(Editorial of *Daily Times](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/www.dailytimes.com.pk), July 15, 2006. You would have to register to read it there.)*
Allegations of bungling and misappropriation in the purchase of railway wagons from China by the Railways Ministry in 2001 refuse to die despite a stream of well-argued clarifications and strong denials by the ministries concerned. Much the same may be said about the story of how PR land was leased to a private construction company to build a new golf and recreational club in Lahore. The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Railways has now asked the NA Public Accounts Committee to further investigate the matter. What’s the low-down on this debate?
It is alleged that railway wagons were bought at a higher rate in 2001 than in 2006. But that doesn’t automatically mean that the person in charge of the PR in 2001 was corrupt and took kickbacks while the one in 2006 is above aboard. These are complex matters in which small but significant specifications may vary and prices and competition can be affected by many factors over time. Much the same sort of argument can be made in relation to the land leased to the new golf club in Lahore. There may have been some rule-bending, some implicit concessions, some lack of competitive transparency in order to show results. But that doesn’t automatically mean that the whole process was malafide or that there were huge kickbacks and commissions.
Clearly, the dust needs to settle on this issue. One way to do that is to let the PAC investigate the matter fully. The problem here is not that the PAC is not technically qualified to conduct this inquiry — it can always call on neutral experts to brief them — but that some strong voices in the PAC might be politically motivated against the government in general and the gentleman in the eye of the storm in particular — Gen (r) Javed Ashraf Qazi — who was the railways minister when these transactions took place. Apparently, one of the most vociferous instigators of these allegations and inquiries is the same person who lost out on the golf club deal and is bitter about it. Unfortunately, this gentleman’s disgruntlement isn’t confined to the matter of the golf club but extends to the orphan-like treatment meted out to him by the prime minister despite his belief that he is a stalwart of the ruling coalition.
There is another factor that has muddied the waters. Generally speaking, the media isn’t exactly in love with General (r) Qazi. Indeed, it often shows a distinct hostility to him, which is why his side of the story doesn’t always get highlighted. There are several reasons for this. The media generally doesn’t approve of army generals occupying top civilian slots, let alone a former chief spook or ISI DG. Full stop. But General (r) Qazi is a blunt, go-getting, no-nonsense sort who unfortunately comes across as being arrogant. In civilian life, this outlook is a liability. Since retiring, he has stepped on many media egos and sensibilities, an unwise approach if you are working in a political environment. As federal education minister, he has also alienated the hardline Islamists in and outside the media by arguing for modernity and moderation in education policies. Therefore he is an open and big target while his critics and detractors are fluid and invisible and personally or ideologically motivated.
The ISI DGs are known to have played political fiddles and channelled funds in the past for dubious causes. In General Zia’s time, when secret arms and funds were routed through the ISI by the CIA, some generals definitely partook of the spoils. But no ISI chief since then has ever lined his personal pockets or acted improperly in financial matters. Indeed, over time, ISI chiefs have become discreet to the point of being invisible. When General Qazi was in that slot in the mid 1990s his conduct was personally dignified and professionally proper. He was chosen by General Musharraf to be part of his team precisely because he was above board. In fact, that is one reason he is still in the president’s team after seven years. Therefore while it is debatable that PR under his command may have erred in certain decisions or in haste it is inconceivable that he might have hurt the national interest wittingly in any manner.
This debate should not become a personal witch-hunt. It needs to be transparently conducted and resolved on merit by apolitical people who are technically competent to investigate such matters rather than those who have an axe to grind.