صرف جمہوری عمل کو نظر انداز کر دیا بلکہ حکومت کے نامزد افراد کو اس طرح جلاوطن کر دیا کہ اُن کی قیادت غیر موثر ہو کر رہ گئی۔
اصلاحات کا یہ عمل صرف ادارتی ڈھانچے میں تبدیلی کا معاملہ نہیں ہے۔ انٹیلی جنس کا نیا کلچر لانے کے لیے اداروں کے فلسفے کی دوبارہ تشریح کرنا ہو گی۔ اس کے ساتھ ساتھ انٹیلی جنس مشن اور ترجیحات کی بھی از سر نو ترتیب اور تشکیل کی ضرورت ہے۔ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں میں اصلاحات کے لئے نہ صرف ظاہری صورتحال بلکہ اُن لوگوں کی سوچ بدلنے کی بھی ضرورت ہے جو ان تمام معاملات سے منسلک ہیں۔
اصلاحات کو سول اور فوجی حکومتوں کے تعلقات کے وسیع تناظر میں سمجھنا ہو گا اور اس کے لیے سب سے پہلا کام اعتماد کا بحال ہونا ہے، تاہم یہ کام ماضی میں سول ملٹری تعلقات کے تناظر میں اور ایجنیسوں کے ادارتی ڈھانچے کی وجہ سے مشکل ہے۔ اعتماد کا فقدان اس سوال پر پیدا ہوتا ہے کہ آخر ایجنسیوں کو کنٹرول کرنے کی ضرورت کیوں پیش آئی ہے۔ اگر انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں کے کردار کا دوبارہ تعین کر لیا جاتا ہے تو ملکی سیاست پر اس کے دور رس اثرات مرتب ہوں گے۔ خفیہ ادارے ہمیشہ ہی کسی ریاست کے بنیادی کردار کا اظہار ہوا کرتے ہیں، لیکن پاکستان کے معاملے میں ان اداروں کی سرگرمیاں آرمی کے روایتی غلبے کی عکاس ہیں اور بدقسمتی سے اسی کو رہنمائے اصول بنا لیا گیا ہے۔ یہ ادارے اپنے طور پر انفرادی اور اجتماعی لحاظ سے لوگوں میں خوف و ہراس پھیلانے، رشوت ستانی، بہ وقت ضرورت قتل اور عوام کی سیاسی نگرانی جیسے کام انجام دینے لگے ہیں۔
پاکستان میں جمہوریت کے استحکام کے لیے ملک کے خفیہ اداروں پر سول حکومت کا کنٹرول ناگزیر ہے۔
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
badmasshi band karoo harami
pakistan ka dushman hay too
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
you are shame for pakistan. you are cia, moosad and raw agent. your mother father will burn in hell. come to pakistan and we will chop your hand mather chood
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
this assho is at it again. he is on cia parole and i am sure about it now. 100 percent sure now. he writes against Islam, Pakistan and Army. He is only supporting Zardari and corrupt civilians.
idiot these civilians can’t even control Pakistan Post Office you want them to control ISI? You are the stupid person I have ever know.
yeah likhna band kar doo warna maraay jao gay.. phir na kahna hamay warning nahi milli
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Very Nice Article, I agree that in order to save pakistan and world peace ISI should be abolished, as ISI is the most organized and most notorious terrorist agency in world, as long as ISI exists their will be no peace in world.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
ISI is the enemy of Pakistan and ISlam, and is playing on the agenda of the international terrorism.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Thank you for being a CIA mouthpiece. I hope they pay you well in this world.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Salar Baloch, peace in world can start from bringing justice to all the countries in the world. Not by unilateral actions of US.
Stop sucking up to US policies for your vested interests.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 pm
100% Agree with Mustafa, Zulfi and Jaffy
you know i saw this link on facebook he is paying a lot to advertise on facebok and adwords, when i saw link the first thing in my mind came was
“** CIA AGENT **”
November 24th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Very courageous article again. This writer is the most prolific voice of Pakistan. What I can the most is that he can write both in english and urdu. I wilsh i can make millions of copies of this article and airdrop it on islamabad, pindi, lahore, karachi.
Ibrahim sahab, Allah apko apne hafazat may rakhay. Aur in qatilooin say bachay.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:05 am
Jano, Mustafa, Zulfi and Jaffy- ISI is the mouthpiece of CIA. Did you not read stories that CIA thinks their money is well spent with ISI?
America controls ISI and that is what these people kidnapped Pakistani citizens and handed them over to CIA.
ISI kidnapped Dr. Afia Siddiqui and handed her and 3 little kids. And you have the guts to support ISI killers? Shame on you
November 24th, 2009 at 4:45 am
If you want real story of Afia Siddiqui read this story in Guardian:
On a hot summer morning 18 months ago a team of four Americans – two FBI agents and two army officers – rolled into Ghazni, a dusty town 50 miles south of Kabul. They had come to interview two unusual prisoners: a woman in a burka and her 11-year-old son, arrested the day before.
Afghan police accused the mysterious pair of being suicide bombers. What interested the Americans, though, was what they were carrying: notes about a “mass casualty attack” in the US on targets including the Statue of Liberty and a collection of jars and bottles containing “chemical and gel substances”.
At the town police station the Americans were directed into a room where, unknown to them, the woman was waiting behind a long yellow curtain. One soldier sat down, laying his M-4 rifle by his foot, next to the curtain. Moments later it twitched back.
The woman was standing there, pointing the officer’s gun at his head. A translator lunged at her, but too late. She fired twice, shouting “Get the fuck out of here!” and “Allahu Akbar!” Nobody was hit. As the translator wrestled with the woman, the second soldier drew his pistol and fired, hitting her in the abdomen. She went down, still kicking and shouting that she wanted “to kill Americans”. Then she passed out.
Whether this extraordinary scene is fiction or reality will soon be decided thousands of miles from Ghazni in a Manhattan courtroom. The woman is Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist and mother of three. The description of the shooting, in July 2008, comes from the prosecution case, which Siddiqui disputes. What isn’t in doubt is that there was an incident, and that she was shot, after which she was helicoptered to Bagram air field where medics cut her open from breastplate to bellybutton, searching for bullets. Medical records show she barely survived. Seventeen days later, still recovering, she was bundled on to an FBI jet and flown to New York where she now faces seven counts of assault and attempted murder. If convicted, the maximum sentence is life in prison.
The prosecution is but the latest twist in one of the most intriguing episodes of America’s “war on terror”. At its heart is the MIT-educated Siddiqui, once declared the world’s most wanted woman. In 2003 she mysteriously vanished for five years, during which time she was variously dubbed the “Mata Hari of al-Qaida” or the “Grey Lady of Bagram”, an iconic victim of American brutality.
Yet only the narrow circumstances of her capture – did she open fire on the US soldier? – are at issue in the New York court case. Fragile-looking, and often clad in a dark robe and white headscarf, Siddiqui initially pleaded not guilty, insisting she never touched the soldier’s gun. Her lawyers say the prosecution’s dramatic version of the shooting is untrue. Now, after months of pre-trial hearings, she appears bent on scuppering the entire process.
During a typically stormy hearing last Thursday, Siddiqui interrupted the judge, rebuked her own lawyers and made strident appeals to the packed courthouse. “I am boycotting this trial,” she declared. “I am innocent of all the charges and I can prove it, but I will not do it in this court.” Previously she had tried to fire her lawyers due to their Jewish background (she once wrote to the court that Jews are “cruel, ungrateful, back-stabbing” people) and demanded to speak with President Obama for the purpose of “making peace” with the Taliban. This time, though, she was ejected from the courtroom for obstruction. “Take me out. I’m not coming back,” she said defiantly.
The trial, due to start in January, is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. It is a tale of spies and militants, disappearance and deception, which has played out in the shadowlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan since 2001. In search of answers I criss-crossed Pakistan, tracking down Siddiqui’s relatives, retired ministers, shadowy spy types and pamphleteers. The truth was maddeningly elusive. But it all started in Karachi, the sprawling port city on the Arabian Sea where Siddiqui was born 37 years ago.
Her parents were Pakistani strivers – middle-class folk with strong faith in Islam and education. Her father, Mohammad, was an English-trained doctor; her mother, Ismet, befriended the dictator General Zia ul-Haq. Aafia was a smart teenager, and in 1990 followed her older brother to the US. Impressive grades won her admission to the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, later, Brandeis University, where she graduated in cognitive neuroscience. In 1995 she married a young Karachi doctor, Amjad Khan; a year later their first child, Ahmed, was born.
Siddiqui was also an impassioned Muslim activist. In Boston she campaigned for Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya; she was particularly affected by graphic videos of pregnant Bosnian women being killed. She wrote emails, held fundraisers and made forceful speeches at her local mosque. But the charities she worked with had sharp edges. The Nairobi branch of one, Mercy International Relief Agency, was linked to the 1998 US embassy bombings in east Africa; three other charities were later banned in the US for their links to al-Qaida.
