Author:
Publication: Rediff.com
Date: July 27, 2006
URL: http://www.rediff.com//news/2006/jul/27inter.htm
Lieutenant General Muhammad Nasir Akhtar (retd)
served in the Pakistan army for 36 years and took part in two wars against
India.
He was corps commandant, Karachi, before he
was assigned a senior post at army headquarters in Rawalpindi. After retirement
he settled in Lahore to run a business and tour the seminar circuit, one of
which brought him to India as part of a delegation of retired military officers
led by Zafar Chaudhry, former air chief marshal, Pakistan Air Force.
While upbeat about the peace process in an
interview to Managing Editor (National Affairs) Sheela Bhatt, General Akhtar
proudly proclaims that the Pakistan army is a Muslim army fighting for jihad.
Q.: How many wars you have fought?
A.: I have fought two wars against India. In 1965 I was in the Rann of Kutch
and then in the Chhamb area in Kashmir. In the 1971 war against India I was
posted in Sialkot.
Q.: How seriously do you take the peace process?
A.: I am very positive. I feel both leaders are committed to peace. I am very,
very positive. Peace will be established in the subcontinent. I believe the
engagement of the two leaders must continue whatever be the case.
Q.: For 36 years of your life India was the
enemy for you.
A.: For a serving Pakistani soldier India is the enemy. And he is trained
for it. But once we retire from service we have our own perceptions about
things and events. We have to see the realities of life. It is not an immediate
turnaround for us. Reality demands that peace must return to the subcontinent.
We must eliminate poverty.
The war is not between India and Pakistan
but against poverty. Between India and Pakistan the war is about Kashmir.
It is a core issue which must be resolved. In our case everything that moves
from head to foot is Kashmir.
For you Kashmir is not important because you
are a large country but to us it is very, very important. It is the only issue.
Q.: How is your delegation different from
other peace delegations?
A.: It is very important because the senior army officers who are visiting
India have served in high posts. They interact almost on a daily basis with
the corridors of power. When you have seen things physically you are in a
position to comprehend better at the higher level. Once we go back we can
talk about India with authority.
We know war cannot bring results, only dialogue
will.
Q.: What do you expect from India?
A.: There should be flexibility when we talk. (Pakistan President) General
Musharraf wants to change the mindset on both sides. He has proposed a seven
point plan. Let us debate it.
Q.: India has said there will not be any redrawing
of maps.
A.: The LoC (Line of Control) is not acceptable to us. You can't fix a line
that redrawing is not possible. Discuss it and then come to a conclusion.
Give us a space to discuss. Development is moving both of us towards peace.
(Then prime minister Atal Bihari) Vajpayee
has said often that a strong and stable Pakistan is in India's interest. We
appreciate that.
Once the Kashmir solution is found Pakistan
will be much better equipped to fight poverty. If this problem continues we
will not have enough funds to spare for development projects.
General Musharraf is courageously moving forward
even after four attacks on his life. He is pushing on with the peace process.
Terrorism and extremism can be contained only if you resolve the Kashmir issue.
Q.: Many Pakistanis have found on their first
visit to Kashmir that the Kashmiris are not keen to join Pakistan either.
A.: Then, the answer is a plebiscite.
Q.: The Pakistan army is considered hawkish
and is believed to be highly Islamised.
A.: All armies are hawkish, otherwise we can't survive.
When you talk of the Islamisation of the Pakistan
army you must realise that we are Muslims. Right? We have lived with Indians
before. A large section migrated to Pakistan from India. Now all of us are
religious Muslims, but we are not fundamentalists.
We are practicing Muslims. Our army is the
most modern army. But we are Muslims and our religion says to fight for jihad.
All over the world the armies fight with religion
in their minds. Christians do. Yes, we are a Muslim army. There is no denying
that fact. It has always been Islamised.
All armies have religion on their minds. When
an Indian Muslim soldier fights against us he too has his motherland and his
religion on his mind as an Iraqi would have when fighting against a Kuwaiti.
When Pakistanis fight they fight for Pakistan and also for Islam.
Our religion says to fight for jihad.
Q.: When you accept that you are fighting
for religion, you are targeting Hindus. There is a kind of malice.
A.: Why do you say that? Haven't Muslims ruled the subcontinent for 800 years?
Haven't Hindus and Muslims lived together? Haven't you fought the First War
of Independence against the British in 1857? You are always fighting for a
cause.
Jihad is one of the important factors when
you fight. It is a greater motivation.
Q.: What are the differences between the Indian
and Pakistani armies?
A.: The Indian Army is very professional and hardworking. Basically, the Indian
Army is predominantly a Hindu army and the Pakistan army is a Muslim army.
The fundamental difference is in the religious approach.
Q.: During the wars with Pakistan, the Indian
Army was fighting for the nation, not for a religion.
A.: Pakistanis also fight for the motherland. It is not a religious war between
us. It is a war for Kashmir. But when you are fighting, religion does play
a predominant role. You have to motivate the troops. And the troops can only
be motivated through religion.
You should realise that Pakistan is an ideological
State. In an ideological State religion has to play a very predominant role.
But not that you take religion to the extent of extremism and your own leadership
gets threatened.Exactly that has happened in Pakistan.
Religious extremism is because of the Russian
invasion of Afghanistan. Jihad got rooted there when outside forces supported
the jihad against the Russian invasion. Today we are on the side of the Americans
and fighting terrorism. We don't support the Taliban or religious extremism.
Q.: Why did you attack Kargil in 1999?
A.: Our idea was to merely cut off the supply line from Srinagar. Kargil was
done to pressure India to resolve the Kashmir issue. We wanted to start a
process of dialogue. Kargil was attacked to put pressure on India on the Siachen
glacier issue. Kargil was attacked by the mujahideen.
Q.: Why was the Kargil attack not successful
for Pakistan?
A.: Kargil was successful because India started talking on Kashmir!
At that time the world intervened between
us. They feared we might use nuclear power. Eleven times the nuclear threat
came up from both sides during the Kargil war. Both sides officially exchanged
nuclear threats.
We have to behave responsibly when the nuclear
threat comes up. We agreed to a ceasefire because of nuclear threats.
Q.: How different is the Pakistan army of
this generation when compared with your generation?
A.: Every day the Pakistan army is getting better and getting better training.
The F-16s will improve our defensive capabilities. But you (India) are getting
weapons from all over the world and amassing arms which is worrying all of
us.
Q.: What are the grey areas in the peace process?
A.: The grey area is the willpower of leaders of both countries. Both should
have a strong will to resolve issues. You should not reject any ideas before
discussing it the way you rejected General Musharraf's seven point agenda.
We should talk about everything including territory, ideology and autonomy.
Q.: What is your minimum demand for peace?
A.: Pakistan wants to sign on anything which is agreeable to the people of
Pakistan, India and Kashmir.
India must not set the agenda alone. Don't
drag the issues in one direction. We have already said that the Line of Control
in this form is not acceptable to Pakistan. We are ready for any other solution
or option.
Q.: As an army officer how do you react to
the presence of American soldiers in Pakistan?
A.: We have no American soldiers on our land. Our army is carrying out operations
against militants. US soldiers are not in Pakistan but are present on the
Afghan side.
Q.: But you did give the Americans a base.
A.: Yes, we gave them a base and gave them facilities. But they are vacating
it as the Afghanistan situation is stabilising.
Q.: What was the Pakistan army's thinking
on sending its soldiers to Iraq?
A.: I was for it. I believed Indian and Pakistani soldiers must support the
American effort and stabilise the situation in Iraq. That was a long time
back. Now the situation has worsened. It is just not possible now to send
Pakistani troops.
Pakistanis troops have been in Iraq before.
In the First World War Indian and Pakistani soldiers fought together against
the Ottoman empire.
Q.: Pakistani soldiers during the First World
War!
A.: We were part of the Indian troops then because there was no Pakistan at
that time.
I say so because when we talk of history or
define it we have to talk about the Pakistani troops in the Indian army who
came from Punjab, Sindh, the North West Frontier Province and Balochistan.
They fared well. But now the situation is very bad.
Iraq had a troubled history. I will not be
surprised if Iraq is spilt into three small principalities. Basra for the
Shias, the Baghdad triangle for the Sunnis and Kurdistan for the Kurds.
