From left, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen and Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, commander of Carrier Strike Group 9, speak with Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistan Army Gen. Ashfaq Kayani and Pakistani Maj. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, director general of military operations, on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) while under way in the North Arabian Sea Aug. 27, 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Whether Husain Haqqani gets justice or not, the Memogate debacle is a watershed moment for Pakistan’s Civil-Military balance and a historic opportunity for the proponents of democracy to seize control of the ‘real’ state.

But of course it is easier said than done! A minister of Tipu Sultan was quoted in Parliamentary Papers (1852-53) as saying: “we are not afraid of what we do see of the British power, but of what we do not see.”  Replace ‘British’ with ‘GHQ’ and you have access to the mind of the PPP leadership. Ignoring the colonial traits of GHQ, proponents of a Praetorian model will argue that because the PPP government is ineffective, “the executive is unable to control the military.”

With foam coming from both sides of their mouths, many Pakistani analysts repeatedly declare that democracy has proved inadequate to handle the problems of corruption, the economy, and terrorism. Some explicitly call for the censure of elected government in the ‘national interest.’

Pro-GHQ analysts on TV and in mainstream print media argue that the military has simply done us a favor by stepping up to fill the institutional vacuum created by the inefficiencies of the civilian government. In reality these so-called analysts simply justify and legitimize the use of coercive authority over the social, economic, and political institutions of Pakistan.

If you analyze these commentators you will find patterns and repetitive messages that are not challenged by the anchors or editors of leading publications. It is a known fact that GHQ had colluded with or coopted the judiciary, resulting in Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s execution to name only one troubling example of undermining democracy. The Military-Judiciary incestuous relationship is no secret but pro-establishment analysts invoke the power of the lordship of the all mighty Supreme Court to seek justice that weakens civilian institutions; case in point the Memogate scandal.

The media and judiciary both aid GHQ as they systematically and ruthlessly eliminate political opponents. Of course they still exploit the populist power of religion to solidify their hegemonic discourse.

Look closely and you will find that these proponents of GHQ inhabit a dark, conspiratorial world devoid of all social and natural realities. Peddling their pseudo-fascist theory of “national security” they argue that the Judeo-Christian-Hindu forces of the West –Israel-India have joined hands in a war against Islam. The enemy is anyone who thinks differently from them; so to save Pakistan, the military must wipe out all signs of dissent. To many of us their theory sounds paranoid, but it makes perfect sense to GHQ pushers who have bought into (or sold out to) this fascist narrative, and a conservative jihadi form of Islam. They also reflect Pakistan’s pervasive sense of isolation, which results in a grandiose view of Islamabad as occupying the world’s center stage.

Going back to the quote of Tipu Sultan’s minister: We know that GHQ has coopted the judiciary, media, mullahs and many political celebrities. These are what Slajov Zizek, contemporary political philosopher would call the ‘known-known’. We also know that there are unknowns (known-unknown) and we don’t know what we don’t know (unknown-unknown). But I would submit that what we ‘know’ but do not acknowledge or forget (known-unknown), is the key to rebalancing the civil-military relationship in Pakistan.

For example we know that there are nearly 190 million people in Pakistan. We know that there are nearly 58 million adult men and 54 million adult women –compare that to merely 1.4 million strong in the army and you begin to understand the potential power of the people. We know that 20^th century social revolutions, for example in China (1949, and in Cuba in 1959, were caused by endemic military interventions in civil society. We also know for example that several countries in South and Latin America have successfully leashed their oppressive armies within the past twenty years.

But most importantly we know that GHQ realizes that direct rule of the Pakistani people, a la marshal law, is no longer possible, therefore, they are building human avatars to serve as their proxy.

Amos Perlmutter in his well publicized paper, “Toward a Taxonomy of Civil-Military Relations in Developing Polities,” writes “the army can take over the government with or without the consent of civilian politicians, on their behalf or against them, in order to eliminate one civilian group and establish another.”

The lesson learned from the Memogate debacle is that Pakistan’s civil society has matured and can counter dominant narratives even when they don’t have control of the mainstream media. Digital activists from Pakistan have provided breathing room for the PPP government and have encouraged Prime Minister Gillani and co-Chairman Bilawal Bhutto to take bold stands.