The September 11 2001 attacks marked a turning point in Siddiqui’s life. In May 2002 the FBI questioned her and her husband about some unusual internet purchases they had made: about $10,000 worth of night-vision goggles, body armour and 45 military-style books including The Anarchist’s Arsenal. (Khan said he bought the equipment for hunting and camping expeditions.) Their marriage started to crumble. A few months later the couple returned to Pakistan and divorced that August, two weeks before the birth of their third child, Suleman.
On Christmas Day 2002 Siddiqui left her three children with her mother in Pakistan and returned to the US, ostensibly to apply for academic jobs. During the 10-day trip, however, Siddiqui did something controversial: she opened a post box in the name of Majid Khan, an alleged al-Qaida operative accused of plotting to blow up petrol stations in the Baltimore area. The post box, prosecutors later said, was to facilitate his entry into the US.
Six months after her divorce, she married Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, at a small ceremony near Karachi. Siddiqui’s family denies the wedding took place, but it has been confirmed by Pakistani and US intelligence, al-Baluchi’s relatives and, according to FBI interview reports recently filed in court, Siddiqui herself. At any rate, it was a short-lived honeymoon.
Fowzia Siddiqui is the elder sister of Aafia Siddiqui. Photograph: Declan Walsh In March 2003 the FBI issued a global alert for Siddiqui and her ex-husband, Amjad Khan. Then, a few weeks later, she vanished. According to her family, she climbed into a taxi with her three children – six-year-old Ahmed, four-year-old Mariam and six-month old Suleman – and headed for Karachi airport. They never made it. (Khan, on the other hand, was interviewed by the FBI in Pakistan, and subsequently released.)
Initially it was presumed that Siddiqui had been picked up by Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) spy agency at the behest of the CIA. The theory seemed to be confirmed by American media reports that Siddiqui’s name had been given up by Mohammed, the 9/11 instigator, who was captured three weeks earlier. (If so, Mohammed was probably speaking under duress – the CIA waterboarded him 183 times that month.)
There are several accounts of what happened next. According to the US government, Siddiqui was at large, plotting mayhem on behalf of Osama bin Laden. In May 2004 the US attorney general, John Ashcroft, listed her among the seven “most wanted” al-Qaida fugitives. “Armed and dangerous,” he said, describing the Karachi woman as a terrorist “facilitator” who was willing to use her education against America. “Al-Qaida Mom” ran the headline in the New York Post.
But Siddiqui’s family and supporters tell a different story. Instead of plotting attacks, they say, Siddiqui spent the missing five years at the dreaded Bagram detention centre, north of Kabul, where she suffered unspeakable horrors. Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist turned Muslim campaigner, insists she is the “Grey Lady of Bagram” – a ghostly female detainee who kept prisoners awake “with her haunting sobs and piercing screams”. In 2005 male prisoners were so agitated by her plight, she says, that they went on hunger strike for six days.
For campaigners such as Ridley, Siddiqui has become emblematic of dark American practices such as abduction, rendition and torture. “Aafia has iconic status in the Muslim world. People are angry with American imperialism and domination,” she told me.
But every major security agency of the US government – army, FBI, CIA – denies having held her. Last year the US ambassador to Islamabad, Anne Patterson, went even further. She stated that Siddiqui was not in US custody “at any time” prior to July 2008. Her language was unusually categoric.
To reconcile these accounts I flew to Siddiqui’s hometown of Karachi. The family lives in a spacious house with bougainvillea-draped walls in Gulshan Iqbal, a smart middle-class neighbourhood. Inside I took breakfast with her sister, Fowzia, on a patio overlooking a toy-strewn garden.
As servants brought piles of paratha (fried bread), Fowzia produced photos of a smiling young woman whom she described as the victim of an international conspiracy. The US had been abusing her sister in Bagram, she said, then produced her for trial as part of a gruesome justice pageant. “As far as I’m concerned this trial [in New York] is just a great drama. They write the script as they go. I’ve stopped asking questions,” she said resignedly.
But Fowzia, a Harvard-educated neurologist, was frustratingly short on hard information. She responded to questions about Aafia’s whereabouts between 2003 and 2008 with cryptic cliches. “It’s not that we don’t know. It’s that we don’t want to know,” she said. And she blamed reports of al-Qaida links on a malevolent American press. “Half of them work for the CIA,” she said.
The odd thing, though, was that the person who might unlock the entire mystery was living in the same house. After being captured with his mother in Ghazni last year, 11-year-old Ahmed Siddiqui was flown back to Pakistan on orders from the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. Since then he has been living with his aunt Fowzia. Yet she has forbidden him from speaking with the press – even with Yvonne Ridley – because, she told me, he was too traumatised.
