The Pakistan Army has been reviled as ‘State within a State’ in the Indian political folklore. Now the PM of Pakistan has joined them. A modern country has several power centres that compete or co-operate but none is considered a ‘State within the State’. The intelligence organisations do operate as if they were a ‘state within the state’ but this is deliberate – to underpin ‘deniability’.

But political persons and parties in Pakistan are allowed to have contacts with foreign embassies and intelligence organisations which allow them to operate as Mafias to promote or protect foreign interests. The state often does have intelligence but not evidence of their treasonous conduct.

Pakistan failed to stop the subversion and later invasion of East Pakistan. Sheikh Mujib was apprehended and indicted for Agartalla Conspiracy but was released in consequence of massive internal pressure. It is apparent that treasonous politicians can undermine the entire edifice of the state. What does the state do in such a situation? Pakistan is once again faced with the top leadership of Pakistan acting as ‘state within the state’ to serve foreign interests.

The statements of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani provide much fun and amusement in entertainment starved Pakistan. His being thick skinned impervious to ridicule and even public disclosure of serious corruption may well be good for him. Despite being condemned as the most corrupt and inept government in the history of Pakistan, there is no countrywide political movement on the lines of Arab spring. Mr Gilani has never been taken seriously as the Chief Executive; his fall has always appeared imminent; he is the ever ready ‘fall guy’ if one was needed to take the flak for his boss – President Asif Ali Zardari. However, in the last three months the Zardari-Gilani Administration has become embroiled in something much more serious – a case of alleged treachery known commonly as the ‘Memo-gate’.

The ‘Memo-gate’ conspiracy came to light through an article of 20 October 2011 in the FT of London written by Mansoor Ijaz – a US citizen of Pakistani descent. He revealed that he had written a Memorandum to Admiral Mullen, the then Chief of Joint Staff of the USA, conveying an offer by President Asif Zardari to replace the present ‘national security team’ in Pakistan with persons acceptable to the USA who would yield to US pressure on issues like nuclear assets of Pakistan and the conduct of war in Af-pak.

Admiral Mullen at first ‘did not remember’ having received the Memo but later did recall having seen it but said that it was ignored. The link between President Asif Zardari and Mansoor Ijaz was Hussain Haqqani – Pakistan’s Ambassador in Washington DC. Mansoor Ijaz released a number of Balckberry messages etc between himself and Ambassador Haqqani that confirmed that the contents of the Memo were dictated by Ambassador Hussain Haqqani.

The revelation in the FT created uproar in Pakistan forcing the Government to recall Ambassador Haqqani and ask him to resign to permit an ‘impartial inquiry’. But the Prime Minister began to backtrack almost immediately saying that the Memo was merely a ‘piece of paper’.

The resolve for ‘impartial’ inquiry turned out to be bogus as Hussain Haqqani has been lodged as an honoured guest first in the Presidency and later the PM House. The PM ordered an inquiry by the National Security Committee of the Parliament in which the PPP and its coalition partners are in majority. The opposition, alarmed by the Government efforts to preclude a proper inquiry, took the matter to the Supreme Court (SC). The SC asked for written sworn statements by, among others, the COAS, the DG ISI and the Defence Secretary.

The Prime Minister was alarmed when the Defence Secretary refused to change the ‘sworn statement’ to the Supreme Court to fall in line with the PM’s public stand. The Prime Minister sacked the Defence Secretary and accused the Army leadership to be a ‘state within a state’ on the floor of the house. He went further in an interview with Beijing News Agency when he said that General Kayani (COAS) and General Pasha (DG ISI) had  violated the law and the Constitution by not obtaining prior approval of the Government for the sworn statements they had sent to the Supreme Court.

He, thus, accused the military leadership of misconduct. The reaction of the military was to call for the PM to withdraw his statement. He did that two weeks later but he has not reinstated Defence Secretary who has since presented his case to Islamabad High court.

The PM continues to insist that his statements were the result of the ‘misconduct’ of the Defence Secretary who he has removed. The matter is before the Supreme Court who has appointed a Commission to find the facts about the origin and authorship of the ‘Memo’. The Commission comprising three Chief Justices of the Karachi, Peshawar and Baluchistan High Courts has received written statements from potential witnesses but Mansoor Ijaz has refused to appear before the court for security reasons as Interior Minister Rehman Malik threatened him with being charged for past offences against Pakistan.

