|
CE Interview with Asian Age (9th April 20001) ARMY, BJP ARE best suited for talks Yes, there was euphoria when we took over. That’s a wrong word I used ... ‘took over’ ... When governance was thrust on us. There was euphoria. Of course! But that, I’ll admit, did go down. But certainly whatever we are doing is most popular. People understand why the problems are there, why the prices have risen. General Pervez Musharraf speaks with M.J. Akbar in Islamabad. Q: I was actually going to begin on a pre-planned note but I can’t resist wandering a bit. I have been reading Pakistan’s newspapers and I have been reading all about this court case — Benazir Bhutto’s and Asif Zardari’s — and their foreign accounts. And the question struck me: Why do Pakistan’s Prime Ministers and politicians want homes abroad? A:
That’s really most unfortunate. All the misdoings, their internal
misdoings, their misdoings within Pakistan certainly, I think, forces
them to seek some redemption abroad. (Laughs) Army is ‘as repressive as the Indian Army in Kashmir.’ A:
(Laughs) Pakistan Army has a very important role. It has always played
an extremely important role in Pakistan. It is an Army which unifies
Pakistan, unifies the provinces of Pakistan, brings stability into
Pakistan. So, I think her views again are not even worth a comment. A: It will certainly work, if there is the real essence of democracy introduced, and there are checks and balances introduced. Pakistan is just like any other developing country, I would say, where really the environment is such that the true democracy is not fully maybe grasped by the masses and not fully implementable in its real essence, as in developed countries. And, therefore, there has to be a system of checks and balances, a system where power is not concentrated in a single individual, thereby maybe giving him a chance of usurping more power and misusing that power. So these checks and balances have to be brought about in the political structure. Now, if we manage to do that, I’m sure democracy will function very well in Pakistan. And, may I also add that the other part of democracy is grassroot level democracy which generally in all developing countries is not there. May I say the real grassroot level democracy, where the power is in the hands of the people, is not there in most of the developing countries, if not all. And, that is another part of the structure of democracy that I am talking about. We are addressing both the issues: the grassroot level and the top structure. Q: Aren’t you going back to Gen. Ayub’s basic democracy pattern? A: No, not at all. Anyone who knows what we are doing will never say this. We are not at all doing that. This is totally different. This is empowering the people of Pakistan. We are empowering the people of Pakistan. We are giving administrative and financial authority into their hands and this is nothing, no where near basic democracy at all. Certainly not. Q:
On the other aspect, where you said that the institutionalising of
power within a limited number of hands or an individual... Are you,
therefore, looking at the Turkey model where institutions like the
Army find a kind of permanent place within the power structure? A:
Well, we haven’t decided on this superstructure that I’m talking
of, this way of exercising checks and balances. We are looking at all
possibilities and certainly the military has been playing a role in
the past which nobody can deny. So we have to base all our actions,
all our decisions on the reality on ground. Now within that reality on
the superstructure that I’m talking of, if we need, if Army role is
there or the military role is there in bringing this kind of stability
on top, we will have to take a decision then. We are keeping our
options open. Q: One of the serious problems that you yourself are addressing, which is a very constant theme, is this attack on corruption, particularly corruption of the middle class and so on. Would you actually say that Pakistan’s generals are not corrupt? A: With all the confidence I can say that the generals are not corrupt. There is a very strong accountability system in Pakistan and at every stage, at every rank in the Army there is a system of accountability... checks and balances all along, up to the topmost tier. And action can be taken against anyone very swiftly. So I am very, very sure that there is no corruption in the generals certainly. These are all vested interests... talk of... by vested interests... such talks. Certainly these are not facts. Q: Vested interests? Would you identify (them)? A: Anyone who has any grudge against the Army, especially if you see the politicians. Certainly. Mainly the politicians. They do have a grudge against the Army. They themselves have been malfunctioning, they have ruined this country themselves and when the Army has to come in to stabilise and improve the situation then they start talking against the Army, unfortunately. They should run the country first of all well, so that the Army does not interfere. Q: Well, we in India can hardly take the high moral ground on corruption. Have you seen the Tehelka tapes? A: Yes. I haven’t seen them but have been hearing about them. But these are individual acts, one can’t comment on any individual who has been involved in decisions on military deals, on arms inductions and all that. One can’t label the entire institution, all the generals or the whole institution as corrupt. There is an individual, and if an individual misbehaves and is corrupt, action is taken against him. Q: But Pakistan has also had its tapes, stories. I think the Mehran Bank scandal was one of them in which the president of the bank, Yusuf Habib, was taped in a deal along with the Army Chief at that time. What has happened after that? A: That was not really a case of corruption as such, that was a case of political manoeuvring. I don’t really know what was the ultimate result, nobody was blamed as such. So, it was a political issue rather than corruption on the part of any general. Q: But there is an accusation that the system rallied to protect its own. A: No, not at all. I think the system is very, very open. There were all the chances, there was a political government in place and it could have taken any action. Q: Except that that political government was also involved in it. A: Well, there were people involved. Certainly. There were people involved. But that’s what has been the problem in our political structure, that this issue of accountability and checks and balances has been non-existent. And that is what we are trying to improve. In fact, the National Accountability Bureau that we have opened is really addressing the issue of corruption at the top level. Q: One of your colleagues, Lt. Gen. Durrani, had an affidavit in that case but no charges were brought. A: Well, it was a complicated issue. Really, I don’t know the details, to be very frank. I don’t know the intricate details of who did what. There were no charges, certainly, against anyone. He is an extremely honourable man. I know that. He’s a very learned and very honourable person. He’s our ambassador in Saudi Arabia now. Q: And, in fact, he did the deal which permitted Mian Nawaz Sharif to be in Saudi Arabia today? A: No, not at all. I wouldn’t say that at all. He had nothing to do with it. Q: But why is that deal so secret? A: It’s not really a secret. When the person has gone is it a secret he is gone? So it’s not really a deal. There is no deal as such. It is an action which was requested by a great friend of Pakistan and in deference to his request, and also in realising the political situation here, we thought in the interest of Pakistan... stability in Pakistan... political stability in Pakistan, it may be better if he leaves the scene. Q: How would his presence in jail, which is part of accountability, matter? You haven’t taken his Mayfair apartments. A: We get lot of information on many things, like you indicated about the Mayfair apartments. But when you go into detail, you don’t have the evidence. So, the more important part to take action against an individual is to have evidence against him. There is talk about everyone, every individual here, but when you go into the details you find that these are information. We want evidence. Then if somebody comes up and produces evidence, we will take action against that individual. When you are talking of these apartments, they are not on his name. So these are very... (laughs) I would say these are white collar crimes that these people have got involved in. It needs experts in white collar crimes to unearth what they have been doing. They are such complicated issues, they are not easy issues at all. They understand these much better than the investigating people. They have covered their tracks very well, I’d say. Q: General, were you afraid of a trial of Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan? A: Certainly not. He was already convicted. But, as I said, it’s not Nawaz Sharif alone. Then the lady, his wife, was up around talking all kinds of nonsensical things. Didn’t know what she’s talking. Then his brother was not sentenced. So, in one package if stability comes into Pakistan where everyone leaves and clears the ground... there’s a level playing field around now and there is political stability and harmony and instead of cases going on... now the case is in high court, now it’s being heard in Supreme Court. So, everyone’s attention diverted and the focus of the nation diverted from internal revival issues. So, with hindsight I can say that it was a very good decision. Q: But you surely don’t equate silence with harmony. A: Silence with harmony? Silence by whom? Q: Silence in the political atmosphere. A: Well, I think we haven’t curbed anyone. There is total political freedom, except that they can say or meet anyone, anywhere indoors. We don’t want them to take out processions politicking outside because we don’t want to be diverted from our focus of internal revival. To that extent, there is a check. Otherwise, every political party can sit and say anything, and they are doing that. They are talking against me. They are talking all kinds of