“You tell him to do something but he just stands there, staring at the TV,” she said, sighing heavily. But surely, I insisted, after 15 months at home the boy must have divulged some clue about the missing years?
Fowzia’s tone hardened. “Ahmed’s not allowed to speak to the press. That was part of the deal when they gave him to us,” she said firmly.
“Who are they?” I asked.
She waved a finger in the air. “The network. Those who brought him here.”
Moments later Fowzia excused herself. The interview was over. As she walked me to the gate, I was struck by another omission: Fowzia had barely mentioned Ahmed’s 11-year-old sister, Mariam, or his seven-year-old brother, Suleman, who are still missing. Amid the hullabaloo about their imprisoned mother, Aafia’s children seemed to be strangely forgotten.
That night I went to see Siddiqui’s ex-husband, Amjad Khan. He ushered me through a deathly quiet house into an upstairs room where we sat cross-legged on the floor. He had a soft face under the curly beard that is worn by devout Muslims. I recounted what Fowzia told me. He sighed and shook his head. “It’s all a smokescreen,” he said. “She’s trying to divert your attention.”
The truth of the matter, he said, was that Siddiqui had never been sent to Bagram. Instead she spent the five years on the run, living clandestinely with her three children, under the watchful eye of Pakistani intelligence. He told me they shifted between Quetta in Baluchistan province, Iran and the Karachi house I had visited earlier that day. It was a striking explanation. When I asked for proof, he started at the beginning.
Their parents, who arranged the marriage, thought them a perfect match. The couple had a lot in common – education, wealth and a love for conservative Islam. They were married over the phone; soon after Khan moved to America. But his new wife was a more fiery character than he wished. “She was so pumped up about jihad,” he said.
Six months into the marriage, Siddiqui demanded the newlyweds move to Bosnia. Khan refused, and grew annoyed at her devotion to activist causes. During a furious argument one night, he told me, he flung a milk bottle at his wife that split her lip.
After 9/11 Aafia insisted on returning to Pakistan, telling her husband that the US government was forcibly converting Muslim children to Christianity. Later that winter she pressed him to go on “jihad” to Afghanistan, where she had arranged for them to work in a hospital in Zabul province. Khan refused, sparking a vicious row. “She went hysterical, beating her hands on my chest, asking for divorce,” he recalled.
After Siddiqui disappeared in March 2003, Khan started to worry for his children – he had never seen his youngest son, Suleman. But he was reassured that they were still in Pakistan through three sources. He hired people to watch her house and they reported her comings and goings. His family was also briefed by ISI officials who said they were following her movements, he said. (Khan named an ISI brigadier whom I later contacted; he declined to speak).
Most strikingly, Khan claimed to have seen his ex-wife with his own eyes. In April 2003, he said, the ISI asked him to identify his ex-wife as she got off a flight from Islamabad, accompanied by her son. Two years later he spotted her again in a Karachi traffic jam. But he never went public with the information. “I wanted to protect her, for the sake of my children,” he said.
Shams ul-Hassan Faruqi, a geologist and uncle of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, at his home in Islamabad, Pakistan Photograph: Declan Walsh Khan’s version of events has enraged his ex-wife’s family. Fowzia has launched a 500m rupees (£360,000) defamation law suit, while regularly attacking him in the press as a wifebeater set on “destroying” her family. “Marrying him was Aafia’s biggest mistake,” she told me. Khan says it is a ploy to silence him in the media and take away his children.
Khan’s explanation is bolstered by the one person who claims to have met the missing neuroscientist between 2003 and 2008 – her uncle, Shams ul-Hassan Faruqi. Back in Islamabad, I went to see him.
A sprightly old geologist, Faruqi works from a cramped office filled with coloured rocks and dusty computers. Over tea and biscuits he described a strange encounter with his niece in January 2008, six months before she was captured in Afghanistan.
It started, he said, when a white car carrying a burka-clad woman pulled up outside his gate. Beckoning him to approach, he recognised her by her voice. “Uncle, I am Aafia,” he recalled her saying. But she refused to leave the car and insisted they move to the nearby Taj Mahal restaurant to talk. Amid whispers, her story tumbled out.
Siddiqui told him she had been in both Pakistani and American captivity since 2003, but was vague on the details. “I was in the cells but I don’t know in which country, or which city. They kept shifting me,” she said. Now she had been set free but remained under the thumb of intelligence officials based in Lahore. They had given her a mission: to infiltrate al-Qaida in Pakistan. But, Siddiqui told her uncle, she was afraid and wanted out. She begged him to smuggle her into Afghanistan into the hands of the Taliban. “That was her main point,” he recalled. “She said: ‘I will be safe with the Taliban.’”
