The moments during which ISI has not been the focus of attention in the past quarter of a century have been very rare indeed. This is not surprising considering the lead role that this organisation played in the Afghan jihad against the Soviet occupation and its deep involvement in the subsequent developments relating to Pakistan's external security and even its internal political evolution. We are all familiar with ISI's objectionable interference in the country's internal political affairs in blatant violation of the constitution during the past two decades if not more. But the current controversy about its role and functioning in the wake of the botched attempt by the PPP government to bring it under the administrative, financial and operational control of the Ministry of Interior is extraordinary even by ISI's standards. This controversy has been raised to new heights by the reported complaint by President Bush to Prime Minister Gilani about the leakage of actionable intelligence by some ISI officials to the terrorists before they were hit by the US or Pakistani forces. The US media has also carried reports about the alleged links between the ISI operatives and the jihadi elements having close ties with senior Al-Qaeda figures as well as about ISI's alleged involvement in the recent bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. Of course, these charges have been categorically and forcefully denied by the Pakistan Foreign Office and army spokesmen. However, the controversy about the ISI's role in Pakistan's external and internal affairs does not show any signs of dying down. It is high time that a serious attempt was made to scrutinise the organisation's role and functioning with a view to ensuring that it serves Pakistan's security interests in the best manner possible. Time has also come for the reform of this vital organisation so that it fits into Pakistan's democratic political culture as desired by the overwhelming majority of the people of Pakistan and the international environment in which it is supposed to operate. Unfortunately, its activities during the past two decades have worked at cross purposes with both the requirements of democracy within the country and the compulsions of the prevailing international environment. It is an unfortunate reality that ISI was used in the past by our unscrupulous rulers and ambitious generals for blatant interference in political affairs with a view to perpetuating themselves in power and serving their selfish interests. The role played by ISI in the formation of IJI is well-known to all and sundry. Similarly its objectionable activities in distorting the electoral and democratic processes are not a secret. The decision by the incumbent chief of the army staff forbidding army officers from involvement in political affairs has been generally welcomed in the country. The logical corollary of this decision is that ISI should be totally dissociated from Pakistan's domestic political affairs. Consequently, the political wing of the organisation which has been misused in the past for gross interference in the country's political affairs in violation of the constitution should be disbanded. There is also an obvious need for a clear demarcation of the functions of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The Intelligence Bureau must focus on internal security and counter-espionage which are its primary functions. On the other hand, ISI was created to deal primarily with the external security threat. It must concentrate on strategic assessment of external threats to Pakistan's security and advice to the government on the measures required to safeguard our national security. ISI's involvement in domestic political affairs weakens its focus on the external threats to Pakistan's security besides hampering the evolution of the democratic process in the country. There will always be issues requiring close coordination between ISI and IB. Currently counter-terrorism, which has both internal and international aspects, is one such issue. There can be other issues which may have internal and external security ramifications. This is not an argument for blurring the demarcation of functions between ISI and IB. Instead such situations call for the sharing of information and the coordination of activities between the two organisations while maintaining their respective focuses on external or internal security. The present government took a hasty and unwise decision on July 26 to place both IB and ISI under the administrative, financial and operational control of the Ministry of Interior. Perhaps the purpose was to ensure coordination between the two agencies. That the decision was hasty was obvious because the relevant institutions of state were not consulted before it was taken. It was also unwise to place ISI which primarily deals with external security under the Interior Division whose main concern is internal security under the Rules of Business. If at all it was necessary for some reason to place ISI under the control of a ministry, it should have been the Ministry of Defence which deals with external security. Little wonder that within a few hours after its earlier decision the government had to issue a clarification saying that ISI would "continue to function under the prime minister." Ideally, ISI which deals with sensitive external security issues should function under the head of government as is the normal international practice in the case of such agencies. So there was merit in the previous arrangement placing ISI directly under the prime minister. However, since the prime ministers did not have the time to monitor and supervise closely its activities in the past, it assumed an autonomous character and became almost a state within a state. This tendency was aggravated because of the weakness of our political institutions, frequent military take-overs and the fact that ISI was staffed mostly with regular military officers. Time has come to bring ISI squarely under the civilian control in line with the restoration of the democratic process in the country and to ensure that ISI's activities are within the framework of the overall strategy adopted by the democratically elected government. The country cannot afford a situation where the premier intelligence agency is operating at cross purposes with the aims and objectives of the elected government. It is, therefore, important that while ISI should continue to function under the prime minister, necessary organisational arrangements are made in the PM Secretariat to ensure strict monitoring and supervision of ISI's activities. One way to achieve this objective would be to create a high level post with the requisite support staff within the PM Secretariat not only to supervise the functioning of ISI but also to coordinate its activities with those of other intelligence agencies like IB. The reported complaint by President Bush to our prime minister that some elements within ISI are leaking actionable intelligence to terrorists may be totally unfounded. But coming from the Head of State of a friendly country and a superpower, we cannot simply ignore it through routine denials. This accusation and similar other accusations of wrongdoings by ISI operatives must be thoroughly investigated by a high-level committee to establish the facts and to suggest the corrective measures that may be required. Undoubtedly ISI has a very vital and sensitive role to play in safeguarding the security of the country. Unfortunately, its undesirable involvement in the domestic political affairs in the past has tainted its reputation. Further, the weakness of our democratic institutions has meant that in practice this organisation has been functioning without adequate supervision and oversight. There are also indications that its internal working leaves a lot of room for improvement. Every organisation needs reform from time to time in the light of changed circumstances and requirements. Time has come for such reform of ISI to enhance its effectiveness, ensure that it functions strictly in accordance with the policies of the government of the day and strengthen its coordination with other intelligence agencies like IB. The writer is a former ambassador E-mail: javid.husain@gmail.com