things against me. The press is totally independent. They write anything they like, even against me. The politicians are independent, they keep talking against me, they cast all kinds of aspersions against anyone. All... Even cooked up! And yet we don’t interfere. There is no silence as such. At all! I must say. That is not the case in Pakistan. In fact they are overtalking. There is too much of noise. (Laughs) Q: But from what I understand... According to the understanding, if there is no deal with Nawaz Sharif, he was not supposed to be a participant in Pakistan politics. So, how do you react to the Saudis giving him permission to start making political statements? A: Well. Nawaz Sharif’s giving political statements certainly disappoints us. Annoys us. And I am reasonably sure there will be checks in the future. Q: Are you going to protest to the Saudi government? A: It’s not a matter of protesting. They don’t know what he’s doing, generally. He’s not under house arrest or anything. So, therefore, if he picks up a mobile and talks to anybody around... We are addressing this issue and I’m sure with passage of time this dabbling in politics from long-range, long-distance calls and all that will be checked. Q: But surely the Saudi royal family knows what it’s doing when it invites Nawaz Sharif for dinner at a public occasion? A: No, that was not a... You are talking about Bakr-Id? No, no, that was an occasion where there was an open house and every dignitary there went and wished the king. But the dinner that was reported later was the official dinner where I went, where all the heads of state and their delegations were invited. He was not there certainly. He went there on Bakr-Id day when there was an open house and everyone was allowed to go and call on the crown prince and the king. Q: General, a straight question: The little that I know of you, your reputation is that you are a man of your word, and that once you give your word, it stays given. Do you feel a little betrayed that the word given to you on this subject (Nawaz Sharif) was betrayed so quickly within three months? A: No, not at all. I don’t think there is any betrayal. Certainly not. There is no betrayal whatsoever. It’s just that Nawaz Sharif himself is taking advantage of the hospitality of the Saudis and I’m sure he will realise soon that he shouldn’t be doing that. And he shouldn’t be testing their hospitality. But there is no question of a betrayal. Certainly not. Q: Is it because he assesses, as a politician, that the mood in Pakistan is changing and this is the right time for him to intervene again? A: The mood in Pakistan is changing... How? Q: In the sense that perhaps people are amenable to a little more criticism of the government than they were when you came to power. Your government was widely welcomed. But maybe that mood is changing because of rising prices? A: No, no, not at all. Yes, there was euphoria when we took over. That’s a wrong word I used ... ‘took over’ ... When governance was thrust on us. There was euphoria. Of course. But that, I’ll admit, did go down. But certainly whatever we are doing is most popular. People understand why the problems are there, why the prices have risen. And I am very sure that my government is very popular. And it will stay that way because we are performing and we will keep performing and keep improving. And with the passage of time I am sure the downslide that happened, is now... there is an upswing. That is my judgment, and this upswing will carry on in relation to our government’s performance and results which emerge on ground. Q: Will you ever allow Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto back into Pakistan politics? A: Frankly, it’s the courts who have decided and let the courts decide. There are court decisions and there are several cases against them, innumerable cases. Dozens I would say. They will have to face charges on all of them. So I am nobody to decide whether they should take part in politics or not. But certainly they have been given two chances in Pakistan. And both of them really misused the power and, therefore, I really wonder whether Pakistani nation, people, would ever allow them to come back again. Q: At what psychological moment did you believe — after all you were close to Nawaz Sharif, he made you Army Chief — that a coup had become inevitable? A: No, there was no question, I was not thinking of a coup at all. It was Nawaz Sharif who was planning the coup for me. He conducted the coup by removing me and I am grateful to my Army. I am proud of this Army, which acted without my orders in my favour. It is he who blundered and forced the hand of the Army. There was no planning as such of a coup. Q: But didn’t the Army react when word was sent out that General Khwaja Ziauddin was going to take over? I don’t know what word to use... A kind of toadying was developing in the air? A: I believe that one should carry out a self-analysis of himself. If Ziauddin ever thought that this Army will ever follow him and leave me, he was sadly mistaken. Nobody... even his own subordinates would follow me rather than him. I have that much confidence in the Army that I lead, that they would never have followed him, they will always follow me, to the extent even his own subordinates will not follow him. He was under some kind of illusion that he could pull this off. He is nothing. You have to be a leader to make this Army follow. He doesn’t have it in him. He had wrong notions, it was proved by the Army. I know what happened and I know when a lieutenant-colonel went in and he said, ‘I am the Chief,’ he said, ‘No, you are not the Chief, it’s General Pervez Musharraf who’s the chief.’ So, he was a taught a lesson, I think. He must be repentant. Q: Where is he repentant? Where is he now? A: He is around here. He is under close arrest, certainly. We are investigating the whole thing. And are trying to decide... And I have to take a decision on whether to court-martial him. Q: It’s been a while. A: Yes, it’s been a while. It’s a very complicated case. I have to take a decision. Q: And the decision that you take will cast a long shadow on the history of the Pak Army? A: I think, in fact, it should make us proud that here is a person who thought he can connive with a politician against an Army Chief, and the Army rose against him. It will be a lesson for all times to come to anyone who’ll ever think of doing such a thing again. Because here our Army... Thank God this is not a banana republic! There is an Army. It is an institution. There are set procedures. And nobody violates. The Army Chief is the boss. And there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind. It has never been there. So, here, for the first time, in connivance with a politician, this man tried to create doubts and he was taught a lesson. They were both taught a lesson. Q: I don’t want to press the point too much. Forgive me. But wouldn’t such maverick thoughts or ambitions arise only because a man like him has seen other generals take power and come to power because they decided they wanted to remove civilian authority? A: Well, this is not a case of removal of civilian authority. This was a case of removing the Chief of Army Staff in office through very dubious measures. This was done once before me. What happened with my predecessor, he had to resign. Now, just a year after that, another incident of a similar nature where a sitting Chief of Army Staff is removed arbitrarily when he is travelling in the air. They were all taught a lesson... this is never to be done and this is not the way to do things. There is an institutional, Constitutional (asserts) way of doing things. You can’t do that. I am very glad, proud of the Army that they were taught a lesson. Q: Well, at least one of Nawaz Sharif’s people, the President, you seem to be getting along very well with him despite the fact that he was appointed within the same culture and he was very close to Abbaji (Nawaz Sharif’s father)? A: Who’s that? Q: President Rafiq Tarar. A: Well, again, I am a strong believer in maintaining institutions. We must maintain institutions. We need to stabilise our political culture. We need to stabilise our democracy, and that is what I’m trying to do. Now here is, was, the President, who has been elected by the Parliaments so I requested whether he’d like to stay on and he wanted to stay, so why should there be a problem? And he remains the President. And I must say he is an extremely honourable President who kept Pakistan’s interests supreme. His associations... At that rank, at that level individuals do not matter. It’s the country that matters and I’m very glad he took a decision that was favourable and in the interest of Pakistan. Rather than Nawaz Sharif or Abbaji, for that matter. Q: Would you say that the Lahore summit was the high point of Nawaz Sharif’s prime ministership? Or the lowpoint, I don’t know... A: No. I don’t see it as a low point or even the high point. Because really the Lahore summit was not addressing the main issue. The main issue of Kashmir. Unfortunately, everyone in Pakistan and India must realise that the issue between India and Pakistan, the tension between India and Pakistan, the cause on which we have fought wars, Siachen, Kargil, everything is because of Kashmir. So anybody who thinks Pakistan and India can get very chummy and friendly and cooperate and everything, without solution of the Kashmir issue, is not a practical and realistic individual. So if the Lahore summit was not addressing this key issue and giving it the due importance it deserves... So therefore, I wouldn’t say whether Lahore summit was a high point or low point. It was just an issue which would never have carried forward in a concrete manner. Q: You have said that the first draft of the Lahore summit, declaration did not mention Kashmir. A: Well, yes, the ultimate draft has Kashmir as an apology, with all issues including Kashmir, as if there are very big issues between India and Pakistan and Kashmir is a minor irritant that may also be addressed. This kind of addressing is there. And initially, yes, that was the case but that was internal, of course, and it was redrafted to whatever it is now. Again, I hope India takes this part of ‘including Kashmir’ very seriously. Because I think it should be ‘Kashmir and all other issues,’ not ‘All other issues and Kashmir.’ It ought to be like that if we are realistic, if we really want to improve relations. Q: Who changed that draft? How did that draft change? A: The people who drafted it. Q: Did you intervene to change it? A: Well, I was there and I gave my views certainly. Q: And would you say that it was the decisive influence? A: No, most of the people sitting there did agree. That should be there. How can Kashmir be known? Q: You now want to talk to Prime Minister Vajpayee. Obviously you have made more than one statement on that subject. But in Lahore you refused to shake hands with him. A: This is really... I have been asked this question so many times... Let me clarify, this is not the fact at all. Who is saying all this? I really don’t... You should ask Mr Vajpayee. When he came to Lahore, he reached the bus at Wagah. My... The issue was... There was no dispute at all on this. I merely went to the Prime Minister and I said there will be a lot of political activity at Wagah and men in uniform do not... It doesn’t behove of them to be in masses of people pushing and shoving around and the three Service Chiefs are standing there... ‘So I would request you that from there you are going to fly and come to the Governor House.’ We will receive you at the Governor House and he immediately agreed. There was no argument. There was no dispute. Then what happened was... So we didn’t go to Wagah. I was there with the Air and Naval chiefs at the Governor House in Lahore. The moment the helicopter came I saluted him first and I shook hands with him first, and we went inside the house and I sat with him for half an hour. I don’t know who’s spreading this. I have no inhibitions of saluting Mr Vajpayee, he is elder than me, if he comes now I will salute him again, I will shake hands with him. What is the problem? These are very childish issues. I don’t think it ever came into my mind that I shouldn’t shake hands with him. He is an elder and he is a leader of India. I’ll shake hands with him. What’s my problem? And this has never happened. I don’t know how... I’d like to ask you how’s this come about? Who’s spreading this? This is not the truth. Q: Maybe those same vested interests. A: Maybe. (Laughs) But who’s doing that in India? I’ve been asked this question by Indians. Every Indian. Even Karan Thapar asked me. I think he did. Everyone asks me this question. I don’t know how this has come about. You please ask Prime Minister Vajpayee himself. Q: That is a good question to ask him. Incidentally, there is no shortage of vested interests in India. But 1999 was a kind of unbelievable year, wasn’t it? I mean even the most imaginative astrologer could never have predicted the events of the year. There are no astrologers in Pakistan politics are there? A: There are superstitious people all right. (Laughs) I don’t know. Q: So, when did Kargil actually start, the operation that culminated into the Kargil conflict? A: When did it start? Really, it started in India. It was freedom fighters who have been operating inside India and this issue started with their operation in this Kargil area across the Line of Control. And the Indian troops reacted violently probably because they were in strength and that is the start point of the Kargil issue. Q: The participation of the Pakistan Army elements within that operation? A: No, we never participated. We were on the Line of Control. Q: Surely, there is enough evidence that eventually the Pakistani Army regulars were also participating in that conflict. A: No, we were on the Line of Control and we did get involved because of the operations against the mujahideen and the freedom fighters by the Indian Army. And there, trying to bypass them and coming into the Line of Control. Q: There is this view in India that the level of the conflict would not have reached the height that it did without very active support, abatement and participation of as disciplined and as good a fighting force like the Pakistan Army. A: Well, we were on the Line of Control, certainly. We were defending the Line of Control and there were attempts by the Indians to cross the Line of Control and that is where the Pakistan Army was involved. Not across the Line of Control. Q: But on the mountain tops where the actual fighting took place, which is certainly within our side of the Line of Control, would you say there were no Pakistani regulars there? A: No. No. Q: But then, when the withdrawal took place and when the fighting ended with a ceasefire, however you’d like to call it, it was very clearly a Pakistani Army operation to stop and cease fire. A: No, they were freedom fighters who were persuaded to come back and disengage Q: Since you could persuade them to stop, logic suggests that you could also persuade them to fight. A: No. (Laughs) Even now the fighting is going on. The fighting is going on since over 10 years now. And I’d say if you go and see the graveyards in Kashmir, the APHC tells me there are 75,000 people killed and the graveyards indicate that. You tell me how many graves are there of non-Kashmiris, non-locals? I haven’t been there but I know it. Q: Our defence minister George Fernandes, during the conflict, had tried to draw a distinction between Nawaz Sharif and the Army and said that the whole Kargil operation was actually an Army... implying that it was a rogue Army operation. How much merit is in that? A: No merit at all. Ours is not a rogue Army. It’s a national Army. Q: No, I’m sorry I didn’t mean it like that. I mean rogue operation conducted by certain elements. A: No, no, not at all. Everything happens with due consideration. All that happens, certainly the Army does not take unilateral action, it takes action with the government. Q: Right. The next question is obvious: Was Mr Nawaz Sharif fully briefed on all aspects of this conflict and all through? A: Of course, of course! He knew everything that was going on. Q: Do you actually believe he was in some kind of communication with elements of our government at that time? A: I... wouldn’t be able to say that, comment very certainly on it. But certainly they were... as it came out, as was blown up in the media and India also. There were some contacts... ah... behind the scene contacts, which played a role maybe. Q: Would you like to elaborate? A: I have... no definite information on that so I wouldn’t like to comment on it really. Q: How do you think the transcript of your conversation with Gen. Aziz reached Delhi? A: Again I can’t be very sure. I can’t be very sure. I’m not very sure how it reached them. I would like to ask you. (Laughs) Q: Do you have any theories? You have intelligence units... A: Since it was a normal telephone call... it could have been intercepted. Q: It obviously was intercepted. But who would after having ... I mean intercepted... the Americans gave it to us? A: I wouldn’t like to comment. All possibilities... all possibilities are there. The Indians themselves did it... somebody else provided it to them... But since I can’t be very sure I wouldn’t like to say anything, with any certainty. Q: The lead could have come from Beijing. A: I’m sure not. I don’t think... The Chinese are our great friends... They are the most reliable friends. We deal with them very regularly on all issues and I am very sure that could not have happened. Q: But you are not equally sure about the Americans? A: (Laughs) I wouldn’t want to comment on it... Q: Do you trust mobile phones anymore? A: Shouldn’t be trusted... (laughs) They can be intercepted, very much... This was not on a mobile phone by the way... (Laughter)... This was on a normal telephone. Q: Did Nawaz Sharif do a deal with the Americans on Kargil? A: What do you really imply by a deal? Q: He made this sudden dash to the White House and after that things began to calm down... and so... A: Certainly, the Americans were mediating on reduction... of trying to reduce ... playing a role in reducing this tension and the fighting there... trying to put pressure on Nawaz Sharif to ask these freedom fighters to stop, to disengage. To that extent he did go there. There wasn’t a deal as such, deal really means something give and take really. That you do this and I’ll do this for you... I don’t think there was a deal as such. Except that he did... yes... say that he would like to... I know that he did say that he would like to play a role in facilitating a dialogue on Kashmir, and bringing... addressing the issue of Kashmir between India and Pakistan. So if you call that a deal, yes, I think he did show his willingness to do that. if the situation in Kargil did stabilise. Q: But the other part of it... which is an assumption... I can’t use any word more than that... assumption that he also asked for American protection against a possible coup? A: Such an assumption... and there was no possibility of a coup, whatsoever, maybe he was having hallucinations. There were no possibilities at all. As I said nobody, least of all myself, was ever thinking of anything of that sort. So I think it was his imagination if at all he was imagining that. Q: Well, I mean certainly there is a pattern in his behaviour with Army Chiefs. Whether it is your predecessor or later on with you, in which he was certainly hallucinating a great deal about being overthrown. And he was making it public. A: Never showed it... I think... I... I wonder whether you’ll believe it or not that in the one year that I was the Chief of Army Staff with him I used to meet him frequently... certainly more than once a week, sometimes every second or third day. Never! Never once! Never! I repeat never once was there an argument. Unbelievable! So, therefore, I think he was maybe having hallucinations. Q: What was his attention span like? (Laughter) A: Very personal question. Very low I’d say. (Laughter) Q: OK, no more personal questions. Well, then can the Army Chief of Kargil times be called the best man to finally evolve peace with India? A: That’s like BJP. They say BJP is