That night, Siddiqui slept at a nearby guesthouse, and stayed with her uncle the next day. But she refused to remove her burka. Faruqi said he caught a glimpse of her just once, while eating, and thought her nose had been altered. “I asked her, ‘Who did plastic surgery on your face?’ She said, ‘nobody’.”
On the third day, Siddiqui vanished again.
Amid the blizzard of allegations about Siddiqui, the most crucial voice is yet to be heard – her own. The trial, due to start in January, has suffered numerous delays. The longest was due to a six-month psychiatric evaluation triggered by defence claims that Siddiqui was “going crazy” – prone to crying fits and hallucinations involving flying infants, dark angels and a dog in her cell. “She’s in total psychic pain,” said her lawyer, Dawn Cardi, claiming that she was unfit to stand trial.
But at the Texas medical centre where the tests took place, Siddiqui refused to co-operate. “I can’t hear you. I’m not listening,” she told one doctor, sitting on the floor with her fingers in her ears. Others reported that she refused to speak with Jews, that she manipulated health workers and perceived herself to “be a martyr rather than a prisoner”. Last July three of four experts determined she was malingering – faking a psychiatric illness to avoid an undesirable outcome. “She is an intelligent and at times manipulative woman who showed goal-directed and rational thinking,” reported Dr Sally Johnson.
Judge Richard Berman ruled that Siddiqui “may have some mental health issues” but was competent to stand trial.
Back in Pakistan Siddiqui has become a cause celebre. Newspapers write unquestioningly about her “torture”, parliament has passed resolutions, placard-waving demonstrators pound the streets and the government is spending $2m on a top-flight defence. High-profile supporters include the former cricketer Imran Khan and the Taliban leader Hakumullah Mehsud who has affectionately described Siddiqui as a “sister in Islam”.
The unquestioning support is a product of public fury at US-orchestrated “disappearances”, of which there have been hundreds in Pakistan, and deep scepticism about the American account of her capture. Few Pakistanis believe a frail 5ft 3in, 40kg woman could disarm an American soldier; fewer still think she would be carrying bomb booklets, chemicals and target lists.
But there are critics, too, albeit silent ones. A Musharraf-era minister with previous oversight of Siddiqui’s case told me it was “full of bullshit and lies”.
Two weeks ago the Obama administration introduced a fresh twist, when it announced that next year (or in 2011) five Guantanamo Bay detainees will be tried in the same New York courthouse, a few blocks from the World Trade Centre. One of them is Siddiqui’s second husband, Ammar al-Baluchi, also known as Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who stands accused of financing the 9/11 attacks.
But while the Guantanamo detainees will be tried for their part in mass terrorism, Siddiqui’s case focuses on a minor controversy – whether she fired a gun at a soldier in an Afghan police station. And so the big questions may not be probed: whether the ISI or CIA abducted Siddiqui in 2003, what she did afterwards, and where her two missing children are now. In fact the framing of the charges raises a new question: if Siddiqui was such a dangerous terrorist five years ago, why is she not being charged as one now? A senior Pakistani official, speaking on condition of strict anonymity, offered a tantalising explanation.
In the world of counter-espionage, he said, someone like Siddiqui is an invaluable asset. And so, he speculated, sometime over the last five years she may have been “flipped” – turned against militant sympathisers – by Pakistani or American intelligence. “It’s a very murky world,” he said.
“Maybe the Americans have no charges against her. Maybe they don’t want to compromise their sources of information. Or maybe they don’t want to put that person out in the world again. The thing is, you’ll never really know.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/aafia-siddiqui-al-qaida
November 24th, 2009 at 5:08 am
ISI should not be given under control of the CIVILIAN government as current government and almost all the past civilian governments were …………. You better know what i am trying to say …
November 24th, 2009 at 5:10 am
@ILovePakArmy
I am agreeing with you. ISISI is the threat for enemies of Pakistan. Not only ISI but our army is the best in the world. Our army and ISI is only force in the world which is totally volunteer force. They are giving everything, life—time—families—hardships—-difficulties—for defense of Pakistan…
Mr. Ibrahim ask yourself what you are doing for Pakistan…just giving remarks…Come and do something practical for Pakistan than criticize others…
I am proud of my forces and ISI–MI
November 24th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Bahtrain article hay. Best I have every read by a pakistani journalist. ISI must be reformed. Army cannot hold us hostage anymore.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:28 am
is blog ko band karoo..
