Behind General Musharraf, on the wall, hangs a calligraphic masterpiece on leather skin with Surat Rehman inscribed on it -- in which God tells man about all the bounties that he has bestowed upon him and asks him "Which one of these will you deny?" Much as India may like, it too cannot deny the existence of General Pervez Musharraf. However, whether General Musharraf proves to be one of the bounties bestowed by the Almighty on the people of Pakistan, only time will tell.

On the other walls of the room, there are some original Mughal miniatures, a woollen wall-hanging depicting Baloch soldiers with their traditional beards and turbans on horseback, a Chinese water colour showing what look like rhododendron blossoms, and a couple of swords in golden scabbards -- perhaps state gifts from some West Asian countries.

Sitting in the ante-room of Army House -- once occupied by the Commander-in-Chief of the Northern Army Command in British India -- General Musharraf, however, does not for a moment resile from the known Pakistani positions on Kashmir and other related issues.

Even after taking over as the Chief Executive of the country, General Musharraf has not moved into the Prime Minister's official residence, preferring to stay in the Chief of Army Staff's residence in Rawalpindi Cantonment. This also keeps him closer to the GHQ.

His house is flanked on the one side by Golf Road and on the other by Murree Brewery Road which still houses the fully functional Murree Brewery owned by novelist Bapsi Sidhva's brother Minoo Bhandara. Field Marshal Ayub Khan was the first Pakistani occupant of Army House. It was later occupied by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who renamed it "The Presidency". General Zia ul Haq, perhaps fearful of Bhutto's ghost giving him sleepless nights, converted it into a guest house and preferred to live in a much smaller house down the road. General Mirza Aslam Beg stayed here and so did the subsequent Army Chiefs.

My interview had been fixed for 8 PM but I had been told that the General was running late. When he finally arrived, he apologised for having kept me waiting, saying that he had come in late from Islamabad and wanted a wash and change of clothes before meeting me. He then sat down and said that I could go ahead and ask him anything. I began by asking him about his childhood and his memories of partition.

Childhood, Intellectual influences

Question : General, how old were you when the Partition took place? Do you have any memories at all of that time, what was happening around you and how you came to a brand new country?

ANS: I was four years old then -- almost exactly four -- as I was born on 11 Aug 1943. Frankly, I have no memories of that period. I remember that we lived in house that was built on a big plot of land in a sort of hollow square. However, I remember the train journey we took to come here. We were all a bit scared. My father had been given Rs. seven lakhs to carry to Pakistan by the Foreign Office. He was an accountant then. It was kept in an iron box. I remember my father sleeping with his head on the box or sitting on top of it or keeping the
box next to him. Seven lakhs was quite a lot of money in 1947.I remember him guarding that.

Q: You are a unique head of the state in South Asia as you still have relatives across the border. Do they write to you? Are they proud of your achievements and have they tried to establish contact with you?

Ans: Frankly, I am not in touch with them. My parents were in touch with them. In the past they did come here and to that extent I was in touch with them. The last I met one of my uncles -- my father's cousin -- was about ten years back, if not more. After that I haven?t had contact. My parents have gone to India and have been meeting them. But my relatives in India have not tried to establish contact or told me how they feel about me. ... May be they are scared that if they expose themselves, they will be tracked?

Q: You have been a brilliant soldier and may have had many military heroes but now you are emerging as a statesman. People would like to know the political influences on you ? Who are your political heroes?

Ans: That's a difficult question. As far as Pakistan is concerned Quaid-e-Azam. Certainly he is a hero to every Pakistani and to me also. I respect him from the core of my heart not just because he created Pakistan but because I think he was a great human being . Other than him, I haven't given much of a thought to the
question of who my political heroes are.

Q. You spent your childhood in Turkey. Were you influenced at all by Kemal Ataturk?

Ans: He did not influence my thoughts as such but I always respect him for what he did for Turkey. And since I am a soldier I read about him and about his campaigns to create this modern Turkey from the Sick Man of Europe. I am impressed especially by the campaign in Gallipoli where he, along with three hundred thousand Turks, opposed the allies. I respect him for both his military and political achievements in Turkey.

Strategic Restraint Regime

Q:You have proposed a strategic restraint regime with India. What could be its various components? Are you proposing a verifiable ban on missile test flights or a verifiable ban on fissile material production, for example? Can you be more specific on what the strategic restraint regime would consist of?

Ans: This is nothing new that I am proposing. Internationally there are four legs of the elephant as some people call it -- CTBT, FMCT, Non-proliferation and a strategic restraint regime. This basically deals with guarantees against any accidental or irresponsible employment of any nuclear device. In that, it can deal with geographic separation of warheads and delivery systems, non-mating of the systems, etc. These are things that are internationally known. So I was not proposing anything new.

Q: India thinks that strategic restraint regime that you are proposing is premised on keeping India confined to South Asia. Because of its geographical size and the size of its economy, India believes that it is poised for a larger global role. Do you agree with this view? Does this necessarily mean that India is hegemonistic in South Asia?

Ans: Yes, certainly. I have been saying it openly that India shows regional and global aspirations. It certainly wants to become a global military power also. At least as first step India wants to become a regional military power and it does not want anybody to challenge its status. So to this extent whatever India is doing is really contrary to whatever is happening around the world.

Because whatever military power one has -- whether it is conventional or unconventional is based on a threat perception. The Indian case is not based on a threat perception but on its own designs and desires for the future. It is increasing its defence budget by 28 per cent and going into the unconventional field in a very offensive manner. So all these obviously lead to conclusions from this side that they certainly do have hegemonic designs.

Terrorism, Jehad

Q:You have often said that you are a man of peace and against terrorism. Do you think that terrorism has to be fought both at the level of ideology as well as denying it the "instruments of terror" or the "hardware of terrorism" as it were -- the weapons, the land mines, the explosive devices, the communication equipment that the terrorists use, etc.? What can nation states do to fight terrorism at both these levels?

Ans: Well, first of all as far as the meaning of terrorism is concerned, I have been saying that this term has been misused and misrepresented where whatever is happening in Kashmir...

Q. Sir, please do not misunderstand. I am not on Kashmir just now ...

Ans: OK, OK. Whatever may be happening in Afghanistan or whatever mujahideen organisations one might have here, are being termed terrorist. If you are implying that these are terrorist organisations, then they are not. But your question is about dealing with terrorism?

Q:Yes, your Interior minister is on record as saying that there are a large number of unaccounted for weapons circulating in Pakistan. Once this hardware of terrorism crosses international boundaries -- it does not matter in which direction -- and a state is unable to prevent this from happening, then does this not amount to export of terrorism? What is Pakistan doing and what should it do to prevent this from happening?

Ans: First of all as far as the hardware and weapons are concerned, we certainly want to curb the uncontrolled display and holding of weapons. And we are taking action in this direction. But this is easier said than done. To disarm and de-weaponise a region completely is almost next to impossible -- especially, I would like to admit, when our law enforcement agencies are not all that efficient. So trying to achieve total success or total perfection is next to impossible.

On the ideological side, as far as we are concerned, these are internal sectarian differences, which are prompting people to undertake terrorist acts here. There is also a foreign hand in this. Let me openly say that India's RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) is very active in abetting this and further exploiting our ethnic and sectarian differences for creating disturbances and instability in Pakistan. But terrorism, I would say, can be curbed through better education and by preaching tolerance to the people involved in these extremist activities.

Q: You have been quoted as saying that Jehad is not terrorism and that it is actually a tolerant concept. Are you operating with a private language and definition that others do not share and therefore you are liable to be misunderstood?

Ans: Jehad is a very large concept actually. Jehad is a struggle in the path of God, in the path of opposing victimisation against Muslims wherever it exists. Jehad is also what I am doing in this country against illiteracy, against corruption. Jehad can be against backwardness. So Jehad is a very wide concept as such. I understand it in this sense but I do not know how you take it.