the party which can exercise the veto in India over any compromises on Kashmir and so is the best party to go for a solution. Same situation is of the Army here... whatever you are meaning or implying by the ‘best man’. Q: Yes, I do indeed mean that... I do indeed mean that. What I mean is Menachem Begin the best person to eventually talk to Anwar Sadat. Is that the analogy? A: Yes. Absolutely! Q: So you would want a resumption of dialogue absolutely immediately, tomorrow? A: If we want to do something, if we are sincere in resolving our problems, if we think these problems need to be resolved and we need to have better relations, if we think that this one-fifth of humanity that lives around in this region deserves a better economic life, better standard of life as opposed to the poverty-stricken masses that exist here... That is the requirement. It’s the requirement of everyone. It’s the requirement of India and also of Pakistan and also of all countries in the region. Because all countries... the countries in the region are not cooperating. This may be the only region in the world which is not collaborating and cooperating in the economic field because of Indo-Pakistan tension. So, we remove the Indo-Pakistan tension, this region has potential to improve itself for the sake of the masses. That’s my interest. But certainly I’m not really seeing that, till now, that level of sincerity on the Indian side. Q: Well it’s the same argument on the other side, you know that until the level of violence comes down in Kashmir ... A: Well, that is, yes... This is always brought up by anyone who comes from India and I beg to differ on this. Never should conditions be laid because the conditions are... I would like to say the level of forces in Kashmir need to be reduced. I would like to say that the atrocities in Kashmir must be stopped first. If I start laying down these conditions, I will not talk to India till you stop the atrocities against the civilians. How will that be? How will they like it? So let’s stop these conditions. After all the Kashmir struggle, this freedom struggle started as a civilian struggle where people were protesting, civilians were protesting for their rights. It was the Indian military which came in great numbers, expanded to about 600,000-700,000 now that... Q: Is that a correct figure? A: I think it’s very correct. I am very sure of it. We even know the troops, we know their numbers, we know their divisions, we know the corps, the division, the brigade, the units, we know the Rashtriya Rifles, every number (Laughs)... So we are very clear. I can give you a total rundown or the exact figures. Q: You have a very effective embassy in Delhi. A: I think, yes, we have common borders and... yes, I think these are known. They are not such secrets. I am sure the Indians have the numbers of the Pakistan Army also. Q: Sorry, I interrupted you. You were talking about conditions... A: Yes. So... Therefore, I was saying that it is counter-productive to talk of conditions. Windows of opportunities are created... they have been created twice: First, some months back when Hizbul Mujahideen declared a ceasefire, then now; then there was this unfortunate earthquake, and we reacted very fast. Certainly I agree earthquakes are not needed to improve relations but we again acted fast and there was again a thawing of relations. And even the public at large, I would say on the Indian side as well as Pakistan, where people said this is a very good thing that has happened. So there was a warming of relations, maybe a sudden surge of seeing some kind of friendship, some kind of closeness starting. Now these windows of opportunities don’t remain open indefinitely, unfortunately. If you don’t address these issues, grasp this opportunity immediately, like good statesmen and then I’m sure when you grasp these, sudden changes will occur. Sudden changes of improving the situation. These conditions that we would like to demand and the conditions that the Indians are demanding... there will be changes in that. So I think the issue is to start a dialogue, and that will have an effect on the conditions rather than improving the conditions first, providing the conditions and then a dialogue. That becomes counter-productive because we have certain demands also. Then we sit and the conditions are not met, our conditions are not met by Indians and their conditions are not met by us. So, thank you very much! We can keep relaxing. Q: But you will admit that one window of opportunity was opened by Prime Minister Vajpayee when he declared the ceasefire. A: I’ll be very frank with you. The ceasefire that Mr Vajpayee or the Indian government is talking of in the Valley is a hoax. There is no ceasefire. Ceasefire is on the Line of Control, yes. We are not firing, the Indians are not firing. The ceasefire is holding. At the Line of Control! But if we think there is a ceasefire in Kashmir, it’s a hoax. There is no ceasefire. If you see your television, you see your television... I read your magazines quite a bit, with interest, especially where it involves Pakistan. Where is the ceasefire? Every day there are killings. Every day there are actions by the security forces against mujahideen. There are photographs. These are documented. They are being shown on your television. Which ceasefire are we talking about? Where is the ceasefire? Q: Well, whenever the ceasefire, there has been a lull on one side, a major provocative gesture of suicide attacks or bombs has come... has been deliberately created I mean... it happened even during Mr Clinton’s visit, created to deliberately disturb an opening or try and close this window by vested interests... A: Yes... vested interest. The killings and... I am very glad you’ve raised this issue. The killings of Sikhs, we know that this is being done by the Indian intelligence and I have strong reasons to believe that that is the case. So, let’s not talk of them. Q: Sir, that’s... that’s aspersions. A major charge to make. A: Well, that is our finding. That is our finding. And, there is no reason, no Muslim, no Kashmiri will attack the Sikhs. There is no reason. They would have been bad to do that. Why would they do it? Q: But they would attack Hindus? A: If you ask them, yes that is a possibility. That is a possibility. But to attack Sikhs is certainly not a possibility because I’m talking of logic. Pure logic! If they attack Sikhs, they are weakening their position, they are putting Sikhs against them. Why would they do it? Any man with a little bit of common sense will realise it and he will never do it. And, at the same time, if you see the opposite side, anybody else who wants to create a wedge, who wants to create an opposition against the freedom fighters would like to do it... would like to create this wedge between the Sikhs and the freedom fighters. So, there is all reason for somebody else to be doing this and not the freedom fighters to be doing this. That is the logic and that is what our finding is. However, it’s open to any kind of counter-argument. But, however, coming back to the issue... What was the issue now? Q: The issue was the window of opportunities opened by the ceasefire. Now... the ceasefire was announced when it was announced... I am talking of the Ramzan ceasefire, the first one last year. When it was announced, there was a genuine sliver of hope. You yourself have said that. Was there any unofficial discussion or contact made with your government before that unilateral decision by Prime Minister Vajpayee? Were you in on the loop? A: On declaring the ceasefire? No, no, (Ramzan ceasefire) we were not. Q: So, Mr Vajpayee actually took the risk on his own in order to create... in the hope of creating a momentum towards a dialogue? A: Again I’ll say there was no risk involved because he didn’t mean anything. It didn’t mean anything on ground. It did not mean anything on ground. Where is the ceasefire, that’s what I’m asking? Where is the ceasefire? Let’s watch... if I take you to the television news and put on Zee TV, I am sure there will be action there. I would like to ask you, where is the ceasefire then? Q: There has been a deterioration in conditions in the last few weeks. A: Yes, you spoke about suicide bombers and all that... now it’s a two-way traffic. As I said, these windows of opportunities are created with immediate... if you saw at that time, there was some kind of alarm. Now we have to take advantage of that alarm. Now you’ll start talking about conditions and all that and you... you’ve started... this thing started deteriorating. The moment these freedom fighters start seeing that there is no seriousness on the other side to initiate the dialogue. They haven’t even taken a decision on sending the APHC members here. Now what kind of sincerity is there? Why aren’t they being sent here? What is the problem? Some of them have travelled abroad, so why can’t they come to Pakistan? Q: But they are in touch with you in any case. A: No, they are not. Q: Yes, they are. The Hurriyat leaders go to the Pakistan embassy, they have a dialogue. A: OK! OK! Yes. But the issue now is... we say that any dialogue on Kashmir should involve India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. You can’t resolve... you can’t take decisions on Kashmir without involving the Kashmiris. The Indian stance has been confused... May I? I am sorry to be using this word... Q: It’s your interview, General... (Laughter) A: Now, initially, when the Hizbul Mujahideen declared a ceasefire some months back, when was that, last year? Q: Yes. A: What was the response of the Indians? Their response was: Number one, that this is the major freedom fighting force and we would like to talk to them. So, one, they admitted that Hizbul Mujahideen, which is an indigenous freedom fighting group in Kashmir, is the force. Admission that it is indigenous. Number two, they said that Pakistan is out of it. We will not talk to Pakistan. So they scuttled the whole thing. Now, this time over, they are saying they don’t want to talk to Kashmiris and there are indications that they want to talk to us. What are we trying to do? There are three parties. Let’s be very clear, let’s not be very clever on the issue. There are three parties: Pakistan, India and Kashmiris. Now when you try to eliminate the Kashmiris, at least let the APHC people come here (to Pakistan). We have even gone to the extent... OK! We could talk with Indians, even if the Kashmiris are not there, initially at least. Let the APHC come here, let us at least tell them that we are not doing something behind their backs. We (India and Pakistan) will talk and ultimately you (APHC) will be included, that’s the way of nicely resolving the Kashmir dispute. So, let’s put them at ease that nothing is happening behind their backs. So, let them come here and we’ll convince them about it. That is what I feel. Q: There is certainly a strong view in the Indian government which would tend to agree with you on this. No government is a one-dimensional voice. A: Yes and the more we delay, more the problems. May I say: The window keeps shutting gradually. And we revert to status quo and go back to wherever we were. Unfortunately... if we don’t avail of this opportunity. Q: There is this magic word: Talks, talks, talks. May I ask a very simple, common sense question? What will you talk about, what is your agenda? A: Kashmir. And Kashmir only. Oh, well! Let me correct myself, not Kashmir only, Kashmir and all other issues. But, as I said, Kashmir is the main issue. All other issues are irritants. If India wants to take them up simultaneously, we have no problems. We could take them up simultaneously. But, if India thinks that we should discuss all issues, and not Kashmir, we are not into it. We have to discuss Kashmir and also all other issues. That’s what we need to discuss. Q: And till that happens, there is no hope of any progress on issues like the visa regime or improving trade? A: As I said, we have tried this over all these 50 years. The emergence of this freedom fight is actually a result of the frustrations of whatever had been tried before. Some governments come and they try to address this (problem by saying), “Let’s have relations, let’s open the borders, let’s go into economic relations”. Why have they failed? Why have they not resulted in some progress on closer relations between India and Pakistan? Why did this freedom struggle start at all? Because Kashmir is not being addressed. So unless we address the Kashmir issue, all other activity will be futile. And I know that. That is why I am very keen that we must understand everything will remain futile. It has remained futile over the last 50 years, it will continue to remain futile. Q: Do you see any hope in this year’s calendar, with Saarc on the agenda? A: Well, I am glad you’ve opened this issue. Saarc became a closed issue because of India, again. Q: It became a closed issue because of Kargil. A: Well, it should have been a closed issue with Siachen also. There is no end to it. It should have been a closed issue when Indians... what they did in 1971 in East Pakistan. Then it should have been also... Let’s not go back into history. I believe that now is the stage that we need to look forward. Look ahead and not (at) the past! If you want to remain in history, the past, the past is very bitter. We fought wars. We fought each other, we have killed each other, that is the past. And we’ll keep this bitter memory alive if we keep talking of the past. Let us look to the future. Future can be brighter. And that’s what I’m trying to say. That future can certainly be bright for the people of India, for the people of Pakistan, and the people of the region because of the relationship between India and Pakistan. Let’s build a better future for the people of this region and the people of our respective countries. And, that is what my aim is and in all sincerity that is what I want to do. So, therefore, let’s not talk of the past, let’s look at the future. And when we do that, let us realistically decide where is the problem. Now if I’m... I... I get really disturbed and I feel sorry and when, anybody coming from India, I’ve met a number of people, lot of people! I’ve met the Indian ambassador, probably you’ll meet him and ask him... We sat for half an hour or 40 minutes or 45 minutes. We talked of reduction of tension, removing it, confidence building or improving relations... After half an hour or 35-40 minutes I said, “Mr Ambassador, you’ve worked very hard in avoiding using the word Kashmiri even once in this hour.” Now this is our problem. This is what I see. Sincerity! Are we wanting to resolve Kashmir or no? That is a simple question I want to ask the Government of India, Mr Vajpayee and the people of India. I want to ask that. Do we see Kashmir as the main dispute between India and Pakistan? Do we see it as a dispute which needs to be resolved for the sake of the future of both the peoples or not? That is my question. If we think it is (the basic issue). And it is! Nobody can deny this fact. Let us be sincere, let’s talk of Kashmir, let’s talk if we need to resolve this Kashmir dispute. And be flexible. I will be flexible! We will be flexible! Let India be flexible on whatever they want to do, on Kashmir. That’s the issue. Q: I will certainly take this point on flexibility up but before that I want to pin you down. Do you think that Saarc is a medium or an opportunity for the next stage of the dialogue? A: Yes, I think so. I’m sorry I took you back... It (Saarc) was scuttled. OK! Now... but... looking at the future let’s not talk of the past. OK! Fine! Let’s not talk of what Indians did on Saarc. Yes, I see that if the Saarc summit is resumed and we start interacting, there is certainly a scope that maybe (this is) the place where the dialogue could be initiated. Certainly! Q: Do you trust Mr Vajpayee? A: I would like to trust him because I think... he is... because to me he looks a person who would like to resolve that dispute. Maybe, I’m not very sure, but he did give a statement which included his views on Kashmir, the only time that he gave a statement, a month or two back... Q: Are you talking of his year-end thoughts? A: Yes. I think he is a person who maybe wants to resolve the dispute between India and Pakistan. So, I would... I would trust him! Q: Do you trust his party? A: No! (Laughter) Q: The people around him? A: No! I don’t have that kind of trust. I think it’s the Prime Minister himself who looks... the body language, his statements, seem that he really wants to move ahead. I would like to move ahead. I can, certainly... I think I can certainly. Q: To reach the middle ground of peace, which I don’t know if it’s going to come in our lifetimes or not, but to attempt to reach that middle ground of peace, both sides have to walk. How far are you ready to walk, to change from your defined, committed policy lines as defined today? A: On Kashmir? You are also avoiding the word Kashmir. Q: No. Kashmir. Absolutely. That is the issue we are discussing. On Kashmir, to rephrase the question, to what extent is Pakistan, under your leadership, ready to change its committed policy lines in an effort to get peace with India? A: Now, we are talking of the solution of the Kashmir problem. I wouldn’t like to comment on that. I would like to say that there are a number of ways, as long as we, as I said, as long as we decide and we show resolve on being flexible from our stated positions, we can reach a conclusion. So, now to define how far we would like to go, we are talking of what kind of solution is acceptable to us. I wouldn’t like to comment on that. Once we start the process of dialogue, we will then keep moving ahead and, as you said, we need to walk, we will keep walking towards each other and reach somewhere in the mid-ground or some place. Q: Today’s position, by Pakistan, is that Kashmir should be a part of Pakistan. Do you conceive of any change in that? A: Well, the UN resolution... The Security Council resolution on plebiscite. Now, that is the Security Council position. As I said, one would like to show flexibility once the process of dialogue starts. Q: Do you think that this Tehelka episode has weakened Prime Minister Vajpayee and his government? A: It appears so. I think you would be able to answer this question more. It appears so but maybe, I don’t know, maybe wishful thinking... Maybe at the moment as the environment is in India, as we read it, there is, I feel, there is a gradual change in the attitudes of the people of India and maybe also the... press and media in India towards a better relation between India and Pakistan. So, to that extent, I think with an initiation of dialogue between India and Pakistan... I think Mr Vajpayee has everything to gain. So, maybe the loss that he has suffered through the Tehelka issue gets covered or reconciled or an improvement takes place if the process of dialogue starts. Q: The last time he started a process of dialogue with you he was under very severe political pressure. Before the Lahore summit. A: With Pakistan you mean? Yes... Q: BJP had lost the Assembly elections in five states. A: Yes... Well, there was a great pressure also here in Pakistan against what Mr Nawaz Sharif was doing on the bus diplomacy and all that. Well, as I said, the pressure here, I know, was because the issue of Kashmir was not being addressed and I don’t want to develop that kind of pressure. I’m a realist, I don’t want to get involved in any euphoria or on improving of relations without addressing the Kashmir dispute. Therefore, if we address the Kashmir dispute, as far as I know, there will be no problem here. There was a problem because we were not addressing the Kashmir dispute when Nawaz Sharif and Mr Vajpayee met. Q: I know you will react, but isn’t part of addressing the Kashmir dispute also means addressing this fact: that all the jehadis, then parties and organisations, indulge in, from gathering money to training to preaching violence to picking up and inspiring young people to go into Kashmir and to perpetrate violence (are based here)? Isn’t it reasonable to expect you (in Pakistan) to do something to curb this? A: I think one has to be realistic. Wherever, if you see in history, or if you look around the world, wherever there is a freedom