The Prime Minister made his own attitude clear saying that the assurances of security by the courts were meaningless because it was ‘he’ who was to appoint the Police Inspector in charge of the security of the witness. The Government evidently does not want Mansoor Ijaz to appear before the Commission because he is in possession of a number of cans of worms and no one can say which ones he would open. Even those eager to find the facts would rather have it done without undue reliance on the testimony of Mansoor Ijaz. It is becoming increasingly obvious that there is indeed a ‘State within the State’ in Pakistan at the heart of which is a gang of five which includes Zardari, Gilani, Farooki,  Haqqani, and Rehman Malik. They are steadfastly maligning the judiciary and the armed forces who they see as prime obstacles in the pursuit of their agenda.

There are several centres of power in a modern state which is founded on ‘rule of law’. The Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive are the three pillars of the state whose independence from each other is guaranteed by the Constitution. That provides the structure of ‘checks and balance’ which is the basis of ‘good governance’ in a democracy. The media is not a pillar of the state as such but its independence further underpins the independence of the judiciary as proved so often in the last five years in Pakistan.

The operational independence of the military and the police is an additional prop for the robustness of the state. Both are indeed under the command of the Executive which gives them their ‘mission and objectives’ within the law but the military and the police also have statutory roles and responsibilities that the Executive cannot revoke, change or modify. Besides, all authority is subject to ‘due process’.

Every official of the state - a civil or military officer to the Prime Minister - has specific powers and authority in order to maintain discipline and ensure team work. But all such authority is subject to rules and ‘due process’. The current Prime Minister does not appear to understand that. He thinks that a paper titled ‘summary’ becomes a legal document because it carries the signatures of a minister. That is not correct; all authority comes with responsibility. He and his ministers have a duty that they give only lawful orders and authorise legitimate expenditure. They are personally liable for failure to act within the law and in accordance with the rules.

At this time, the intelligence agencies – particularly the ISI Directorate – appear to be in the dock accused of acting as a ‘state within the state’. The basis of the allegation is the large number of ‘disappeared persons’ who were taken into custody by intelligence agencies but were never charged of any crime. Some of them have since been found dead but most continue to be either held in unlawful custody or are believed to be members of unlawful militias. Their case has been taken up by the Supreme Court who called Intelligence officials to give evidence.

In the face of claim of ‘no knowledge’ by intelligence agencies and the absence of evidence of their fate or whereabouts, the courts have been powerless to provide redress. It is widely believed that the state is complicit in disappearances. On the other hand, state officials – soldiers as well as civilians – have been killed in large numbers all over Pakistan by militias or mafias whose identity is common knowledge. Since most of the disappeared persons or extra-judicial deaths are of persons believed to belong to one or the other mafia or militia, it is evident that the intelligence agencies are violating the law. How do they get away with it year after year? This is an important question.

The intelligence agencies have a statutory role. Their primary role is to collect intelligence about the internal and external enemies of Pakistan and their second role is ‘counter-intelligence’ which involves apprehending or liquidating enemy agents. In the first role the intelligence agencies recruit agents and pay them for obtaining information and engaging in wide variety of activities that are criminal or treasonous. Counter-intelligence entails apprehension of enemy agents.

Those against whom adequate evidence to secure conviction can be obtained, are tried by civil or military courts. Those beyond the pail are often liquidated. The political control over intelligence agencies is often lax because of the nature of their work. Politicians who have administrative control wisely keep their distance from operational matters because much of intelligence work is itself criminal activity.

All intelligence agencies keep their work secret not merely from the public but also from other government departments. Their method of operation is underlined by the vital need for ‘deniability’. While that explains why the ISI etc. are so quiet in the face of wide public criticism of unexplained deaths in Baluchistan it does excuse the government who have the responsibility to explain as well as to prevent such deaths. That notwithstanding, the ISI is not a ‘state within a state’ in Pakistan; it is perhaps overzealous in the performance of its statutory role.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is also about to hear a case of the then DG ISI (General Durrani) having distributed money among politicians and members of the press to secure the defeat of the PPP in 1992 Elections. I do not know if any law has been violated but it is certainly a victimless crime. The contributor of funds – Mehran Bank – did not complain nor did the recipients. But DG of ISI did commit professional misconduct by giving a signed statement with regards to a clandestine operation he was bound to keep secret.