Q: What I am saying is that by and large this not how people understand it in the popular sense. I is like saying that mujahideen is good word, which it is not the case in western perception, for example. Similarly, the meaning you might want to convey with the word Jehad is not shared by people in other countries. So you are operating with a private language and if you keep on repeating this you are likely to be misunderstood in your defence of Jehad.

Ans: Well, yes I agree with you. This concept is misunderstood in the West and its larger dimension is ignored. One part of Jehad, which is about coming to the aid of one?s Muslim brethren was revived by the West in Afghanistan when Muslims from all over the world came here to fight the Soviet Union. But then this got
misunderstood. Nobody asked me to define it in its wider context.

Way forward on India-Pakistan issues

Q: Does your government accept the Simla Agreement? If yes, then do you support
the restoration of the Simla Agreement?

Ans: I accept the restoration of all agreements-- whether it is the Simla Agreement or the Lahore process -- as long as it addresses the core issue and does not get involved or does not waste time on peripheral dramatics. And the core issue is Kashmir. As long as we address it, if India says we should revive the Simla Agreement, we will revive Simla and if says we should revive Tashkent, we will revive Tashkent and if it says we should revive the Lahore declaration then we will do that.

Q: The Simla Agreement is premised on two things -- bilateralism and the non-use of force. It also recognises that there is dispute over Kashmir. But what I want to ask you is: what is your view of the concept of non-use of force, you seem to subscribe to the notion in some ways when you say that only a foolish person would want war? But does non-use of force only mean no military engagement to settle any dispute or would you also include the cessation of covert violence by both the parties under the concept of non-use of force?

Ans: Well, non-use of force basically means everything. Yes, it means no open hostilities. And what else were you saying?

Q: I was saying that there is also a covert, a hidden aspect to it also. Do you recognise that also to include it in the concept of non-use of force?

Ans: Basically, non-use of force is the non-use of the overt conventional forces . But of course, no country should not interfere in the internal affairs of others. There was another part of your question?

Q: Bilateralism.

Ans: Yes. I would like to comment on this. This is an area where we certainly do not mind bilateralism at all. But it must lead to results. But India must not use bilateralism as a method of avoiding dialogue. Bilateralism means dialogue -- a two-way dialogue. But if the term is misused to mean a lack of dialogue which it is in this case, then I am not for it. In the Pakistan-India case, when we want to talk about Kashmir, India does not want to talk. It is not sincere. When we try to involve a third party, India tells us that we are violating the principle of bilateralism. So in the context of India and Pakistan, bilateralism has not produced any results. To that extent, then I am against bilateralism because it has not produced any results. Otherwise as a theory, it is perfectly fine. If India wants to talk to us on Kashmir bilaterally-- it is most welcome. But India should not use bilateralism as a method of avoiding dialogue.

Q: There is a belief in India that there is a generation in Pakistan which is obsessed with 1971 -- the break-up of Pakistan into Bangladesh? Is this correct? If so, how can this psychological aspect of the Indo-Pak conflict be overcome? Do you see a time when "revenge" could be substituted by a framework of mutual dependence and co-operation between India and Pakistan?

ANS: I don't think so at all. There is any such generation in Pakistan. I think it is because of India's attitude towards Pakistan-- not only in 1971 but also all along. Our people have forgotten 1971. It is India's unnecessary big bortherly attitude towards everything. India has a domineering kind of attitude, a bullying attitude where it is not treating Pakistan with equality, as a sovereign, independent country and is trying to dominate Pakistan. This is what is creating hatred in the people of Pakistan against India at least against the Indian government, not against the people I would say. But nobody is talking of 1971. Who is talking of 1971. It is this attitude which is creating problems.

Look at the world, In South America, Brazil is a very strong country. Is it bullying every country around it? Look at West Africa, Nigeria is a very big country, is it bullying anyone? If you go to SE Asia, Indonesia used to be the biggest and the most powerful country, is it bullying anyone around? So I don't understand the Indian stance of bullying every country around -- unnecessarily trying to act the Big Brother. If India acts magnanimously, then who doesn't know that India is the biggest country around, who doesn't know that it is a big, powerful country. It should show magnanimity and everyone would get along with India.

