[sacw] The Hindu: Interview with General Musharraf

Harsh Kapoor act@egroups.com
Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:34:34 +0100


FYI
Harsh Kapoor
--------------------

The Hindu
January 17, 2000

The core issue of Kashmir must be addressed: Musharraf
By Malini Parthasarathy

ISLAMABAD, JAN. 16: Arriving at what was formerly the Prime Minister's
official residence and what is now the Chief Executive's office, on a
cold and wintry Saturday morning in Islamabad, one is surprised by the
atmosphere of easy informality in which the meeting with General Pervez
Musharraf takes place. Pakistan's new leader whose three months at the
helm has seen a greater degree of turbulence in the relationship with
India, even as it has brought an abrupt end to 14 years of democracy, is
himself an urbane and affable man. Speaking for about 55 minutes to this
newspaper in an exclusive interview, the first ever to an Indian paper
since he took over in a coup on October 12, last year, General Musharraf
appeared relaxed and willing to be expansive in his answers. He was at
pains to emphasise that he would be forthcoming on his views of
relations with India and of the army takeover in Pakistan and it was
clear that he saw in the newspaper interview an opportunity to present
his and Pakistan's point of view to the Indian people, especially as he
felt his observations had often been misunderstood in India.

Here are excerpts from the conversation:

Malini Parthasarathy: India and Pakistan relations are perhaps at one of
the lowest points ever because of the feeling in India that Pakistan has
supported acts of terrorism such as the hijacking of the Indian Airlines
flight. The Harkat-ul-Mujahideen has a base here. They, the hijackers
have been identified as Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. Kargil is also seen as a
setback to the whole process of rebuilding confidence.... and I know
that in Pakistan, everyone thinks that India is exploiting the hijacking
to bring out its perennial complaints and grievances. So on both sides
there is an atmosphere of recrimination. How do you see the
possibilities of taking the relationship out into a new context?

Gen. Pervez Musharraf: Yes, I totally agree that relations between India
and Pakistan are at their lowest. But may I ask what is the cause? What
is the cause of this relationship, this poor relationship and this
confrontation where we keep accusing each other? The root cause is
Kashmir and I believe in being absolutely straight. I am not a diplomat
obviously. You must face facts squarely. We have been trying all kinds
of confidence building measures. We have been trying all kinds of bus
diplomacy and cricket diplomacy and everything. Why has all of it
failed? It has failed because the core issue was not being addressed,
because the main issue, the main dispute .... what is the dispute
between India and Pakistan? I feel there is one dispute only - the
Kashmir dispute. Others are aberrations, I will call them aberrations,
minor differences of opinion which can be resolved.

After 1998, for the first time in many years, both sides decided to
address Kashmir formally. You had that in 1998, you had it in the Lahore
Declaration. Why is it that after years and years, when Kashmir formally
came on the agenda, you now choose to repudiate that process?

Okay, okay... I will give you an answer to that. I have been a part of
drafting that resolution, the Lahore resolution. I was very much here
(the erstwhile Prime Minister's residence and now the Chief Executive's
office where this interview took place). We used to be sitting here with
the ex-Prime Minister. And may I say the reference to Kashmir in that
Declaration is apologetic. The word Kashmir is mentioned once in the
number of page documents ... where all disputes are to be resolved,
including Kashmir. There is no change between this utterance and the
Shimla Accord where also it says that we will resolve all disputes
bilaterally, through negotiation. All disputes, including Kashmir. So,
there is no change whatsoever. In fact, I even pointed out during the d
rafting that we need to bring out this main issue. The addressing of
this main issue is not there in this Declaration. So, I was told that if
we do that, there will be no Lahore Declaration.

I even insisted that if there is no Lahore Declaration, let it not be
there but the main issue has to be addressed. So, if you read the Lahore
Declaration, Kashmir is there apologetically. Only once. If you see it
more than once, you let me know. So, the issue.... I get back to the
same, my answer, the root cause of everything, Kargil, this hijacking -
it's the Indians who say these are Kashmiris, I don't know. I have no
proof of who these five people are. We haven't seen them, we haven't
spoken to them. We don't know where they are. All these negotiations
went on between the Indians, the hijackers and the Taliban. We don't
know, but we are told they are Kashmiris. So, again, the root cause is
Kashmir. So, from all perspectives, the root cause of everything is
Kashmir.

What is happening on the Line of Control these days? Every day, there is
firing and every day there is killing on both sides of the border. I
know partially what is happening across the border. Lot of people are
dying, they are getting killed, there are civilians getting killed here
also.

No, but, for instance, when you have evidence or rather you are
presented with evidence that there are some leads that these hijackers
may be in Pakistan, is there anything you could do to at least pursue
those leads and apprehend those people... to offer some constructive
cooperation?

They are not in Pakistan. I categorically deny this statement. They are
not in Pakistan. And, if they ever come into Pakistan, they will be
tried under normal law. We do not support hijacking at all. We are
against all forms of terrorism and hijacking is one form of terrorism.
We abhor it. We are against it and we will not let the terrorists come
to Pakistan. If they are in Pakistan, we will surely proceed against
them according to law.

On this hijacking... I won't go into the details of why the plane went
to Amritsar, it landed, why it was allowed to take off. Forget that,
it's for your own people to decide. But one issue was being projected
that we were creating hurdles in everything. Now, the issue of your
Government wanting an aircraft to go to Kandahar... I was asked and
first it was said that it should land at Lahore and then go to... my
first question was why is it landing in Lahore? It doesn't have to land
at Lahore, it can go straightaway to Kandahar. It took 15-20 minutes to
get the answer... they got back... and in about 15-20 minutes or maximum
half an hour, the answer was yes, they want to overfly and go to
Kandahar. I didn't think the second time. I said - let them go. Now when
I saw on the television, I was astounded, that it was said that we
created hurdles. What hurdles? First thing, I said - let them go -. And
we have cooperated in all possible ways to resolve this issue. Yet we
have been maligned and even now the propaganda is going on about the
five hijackers and this and that.

Now, whatever agreement was reached, in whatever form it was reached, it
was done by the Indian negotiating team. We were not part of it. None of
our representatives was at the spot. So it was the Indians, the Taliban
and the hijackers. We don't even know their faces, we have not met them,
we haven't spoken to them. How do we expect... there are five names
which have been given by the Indians. We don't know the veracity or the
truth. We don't know it.

The speculation is that the ISI had a presence in Kandahar and was
monitoring the entire negotiating and activity there...

Everything that happens, unfortunately... something happens in India in
the remotest corner... ISI has done it! I am very glad, I must say I am
very glad that the Indians think that the ISI is such a powerful and
potent organ that they can do anything anywhere.

On the issue of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen ... the Lashkar- e- Taiba...
they are here, they are holding rallies... the freed Masood Azhar came
directly here and he went all over the place...

On the issue of Masood Azhar...he is not a hijacker. He went to India on
valid documents. He was in India. He was not in Kashmir initially. He
has been behind bars without a trial. He was not fighting in Kashmir. He
was mostly in India. The others also were in India with valid documents.
One of them, Omar, I think, was acquitted. Yet, he was kept behind bars.
And when they are released, they are Pakistanis. They went there with
valid documents. They came to Pakistan. So what do you expect? If they
are Indians, a lot of fishermen are caught here and you also do the same
on the other side. When we release them, where do they go? They go back
to their own country. So these three belong to Pakistan. They come back
to their country, so what is the issue? I don't know.

Ibrahim Azhar, brother of Masood Azhar, has been named as one of the
hijackers... is there not a link, an irrefutable link between the people
released and the hijackers?