While acting as a ‘go between’ is at worst a misdemeanour, this is not something that can be or should be swept under the carpet. Now that it has come out that the ISI has been paying politicians, the issue of political persons and parties receiving funds from foreign – often hostile - sources should also be dealt with. The Army, particularly the ISI, have been used by Late Prime Minister Bhutto, his opponents as well as his successors to manipulate election results.

The justification often given was, “If we cannot prevent money flowing to anti-state forces from the enemies of Pakistan we can at least help the patriotic forces”.  Benazir Bhutto was widely reviled as a ‘security risk’ before the ‘funding fiasco’ now being looked into. The judicial review of the money distributed by General Durrani provides an opportunity to make unlawful not just payments by the ISI to politicians but also by the CIA, RAW and other foreign intelligence agencies to ANP, MQM, stalwarts of the PPP and to Sindhi, Seraiki and Baluch groups engaged in insurrection. The ISI does know all about the foreign links and funds received by many eminent politicians but it has done little to stop them or prosecute them. Is the law inadequate or the role of the counter-intelligence ill defined? The Supreme Court must look into both.

Neither the disappearances in Baluchistan or elsewhere, nor the ISI trying to influence the result of elections in the past constitute a ‘State within the State’. At worst that was overzealousness in dealing with the enemies of the Pakistan. The case for ‘state within the state’ can be made only when an individuals or groups act against the interest or the law of the state. Since the intelligence agencies operate on the edges of law a case can be made against them for unlawful actions but not for being a state within a state. But a ‘state within the state’ does indeed exist in Pakistan. This comprises a coterie of top leaders – the gang of five. They relentlessly pursue the well-known agenda of the enemies of Pakistan i.e. economic collapse; ethnic, sectarian and inter-province strife; civil insurrection; international war; and balkanisation. Zardari-Gilani Administration may not have enough time to execute the entire enemy plan but in conjunction with the ANP and MQM they would continue their ‘work’ from the opposition benches of a fledgling democracy that Pakistan is.

The present civil leadership in the country sees the USA and India as their natural allies. This Administration has always given priority to wishes of India and America over the wishes and interests of Pakistan, whether it is dispute over Kashmir, or river water flowing from Kashmir into Pakistan, MFN status to India, transit route to India for Afghanistan and beyond, and free access to Indian TV channels without reciprocation, Pakistan is always the one to acquiesce. The Railways, the national airlines the PIA, the Steel Mills, which used to make a profit, are all bankrupt. The economy is collapsing and the industry is closing down because of shortage of electricity and gas. The irony is that the country is not short of generation capacity or of gas; the shortages are entirely the result of appointment of saboteurs as heads of state enterprises, the policies, and theft and misappropriation of funds. Economic collapse of Pakistan, as the Indian politicians and pundits have been saying, is the cheapest method of securing a victory over Pakistan. That President Zardari knows what he is doing was revealed when he addressed the Baloch secessionist leaders and said ‘they were going about achieving their objective the wrong way; they should do what he was doing’. That explains what he (and his son Bilwal) mean when they say ‘democracy is the best revenge’. It is democracy that has brought Zardar-Gilani into power and it is democracy that sustains them in power despite having the support of less than 10% of the population.

After having failed to prevent the restoration of the judges dismissed by General Musharraf, President Zardari has focussed attention on defying and humiliating the Supreme Court. He has ignored the ruling by Lahore High Court that he cannot hold the office of the President and Party leader at the same time. Memo-gate reveals the attempt to impose such leadership on the military which is also unmindful of compulsions of national security and is willing to advance the Indo-US agenda. With the refusal of Mansoor Ijaz to appear as a witness, the work of the Commission to find facts has been side-lined. But the Supreme Court has already indicted the Prime Minister for ‘contempt of court’ in the NRO case for having defied its orders. It must assert its authority in the face of prolonged defiance of the SC over more than two years. The Prime Minister should be given a custodial sentence and barred from holding an elective office. The Supreme Court may also order early election – Option 6 in the NRO Case Judgement. Anything less would be a huge disappointment with uncertain consequences. The most probable result of failure to remove the Prime Minister and ordering early elections would be collapse of governance.