struggle going on, wherever... whether it is Ireland, whether it is Sri Lanka, whether it is Kashmir, or any place, or Palestine of course, there is always support from that community, that ethnic group, that nationality, from all over the world. There is financial support, there is moral support, there is political support which comes to them. They look up to it. Their strength lies in that. So, same is the issue in Kashmir. There are Kashmiris on this side, there are Kashmiris all over the world, there are Kashmiris in United States, in the UK. So, therefore, this is a complete dynamic which is in operation. There is a freedom struggle going on since 10 years. All the Kashmiris support this. So, this is the issue that gets involved, we are involved in this issue. Q: There’s a sense of helplessness, isn’t it? I mean, what comes first: violence or talks? Which is the chicken, which is the egg? A: No, it’s very clear. I think it’s certainly the chicken and that is the Kashmir dispute. And there is no question of any conditions. I’m afraid, as I said, the conditions are on the other side also. I (too) can lay down five conditions. Q: General, how much has the nuclearisation of both defence establishments, materially altered the Indo-Pak equation in the context of, the horror of, any future war? A: Maybe it has brought about a degree of stability in that both India and Pakistan must realise, and I’m sure they do realise, that with nuclear capability on both sides we must act much more responsibly and we must not enter into a conflict again. Q: I read one report where the CIA actually says that Pakistan’s nuclear ability is better than India’snuclear ability. A: I would like to imagine so. (Laughs) I am actually very grateful to the CIA report. I don’t know the facts. Q: And how grateful are you to China? A: Well! As much as maybe India is to Russia. Q: Was, not is. A: Maybe is. Maybe we are also was. Q: Maybe? Or in reality? A: In reality, yes we are. Was. (Laughs) Was on both sides or is on both sides. Is on the Indian side certainly. We know that the Russians are providing them (India) assistance even now, they have said that. It’s all in the open. Q: Well, there is a traditional question attached to this subject, of the CTBT. I think we need to get it over quickly with the traditional answers. Will you sign it if India doesn’t sign it? A: We have our own... I’m not really relating it to India, frankly. We have our own internal dynamics. We are addressing certain issues, we are totally focused on taking Pakistan forward, economically, in governance, political restructuring, poverty alleviation. I am focusing in these areas and I don’t want to give a strategy at all. I am not really bothering about what India is doing on CTBT. We have our own problems. We are addressing the CTBT issue in relation to our problems. Q: Which means, in simple words, that if you think that you need to end sanctions by signing CTBT, you will do so. A: No, it’s not such a simple issue. Of course it has internal repercussions. So therefore, I have to consider the internal domestic repercussions. So, it’s not really an issue of sanctions vs CTBT signing. It is an issue of domestic repercussions, which is much more serious than anything else. Q: And the American pressure? A: I don’t think there is much pressure. Americans themselves, their government is against the CTBT. Q: And this administration in particular. A: Yes. Q: When the first comments were made about you, when you took over power, you were called a liberal. Was that an advantage or a disadvantage? A: I would say it’s an advantage. It depends on what angle you are looking at. Pakistan environment is misunderstood... abroad and in the West. We, 99 per cent of Pakistanis, are moderate... moderates. It’s only the one per cent which are religious extremists, which is equally applicable to India. In Pakistan, everyone around here is a moderate. And it’s unfortunate that these one per cent extremists hold the 99 per cent hostage. That is the problem, certainly. So, my being a moderate, I wouldn’t call myself a liberal, I don’t really... I don’t know the definition of liberal. I would like to call myself a moderate. (Laughs) Moderate and balanced. In everything that one does I believe in the word balance. It is very, very important - balance in personality, balance in views, balance in attitude and balance in dealings. So, I presume myself and I try to be... maintain balance in everything. Q: And yet, on the other hand, Qazi Hussain Ahmed of the Jamaat-e-Islami actually calls you a security risk. That’s a strange kind of accusation to make against the chief of your government. A: He’s an unbalanced man. That is my comment. I don’t even want to respond to him. Q: But he heads an important political force in your country. A:
Well. I know the local government elections have taken place now.
Although it’s on a non-party basis but there are certain... people
have their own affiliations. I don’t think anybody... there is a
minimal, minimal support of the people who have emerged victorious,
there’s hardly... Not even one per cent of them have religious
backing. A: Jamaat and other religious backing. Q: Benazir Bhutto, by the way, has declared victory in these elections. A: (Laughs) She’s imagining. She’s imagining. She is also having hallucinations I think. Anyone can say anything because they are not on political party basis. So, what kind of victory is she declaring? Every party is declaring victory but we know the ground realities... Q: And what are they? A: Certainly... well, I’ll... OK let me just say that... in fact, research was carried out by an independent group also: about 65 per cent of the people elected have stood in the elections for the first time. Out of the nazims and the naib nazims, about 55 per cent, 50 to 55 per cent, have stood for the first time and more than 35 to 40 per cent people have never, their families have never participated in elections. So, these people are, generally I would say, to a large extent, to quite an extent neutral. Now they may shift towards some political party or the other, certainly, but I can’t say which party... I wouldn’t be able to comment on it. So, anyone who is saying this doesn’t have the figures at all. I don’t know how she’s saying this. Q: But the Jamaat is part of an ideology which has a different agenda for South Asia, of which Taliban is part of. A: Well, as I said, Pakistan is a moderate country... Moderate, Islamic country and any extremist views in Pakistan, I’m very sure, will not find support from the people of Pakistan. Q:
To come towards Taliban, the Americans created the Taliban movement,
didn’t they? A: The Taliban movement? Q: Yes, if you take its genesis within the Afghan wars; and then later on encouraged it... Later on, of course, you took over that role. A: (Laughs) No, I... I’m being very realistic about whatever is happening there. I’m just being realistic about the reality there. I haven’t taken on the role of anybody. I really wouldn’t be able to comment on whether the Americans launched the Taliban. I think they emerged within the dynamics of Afghanistan, because they were for years after the Soviet withdrawal for... I don’t know how many years now, for five or six years... about five years, I think, there was internecine warfare. Afghanistan was divided into groups, into regions, warlords reigning supreme. They were fighting among themselves. So, I think the amount of suffering that Afghanistan, the Afghans went through, that gave rise to this group of Taliban and they saw unity and they got the support from the people of Afghanistan and they swept Afghanistan. Q: It couldn’t have happened without the weapons that the Pakistani Army supplied. A: Let me again clarify this thought that a lot of people have. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pakistan has a threat from your country. (Laughs) Q: I thought it was the other way around. A: I’m very glad that one-third of the (size of the Indian) Army and one-third of the force is threatening three times the force! I must say I’m very glad, I’m flattered that my Army being small and... is threatening the Indian Army. Q: And six times the border. A: OK! (Laughs) I take that as a compliment. But when we are talking of Afghanistan, certainly Pakistan is in no position to assist Afghanistan militarily. Now, where do they get their arms, as you have said? Any military man would know that if a country is fighting a war thousands of miles away from its own area, they need to dump. The Soviets dumped arms and ammunition there. In such large quantity that those arms and ammunition are (still there). Which aircraft are the Taliban flying? Are they Pakistani aircraft? Which tanks are they using? You should see it on the television. These are Russian tanks. These are Russian aircraft. They are MiGs. They are Russian aircraft, tanks and guns. They are not Pakistani. Now, these, I know, that there were these aircraft, tanks, guns, vehicles in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over. This came into their hands. So, therefore, number one, the dumped ammunition and equipment of Russian origin left by the Soviets, it is still there... it was in such large quantities. Number two, for 10 years the United States supported the war against the Soviets. Billions of dollars were pumped in. They have Stinger missiles there. Stinger missiles were given. How did the Russians finally get defeated? It was the Stinger missiles which started shooting down their aircraft. So, where are those missiles? Where is all this equipment? Billions of dollars of equipment and ammunition, where is all that? It’s in Afghanistan. Now, this is the second area. The third, the Northern Alliance, when the Taliban came on to the scene and they started their victorious march forward, the Northern Alliance was being supported by many countries, including India. It still is. Now, I don’t want to name the other countries. Q: It is easy to name India? A: Yes, because they are. (Laughs) Because they keep naming us, we keep naming them. It’s mutual. Q: Some countries are supporting them... A: Some countries are supporting the Northern Alliance. We know who. All the arms and ammunition that have been going there, look at the speed at which the Taliban operated and look at the speed at which they conquered... all that arms and ammunition came to them also. Let me assure you, sir, without any exaggeration, they can sell us arms! They can sell arms and ammunition to Pakistan. In fact, the proliferation of arms in Pakistan is because of Afghanistan, because of the massive arms dumped in Afghanistan. They can go on for years and years without any assistance from us. All the sanctions against them on arms, I can assure you, will have no meaning. We are not providing them any arms and we will never provide them arms because we don’t have them. We would like to have our own stockpile. There are sanctions on us and I don’t want to disturb my economy, giving my arms and buying from elsewhere. Certainly not! So, this is absolutely wrong. These are aspersions. Anyone who thinks so, and may I say that it’s not (only) you, everyone thinks that we are giving them the arms. I can assure you this is not the truth. Q: General you would make an excellent lawyer for the Pakistan armed forces. A: (Laughs) I think: let me tell you that in my whole life, if I failed, I failed once! In my captain-to-major examination in the law paper. (Laughter) Q: They didn’t know your strengths... We know the position that you have taken on the Bamiyan Buddhas and you can understand that it’s an emotive issue in my country, as well. But I have heard something and I wonder if you would care to comment on it. Nobody has found a rational reason for why it should have been done. I’ve heard that there was a personal reason, Mullah Omar actually believed that if he did not destroy the statues; he would not go to jannat as quickly. A: Well, I would certainly like to say that we condemn (the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas). It should not have been done. I tried my best. With all my sincerity. I was going off to the G-8 summit in Cairo, but before that at the airport I caught people, I told them go and tell them (the Taliban) please not to do these things. And, then when I came back, I immediately sent my interior minister. So, I tried my best and I think it was a very short-sighted and totally... I think it was a very wrong action. They were already alienated, they stood alienated, they have been further alienated by this act, the Taliban. Why they did it? Yes they did it for religious reasons... on whatever their beliefs were. Q: There is a personal element in this, as a Muslim. I am a Muslim. One of the things that I learnt about Islam was that Islam removed jehaalat (ignorance). Do you see what is happening in Afghanistan as a return of jehaalat defeating Islam? A: Yes, I think they are very, very backward. I think their actions... obviously, you being a Muslim, they did not realise that the idols against whom our Prophet moved was within the Khaana-e-Kabaa. Those idols had to be removed from there and broken and all that. But that didn’t mean that all idols all around the world had to be broken. And we don’t believe in idolatry. That does not mean that we need to be going around breaking all idols. As long as we are not worshipping idols, if others worship idols we shouldn’t be bothered. That’s not anti-Islamic at all. We should not be. So, it’s a mis-representation of religion, certainly, as you would agree. Q: Your Afghan policy over the last 20 years, what has it resulted in? Three of your biggest problems: refugees, drugs, arms... the proliferation. Doesn’t anybody sit back to reconsider that it’s time perhaps to take another look at Afghan policy? A: No, certainly I am very concerned. We are... we are the most concerned party to whatever is happening in Afghanistan because we have a border with Afghanistan. We want peace in Afghanistan, certainly. But when we look at... how to get peace is the question. Is there any way to bring peace in Afghanistan minus Taliban? No, there is no way of getting peace. Taliban are controlling 95 per cent of Afghanistan, they cannot be wished away. You tell me and let anyone tell me that what is the way that there is another group which can come and take the place of Taliban? There is no such group. Secondly, even if the whole world joins together and wishes away the Taliban, removes them from the scene, what will happen in Afghanistan? I would like to ask anybody. I am hundred per cent sure that we will revert to 1989 when Soviets went. Afghanistan will again be divided into same warlords, because nobody can control the whole of Afghanistan at the moment. And, again the same fighting between the warlords. We’ll be back to square one. So now, what I would like to ask you: How to bring peace? So, therefore, the reality is that these Taliban have to be accepted as a reality, irrespective of the fact that we do not accept their views on religion, we do not certainly accept their backwardness, their attitudes against women... we do not accept it. My wife would be really annoyed if I started accepting their views. Q: And your children? A: Yes, my children also. So, irrespective of that we have to accept the reality and then maybe change them, maybe change them from within, maybe try to change them, change their attitude from within. Q: How many generations of Afghanistan must pay the price? A: Well, I’m very sure that if this attitude... if we bring peace into Afghanistan, by accepting their reality... Because I see there are two options open at the moment to deal with, to bring a solution in Afghanistan. This is a reality, the Taliban are a reality, they can’t be wished away. So, my solutions are based on this reality. Number one... Option one, as they call it in the military; option one is impose sanctions on them, do not accept them, put them against the wall, force them to change. This is one. And, then accept them. They must change, force them to change and then accept them. Number two: Accept them! Accept them as a reality, try to help them in whatever miseries they are facing in Afghanistan, and then force them to change. Which option would one like to adopt? I think the second option is a better option, because they don’t have anything to lose. You impose sanctions, you impose pressure on people, you can gain from pressure when somebody has to lose anything. When somebody has nothing to lose, what kind of pressure can you put on them? This is a realistic approach that I take of Afghanistan. So, I think option two is the only way to solve it. Q: You’ve lost... I mean your relations with Iran have suffered because of Afghanistan. Isn’t that a loss for you? A: No, relations on Iran, let me say, are far better now than they were before. That I’m sure of. I’m talking of my government and with me. My relations, my government’s relations with Iran, my relations with President Khatami are far better than they were with the previous government. So, that’s... there’s no... that’s not the issue. There are, they have certain views on Afghanistan, we have these views. But I think our views are more realistic, taking the reality on ground. Q: How do you react to Prime Minister Vajpayee’s pending visit to Iran? A: Well, it depends on Iran’s attitude subsequent to the visit. We certainly have our own relationship with Iran. If that relationship changes with Mr Vajpayee’s visit, that would be of concern to us. But I do not think that should change. Therefore, there is no problem. It’s a visit by... these (India and Iran) are two independent countries, they want to exchange visits at the leadership level. We have no problem. Q: Pakistan very naturally has an agenda for a neighbour like Afghanistan. Does Taliban have an agenda for Pakistan? A: I don’t think so. I don’t think so at all. Taliban are accused of many things, accused of exporting their brand of religion... religious extremism. But I was with the Turkman President. Taliban have about a 650-700 kms border with Turkmenistan. I asked the President: “Is there a problem on the border? Are they exporting some kind of extremism, religious extremism?” He said, “No, none at all”. There is no problem with that. So why are we thinking that they would create problem for Pakistan? No, they won’t, I don’t think so. Q: There are a million madrasa students in Pakistan. Is there a Taliban army waiting in them in the next 10-15 years? A: There are 10,000 madrasas in Pakistan, with maybe one million Talibs. The madrasas, let me tell you, here in Pakistan, and I am giving this with full knowledge, because I am concerned about them and I am trying to evolve a strategy at the moment which I am going to declare within a week or two maybe, on what to do with them, on their education. Now, there is a plus side of the madrasa and there is a negative side. The plus side of all the madrasas, vast majority, this is the biggest humanitarian activity, welfare activity, that any country in the world can undertake. One million people being fed and clothed and given residence, board and lodge, free board and lodge. One million poor people given free board and lodge. Where in the world is anyone doing it? And the government is not supporting them. Any NGO doing this? No, sir; nobody is doing it. This is the positive side. Now, the negative side: They are being taught, given religious education only. In most of them. But there are a number of them which also teach other subjects. There are madrasas here, in Karachi, Lahore, Multan, which are even teaching computers. There are computers... education on software. But since the majority are giving only religious teaching, we need to now see what to do about them, about this. We need to strengthen their positive side and correct the negative side and that is what we are addressing. And, I am sure we will address this issue. Let me also tell you that there is no military training going on in any madrasa. There maybe very, very few where military training as such is going on. This is another very wrong perception of the madrasas, unfortunately. That’s not happening. The keeping of arms in madrasas is totally banned. Even a dagger, a person with a dagger will be suspended and rusticated. Whereas