I don't know whether... so say the Indians that Ibrahim is one of them.
As I said, we haven't spoken to them, we haven't met them, we haven't
seen them. Now whoever is the hijacker, whatever the relationship with
anyone, we are against, this is a form of terrorism. We will not allow
it and he'll be put on trial if he comes to Pakistan.

Then, there is a report today in a newspaper here that the U.S. and the
U.K. have suggested that you ban the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and take
strong action against all these terrorist groups who are supporting the
Kashmir insurgency... is that correct?

Now, we are talking of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and again I would say, we
are told that these hijackers are from Harkat-ul- Mujahideen. We don't
know anything. We have no proof of it. Now, the whole thing revolves
again around Kashmir. It is Kashmir, the indigenous uprising in Kashmir.
If the Indians deny this, well I am sorry they are not being realistic.
It is indigenous. The people of Kashmir have risen and it has its own
dynamics. We are trying our best to deny any involvement from this side
of the border or this side of the Line of Control in whatever is
happening across. However, you can't deny the fact that there are so
many refugees here. I wonder whether you have visited any of the refugee
camps here where there are thousands of Kashmiris from across the border
living with us and a drain on our resources. So all this is happening.
Now, the border is porous. If some of them are going across, we don't
even know. But there is no government backing as such to some form of
movement from this side pushing into Held Kashmir.

So, when you say you are trying your best to prevent infiltration across
the LoC, would you not need CBMs of some sort to ensure that such a
thing is credible and acceptable?

Yes, but there is a reciprocity required. Now what the Indians want, I
am again sorry to say, is not realistic. What about the atrocities
inside Kashmir? What about the killings inside Kashmir? More than 80,000
people have been killed inside. All these atrocities are going on with
600,000 troops in Kashmir. Now, if the Indians are meaning that that
will continue and we should play our part in absolutely ensuring that
there is no infiltration, there is no movement and there is no
diplomatic support, we shouldn't be talking of Kashmir at all. This is
being very unrealistic. So, we will play our part. The Indians must play
their part. And, their part in one issue, if I may say, if we are asking
the Indians let us consider, let us accept that Kashmir is a dispute w
hich needs to be resolved. What am I saying all this time? I am just
saying this that let them accept Kashmir as a dispute and let them
accept that we need to resolve it.

And we should start talking. Now is there anything unrealistic that I am
saying? This is what I am saying.

But now when you have said that only Kashmir first and no other issue
must be discussed, is that not a setback for dialogue?

No, no. I would like to clarify. There was a part of some sections of
the press who have done this. This is absolutely wrong. I have done two
things. Let me absolutely be clear. First of all, previously there was
an apology to reference to Kashmir. I will not make it apologetic. I
want to face facts and I would request the Indians to face facts. We
will discuss Kashmir and all other disputes and not all other disputes
including Kashmir. Because the main issue is Kashmir. Secondly, it is
not a sequential arrangement.

There is no sequence of discussion of issues, Kashmir first and then the
rest?

There ought to be simultaneity. We will discuss Kashmir, we should start
with Kashmir and all other issues simultaneously. I am not saying that
we need to resolve Kashmir, part one, and then stage two is all other
issues. We will go simultaneously.

You mean the emphasis of discussion must be placed on Kashmir rather
than on the other issues...

Yes, because it is the main issue. Can I ask you a question? Can you
deny the fact - we've fought wars on Kashmir, isn't it? So, what is
happening on the Line of Control? What is the dispute? Why this tension
with India? It's because of Kashmir. I want peace in the region. There
must be peace in the region. I have been telling all foreign
correspondents, this is the only region, the South Asian region is the
only region which is not cooperating to bring about economic development
for the welfare of the people of this region which is the poorest region
in the world.

No, but why not encourage on both sides, regardless of the political
aspect, and perhaps keeping this in mind, is it not a good idea to
create an atmosphere for people to people contact. Why hold it hostage
every time to whether Kashmir is resolved substantively or not?
Supposing we did have business contact, we have cultural and social
contact, doesn't it help to make it more obvious to people on both sides
what the nuances are?

I would like to differ on that. We feel, and I certainly feel, that this
is one of the ways of distracting or sidelining the main issue and that
is Kashmir. Because of the mutual suspicion, we don't think that this
goes on. We feel that we always start with cultural and economic
development and then Kashmir gets sidelined. Why not do it
simultaneously? And what am I saying? I am not saying that we need to
immediately resolve Kashmir. I am saying that we need to start a
dialogue on Kashmir, we need to accept Kashmir as a problem and start a
dialogue and simultaneously let us discuss everything else. Everything
else. I am open to discussion on every other thing. What is the problem?

Including the LoC being made an international boundary?

No, now, you are leading to a solution of the Kashmir problem. There are
many ways of solving Kashmir. Let's start the discussion first.

And you don't feel in the meantime because of what has happened in the
last few months - Kargil - isn't it important to have some temporary
confidence building measures of a physical kind? I am not suggesting
political ones, physical kinds. Is it possible to have some specific
measures of the military kind agreed to particularly because of the
nuclear status of both countries...?

Well, again these confidence building measures, as I have said, start
looking like a farce because we on one side we try to develop confidence
building measures, we try to openhotlines and there is a hotline contact
between DGMOs.... I have been a DGMO, I have been talking to my
counterpart but these really are cosmetic, they hardly serve any
purpose. I have been talking to my counterpart every Wednesday and all
that used to happen was we used to blame them... okay your aircraft has
done this and come across this way, you fired this way. The reply used
to be, I will check up and when he checked up, he said no, this did not
happen. It was always like this. Hardly ever did it serve a useful
purpose of addressing issues which came to some conclusion other than
maybe there is a dead body they want to pick up and all that. Then we
used to allow. Okay, that served some purpose. So, confidence building
measures without addressing the root cause is just like plucking a leaf
from a tree. You go to the root or otherwise it is not going to serve a
purpose.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but popular perception hitherto is that
when the political leadership was in command here in Pakistan, that the
Army was still always in the background and would drag its feet over any
moves for reconciliation with India... it was felt that no movement
forward would be possible and the Army would put the brakes on any kind
of political reconciliation. Now that the Army is directly in charge, do
you think that it clears the way for a more head-on resolution of
differences between the two countries?

Yes, absolutely. Even on the other side, on the Indian side, when the
intelligentsia talks of who could address the Kashmir problem one always
thought that it was the BJP - that's what the intelligentsia thought -
although the BJP are the hardliners. One always thought here that maybe
Congress would not be able to address the Kashmir issue, BJP can. So
also on this side. First of all, it's absolutely wrong that we were in
any way creating obstacles. There were press reports that the military
refused to meet Mr. Vajpayee when he came here. Nothing could have been
farther from the truth. I very much met him and I never created any
hurdle at all. The issue was that when he came on bus to Wagah, we knew
that there will be thousands of people all... and we there standing in
uniform, we generally try to avoid coming into public places where there
is a crowd gathered of thousands of people. So we decided that instead
of receiving him there, you do your politicking at Wagah, we will
receive Mr. Vajpayee when he comes in the helicopter to the Governor
House. All politicking was done there, all statements. Then he came by
helicopter to Governor House. All three of us received him and we sat
with him for about 45 minutes. And I spoke to him. In the Governor
House, Punjab drawing room, we sat with him and we had cold drink and we
had tea together. I was there. The Air Chief was there, the Naval Chief
was there. We were the first to receive him when he came out of the
helicopter. So, this is all wrong projection and I would like to give to
the Indian media a saying in the military that the best form of defence
is to go on the offensive - please don't do that. This has been
happening all through. Whether it is the hijacking case or bus diplomacy
or anything else. You have a strong media, there is no doubt about it
but that doesn't mean that you misuse that media to project wrong. Now
this was wrong. We received him and it was all flashed that we refused
and that the military was against the Government. We didn't have any
discussion on the subject. We discussed here, in this house with the
ex-PM, that what are the modalities. At the same time, the Chinese
Defence Minister was coming here, at exactly the same time. So we
decided we must meet the Indian Prime Minister, I said yes, we must. I
never said we should not. We worked out this modality, okay, how to
receive and then from there I went from here, we received him and we
flew back because there was a dinner there and there was a dinner here
and both had come for one day.

And, the Lahore process was definitely with your full cognisance and
approval? The whole Lahore Declaration, except what you said about
Kashmir? (Nawaz) Sharif would not have really proceeded with the whole
thing without having a prior discussion with you?

Well, no, he could have. But he used to take me into confidence and I
did know there's a Declaration but I did object to it - the lack of
emphasis on Kashmir but then it is the Government which is responsible
and they signed the Declaration. Whenever a leader decides something, he
was the leader, he was the Prime Minister of Pakistan. I give my
objection but then it's his responsibility.

Basically, it was his own political decision, the whole Lahore process?

Yes, yes.

Kargil, on the other hand, has been blamed on you. But you've said
earlier that he (Nawaz Sharif) was also involved in it...

Absolutely, absolutely. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have
said once that everyone was on board. Now, I still stand by it. Everyone
was on board. Whatever was happening in Kargil, everyone knew what is
happening, absolutely.

When he (Nawaz Sharif) went to Washington and met Clinton on July 4, and
the statement followed calling for steps towards deescalation on the
LoC... were you kept in the know of that earlier or did you come to know
of it only afterwards when they said ``withdraw the troops''?

Well, there was a discussion on the options available to defuse the
Kargil situation. But there was no decision as such to... the modalities
to be followed towards disengagement. However, when you say withdrawal
of troops, there were no troops across the Line of Control - it was the
Mujahideen. And it was clear that maybe we'll be able to use our
influence to persuade the Mujahideen to give up the confrontation. But
the ultimate decision of what he (Sharif) did at Washington is totally
his own.

Again, coming back to the report in today's paper... have the U.S. and
the United Kingdom suggested to Pakistan the specific action to ban
these groups, including the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen? Have you received any
suggestions during the visit of these U.S. Senators?

No, we did discuss the issue of terrorism. We are absolutely, totally,
against terrorism of any form, export of terrorism or using religion for
the purpose of terrorism - we are against it absolutely. But there was
no reference as such to ban Harkat-ul- Mujahideen or to ban any other
group as such. But wherever... if any group is involved in terrorism, I
accept that this will not be allowed from the soil of Pakistan.

The fact that so many high level visitors are coming, including U.S.
Senators and from Britain and so on... do you think that means that
there is now greater international legitimacy or acceptability for the
Army takeover since October 12?

I feel there is. And I, right from the beginning, I feel that other than
a few misgivings in the initial stages by the Commonwealth and the
European Union, there is great deal of understanding now on the reality
of the situation existing in Pakistan, the environment that is existing.
And I have really been projecting the one fact... that first of all,
this was not a coup. It was a counter-coup. Because the coup was by the
ex-PM himself. Nothing was initiated by the military at all. So, now
whether the issue of good and bad coup - obviously, one has to see the
environment, what the people of the area want. So, accordingly, whatever
has happened, the decision on whether this is legitimate or not
legitimate depends on the interests of the people. What do the people on
the ground want? If the people want this, the world should be happy. So,
therefore, they have come to realise, I think - the United States,
European countries, West, almost everyone in the world - they are coming
around, they have understood our compulsions. They realise the
popularity of this Government and they realise that there is total
support and the sentiments of the people are with this Government, with
my Government, with me. Anyone who comes here goes convinced. So,
therefore I would request now that Indians, in the interests of peace
again, if they keep harping on what I said and did at Kargil and this
hijacking and that, you are not going to progress. If they carry on
thinking that this Government is not legitimate when the whole of
Pakistan, 130 million people are with us, I don't know what to say. We
won't progress anwhere. So, therefore, the reality of the situation must
be understood. And this diplomacy that is being carried on - your
Foreign Minister is in the United Kingdom to maybe undercut this
Government or to malign this Government, to try to get it declared as a
terrorist state and not accepting the reality - if they want to continue
like this, the same situation will continue. Tension will continue. And
I may also add that I am not one of those that when you keep receiving
all this kind of flak from across the border, I keep sitting and I turn
my other cheek.

You are saying that you will not take flak from across the border?

We need to sit. I am for peace. There is no doubt. I want to have peace
in this region. I want this region to develop economically. Now, I have
said this hundred times, everywhere. I can give a certificate in writing
and sign the paper. But they have to take me on face value. They have to
trust me and that whatever I am saying I mean, and they have to come
along. And, that is all that I can say.

About returning Pakistan to democracy, you yourself suggested that the
Army takeover was for a limited period and then you spoke of holding a
referendum. What is the plan now? Are you going to hold a referendum to
ascertain popular sentiment? You are now speaking of local body
elections, would that not take the focus away from parliamentary party
democracy?

Well, first of all, we did think of referendum but we decided against
it. But we have not given it up totally. Maybe in the future, if the
environment so demands, we will go for a referendum.

Why did you decide against it?

We thought we shouldn't be distracted from the main issue. It would have
been a total distraction, it would have involved a lot of expenditure -
about one month of preparation and distraction from main issues that are
facing the Government. So, we thought, head-on we should face the
problem and try to resolve our problems and bring this country out of
the problems that it is facing currently. And we did that. As far as a
return to democracy is concerned, I keep saying there is nothing like
returning to democracy. There was no democracy here. We will bring
democracy and this will take some time. The time-frame cannot be given.
It's not possible because before doing that, before returning to civil
rule, may I say, there are certain prerequisites. We have to stabilise
economically and we have to move forward economically and we have to
improve our governance here and these are the two major issues which
we'd like to address. And, then simultaneously we'd like to examine what
kind of a political structure best suits the interests of the people of
Pakistan. And we will return to civil rule with some modifications in
the interests of the people of Pakistan and Pakistan. In the interests
of better democracy, in the interests of better representation of the
people, for the benefit of Pakistan.

But this would suggest, as you have said also in some earlier
interviews, that the Army would have a permanent role in a sense in
Pakistani politics. Isn't that kind of an anachronism in the 21st
century because democracy normally means civil society, political
institutions? If the Army takes a major role, it reduces the space
available for other institutions. So, does it not mean a contradiction?

Well, every institution, every system functions in an environment. And
all environments are different. Let me say that. You cannot impose
Indian environment on Pakistan. So also we can't impose Pakistan
environment on India. You cannot impose Britain's environment on
Pakistan. You cannot also impose a South-East Asian country's
environment... we have our own dynamics and our own environment. Here
the military has always played a role. It has not been so in India. But
here it has been. The country here, the people look up to the military
whenever the country is in trouble. We get involved in nation building
activities unlike in your country. So, the Army and the military - Air
Force and Navy - have a definite role to play in everything.

Also, you may have seen, now whenever there has been a Constitutional
problem with the Government in the past 10 years, who has resolved the
problems? Always the military played a role. Now, I don't believe in
hypocrisy - whereas the military is playing a role, you still say no, no
military is not playing a role, you are doing everything yourself.

Let us face facts. It's high time. I don't believe in this kind of
double talk. There is something that the military does. Everyone must
accept that this is what happens actually. Why are you shy of it, why
are we hiding that? So, having said that, I am not meaning at all that
I'll take a unilateral decision of making sure that the military has a
role in the politics of Pakistan. It is for the people of Pakistan to
decide whether the military should have a role, in not the politics, but
in stabilising or bringing about structural stability into the politics
of Pakistan. If the people want it, it will be done. And, it will be
done through deliberate research, deliberate study, analysis and then it
will be done, if at all required. I won't take any unilateral action, as
such.

