[sacw] sacw dispatch #3 | 6 July 00

[aiindex@mnet.fr]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch #3
6 July 2000

[The first part of the below interview was posted in the sacw dispatch #2
(July 6, 2000]
________________

The Hindustan Times
6 July

THE PERVEZ MUSHARRAF INTERVIEW [Part II]

by Bharat Bhushan

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.

______________________________________________
SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WEB DISPATCH (SACW) is an
informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service
run by South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex)
since 1996. Dispatch archive from 1998 can be accessed
by joining the ACT list run by SACW. To subscribe send
a message to <act-subscribe@egroups.com>
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL