[[The Pakistan President has been on a spree of interviews as is his wont, and the crux of them seem tobe to put a new spin in an attempt to do some deft damage-control regarding the widely reported"promises" made by him to the US Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who apparently had read theriot act to him.
With the Indian government tying itself in knots over pettily harassing Alex Perry of Time, in themanner better suited to a sarkari clerk, the good General across the border is full of bluster and bravadoonce again: No, he did not make any such promise. How could he? He doesn't call it cross-border terrorism, tostart with, it's a 'freedom fight' and there wasn't any movement across the Line of Control anyway. Andso on and such like was the burden of the General's sudden burst of interviews to various media groups aroundthe world.
Advertisement
That could be explained away as his problem vis-a-vis his domestic constituency, and the US embassy inNew Delhi was quick to repudiate such claims, but what was most brazen was the blame on RAW to have beenbehind the Karachi attack. Pakistan Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider had said yesterday that the groupsbehind the attack near the US consulate had been identified, but he had withheld the names of the outfits.Perhaps because the good General's interview in Washington Post/Newsweek had just been published.
But as the Pakistani daily "The News" quoting police officials saidtoday, the culprits have been identified as Sepha-e-Sehbha (SSP) and its armed wing Lashkar-e-Jhanghvi.
Advertisement
"Both SSP and LJ were involved in the recent chain of terrorist attacks,including the firing at Lahore International Airport, carnage of Christians at a Bahawalpur Church, bombing atChurch in Islamabad, and bloody attacks on French Naval officers and US Consulate in Karachi".
With this update, it is fascinating to read the interviews that have hogged theheadlines recently -- outlookindia.com]]
On whether he believed the promise by Musharraf conveyed by Richard Armitage to stop theinfiltration andwhether Pakistan has made a fundamental change: There has been no change in Pakistan's policy so far as cross-border infiltration is concerned. Every day weare getting reports that infiltration continues unabated.
On whether the promise included getting rid of the training camps in PoK and Pakistan both: Yes, in both areas. That was the promise. There are 50 to 70 terrorist training camps in Pakistan-occupiedKashmir and in Pakistan.
On whether Musharraf is trustworthy: [He laughs.] We are prepared to deal with him as he is, but we are cautious this time. Our past experience isnot very encouraging.
On whether Pakistan and India have turned the corner, or is this just a pause between crises: If Pakistan implements the assurances given to us, a new beginning can be made.
On what moves India would make in response if Musharraf fulfills his promises: We will start a dialogue. India will be ready to have talks with Pakistan on all issues, including Jammu andKashmir [India's name for the disputed state].
Advertisement
On whether he would meet with Musharraf: If his promises are implemented.
On when will the troops be pulled back from the Line of Control: It will take some time. Let us see what happens on the ground.
On whether there will be no immediate pullback: It depends on Pakistan. We will wait and watch.
On how close Pakistan and India were to war: It was a touch-and-go affair.
On whether it was that close: I did not rule out the possibility of war. Until the last minute, we were hoping that wiser counsels wouldprevail and there would be no confrontation.
Advertisement
On whether the the Pakistanis promise to do everything he wanted: Not everything. They did not promise to behave as a friendly neighbor. We sought that promise.
On how he views the upcoming elections in Kashmir? Will they be free and fair and about outside observers: The elections will be held under the supervision of the central election commission. And we have made acommitment that the elections will be free and fair.
On whether it isn't hard to have free and fair elections in the background of the killing of Abdul GhaniLone by Pakistan-backed terrorists: Pakistan is not interested in having elections. It is Pakistan's responsibility to stop terrorists fromdisturbing the elections. We have an elected government in Jammu and Kashmir. Voters should be given a choicewhether they want the same government to continue or whether they want a change.
Advertisement
On past rigging of elections and India's responsibility to ensure free and fair elections: This time elections will be free and fair. International opinion is strongly in favor of such an election.Journalists are allowed to go to Kashmir.
On his plan for Kashmir: I will disclose the plan at the right moment. It's not only political but includes economic development.
On whether autonomy is the long-term solution for Kashmir: We are for the devolution of power. We have asked our friend Farooq Abdullah [chief minister of Jammu andKashmir] what stands in his way of developing the state and ensuring the welfare of the people. If there areany constitutional limitations, tell us and we will remove them. So far, he has not come forward with anyconcrete proposals.
Advertisement
On whether 911 changed things in this region and whether there is more understanding of India's problemsand a stronger India-U.S. relationship: After the 11th, there was international recognition that the problem of terrorism was not confined toAfghanistan. India has been fighting terrorism for two decades. There was a recognition that terrorism is aworldwide menace and must be tackled.
On the role played by the Chinese to calm down the recent crisis, given that they have always been a friendof Pakistan: The Chinese did not play an important role but advised both countries to settle all issues in a peacefulmanner. There has been no basic change in China's policy. China continues to help Pakistan acquire weapons andequipment.
Advertisement
On whether the U.S. made a mistake in making Pakistan a partner in the war against terror: No, it was the right policy. Pakistan should be pressured to fight terror not only in Afghanistan but insidePakistan itself. Terrorism is terrorism whether in the East or in the West.
On where al Qaeda is: They may be in Pakistan.
On whether he thinks Osama bin Laden is alive: Yes.
On whether he thinks the Pakistanis know where he is: Of course.
On whether Pakistanis know where he and his key lieutenants are: Not every movement, but broadly speaking, they know where al Qaeda and [the] Taliban are.
Advertisement
On whether there are elements of al Qaeda operating in PoK: The terrorist organizations operating in Kashmir are closely linked to al Qaeda and other jihadiorganizations directly supported by Pakistan.
On whether meeting with President Musharraf would help: There has to be a basis for talks. I went to Lahore [in 1999, to meet Musharraf] and after that, there wasaggression in Kargil. [Last summer], I invited Musharraf to a summit in Agra. It was a failure becauseMusharraf refused to recognize that there was terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. On the contrary, he insisted itwas a freedom fight.
On whether the relations between the two countries gradually improve if Musharraf gives up cross-borderterrorism and dismantles the camps: Yes.
Advertisement
On whether he would like that to happen while he's the PM: I would like to do it tomorrow.
On whether Musharraf is strong enough to tackle the extremists: He is strong enough. Infiltration cannot take place without the cooperation of the [Pakistani] army becausethe army is stationed on the border. And there cannot be any training camps without the permission of thegovernment of Pakistan. Without the government's connivance, these terrorism activities cannot be carried onfor long.
On whether Musharraf is like [Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat, who says, "I would like to do thisbut I am not strong enough": Musharraf doesn't say that [and] we don't buy that argument. There have been military dictators in Pakistanbefore. Every time, the West defends them by saying that the alternative will be even worse -- so don'tdisturb things in Pakistan.
Advertisement
On what the US role should be: That of a facilitator.
On the death of bilateralism and whether the U.S. has emerged as a third party: No. That's why I said a facilitator, not a mediator.
(Courtesy, WashingtonPost.com on Sunday,June 23, 2002)