November 24th, 2009 at 10:26 am
i love ISI , their work is truly devoted to Pakistan..
November 24th, 2009 at 10:44 am
I have a question ….mr malik who is funding you to show case your self created GREAT blog ? why you are projecting your blog towards Pakistani youth on facebook….who is paying for your 100000 of US for your facebook and other advertisement and Sir what you are getting out of it ?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:59 am
well with due respect for Mr. Malick, n with milder words put delicately, He is a simple BASTARD may b workin for CIA( his all articles depicts it), a traitor thinking him self to be american, doing intellectual prostitution.
Bloody treacherous Fagot.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Asslam o Alaikum,
A thought provoking article. I would like to second writer’s views in general. Its time to strengthen civilian control on each and every institution of Pakistan. Moreover, its also important to solve our problems on regional basis and strengthen SAARC. We need to start thinking in a creative manner and come up with out of the box solutions for all our political, social and economic problems. Its time to deepen our relations to remove trust deficit with all our neighbours- China, Iran, Afghanistan and India. Its time to transform Pakistan from a security state to a welfare state. I think sooner or later army will have to allow this- the sooner it is the better it will be.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Very well written article. It is interesting how everyone is claiming that author is representing America’s interesting. For all the Pakistanis who love ISI Greg Miller has last weeks must-read story detailing the financial relationship between the CIA and the ISI in Pakistan, reporting that the CIA’s payments to the ISI have accounted for as much as one-third of the Pakistani spy agency’s budget (Los Angeles Times). Officials say the CIA has also brought ISI operatives to a secret training facility in North Carolina, even as the U.S. is concerned that Pakistan is still supporting certain militant factions in the country. And France’s newly retired top investigative judge for counterterrorism, Jean-Louis Bruguière, has claimed in a just-released book that the Pakistani Army until recently ran training camps for Lashkar-e-Taiba with the acceptance of the CIA, and that the LeT has become “part” of the al Qaeda network (Times of London).
@Jano- you are right- there is no difference between ISI and CIA. Yes, there is- CIA is the master and ISI is the slave agency.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
The U.S. has given Pakistan’s main intelligence agency; ISI (Inter Service Intelligence agency), several hundred million dollars since September 11, 2001. Because of fears that much of that money would be stolen, the U.S. insisted that the ISI put most of that money into tangible objects. Thus the U.S. is relieved that ISI is building a large new headquarters complex in the Pakistani capital. This is not to say that ISI officials had no opportunities for payoffs. Nearly a third of the U.S. money was paid as rewards for the capture or killing of wanted Islamic terrorists. The live ones were turned over to the United States. Pakistan says it captured over 600 of these terrorists, but the actual number is believed to be greater. The U.S. did not look closely at exactly who got the reward money.
For several years now, the United States, Afghanistan, India and many Pakistanis, have been pressuring the Pakistani government to reform the ISI, and not just reduce the corruption. The ISI has long been a power unto itself, with its own agenda and many members who support Islamic radicalism. Last year, the government sought to disband the political wing of the ISI. This section was believed be largely responsible for Pakistani support of Islamic, or simply Pakistani, terrorist operations in Afghanistan and India, as well as support for Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan itself. The political wing has also served as a domestic spying operation whenever the military was running the country (which is more than half the time.) Pakistan is currently run by a civilian government that came into power a little over a year ago.
ISI has long supported Islamic terrorists, and now Pakistan appears determined to root out “Taliban spies” in the ISI. The problem is that these Islamic radicals have been operating openly in the ISI for three decades, and were put there by the government in the late 1970s, when it was decided that Islamic conservatism was the solution for Pakistan’s problems (corruption and religious/ethnic conflicts.) These guys are not just “Taliban spies,” but Pakistani intelligence professionals that believe in Islamic radicalism.
The ISI itself was created in 1948 as a reaction to the inability of the IB (Intelligence Bureau, which collected intelligence on foreign countries in general) and MI (Military Intelligence, which collected intel on military matters) to work together and provide useful information. The ISI was supposed to take intel from IB and MI, analyze it and present it to senior government officials. But in the 1950s, the government began to use ISI to collect intel on Pakistanis, especially those suspected of opposing whatever government was in power. This backfired eventually, and in the 1970s, the ISI was much reduced by a civilian government. But when another coup took place in 1977, and the new military government decided that religion was the cure for what ailed the country, and that ISI would play an important role.