But this is no time to slow down. As I have written elsewhere abuses of power should put intelligence reform at the top of the agenda for change for PPP government. Before Pakistan can continue its democratic transition, these changes must be addressed.

Ignoring the need to establish supremacy over the intelligence community would be a grave mistake on the part of Pakistan’s civilian government. Reducing the role of the military in the intelligence sector will allow the government to consolidate itself domestically, so it should be a top priority. In addition, government control over military and intelligence will cast a positive light on the state of Pakistan’s emerging democracy, and will improve international opinions of Pakistan.

Although reform to intelligence agencies will be difficult, the good news is that with patience, resolve, and international situation in its favour, Pakistan’s government can indeed reassert civilian control over the intelligence community. Luckily for Pakistan, there are predecessors to take notes from. Indonesia and Chile have both undergone transformations in the intelligence arena and have plenty to offer Pakistan by way of example.

Intelligence agencies reform in Indonesia and Chile became a reality after the media began exposing the atrocities and, people had the courage to reject authoritarianism. Reform of the murky Indonesian intelligence service, Badan Intelijen Negara (BIN), were spurred by revelations that emerged in the trial of the alleged killer of the country’s top human right activist.

Munir Said Thalib, died from arsenic poisoning while on a flight on Garuda, Indonesia’s national airline, from Jakarta to Amsterdam via Singapore on Sept. 7, 2004. Indonesian media exposed the hands behind Munir’s murder.

Extensive exposure by the mass media of the massive human rights violations and power abuse by the Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI), led to the abrupt breakdown in its public image. And, the abolition of “Dwifungsi ABRI” (the dual-function of the military) became a major demand of the pro-democracy movement.

In this same sense, the Pakistani media’s role is necessary to question the functioning of the ISI.  I do not expect mainstream Pakistani media to question GHQ promoted narratives. But I am hopeful that Pakistan’s growing pro-democracy digital activists will utilize all tools available to challenge the dominant discourse.

I wrote this article for Viewpoint. http://www.viewpointonline.net/pak-army-and-internal-colonialism.html

“Kill three million of them,” said President Yahya Khan, “and the rest will eat out of our hands.” Robert Payne writes in his book titled ‘Massacre’, referring to a meeting of Pakistan army’s top brass held
on February 22, 1971.

“For month after month in all the regions of East Pakistan the massacres went on,” writes Robert Payne. “They were not the small casual killings of young officers who wanted to demonstrate their
efficiency, but organized massacres conducted by sophisticated staff officers, who knew exactly what they were doing. Muslim soldiers, sent out to kill Muslim peasants, went about their work mechanically and efficiently, until killing defenseless people became a habit like smoking cigarettes or drinking wine. … Not since Hitler invaded Russia had there been so vast a massacre.” Robert Payne goes on to assert through his analysis that military dictatorship is the most corrupt form of government.

R.J. Rummel, in his book ‘Death by government’ describes: These “willing executioners” were fuelled by an abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against the Hindu minority. “Bengalis were often
compared with monkeys and chickens” said Pakistani General Niazi, ‘It was a low lying land of low lying people.’ The Hindus among the Bengalis were as Jews to the Nazis: scum and vermin that [should] best
be exterminated. As to the Moslem Bengalis, they were to live only on the sufferance of the soldiers: any infraction, any suspicion cast on them, any need for reprisal, could mean their death. And the  soldiers were free to kill at will. The journalist Dan Coggin quoted one Punjabi captain as telling him, ‘We can kill anyone for anything. We are accountable to no one.’ This is the arrogance of Power.

Susan Brownmiller, in her book “Against our will: Men, women and rape” puts the number of women raped from 200,000 to 400,000. She wrote, “Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. … Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land …”  Brownmiller quotes  a description of one such assault which targeted a recently-married woman, as reported by Aubrey Menen: “Two [Pakistani soldiers] went into the room that had been built for the bridal couple. The others
stayed behind with the family, one of them covering them with his gun. They heard a barked order, and the bridegroom’s voice protesting. Then there was silence until the bride screamed. Then there was silence again, except for some muffled cries that soon subsided. In a few minutes one of the soldiers came out, his uniform in disarray. He grinned to his companions. Another soldier took his place in the extra room. And so on, until all the six had raped the belle of the village. Then all six left, hurriedly. The father found his daughter lying on the string cot unconscious and bleeding. Her husband was crouched on the floor, kneeling over his vomit.”

