In this deadly game of Pakistani Roulette, who will blink first?

By B Raman There are four factors in the current war of nerves in Pakistan, which centre around mutually contradictory perceptions of the alleged unconstitutionality and illegality of the actions taken by different institutions of the state in relation to the hearing in the Pakistan Supreme Court on what’s called Memogate. The Memogate scandal refers to the allegations made by Mansoor Ijaz, a US citizen of Pakistani origin, that Pakistan’s civilian leadership apprehended a coup by the Army after the US raid in Abbottabad in May last year in which Osama bin Laden was killed. Ijaz alleged that the civilian government used his contacts in the US administration through Hussain Haqqani, then Pakistani Ambassador in Washington DC, to have a memo reached to Admiral Mike Mullen, then Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, seeking US intervention to prevent a coup. [caption id=“attachment_179977” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“The Army was the first to move. AFP”]  [/caption] The allegations triggered three parallel enquiries: one by the Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI); one by the committee on national security of the National Assembly, assisted by the Interior Ministry; and one by the Supreme Court. The Army was the first to move. Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), despatched Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the Director-General of the ISI, to question Ijaz in Europe and secure phone records pertaining to his telephone conversations with Haqqani. Kayani did not keep the government of Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani informed of his action in this matter. It’s difficult to characterise the Army’s action as unconstitutional or illegal, but it was definitely incorrect. Kayani should have taken Gilani’s clearance before despatching Pasha to Europe. The Gilani government then initiated an enquiry by the Committee on National Security of the National Assembly into Ijaz’s allegations. Haqqani, who had returned to Islamabad to face the enquiry and had resigned, denied the allegations. The Interior Ministry, which controls the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Police, was directed to assist the enquiry. It did not seek the ISI’s assistance. Gilani’s unwise move Up to this point, Gilani’s action was constitutional, legal and correct. But then he took another action, which was incorrect and which could turn out post facto to be illegal if Haqqani is found guilty of treason for seeking the intervention of a foreign power against the Pakistan army. Gilani took Haqqani under his protection instead of ordering the police to strengthen his physical security. The Supreme Court then added to the confusion. It had received a number of private interest petitions seeking a judicial enquiry into Ijaz’s allegations against Haqqani. One of the petitions was from former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz faction ). Nawaz was looking to exploit Ijaz’s allegations in his campaign against Zardari and to teach a lesson to Haqqani, who in the 1990s had betrayed Nawaz by defecting from the PML to Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury issued notices calling for comments on the sustainability of Nawaz’s petition and the follow-up action to be taken by the Supreme Court. The Gilani government argued that Nawaz’s petition for a judicial enquiry was unsustainable and that only the National Assembly Committee was competent to enquire into it. The Army indirectly endorsed the demand for a judicial enquiry on the ground that Ijaz’s allegations, if true, had national security implications. Defence Secretary Lt Gen (Retd) Khalid NaeemLodhi, in his response, appeared to endorse the Army’s position - not the Gilani government’s. Kayani and Pasha had submitted their replies to the Supreme Court to Lodhi for vetting before forwarding them to the Supreme Court, but the Defence Secretary allegedly forwarded their replies to the Supreme Court without informing Gilani or securing the Cabinet’s approval as required. That set off a furore in the PPP and the ruling coalition; after an enquiry into Lodhi’s unauthorised action, the Gilani government had him removed from his post. After considering the various replies, the Chief Justice ordered a judicial enquiry by a commission headed by the Chief Justice of the Balochistan High Court and consisting, among others, of one more provincial Chief Justice. Hussain Haqqani has challenged the constitutionality of the Chief Justice’s action on the ground that under Pakistan’s Constitution, while the Chief Justice plays a role in the appointment of the judges of the provincial courts, the provincial High Courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court. On that count, the Chief Justice can appoint an enquiry commission consisting of judges of the Supreme Court, but he cannot include provincial judges in it. The power to appoint an enquiry commission with judges of provincial courts rests with the government, not with the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice has admitted Haqqani’s petition, but he has not accepted Haqqani’s request for a stay of the proceedings of the judicial commission till the hearing on his petition is completed. The China factor In the meanwhile, knowingly or unwittingly, China became a factor in Pakistan’s internal controversy. Kayani went on a five-day visit to China on 4 January. During his talks in Beijing, Chinese leaders, including Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, highlighted the role of the Pakistan Army in strengthening the strategic partnership between the two countries. Before Kayani left for Beijing, the party-controlled People’s Daily sought an interview with Gilani on the ongoing controversy. In his replies to questions from People’s Daily, Gilani reportedly described the actions of Kayani and Pasha in submitting their replies to the Supreme Court directly, without getting them vetted and approved by the government, as unconstitutional and illegal. So far, it’s not been possible to trace the original version of Gilani’s interview to People’s Daily. The only version that is available is the one disseminated by the Pakistani media. Since Gilani has not denied these reports, they must be taken as correct. The most significant part of this injected China factor is that Beijing praised the Army during Kayani’s visit without referring to his tussle with the government - and at the same time it has used the party journal to disseminate Gilani’s version of the tussle. Thus, it has sought to remove any impression that its sympathies were with the Army. Kayani reacted promptly to Gilani’s allegations in his interview. Ina statement issued through the media cell of the GHQ, the Army said: “There can be no allegation more serious than what the honourable prime minister has levelled against COAS and DG ISI and has unfortunately charged the officers for violation of the constitution. This has very serious ramifications with potentially grievous consequences for the country.” The statement has underlined the fact that Kayani and Pasha had sent in their responses to the Supreme Court through the Defence Secretary - and not directly - and hence there was no unconstitutionality or illegality by the Army and the ISI. The statement significantly added: “Allegiance to state and the constitution is and will always remain prime consideration for the respondent, who in this case has followed the book.” Jobs for the Generals What are the implications? The Defence Secretary, Kayani and Pasha were enjoying an extended tenure granted by the government. The post-retirement contract of the Defence Secretary has been terminated owing to his role in the controversy. The Army and the ISI apprehend that the government may be contemplating a similar reversal of the extended tenure granted to Kayani and Pasha. The Army has conveyed to the civilian leadership that while it has no intention of acting against the government at present, it may not hesitate to act if the government humiliates Kayani and Pasha by having them removed from office by cancelling their extended tenure. B Raman is Additional Secretary (Retired) in the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. He is currently Director of the Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai; and Associate of the Chennai Centre for China Studies. Republished with permission from the Chennai Centre for China Studies.