Typically, the Pakistani generals seized control of the government every decade or so, when the corruption and incompetence of elected officials became too much for the military men to tolerate. The generals never did much better, and eventually there were elections again, and the cycle continued. The latest iteration began in 1999, when the army took over, and was only forced, by public pressure, to relinquish power last year. Civilian governments tend to be hostile to the ISI, and apparently this is producing a serious effort to clear out many of the Islamic radicals in the ISI. But as recent attempt by the government to take control of the ISI backfired when the generals said they would not allow it. Nothing is simple in Pakistan.
The ISI grew particularly strong during the 1980s, when billions of dollars, most of it in the form of military and economic aid, arrived from the oil-rich Arab governments of the Persian Gulf. All this was to support the Afghans, who were resisting a Russian invasion (in support of Afghan communists who had taken control of the government, and triggered a revolt of the tribes). The Afghan communists were atheists, and this greatly offended Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries, who feared that Russia would encourage Arab communists to rebel elsewhere. So the resistance to the Russians in Afghanistan was declared a holy war which, after a fashion, it was. After about nine years of fighting the tribes, the Russians got tired of their slow progress (and more pressing problems back home, like the collapse of their economy from decades of communist mismanagement).
The Russians were gone by 1989 (and the Soviet Union collapsed two years later), but the Afghans promptly fell upon each other and the civil war seemed never-ending. This upset Pakistan, which wanted to send millions of Afghan refugees back home. Few of the refugees were interested as long as Afghans were still fighting each other. So the ISI created its own faction, the Taliban, by recruiting teachers and students from a network of religious schools that had been established (with the help of Saudi Arabian religious charities) in the 1980s. The most eager recruits were young Afghans from the refugee camps. The Taliban were fanatical, and most Afghans were willing to support them because they brought peace and justice. But the Taliban never conquered all of Afghanistan, especially in the north, where there were few Pushtun tribes (most Taliban were Pushtuns, from tribes in southern Afghanistan). The Pushtuns were about 40 percent of the population, and had always been the most prominent faction in Afghanistan (the king of Afghanistan was traditionally a Pushtun.)
Although a military junta was again running Pakistan when September 11, 2001 came along, the president of the country, an army general (Pervez Musharraf), sided with the United States, and turned against the Taliban. But many in the ISI continued to support the Taliban, and the army was too dependent on the ISI (for domestic intelligence, and to control Islamic militants that were attacking India, especially in Kashmir) to crack down on the ISI.
Al Qaeda took this betrayal badly, and declared war on the Pakistani government. The ISI was used to seek out and kill or capture most of the hostile al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. But the ISI insured that Islamic terrorists who remained neutral were generally left alone. The ISI thwarted government efforts to have the army clear al Qaeda out of the border areas (populated largely by Pushtun tribes, there being more Pushtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan). But now, in one sense, it’s September 11, 2001 all over again. The U.S. has told Pakistan that it is fed up with getting screwed around by the ISI, and if Pakistan doesn’t clean out the ISI, and shut down Islamic terrorists along the Afghan border, NATO, U.S. and Afghan troops will cross the border and do it.
Pakistan wants continued U.S. military aid to bolster its defenses against India. But if it suddenly has a hostile U.S. in Afghanistan, and less (or no) military aid, it’s general military situation will be, well, not good. While Afghanistan, and the foreign troops there, are dependent on Pakistani ports and trucking companies for supplies, Pakistan is also dependent on the U.S. Navy for access to the sea. Pakistan does not want to go to war with the United States in order to defend Islamic terrorists it openly says it is at war with. Pakistan is being forced to destroy the Islamic radical movement it has nurtured over the last three decades, although it’s still questionable if there’s enough political will in Pakistan to actually finish the job. ISI critics also call for more police, and more professional and better equipped ones at that. The U.S. is threatening to restrict aid if the Pakistanis do not reform the police and ISI. This story is by no means over.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
jis larki nay musharaf ka naam mathay pay likha hay uska moon bohat khobsoorat hay. may soochta hoin kay uskay moon may fauji ka lund ja sakta hay kay nahi? apka ka kia khayal hay
November 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
To perpetuate its hegemony, the army has imposed a Unitarian set up, which denies provincial autonomy to the provinces. A large part of the national budget is appropriated for the armed forces exclusive use. To further control the things, a huge demon has been created in the form of ISI, the Inter Services Intelligence agency. First established in 1948, it was strengthened under the army dictators, Ayub Khan and Zia to consolidate the junta role in all the spheres of the society.
We hear of a state within a state or a government within a government but in this case, we have a state ABOVE state and a government ABOVE government. ISI has grown too big for its boots and is no longer answerable to anybody. The result is that there has been no real supervision of the ISI.
