Comment

True to its chequered history, a political storm is fast brewing in Pakistan. The Memogate scandal has once again brought face-to-face the Pakistani army and its civilian government.

Pakistani expatriate American citizen Mansoor Ijaz — he has a knack for stoking controversies — has accused that after the killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad by American forces on May 2, the Pakistan army was about to stage a coup against the civilian government. He alleges that the ‘desperate’ Zardari regime on May 10 forwarded a memo to the then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Admiral Mike Mullen, wanting to have the ‘American fist on his army chief’s table’, to rein in the Pakistan army.

The six-point memo offers America a plan of action, including that the “Pakistan’s national security leadership would be altered in favour of US interests’ and an ‘independent inquiry to investigate the harboring of bin Laden.’ The alleged memo also ‘promises a new Pakistani national security leadership that would bring transparency and ‘discipline’ to Pakistan’s nuclear program, cut ties with Section S of the ISI, which is ‘charged with maintaining relations to the Taliban, and the Haqqani network’ and other rogue elements, and work with the Indian government to punish the perpetrators of the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai.’

In a way this memo seeks to confirm that the Pakistan army was in cohorts with bin Laden and is abetting the Taliban. In a bizarre way, the memo is a civilian government’s charge sheet against its own army.

On General Kayani’s prodding, President Zardari has summoned Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani for investigations. Mansoor had alleged that Haqqani on the orders of Zardair had directed him ‘to craft the memo.’ The rift between the civilian dispensation and the army is not new in Pakistan. The army, considering itself to be the sole custodian of national security, has always kept at a bay all the democratic dispensations, always suspecting the elected governments to be less committed towards the ideological underpinnings of Pakistan.

Two recent examples may help understand the nature of civilian military relationship in Pakistan. Immediately after taking over, Zardari had tried to bring ISI under the civilian control, and after 26/11, Pakistan had announced it will send the ISI chief to India. On both occasions the civilian government coming under tremendous pressure from Pak military had to retract.

Since the inception of Pakistan, the debate on whether it is an ideological/security state or a welfare state is the reason for the tug of war between the political elite and the establishment. In this backdrop, irrespective of whether Haqqani has ‘crafted’ the memo on the orders of Zardari, the points mentioned in the memo only reflect the nature of differences prevailing between the politicians and the military. Apparently whatever offered in the memo suits America’s strategic interests? Still, why the memo controversy has been allowed to surface?

For the last few months, speculation was rife in the Pakistani media about the existence of the so-called ‘Mullen memo’.

Through his October 10 op-ed piece in the Financial Times, Mansoor Ijaz only tried to authenticate the rumours. Mike Mullen initially denied outright the existence of the memo. Mainly due to Mansoor Ijaz’s suspicious background, and particularly after Mullen’s initial reaction, it was assumed that the controversy may eventually die down. Mysteriously, Mullen a week after has issued a rebuttal. Mullen ‘had searched his records and discovered that he had indeed received the Ijaz memo — but that he gave it no credibility and never acted on it,’ his spokesperson stated.

Now General Jones, US National Security Advisor from January 2009 till November 2010, confirming to have acted as a ‘conduit’, has stated that ‘I was not in government on May 10 when I forwarded the message to Admiral Mullen on 10 May.” Mullen and Jones’s statements effectively establish the existence of a memo as claimed by Mansoor Ijaz.

A mysterious game is being played out. Has the Pakistan military decided to take over or for that matter hand over power to a more docile political setup? Rumours of a technocrat dispensation have been making rounds in Islamabad. And has America despite its avowed support for the democratic setup decided to play ball?

Mansoor Ijaz till recently used to describe ISI as a terrorist organisation. A fortnight ago, after a meeting with ISI chief he handed over all the ‘convincing proof’ to General Pasha. Strange bedfellows, aren’t they? Who is sleeping with whom will always remain unknown in the dirty politics of Pakistan.

firdoussyed@yahoo.com