Talking on various issues and their possible solution, the renowned peace activist and the country director of Pagwash International, Lieutenant General retired Talat Masood says that rather pursuing the establishment-oriented policies the leadership of India and Pakistan will have to move beyond the composite dialogue and take greater initiatives to seek settlement of all out standing issues including Kashmir.In an exclusive interview to Greater Kashmir's Nisar Ahmed Thokar, Masood said, “It would be a big achievement if we could really lay down a roadmap for Kashmir. If not for the solution we should at least draw a roadmap for the process and it is quite possible that over a period of time we can find a solution of Kashmir dispute”.
Pakistan finally took a very tough stand against the militants and operation is underway in Swat and other Tribal areas but there is a common perception that whatever is happening in Northern areas is an international conspiracy to destabilize Pakistan. What is your view point in this regard?
Well I don’t agree that it is an international conspiracy, for instance, if you really look at the conditions in Swat and the whole of Malakand division, it has been very much neglected because it used to be ruled by a prince for a pretty long time. Later when it was integrated into the settled areas of Pakistan, the respective governments failed to take care of the inhabitants of these areas. So the people of Swat have genuine grievances, in the sense that they didn’t have justice, they didn’t have proper security, and the employment opportunities were very meagre, in short governance was very poor, which finally led to a movement what they called as the movement for the enforcement of Sharia and Nazim-e-Adl. But ……but this demand has been there for quite some time, which as a matter of the fact is a reflection, that they wanted good governance and justice for the people. Unfortunately governments have failed to deliver; demands of the people were neglected that in fact gave rise to the militant forces in the area, which Sufi Muhammad had fully exploited. And obviously in addition to that situation in Afghanistan and its consequences in Tribal belt in which the Taliban became powerful also had an impact on Swat. A combination of all these factors basically led to importance and strengthening of militancy in Swat. So I think people should look it in this context rather saying it is a conspiracy. But obviously any country or any forces which may be hostile towards Pakistan would always benefit when Pakistan is on stake.
So for as the situation in Pakistan’s tribal belt is concerned, you know it is the result of neglect of 61 years. It is also consequence of our participation in Afghan Jihad. It is also the result of the way the US and other forces led Afghanistan through warlords after the end of Afghan-jihad. Afterwards the rise of Taliban and last but not the least the event of 9/11, all these factors together had an adverse effect on these areas.
Q: Do you think the ongoing military operation in these areas would yield desired results?
Military offensive is only a part of the overall policy of the government to establish writ in the area. It is not an end in itself but to install administrative setup in these areas. However, for a durable solution you need to win the hearts and minds of the people thereby installing an effective civilian administration in Tribal belt and swat valley.
Q: But political parties are not seen at the gross root level how is it possible to initiate political process there?
Well, I think political parties must learn the lesson that when they come into power, it does not simply mean to share power. It is all about providing good governance to the people. Unfortunately, good governance has been missing in the past and it is missing now. This mistake they can’t afford anymore, otherwise, the vacuum would be filled up by the militants.
Q: So you mean amalgamation of tribal areas is must?
Yes definitely, ultimately you would have to integrate these areas, politically, socially and economically because no country can afford to have such neglected areas.
Q: There are some indications that foreign agencies are fomenting violence in Pakistan. What do you say about it?
There have been reports in the media; sometimes even the government officials make a mention of that but---what is unfortunate as for as I see it that no single evidence has been produced against them which makes our case weak. If there is a foreign involvement, it is the duty of the government to bring it to the notice of the people and tell them who these elements responsible for aiding the militants are. So that they may know about the enemies of Pakistan.
The government has never given us any solid evidence that you know x, y z country or any group is responsible for fomenting violence in Pakistan. So I think these are very generalized and meaningless statements, which in fact reinforces the belief that intelligence agencies and others are probably not aware as what is happening. And if they are aware, they have not been able to produce evidence which could be so effective and should have been used as a tool to expose such elements at international level. I mean we could go to international community, the UN, united states of America and EU and tell them as how we are been persecuted.
Q: The US on one hand speaks high about Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty while on the other it carries drone attacks on Pakistani soil in which hundreds of innocent civilians including women and children have been killed? Do you think the sort of hegemonic approach would help to settle the problem?