Corruption, narcotics, and big money have all come into play, further complicating the political scenario. Drug money has been used by ISI to finance not only the previous Afghanistan war, but also the other ongoing proxy wars. It has large sums of money at its disposal, which are used very effectively to enforce ironclad hold over society in the country and create mischief elsewhere.
It were the intelligence agencies, which created and supported fundamentalist forces in the country. These forces have continuously been used against the secular and democratic forces. Later they were also used to train ‘Mujahideen’ for wars abroad. And now one of their utilities is to create a ruse to blackmail the United States and other western countries.
ISI’s Political wing with enormous resources at its disposal, has been used to manage, or in other words, rig all the elections held since 1980s in order to deny the popular, secular, democratic political forces any effective role in the affairs of the state. The formation of Islami Jamhoori Ittehad, IJI, in 1988, to defeat and or to contain the Pakistan Peoples Party of Benazir Bhutto and the distribution of huge amounts of money to achieve that goal, have been acknowledged by former ISI operatives.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
F*** you MALICK!
..and hands-of ISI.
Pakistan Zindabad.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Very insightful article. I don’t think anyone else has written so courageously against ISI in Urdu language. Bravo, Mr. Malick!
November 25th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Naseem, why would US want to reform ISI if ISI works for CIA pretty well.
Your response is self conflicting.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Let me Say , “ISI ke baqa me’n Pakistan ke Baqa hay” . ISI reforms mean ISI say true lovers of Paksitani and pakistani interest ko nikala jay as it is the wish of our enemies
November 26th, 2009 at 4:48 am
@Jaffy
I never said America wants to reform ISI. American wants to keep running ISI.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:29 am
What I believe is: CIA tried to control and buys ISI people that they could not accomplish. Now they “Uncle SAM” wants to break this institute by making them under the political govt. As everyone knows those politicians are easy to bribe and purchase to dictate the terms of “GREATER DICTOTOR”.
I won’t say that these institutes are neat and clean, but they are better than politicians.
I would say: So far these intelligence agencies are the backbone of Pakistan and we need to support their roll.
December 5th, 2009 at 9:41 am
no one is anti american in PK neither politicians civililians nor military maybe some are but not really
not even the mullah do piazas
there is occasional whimpering about violatiom of its non existent sovreignity
but issuance of a visa or imagined threat of cancellation of a US visa is enough to silence criticism or promote it
democracy in pakistan will always be half baked and dictatorial no matter who rules it and in turn you will alwys be ruled by those countries that lend you money sell you arms and ammo interfere in you affairs through their embassies and visiting officials of any rank and phone calls.
the civillian politicians all have friends and relatives in government and armed forces so every one is scratching each others you know what?
When the politicians bash “THE ESTABLISHMENT” they should remember that they are part of it not superior or separate from it.
corruption and lawnessness is part of our culture promoted and practised a thousand differnt ways & accepted by all shades and sections of the public high and low and in the middle
how else could a patwari and a president take relief under NRO?
count the number of democratic politicians and establishment friends who dont have a cache of stash property children an escape route safe haven refuge abroad
if there is an exception he is probably awaiting his turn
when a villager votes for a corrupt politician he doesnt care about his morality honesty or integrity even if he gets nothing out of it he will vote for him time and again because the candidate is from a Pir family tribe biradari brotherhood or simply as the emericans say “he mahy be a bastard but hes our bastard”
December 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am
no one is anti american in PK neither politicians civililians nor military maybe some are but not really
not even the mullah do piazas
there is occasional whimpering about violatiom of its non existent sovreignity
but issuance of a visa or imagined threat of cancellation of a US visa is enough to silence criticism or promote it
democracy in pakistan will always be half baked and dictatorial no matter who rules it and in turn you will alwys be ruled by those countries that lend you money sell you arms and ammo interfere in you affairs through their embassies and visiting officials of any rank and phone calls.
the civillian politicians all have friends and relatives in government and armed forces so every one is scratching each others you know what?
When the politicians bash “THE ESTABLISHMENT” they should remember that they are part of it not superior or separate from it.
corruption and lawnessness is part of our culture promoted and practised a thousand differnt ways & accepted by all shades and sections of the public high and low and in the middle
how else could a patwari and a president take relief under NRO?
count the number of democratic politicians and establishment friends who dont have a cache of stash property children an escape route safe haven refuge abroad
if there is an exception he is probably awaiting his turn
when a villager votes for a corrupt politician he doesnt care about his morality honesty or integrity even if he gets nothing out of it he will vote for him time and again because the candidate is from a Pir family tribe biradari brotherhood or simply as the Americans say “he mau be a bastard but he’s our bastard”