The human death toll reported during this nine month long genocide varies from 300,000 to 3 million. Mukti Bahini, the armed volunteers waging guerilla war against Pakistan army with the help of India,
avenged by murdering Biharis, the urdu-speaking migrants. Tens of thousands of Bihari men, women and children were murdered, their property looted and women raped. Biharis saw another round of murder after December 16, as Bengalis celebrated their independence by killing the friends of Pakistan army.

With signing of the surrender document, 96,000 Pakistani soldiers and civilians were interned into Indian jails and camps. Indian government that gloated on the success of their war against traditional rivals and gleefully announced themselves as liberators of Bengalis, did not mind sending the perpetrators of genocide back to Pakistan, after a deal was struck on border disputes. Those who committed murder and rape of their fellow countrymen in East Pakistan returned home to
receive pension from the national ex-chequer and they were awarded lands. A commission was set to investigate the war but its findings were never made public in Pakistan.

Two and a half million Biharis languished in refugee camps and their demand to be repatriated to Pakistan was struck down by various Pakistani governments. Families in those refugee camps lived under inhuman conditions for almost four decades and saw another generation grow-up.  A few months ago the Supreme Court of Bangladesh decreed that Biharis be considered citizens of the country and allowed them to vote.

The army took over the rein of power again in Pakistan in 1977 and executed the elected Prime minister. They partnered with America in their war against Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the world forgot their crimes of 1971. There was military operation in Baluchistan. Sindhis were brutalized during Zia’s regime and Pakhtuns have been thrown in a war for 3 decades. The army/ISI, with its choke-hold on President Zardari’s government seems poised to push Sindhis into a clash again.

Pakistan army continues with its murderous ways and receives praise and aid for its efforts. With the International tribunal conducting trials and issuing warrants against culprits of crimes against
humanity, one wonders whether Pakistan army did commit any crime or the victims of their crimes were not humans.

Sitting at the back benches of the hall at one point I almost jumped out of my chair when he said: “the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.”  I was shocked because a succession of American officials recently confirmed that the Pakistani arsenal is secure. Through leaks that are whispered in our ears, however, we were told that Americans commissioned studies on how vulnerable Pakistani warheads and laboratories would be if insurgents made greater inroads. Talk like this only serves to embolden those terrorist elements that seek to destabilize the entire region.

I didn’t get a clear sense as to what President Obama might do in Pakistan – and that makes me more nervous. What we hear is that the US will not do anything overt in Pakistan to deflect criticism and mitigate risk. A report in New York Times suggest (again based on leaks) that there will be a two pronged approach- CIA  led covert operations and, to mitigate risks ,the US will sub-contract the overt war within Pakistani borders to the nation’s army.

So basically President Obama confirmed the narrative that was being constructed through leaks to the media for the past 8 years.

Report also claim that President Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan and the Pakistan army is onboard. Many Pakistanis fear that more U.S. troops mean more of the nightmare that we have been living with for the past several years including  more drones, additional CIA and private boots on the ground operating co-overtly, more money for the ISI, and moral support for the army.  Don’t be surprised by drone attacks in Baluchistan as well.

President Obama defined his strategy with three core elements: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan. 

In the corridors of West Point we met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and I asked her what will happen if Pakistan’s democratic government was destabilized. She said “we hope it won’t come to that”. We know people of Pakistan want democracy. We hope whatever the political problems are internally they will be worked out in a lawful and constitutional manner.”  When asked if her government will engage with a dictator should martial law be implemented in Pakistan, she responded, “ in my dealings with the military leadership I have no indication that they are looking to do anything except supporting the democratically elected government.”

Here is the transcript because YouTube audio is not that good:  

{Obama administration has been very supportive of democratic process in Pakistan but the democratic government seems instable. What will be the impact if current government is destabilized?

Well we hope it doesn’t come to that because the people of Pakistan want democracy and we hope whatever internal political problems there might be can be worked out in lawful and constitutional manner. What’s important is for us to partner with Pakistani people. So of course when I came to visit I met with democratically elected government officials – president and prime minister and foreign minister and other ministers as well as members  of parliament. We also met with the military, head of ISI. We believe the future for Pakistan is so positive but of course there has to be stability. There has to be kind of security that military is fighting for in South Waziristan. And, there has to be kind of political stability that comes with a solid democracy. We hope that can be worked out.