in colleges here, and I’m sure maybe in India also, the situation is much worse. This again is a wrong perception of the madrasa. Q: You wouldn’t like to give me a scoop and tell me what the strategy will be? A: Yes, I would like to. What we are doing is, we have formed a curriculum, a syllabus which contains all subjects because our concern is at the moment... a religious boy coming into the madrasa grows up, becomes a young man, he can only become a mullah in a mosque. We want to change this. We are giving all subjects, as being taught in colleges and schools, and we have asked them to teach these subjects. We will assist them in that. So that they are absorbed in the mainstream. So, we will have a board to test them. So, it won’t be intrusive as such, because they wouldn’t like that. We have spoken to the ulema, most of them are in favour of this. They like the idea. So they teach this subject, they take our examination and they can go into any other college like any other normal person. If they go for seeking a job, they will be given a job. That’s all. It’ll take some time, but this is the strategy. Q: You called yourself a CEO. How did you hit upon this neat solution? A: (Laughs) Yes, because... There was a reason, we don’t want to... as you have seen there is no martial law (in Pakistan), as such. Q: You did not have Gen. Zia’s option of being a CMLA (Chief Martial Law Administrator)? A: No, I had the option. Why didn’t I have the option? Certainly, I had the option. I really debated it, whether I should have this or not, and through rational reasoning I came to the conclusion no, I should not be. Not because of any other thing, but... I thought in the previous martial laws or anywhere in the world the Army comes and superimposes itself on the civil structure. And when it goes, the civil structure remains at that level. I thought the requirement is, if at all we don’t want martial laws in the future, we want to build this civilian structure, we want democracy to flourish here, institutions to flourish here, we need to build these institutions. So, let’s not get over that. Let’s see them from the side and that is why I created this monitoring system. There is a monitoring system on ground run by the Army. All over. So, all institutions at the grassroots level and every level are being watched. They are being guided wherever required and they are being watched. But they are not being superimposed. They’re job is not being taken over by the Army. So, therefore, I thought I will not impose this CMLA and DMLA and MLA and SMLA! No, no, let the organisation function. That was the idea and, therefore, I thought I shouldn’t call myself Chief Martial Law Administrator. And, therefore, somebody suggested the best is Chief Executive and that was that. Q: That’s very modern sounding, slightly unusual... A: I think, with hindsight, yes. Q: Do you see your Cabinet as a private sector cabinet? A: Yes, it is, certainly. It has very dynamic people and I’m very glad, I’m very happy with the functioning. They are very dynamic people. They are private sector, generally. Q: Chief Executive may be legitimate but it’s not legal. A: (Thinks) Yes! Q: How will you go about the process of becoming legal? A: Well, legality has been given to us by the Supreme Court... in the Supreme Court decision... whatever happened on October 12 (when the Army took over) has been validated. In fact, I’ve been empowered to carry out minimum possible amendments in the Constitution and to administer the governance in the interest of Pakistan, in national interest. So, I’ve been validated really. So, it’s legal. Q: Have you become a politician in these 18 months? A: I don’t like to be a politician. I think I’m not cut for it. I’m a soldier, I’d like to remain a soldier. I’m too honest, I think. (Laughter) Q: So when will you bring the dishonest politicians back into the system? A: (Laughs) I... I hope we will bring more honest than dishonest politicians. We are trying our best. Certainly, we can’t change the total environment immediately but what I’m getting from the grassroot level is a better feedback. And, then it’s the system actually which corrupts more. You put a correct system with checks and balances with accountability, with monitoring, it will not allow people to be corrupt. So, when you have totally unchecked... systems because of a design of corruption, you don’t want checks because you want to be corrupt, you want to loot and plunder. So, therefore, don’t have any system! So, we will put systems in place which will prevent corruption. But, certainly, I’m certainly not meaning that I’ll be able to eradicate corruption. That’s a far cry. Q: October is a big month, isn’t it? October was the October Revolution, coup, this October is your retirement, you have already announced that you are not going to retire. And next October is when the Supreme Court’s three years get over. Will you leave office then? A: I certainly would have to leave office of the Chief Executive. There should be a Prime Minister. Elected! Q: But you’ll not leave power. A: We are examining how to ensure continuity and sustainability of the restructuring and reform that we are doing, how to ensure the checks and balances that I’m (talking about). Now, how to go about it and what system will ensure all, this is the question. And, I have to take a decision on this. Q: Is that a complicated way of saying that you will stay in power? A: (Laughs) Uhhh... well... I’ll take the decision when we weigh all the pros and cons. Q: Finally, I cannot return to India without asking you one question. If I don’t ask it, I’ll probably be lynched by my friends. Do you agree with this ban on cricket between India and Pakistan? A: It’s a pity! It’s a pity that it is banned. I really don’t know why the Indians are doing this. Q: No, no, the ban has been imposed by Pakistan. The lifetime ban on cricket. What India has done, I don’t agree with, which is to not to play in Sharjah. But that is only one tournament. The response from Pakistan for not playing in one tournament is never to play at all. A: Well then, that decision... This is news to me! It hasn’t been decided. It may be a statement. But I will have to examine this. I certainly did voice my concern because one says enough is enough. Now there were a number of matches that we were supposed to play and they (India) don’t want to play. So why... OK, India is not interested in playing us, let’s not play them at all. We are not too keen either if... if India thinks that we are keen on playing them, we can play others. Let’s not be under any illusion that India is that important or that we are considering playing with India that important. I think Indian players also, I’m sure, think that playing with us is equally important. They make a lot of money. So do ours. So it’s unfortunate that the Indian government is acting against the interests of the Indian cricketers. So, to that extent I think we have shown so much restraint. I really would like to urge the Prime Minister (Mr Vajpayee) to go into this. There was, by the way, if I’m allowed... there was a polo tournament in India, the first time when India didn’t play us, there were lot of people who came to me to say that we will not go. It was my decision: No, we will go there. Let’s tell them that we should play... games should be kept out of this (politics). And again, this issue of sincerity on resolving of issues... Where is the sincerity when you are not even (playing a sport)? You’re creating more tension, you’ve brought these differences into the games also, into the sports arena. I think we have a lot to learn from each other in cricket, we can improve. The last time when we had invited the Indian team to Lahore, very recently when they didn’t come, let me tell you and let me convey this through you to the Indian public also, I had thought... I had told my people... I said if they come, I will go there, I will be there at that match. I would like to meet every Indian cricketer and I will try to use my influence on the people not to be against the Indians. Let’s show them courtesy, let’s show them we can support them if they play a good game. We will buck them up and cheer them up. I had this intention in my mind that I’m going to do that. But, unfortunately, they didn’t come. So, that got scuttled. It’s a... I feel really sorry that this kind of politics has been brought into sports. Q: Before we start Kashmir talks, will we start cricket talks? A: Yes... Yes, cricket is separate and one could any time start the talks. There is no need of talks. Let’s start playing. Q: One last question. How would you like to be described as an individual? A: (Laughs) It’s a difficult question. I really... I would like to be described as a (long pause) balanced individual... An individual who believes in seeing reality and (pause) looks more to the future instead of the past. I think that is my impulsive reaction. (Laughs) Q: And how would you like to be remembered as a political leader? A: I would like to be remembered as a person who has taken this country forward to new heights which... where it deserves to be. I would like to be remembered as having done something for this country and moved it forward. Q: Something also for the subcontinent? A: Certainly, I would like to. That will be a great bonus. But one can’t clap with one hand. Indian assistance is required. Q: We began with retirement homes, let’s end there. Where would you want to retire? A: Where would I want to retire? What do you mean where? Q: I mean, Nawaz Sharif maybe wants to retire in the London Mayfair apartments. A: Pakistan. I’m a Pakistani all the way. I’ll be in Pakistan, I’ll live in Pakistan, certainly. I love this country. I have friends here. I... I certainly believe in friends... my strength is my associations, my friends. I will never go away from Pakistan. Q: And I hope you come for holidays to India. A: If you invite me. (Laughter) Q: Thank you very very much! A: Thank you! It was a pleasure. It was the longest interview I think, but I think there is good reason to give the longest interview to somebody from India. Thank you very much. CONCLUDED. |