The Hindu Business Line : `What has happened, I hope, is real and sustainable' — Lt. Gen. Moinuddin Haider, former Federal Minister for Interior

The Pakistani army has always shown signs that it wants peace with India and the same holds true now, says Lt. Gen. Moinuddin Haider, who was the Federal Minister for Interior in Gen Pervez Musharraf's Cabinet. In an interview to Business Line in Karachi, where he lives now, he discussed extremism in Pakistan, the reasons behind the attempts on the President's life, and his resolve to strengthen institutions in the country.

Excerpts from the interview:

Do you think anything has changed this time around to give hope that the peace process will not collapse as in the past?

It was very unfortunate that what the leadership in both the countries had achieved in the last 50 years, by one stroke of the pen, all the communication links, rail, air and road links, visas and everything else... was cut off. That was very sad...

It was, but then all that happened after the attack on Parliament...

I don't know who carried out that attack. I was then the Interior Minister but I am not convinced who those people were...

We said they were Pakistanis...

Maybe there is a mad Pakistani group; it cannot be ruled out. But there was no definite proof, because their names or pictures were not provided. We do not know who those people were and why they did such a thing.

There are many groups in Pakistan which are blamed for doing things in India but their action has never ever benefited Pakistan. On the contrary, it has always given Pakistan a bad name, like Daniel Pearl's murder.

But how are you controlling them?

I was Interior Minister and to control extremism, we had acted much before 9/11. After that, of course our policy and American policy synchronised to some extent. But even before that we had taken tough measures — banned militant parties, taken off their banners and declared six of them illegal.

The anti-terrorist law was passed on August 14, 2001, a few weeks before 9/11. This shows we consider extremism bad for Pakistan and want to control it. The same goes for India. The religious militancy there or a Gujarat... it does not give the country a good image.

So you were saying 50 years of work was annihilated...

So now, the first step should be to restore everything at one stroke. What has happened in the last few weeks is very encouraging. I hope it is real and sustainable. But things are getting better. Maybe there is a realisation on both sides, or international pressure, but the signals are good.

How do we move forward?

There should be a realisation on both sides that Kashmir is a central issue. Pakistan calls it a core issue; our political leaders have said for 55 years that without Kashmir there cannot be rapprochement, so we have to find a solution acceptable to the Kahsmiris and both India and Pakistan.

How do you see that happening?

I am told there are many formulae going around. Our President has shown flexibility by saying that we can consider and be flexible if we can find a meaningful solution. He hinted even at the cost of becoming rather unpopular at home that we could move away even from the UN resolution. I think he is strong enough to take a decision. He had gone mentally prepared to do that in Agra also, but we lost an opportunity. But if we keep moving in the right direction, a day will come, like in Europe, when our borders will become soft, and we will be able to move our people and goods. When there will be people to people contact, they will find that there is no hatred against each other.

Actually ignorance about each other only fuels suspicion...

Ignorance, and also vested interest.

But one such vested interest is the Pakistani army. To keep their hold on the country, they want to keep the Indo-Pak imbroglio going. Your comments...

On both sides it is said so; but the Pakistan Army has never said there should not be a dialogue, or we should not improve relations with India. President Musharraf, as army chief, came forward to talk substantially on Indo-Pak issues. Zia-ul-Haq too wanted to improve ties and military leader Ayub Khan made the Indus water treaty or deal with India.

So would you say that today the Pakistan army desires peace with India?

Of course. Why not? Because war will not solve problems.

You talked of several formulae on Kashmir; what about the LoC being made the international boundary?

Unfortunately, that may not be acceptable to Pakistan, because here people's expectations have been heightened by politicians who have said this is a core issue on which we will never compromise. But for that there would not have been so many wars. If that happens people will say what have we achieved?

So, Pakistan wants at least some portion of Indian Kashmir.

There has to be some arrangement by which India, Pakistan and Kashmiris feel happy.

Kashmiris want azadi... how feasible is that?

I don't think it would work. It is a land-locked place...

The Hurriyat has been suggesting that a soft border between the two Kashmirs could be created and the area could be governed jointly by both India and Pak. Would that work?

I do not think so. But people in India and Pakistan have been putting their heads together, as also other think-tanks around the world, to help us out of this situation.

How much external pressure do you see behind the present peace process?

Both the countries in their national interest may not accept external pressure to such an extent, but they will accept to carry out a dialogue and listen to any useful suggestions. India always says that `we do not want a third party'.

Yes, we have always defined it as a bilateral issue.

Well, for 56 years, we have not managed to solve it bilaterally. After 30 years of Shimla, we have not solved it either.

Coming to the attempts being made on Gen Musharraf's life, can you analyse those?

He has taken some very tough decisions which were pending for many years. One was the religious militancy, a by-product of the Soviet-Afghan war and the US coming on the side of the Mujahideen. At that time, our leaders did not have the foresight to see that tomorrow when this matter settles, where will all these people go... the thousands of Arabs and Pakistanis who had become veterans in fighting there.

After the Soviet Union withdrew without forming a viable political government, the US withdrew, imposed sanctions on Pakistan and left a mess there. Now they are back again, losing lives and spending a lot of money.

Four things came out of the Soviet-Afghan war; religious extremism, illegal weapons, drugs and terrorism. And, unfortunately, Pakistan was at the receiving end. The society became destabilised with all the narcotics and weapons. We told these people, put down your weapons; give them to us. You cannot make armed bands and start waging holy wars here and there. They have the weapons and the expertise and have now become his enemies and making attempts on his life.

Gen Musharraf has promised to step down as army chief by the end of the year. But once he does that, will his influence in overseeing the governance not diminish? Will the army fully back him?

In most of the policies discussed and decisions taken, the army senior command is fully behind him. Even without the uniform, he will have the support of the army because he has carried them along on major decisions... whether Kashmir or nuclear issue. He always consults senior officers through a very institutionalised process. So they are part of his economic and other policies. He will continue to enjoy their support.

How was it working with him as Interior Minister?

He is very energetic, dynamic and decisive; he listens to differing points of view and if you can convince him logically he can change his views. He has a vision that is consonant with global thinking, but he has a lot of work to do to build up our institutions. That is our weak point. It can be seen by neutral observers that a true parliamentary system is not working in Pakistan. You are not asking me about Jamali, but Gen Musharraf all the time because he is making all the decisions.

Exactly.

So this is not true democracy; he has to build up institutions such as the Parliament, Senate, etc.

In the last elections, the Islamic parties did very well, unlike the previous times. Do you think their success was due to the clamping down on religious extremism and allying with the US?

We always said you Islamic parties never come together; so by constantly prodding them, we brought them together. Second, there were anti-American feelings in the streets against the attack on Afghanistan, a very poor country. The linkage between 9/11 and Osama bin Laden were not clearly established and the public sympathy was against the US. This was capitalised by these parties. It is good that our religious parties, instead of encouraging extremism, participate in elections and demonstrate that they can provide a clean and good government with justice.

Response can be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in