Q: This is a rude question, Sir. People in India say, "Why should we trust General Musharraf?" Well, why should they?

Ans: Well, I would counter that by saying: Why should I trust India? However, that would be countering a question with another question. Now as for your question that why should they trust me, I can't really issue a kind of a certificate to myself. I can only say that I am trustworthy (laughs). The only thing I can say is ask anyone who knows me. I always honour my word. I will never say something which I do not mean and when I have given a commitment--written or unwritten-- I will honour it. That is the only thing I can say.

Q. The right thinking people in the two countries would like the relationship to move forward. What could be, say, for want of better term, the Lahore-II process? How would it be any different and go beyond symbolic gestures? Would you be willing to move beyond mere transparency? What would you propose? How would you reconcile the contradictory aims of trying to match India and also saying that you don't want an arms race?

Ans: I will give you the answer to that. We don't want an arms race. We are maintaining a deterrent force level. That itself indicates that we are not in arms race. As long as we hold a force, which in our military thinking is enough to deter aggression against Pakistan, we need not get into a race. What was the first part of the question?

Q: About Lahore-II and how it could be different?

Ans: Yes. I am expecting a very big difference. I do not believe in entering meaningless dialogues on peripheral issues. You can talk a lot of peace and about relationships without meaning anything. This is not going to lead anywhere unless you address the core issue. What I am looking for is to addressing the core issues, substantive issues and confronting them boldly for the sake of peace in the region. I don't believe in the peripheral issues of the Lahore declaration -- other than Kashmir, I call them peripheral issues.

Kashmir

Q. What is your reaction to the J&K Assembly in India passing the autonomy resolution? Will it help or hinder the eventual resolution of the Kashmir issue? Your foreign minister has already rejected it.

Ans: That's because it goes against international norms, the UN declarations, UN resolutions and whatever we stand for and whatever the Kashmiris stand for. We want a resolution of the Kashmir issue in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. And this cannot necessarily be done within the purview of the Indian State.

Q. Pakistan believes that it is not going to be complete without Kashmir. But what do you think of India saying that Kashmir also goes to the heart of Indian nationhood and the multi-ethnic, multi-religious society it seeks to build?

Ans: Kashmir has always been a disputed territory. Why did India convert it into this situation, I would like to ask them? Right from 1947 onwards, Kashmir was a disputed territory, it was a territory whose future was to be decided according to the UN resolutions. What right did India have to take it on itself to absorb it within its State and then start saying that it is central to their secular beliefs or whatever it is. I mean it is a disputed territory, let it remain a disputed territory. And India can remain a secular state -- there are over a 100 million Muslims there. India can remain secular even without Kashmir. This is an excuse that India uses against any kind of international response on Kashmir-- that this will strike against the root of secularism that India preaches.

Q. You have been sending conflicting signals on a dialogue with India -- on occasion you have said that the dialogue would be inclusive of Kashmir and other issues but more recently you have said that any dialogue with India will be on Kashmir alone. What is the real position?

Ans: No, no. I have never said Kashmir alone should be discussed. Never said it. I have certainly said that Kashmir is the core issue and that we must discuss Kashmir and any other issue. But I am against discussing all the other issues and then bringing in Kashmir as an apology into the discussion. So I have never said that I will never discuss anything other than Kashmir.

Q. When you took over as the Army Chief, you said in Karachi on April 13, 1999 to the English Speaking Union that even if Kashmir were resolved, the problem with India would continue because India is hegemonisitc. Is this what you believe in even now? If so, India may wonder what is point of talking to you?

Ans: Well I think the solution to this lies in the Indian attitude. They have to change their attitude towards their neighbours. I have been saying that this region is of 1.2 billion people and there are these other SAARC countries involved which are much smaller than Pakistan also. India should have equal relationship with them -- whether it is dealing with Male, Nepal or Bhutan. We should accept each country as a sovereign country and not dictate terms to them. Now Pakistan would not like to compromise on its sovereignty, on its honour and
dignity. So even if Kashmir gets resolved and the Indian attitude remains unchanged, we would still be in confrontation. If they change their attitude, I will take my words back.

Perceptions about each other

Q. Ideally, what would you like India to be -- geographically and politically? And what would you like the ideal Indian perception of Pakistan to be?

Ans: India should accept the reality of Pakistan.

Q. But that we already do.

Ans. OK. One gets perception here that in some minds the acceptance may not be there. However, if this acceptance is there then also accept that Pakistan is a sovereign country which cannot be bullied and which cannot be dominated unnecessarily. This is what we expect from India.

Q. And ideally, how would you like to view India?

Ans: We understand India. We accept that India is a very big country. To that extent, we accept the real potential of India. And we would like to see India as a country, which is tolerant towards its neighbours and which has a good relationship with us. One would expect India to take all the countries of the region along with it towards the path of rapid economic development, towards removal of poverty and towards the resolution of all the problems that afflict the region. But look at what India is doing. Look at SAARC, what have you achieved in SAARC?

We can't even discuss issues that are creating tensions in the region. We can achieve so much and we have achieved nothing. Who is obstructing SAARC? India can play a major role in moving SAARC forward. As the biggest country in the region, it should take the others along. One would like to go along if India had the correct attitude.

Afghanisatan, Iran

Q. The disturbed parts of Afghanistan affect both Iran and Pakistan directly. You have been holding talks with Iran on Afghanistan. What are the broad contours of your dialogue with Iran on Afghanistan?

Ans: Well, we want peace in Afghanistan first of all and bring in a multi-ethnic government there. Other than that, we also want to deal with the issue of any sanctuaries or training grounds for any people or groups of people who are involved with extremist or terrorist activities.

Q. In Afghanistan?

Ans: Yes, in Afghanistan.

Q. Your cabinet has cleared the proposal for an Iran to India gas pipeline passing overland through Pakistan. Why did the govt of Pakistan cold-shoulder the idea five years ago? What guarantee is there for its security? Would you be willing to have a joint Pakistan-India gas pipeline from Iran because what could be a better security arrangement than that?

Ans: Absolutely. I am surely willing. I cannot understand why the previous government rejected the proposal of an overland gas pipeline from Iran to India going through Pakistan. It is in the economic interests of all the three
countries. We are certainly responsible enough to understand the significance of this and are willing to enter into any arrangement ensuring the security of the gas being provided to India.

Q. Are you also saying that you are for a joint gas pipeline from Iran?

Ans: A joint pipeline that supplies gas to both Pakistan and India? Yes, certainly I am in favour of it. That is what we are working for. The pipeline comes into Pakistan and we use the gas that we want and then it gets extended
into India.

Q. How do you see China's improving relations with India? What implications do better Sino-Indian relations have for the subcontinent?

Ans: We have very long-standing relationship with China based on a deep understanding of each other. It is a very cordial and sincere relationship. So our relationship certainly does not get affected at all with what China does with India. This is a bilateral issue between India and China and I am least bothered by it. I am bothered about my relations with China which, I believe, are on a very strong footing.

Q. What is your view of the ethnic strife in Sri Lanka? What help have the Sri Lankans asked you for and what help are you giving to them?

Ans. We are for the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka and whatever help they seek is a bilateral issue between us.

Domestic issues

Q. On taking over, you were once quoted as saying -- "It is good to be in-charge." Is it still good to be in-charge?

Ans: It is difficult. There is a lot of work to be done. You get no time to yourself. But it is a good feeling that you are doing something for your country. Therefore, I certainly do feel good that I am contributing towards
taking Pakistan forward.

Q. Now let me come to the tricky part of the question. What is the guarantee that you will pave the way for democracy after three years, if you still feel good about being in-charge?

Ans: (Laughs). I will hand over power. This is a Supreme Court decision that has to be honoured.

Q: Why did you first announce and then go back on the procedural change in the registration of a blasphemy offence? When you made the announcement about the changes the liberal intelligentsia of Pakistan supported you. But now that you have withdrawn the changes, they are saying that if you cannot take on entrenched forces today there is no guarantee that you can do so in the future? Have you not lost a constituency among the liberals because of this backtracking?

Ans: Those who say this do not understand what change I had brought about. It had nothing to do with the Blasphemy law that cannot be changed. It is part of the Penal Code. Certainly what I had done was to bring about a small procedural change -- before an FIR is lodged in a police station, the case should be taken
to the district commissioner who should then examine it, prune it and then send it for the FIR.

Then I was given the argument that if people are agitated and there is a delay in the registration of the FIR then the life of the person who is charged with blasphemy may be in danger. Because people get extremely worked up on these issues, they may do anything to the accused. Therefore, I thought, I needed to rescind the decision." Because it was not a serious issue, it was a peripheral issue, I did not have take a rigid stance on it.

Q. It is perceived that General Zia ul Haq had consciously built a right-wing constituency for himself. What is your constituency?

Ans: The people of Pakistan and the military -- they are my base. I am a soldier. I don't need anyone's support. I am not looking for it. Looking for a support base, wanting to build a party or leaning towards a particular section
or group, is a sign of weakness. It means there are people are opposing him and therefore there is a requirement of some kind of support to be generated from a particular group. I don't find any such cause at all. The people of Pakistan support me. Therefore, there is no need for me to bank on any one particular group. The whole of Pakistan is with me.

Q. In Pakistan, army officers are taking over a lot of civilian jobs -- so much so that it is creating the impression that the army does not want to withdraw. People are saying that your corps commanders are the real chief ministers of the four provinces. Is this a correct impression?

Ans: (laughs) No, not at all. I think the army is participating in a lot of civil activities but that is in the interests of Pakistan. Wherever I feel that the organisation and administrative capabilities of the armed forces can be used to
improve an organisation or that it can contribute towards improving the adminsitration of Pakistan, I use the army. To that extent what you are saying is correct. I am using the army and I will continue doing so. The army is acting as the eyes and ears of the government at the Centre and also in the provinces. But to say that the Army has taken over the task of governance itself is not correct.

Q. Do you have any message for the people of India. If you were to address them what would you say to them?

Ans. Well, I would like to say that I am for peace and they have to believe me. We, Pakistan and India, owe it to this region -- which is one of the most backward regions of the world, one of the most economically deprived regions of the world, that we stop hostilities and concentrate on the economic development of this region. And I would also like to say that the perception of me and Pakistan and the Pakistan Army being created by the Indian leaders is not based on facts. They are creating misperception in the minds of the people of India. I would like the Indians to come and see for themselves what Pakistan is and what we stand for.

Q. Are you, therefore, announcing a unilateral easing of the visa regime, General?

Ans. (Laughs). No, no, I am not doing that. But I thought of the Indians who came here -- the Indian women's delegation, Miss Malini Parthasarathy of The Hindu who came to interview me-- I found them to be very nice and I am sure we managed to change their opinions to quite an extent. I thought they came here with pre-conceived ideas about Pakistanis being wild people. They went back quite satisfied I think. From them, I got the impression that there are misperceptions about me and the Pakistani people in India.

Q. The relaxation of the visa regime would be one way of helping change the mindset. If you a 16-yr old in Europe, you can buy a Euro-rail Card, hop on a train and see the neighbourhood. Where can our children go? At least youngsters in Amritsar should be able to buy a cheap ticket and go for a day visit to Lahore, have meal there, see a film perhaps and be back in the evening and vice-versa. Our kids can't go Sri Lanka there is an ethnic conflict going on there. They are trapped. How will they broaden their minds about the region?

Ans. All this is possible. All this is possible. But there is so much suspicion on both sides. And may I add that it is also a fact that if such a thing were to happen a lot of undesirable people would also come in, there may be an increase in bomb blasts and the influence of the intelligence agencies will be there. So this kind of openness can only be productive if there is a reduction in tensions and removal of disputes between the two countries.