If Nawaz Sharif gets the death penalty, do you see yourself implementing
that?

I can't answer that (on Nawaz Sharif). Let the courts decide first. And
then when I am faced with the issue... then I will deliberate on it when
the time comes. I don't want to rack my mind over this issue now. But I
am not a very vindictive man as I have been saying earlier. But one
needs to see the judgment first and then take a decision. Take a very
deliberate decision. It's a very important issue.

Is President Clinton visiting Pakistan? There has been an implied
linkage to the announcement of some timetable for the return to
democracy...

No, we had the Senators here. They are not giving any linkages as such.
They are not asking for certain linkages of certain actions to be taken
by us before the President comes here. But if he comes here, to this
region I am saying, I would like to ask what is the President coming
for. First of all, let us be clear on what is he coming for.

Now, if the President (Mr. Clinton) is coming for bringing stability to
the region, coming for rapprochement between India and Pakistan or
bringing peace to this region or addressing the main issue, sorry to be
referring to Kashmir again and again because unfortunately that is the
issue so therefore I have to... so, if he is coming to contribute
towards lessening of tensions, the removal of tensions, then I really
don't see how that this objective can be achieved without going to both
India and Pakistan. If he is just coming for some economic cooperation
or anything else, then that is a different issue altogether. So, the aim
and objective of the President's visit has to be clear and that is where
Pakistan fits in. But we would certainly like him to come to Pakistan.
It is his decision ultimately. But we will be glad if he comes to
Pakistan.

Is there any possibility of India and Pakistan working together in the
global arena on disarmament issues like CTBT... one common basis can be
guarding the sovereignty of national decision-making and choice on
nuclear weapons... In that context it might be good to have a bilateral
discussion on nuclear CBMs and I bear in mind what you said earlier
about the root cause and so on. But apart from that, there is this
aspect, the nuclear aspect on which some kind of common ground can be
shaped...

It's not possible. You see, it becomes very unrealistic. I don't know...
when there is anger in our hearts, how do we smile and be happy and we
are meeting and it doesn't go well with the public. It doesn't go well
at all. That's being artificial. It's just not being realistic.
Therefore, everything is possible but the addressing of the root cause
has to start.

In relation to this... supposing India, as you said, begins to address
the issue, you would need a framework and there again you have the
problem... you are not comfortable with Shimla and Lahore, India is not
comfortable with the insistence on the U.N. resolutions... So, then
again there is a gap. What is the framework in which you embark on
addressing the issues?

No, I am not really against bilateralism or talking with India on a
bilateral basis. I'm certainly not against it. That is a good way of
addressing if the two sides - the two belligerents - are realistic; it
shows maturity that both sides resolve their disputes themselves. But my
problem is that since 1972 when the Shimla Accord (was signed), all
issues were to be addressed, including Kashmir, bilaterally, now have we
done it? No, we haven't done it. So, bilateralism has failed. Who has
failed it? Who has failed bilateralism? Has Pakistan? Or has India? I
would like to leave that question... you answer it yourself. I am not
going to say it. Whenever we have tried, okay, let's come to the talking
table and let's discuss, that has always been rejected. So, let's leave
this topic out. Let's come to terms. Okay, we start bilaterally. Okay,
today, I'm saying let's start bilaterally. Let's address all issues.
Let's address Kashmir and all issues, I'll come. I'm forthcoming. I will
agree on talks. So what more do they want? So, let's face facts and
let's adhere to the Shimla Accord. We will discuss Kashmir and all other
issues. Shimla, Lahore Declaration... I am not against the essence of
all these declarations because the basis is to bring about peace and
address all issues including Kashmir. The only thing I am saying is
let's not please sideline Kashmir because that is the only dispute. That
is the only dispute, in fact. The rest can be resolved. So, we will
address everything we can address bilaterally which is a mature way of
doing it. I am forthcoming.