TheNews Blog

The Three Generals

Ansar Abbasi on 29, Jan 2012 | 9 Comments | in Category: Debate Desk

Ansar Abbasi

Rate this blog: (average:5.00 out of 5)  Loading ...

The three retired generals, who had submitted their statements/affidavits before the Supreme Court in the Asghar Khan case, have hurt their own institution more than anything else by admitting that the ISI had been doling out money to political parties and leaders but without having any concrete evidence that it was done on the orders of the political leadership.
None of these generals, former COAS General Aslam Beg, ex-DG ISI Lt General Asad Durrani and former interior minister late Maj General Naseerullah Babar, had anything concrete to show to the apex court that it was the then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan and his Election Cell that had ordered the military-led ISI to distribute money among anti-PPP politicians and political parties over 30 years back.

If there was any such order, it could be a verbal direction from the then president, who too has expired. The very admission of the former army chief and the ex-DG ISI that the ISI did distribute money amongst politicians, political parties and journalists, is a clear indictment of the elite intelligence agency of the country whereas there is no proof in writing that Ghulam Ishaq Khan had ordered the same.

No less than the ex-DG ISI Asad Durrani, who during his tenure as ambassador to Germany under Benazir Bhutto’s regime, had admitted to have done the dirty work as chief of the ISI, had forewarned the then Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto that GIK (who was alive at that time) could pretend ignorance from this shame, as indeed he never involved himself directly.

While the generals have exposed themselves and their institutions, none of the “beneficiary” political parties and politicians have admitted to have received the money. The PML-N, Jamaat-e-Islami, Muttahida Qaumi Movement etc all have denied receiving money from the ISI while most of the politicians and journalists, named in the list of beneficiaries have also rebutted the claim of the generals.

Durrani in his affidavit had confessed to have distributed the money but contended in a secret note that he wrote to the then prime minister, which is now part of the Asghar Khan case, that the operation not only had the ‘blessings’ of the president (GIK) and the whole-hearted participation of the caretaker PM, but was also in the knowledge of the Army high command (Gen Beg).

In the same note, he shared with Benazir Bhutto that Gen Beg’s involvement would be the disgrace for many but still he would have to be protected. Durrani’s intentions apart, there is nothing in writing today that GIK or the then caretaker Prime Minister Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi had issued any such order.

Former army chief Aslam Beg, in his statement, had even admitted that it was the practice with the ISI to support candidates during elections under the direction of the chief executive of the government. In his statement submitted before the apex court in the case, the former army chief said that the then DG ISI Lt Gen (retd) Asad Durrani had acted within the limits of the “lawful command” received from the then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan’s Election Cell.

According to his interpretation: “A superior can give a command for the purpose of maintaining good order or suppressing a disturbance or for the execution of a military duty or regulation.” But Beg did not have anything in writing that proved what he called a “lawful command” had come from the then president and the prime minister and that it was not the work of the military and the ISI.

General Beg would now have to explain this as well before the apex court that how does he think that an order, if it really existed, for the distribution of money to a selected group of political parties, leaders and journalists was a “lawful command”. What makes this whole operation “lawful”? Why did General Beg or General Durrani not question the verbal command of their political masters? Why did the two top men, representing the military establishment at that time, not gather the courage to seek in writing what Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi allegedly wanted from them?

General Beg admitted that it was in his knowledge that it was a practice with the ISI to support candidates during elections under the directions of chief executives of the government. “The receipt of this amount by the ISI from Younis Habib in 1990 was also under the directions of the chief executive.”

He said that the DG ISI had also told him that the policy of financial support to the candidates was laid down by the President’s Election Cell and that the DG ISI was acting on their behalf and made payments to various politicians and persons as directed. He will have to explain whether the so-called Election Cell was legally constituted and if it could issue such orders, which apparently were meant to derail the democratic system.

He also disclosed that during his meeting with the then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, he had informed the president about the donations made by Younis Habib and its utilisation by the DG ISI under the instructions of the President’s Political Cell. However, there are no minutes of any such meeting available in the official record.

Beg recalled that in 1975 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the then prime minister, created a Political Cell within the ISI. “As a result, the ISI was made responsible to the chief executive i.e. the prime minister/president for all matters of national and political intelligence. After the establishment of the Higher Defence Organization in 1976, the ISI continued to be responsible to the chief executive, while the Joint Staff Headquarters maintained administrative control only. This was the situation which existed in 1990 and continues even today.”

General Naseerullah Babar, in his affidavit, also stated that he did not want to damage the military in any manner by probing the Mehrangate scam but in reality he too did what may possibly shift all the blame on generals as the politicians were apparently too smart not to have accepted the money in their names or through crossed cheques.

You might also like: