Author:
Publication: Dawn, Karachi
Date: June 24, 2002
URL: http://www.dawn.com/2002/06/24/top1.htm
President Gen Pervez Musharraf has
said Islamabad will not accept the Line of Control dividing Kashmir between
Pakistan and India as the international border.
In an interview with the Washington
Post which appeared in Sunday's issue, the president said accepting the
LoC as a border or granting some sort of autonomy to Kashmir would not
solve the problem. "If the Line of Control were the border, what have we
fought two wars for?" he asked.
President Musharraf also said that
Pakistan might boost its military capabilities, citing increases by India
in defence spending. "If they tilt the conventional balance, we shall have
to restore it."
President Musharraf said the United
States was the only country which could persuade India to start a dialogue
as "bilateralism has not worked."
To a question, President Musharraf
said that after October elections he would retain the authority to dismiss
the government if it was found that power was abused.
The following are the excerpts of
the interview:
Q: Did you tell US Deputy Secretary
of State Richard Armitage that you would stop cross-border terrorism and
shut down the training camps that exist in Azad Kashmir and in Pakistan
itself?
A: First of all, I don't call it
cross-border terrorism. There is a freedom struggle going on in Kashmir.
What I said is that there is no movement across the Line of Control. There
was no talk of anything else. I have made clear that a response is required
from the Indian side....
Q: US and Indian officials say that
the number of terrorist infiltrations from Pakistan into Occupied Kashmir
has decreased.
A: I have told President Bush nothing
is happening across the Line of Control. This is the assurance I've given.
I'm not going to give you an assurance that for years nothing will happen.
We must address the root-cause, the cause of Kashmir. If you want a guarantee
of peace, there are three ways: 1) denuclearize South Asia; 2) ensure a
conventional deterrence so that war never takes place in the sub- continent;
3) find a solution to the Kashmir problem.
Q: So you are going to build up
your conventional defences?
A: We should. Our army is deterrence
enough at the moment. But the Indians are increasing their defence budget,
having contracted for billions of dollars of purchases from Russia and
the West. If they tilt the conventional balance, we shall have to restore
it.
Q: How close did you come to a war
with India recently?
A: It was very close. India and
Pakistan both had moved their forces to the border. Therefore, the capability
of adventurism was there. As far as Pakistan was concerned, we said we
would not initiate a war, but if attacked, we will defend offensively.
Q: Do you think that some kind of
autonomy is a solution for Kashmir or accepting the Line of Control as
a border?
A: That is just not possible. If
the Line of Control were the border, what have we fought two wars for?
Q: Is this moment a turning point
for Pakistani-Indian relations or just a pause between crises?
A: This is certainly a turning point
for the good. I have an assurance. I have been told by President Bush and
Deputy Secretary Armitage that, yes, they (Indian officials) need to move
forward on the initiation of a dialogue on Kashmir.
Q: Can Vajpayee be your partner?
A: He had become a partner in Agra
(at their summit last July in India). He invited me and I gave him credit
for it. The recognition of Kashmir as the core issue was very much in the
communique that was drafted by me, Vajpayee, Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant
Singh and my foreign minister, Abdul Sattar.
Q: Vajpayee says that Agra broke
down because you wouldn't recognize the terrorists as terrorists.
A: We had four sessions. We may
have discussed cross-border terrorism for 10 minutes because I said, "Prime
Minister, you don't expect me to accept that what is happening in Kashmir
is terrorism because the Pakistani nation will not accept that." We never
spoke of it again. In the proposed communique... what was bold on the part
of Prime Minister Vajpayee was that he accepted Kashmir as the main issue
that needs to be resolved.
Q: It is said that you made a 180-degree
turn after Sept 11, when you joined the West and dropped the Taliban. Now
it is said that you may do the same in regard to the Jihadis who have operated
in Kashmir with Pakistani backing.
A: Yes, on Afghanistan, we changed
our policy. Before Sept 11, we had no choice but to go along with the Taliban.
They occupied 90 per cent of Afghanistan. Then, the Taliban got involved
in the terrorist act on Sept 11. We saw the environment and thought we
should join the coalition. If you call it 180 degrees, okay. But Kashmir
is our national interest. Pakistan has always given moral, political and
diplomatic support to Kashmiris.
Q: You have another problem - the
fundamentalist groups that have been out of control in your country.
A: There are three kinds of militancy
that we are confronting. One is Afghanistan-related - Al Qaeda. We don't
want a single Al Qaeda member on Pakistani territory....
Q: Vajpayee says you know where
Osama bin Laden is and that the remnants of Al Qaeda are here.
A: That is how they keep maligning
us. If they are hiding somewhere, we are trying to locate them. Pakistan
has arrested over 300 people and handed them over. I cannot say we have
freed Pakistan from Al Qaeda. But Abu Zubaida (an Al Qaeda leader now in
US custody) was caught by us....
The second kind of militancy is
Kashmir-related. The third is internal; domestic extremism, religious fanaticism,
sectarian extremism. I moved against five political groups. Lashkar-i-Taiba
and Jaish-i- Muhammad have been banned, their offices sealed and accounts
frozen. It's not easy to tackle these people, and no government ever dared
touch them... There is a lot of fallout. This cannot be accomplished by
a few orders.
Q: Who's responsible for the attack
on the US consulate in Karachi?
A: One possibility is Al-Qaeda.
The other is that it's RAW-related. RAW does a lot of anti-Pakistan activity
within Pakistan. So many bomb blasts have been taking place. Who is brewing
this? Obviously they are RAW-inspired. They (the Indians) don't like us
getting close to the US.
Q: Aren't the extreme groups a threat
to you and your government?
A: Certainly, I get a lot of threats.
But I'm not scared. I take principled stands whether it is an external
or internal threat. Now, I'm facing both. Obviously, I am stepping on the
toes of a lot of people.
Q: What is your opinion about the
upcoming elections in Kashmir? It is said that Pakistani-backed groups
have killed moderates like the Kashmiri leader Abdul Ghani Lone, who was
assassinated recently.
A: You believe that? Mr Lone was
addressing about 1,000 people. Obviously, there were (Indian) military
men all around.
Q: You are saying that Indians did
this?
A: Obviously. I am 100 per cent
sure. He had given a statement that he was opposed to elections. Pakistan
is against elections; Kashmir is a disputed territory; not a part of India.
Q: In this region, would you like
to see the US try to bring about a settlement?
A: The US is the only country which
can persuade India to initiate a dialogue and move toward a solution of
Kashmir. Bilateralism hasn't worked.
Q: Do you believe that Pakistan's
nuclear option prevented war recently?
A: No, I think it was (our) conventional
deterrence.
Q: It used to be said that ISI was
a rogue entity; now it's said to be under your control.
A: ISI does whatever the government
wants. The problem arises whenever there is a rift between the government
and the army, which happened under the previous (Nawaz Sharif's) government....
I can remove anybody from ISI so I am responsible for whatever ISI does
or does not do.
Q: Do you have any thoughts about
returning this country to a more democratic system?
A: We will have elections in October,
though we have the most democratic system now, a functional democracy.
But Pakistan has never had democracy with elected governments. I am a dictator
all right, because I am not elected. But I think my functioning is most
democratic.
Q: Even after October, you will
still be the most powerful man in the country.
A: No, not after October. My power
is as the chief executive of Pakistan, not as the president of Pakistan.
Power is the power to govern, to take decisions about governing the country
- on economic strategy, on education, on the distribution of the budget.
Now, I make those decisions. After October, that authority will remain
with the president. I am going to shed power to the prime minister. I am
a believer that two people cannot share power. I will be left as the president
and chief of army staff. I will retain the authority to dismiss (the government).
Our experience during the past 10 years was that the government itself
was looting and plundering and misgoverning. That needs to be checked.
Q: But you have the advantage of
the loyalty of the army.
A: Everyone thinks being a military
man means I'm an abuser of power. But I want to bring real democracy to
Pakistan. We have to have elections and get a prime minister. This prime
minister must perform. If he doesn't, I will guide him to a right course.
I became maybe a little emotional and sentimental about many of the things
you asked about but these are the realities. You can't judge actions taken
here in the context of the US. You have to be in my shoes to understand
the difficulties. This is a complicated place. We have four mind-sets to
satisfy; First, what do Pakistanis think of various issues? Second, what
does the US think? Third, what do the Kashmiris think? Fourth, what do
the Indians think? I have to take the country forward in spite of the militancy
to the west, to the east and in the centre. I have to do this balancing
act and it is not an easy job.