Will you engage with Pakistani military if there was a martial law?

Well we hope it doesn’t come to that. I don’t want to speculate. I think that — in my talking to the military I didn’t get any indication that they have any intention of doing anything except supporting democratically elected government. Now, I know there are all kinds of challenges to the current government that is for the people of Pakistan- your political process to work out. But of course we want to see a strong, vibrant democracy. And, that is what we are going to continue to support.}

Off the record conversations with US officials indicated that they have diversified contacts in Pakistan: Mr. Hollbrooke called Mr. Nawaz Sharif prior to Obama’s Afghanistan strategy speech. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is talked about with more respect than ever before.

It is pretty evident from Ms. Clinton’s response above as well that democratic process should not be confused with President Zardari’s rule. I believe Americans realize that President Zardari may have only symbolic position going forward and they are prepared to deal with anyone and everyone who represents Pakistan.

I really hope New York Times report is incorrect that there is no expansion of the war. I, absolutely support eradicating terrorists where ever they maybe: but in the process let’s not create more terrorists.

Taking a look back at Pakistan’s history, however, exposes the hypocrisy of such assertions.  It was, in fact, during Gen.Zia ul Haq’s rule that the US was allowed to construct five ‘intelligence and recon basses’ in Pakistan. It was under Gen. Musharaf’s rule that Pakistan compromised the security of it’s nuclear assets, allowed drone attacks, handed over Pakistani civilians to the CIA and allowed Blackwater to launch covert operations.

By now we all know about Seymour Hersh article in New Yorker. I have been wary of Mr. Hersch’s unnamed sources and questioned timing of his stories.

But Jeremy Scahill who writes for The Nation Magazine is a straight shooter. In his latest article in The Nation journalist Jeremy Scahill has revealed that Blackwater is secretly operating in Pakistan under a covert program that includes planning the assassination and kidnapping of Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects. Blackwater is also said to be involved in a previously undisclosed U.S. military drone campaign that has killed scores of people inside Pakistan. Blackwater operatives have been working under a covert program run by the Joint Special Operations Command, the military’s top covert operations force. The previously undisclosed JSOC operations would mark the first known confirmation of U.S. military activity inside Pakistan.

This was possible because in 2006 Gen. Pervez Musharaf struck a deal with the Bush administration that allows U.S. Special Operations forces from the Joint Special Operations Command to enter Pakistan with the understanding that they were, “following the target.”

Indeed, if you read Pakistan’s short history you will find that our Army has always served America’s interest and its foreign policy has been congruent with US policy in the region. Although our nation’s key decision to stand in America’s camp pre-dates the Ayub regime, it was during our first martial law that Pakistan’s anti-imperialist forces were completely crushed.

America was the clear winner when, on April 17^th 1953, Pakistan’s third Governor General Malik Ghulam Mohammad dismissed Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin who had then enjoyed the confidence of the parliament. Mohammad Ali Bogra was appointed to form a government the same day. Looking through declassified documents at the US National Archives you will understand that the main benefactors of the change were always two elements, Pakistan’s army and the US.

Please see blow the US ambassador’s telegram from the embassy in Karachi sent on April 18^th, 1953.

Two more significant telegrams sent from the US embassy in Karachi clearly indicate that: America was fearful of Pakistan’s left inclined politicians and Ayub Khan was being encouraged to take control ie. “a coup by a military dictatorship”.

I will be adding to more documents here to deconstruct the notion that Pakistan’s army is anti-imperialist. Secondly, I will also continue to question the assertions of many that Pakistan’s Army is truly religious.  It only promoted and protected Islamist elements to serve U.S. interests. Ironically Pakistan’s army also promoted westernized voices in early parts of it history, also at the behest of it’s American masters. A religious bigot like Zia ul Haq was built-up when America wanted to exploit religious sentiments. And, Gen. Musharaf was nurtured as a ‘westernized’ voice when that was the need of the day.  This willingness to be anything the U.S. wants is often observed by Pakistan watchers who say: if America wants a transvestite, the Pakistan army will hurry up and promote a hijra through it’s rank.

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۔    

ملٹری 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۔