This is very controversial problem between Pakistan and the US, which is creating a lot of friction between the two countries. The continued drone attacks have in fact political and moral dimension apart from the sovereignty aspect. But the question is when you have lost your own control over sovereignty, the internal sovereignty, over the territory then it is very easy for external powers to exploit it. So the reason is that unless we really regain our control over those areas, irrespective of how much we shout and how much we complain you will see that these drone attacks would continue.
Q: Pakistan has paid highest price in fighting war against terror, despite that it is facing severe criticism at international level, every now and then it‘s been asked to do more…. How do you see this hostile attitude?
Actually the voices of do more have now lessened since the military operation was undertaken in Northern areas on a very wide front. So there is a change in the attitude but I think we have to act according to our own interests…..and of course our interests also lie in curbing militancy and to fight against those militants who have been creating instability in Pakistan. However, we have to see that this military operation does not extend too much that would lead to collateral damage. You have to really see that the interests of the people for whom you are fighting are served in a better way.
Q: There is widely held perception in Pakistan that the US, in league with its allies, is playing a double game just to create anarchy in Pakistan to justify its intervention to take over the nuclear arsenals. What is your opinion?
I don’t agree with this theory there are many who do but I am one of those who doesn’t agree with this, because their interest is not so much in taking over our nuclear assets…their primary interest is like our interest should be that is the country might not slip into anarchy and chaos. And if that happens, god forbid, there is always a danger because we are nuclear power so the best approach is not to bother about what others think, what is important for us is to do what is good for us that is------- if you want to take full advantage of nuclear capability, which is obviously one in the form of deterrence that is military utility of nuclear capability to have strategic parity with India. But its’ real utility and value is political in the sense it gives the country a political leverage----that political leverage is useful if other elements of national power are balanced. If your economy is in distress, political situation is unstable and law and order situation is bad and if there is rise in extremis then your nuclear capability becomes liability instead of an asset.
Q: General ® Pervaiz Musharraf has been blamed for creating mess by adopting pro-American policy regarding war on terror. Do you think Musharraf had any other alternative available at that time?
Well I think we could have probably worked out terms and conditions of the agreement with the US somewhat to the advantage of Pakistan, which………he didn’t. Actually Musharraf had a serious legitimacy problem. And when you have legitimacy problem you are very weak internally. People had some misperceptions that an army person is very strong but my own view is that when army rules a country it is very weak from inside as they lack support of the masses.
Coming to Indo-Pak ties, do you think the prevailing hate syndrome and India’s antagonistic attitude towards Pakistan has further complicated the security situation in this region?
Obviously you see since Mumbai incident Indian attitude has been very hostile, although they have some genuine reasons for that one can understand that the incident created a trauma but it does not mean they should have made whole of Pakistan a hostage, I mean which they are doing…….., however, they know it fully well that it is for their own interest in the long run to have a stable and prosperous Pakistan instead of pressurizing and destabilizing it. So I would have thought the Congress after having won again with more comfortable majority would have more confidence to initiate a dialogue rather trying to gain political leverage out of it thereby asking Pakistan to do dismantle what they say as “terrorist infrastructure”. Pakistan has been cooperating so for as the Mumbai incident is concerned but India will also have to provide us more evidence, and if they can’t, it is likely that the courts may drop case against them, which may be counter-productive.
Q: Both the nations have yet again decided to resume dialogue process, as a peace activist, how do you see this development?
So for India has only said in a limited sense that they will revive the peace process and that too is related to terrorism. It would have been for better to have a full-fledged dialogue in a broader perspective. Revival of composite dialogue, I think, they must go beyond that if they genuinely want to move forward in Pakistan-India relations. What is more important that both the countries should look forward and find out solution of Sircreek, Siachen and try to remove misunderstandings about the water issue that has arisen in the recent years. And should create an environment wherein they can move forward on Kashmir as well. And of course they should improve trade and economic linkages but this is possible provided that the statesmanship on both sides understand that the policy they pursuing are people oriented. At the moment policies pursued by India and also by Pakistan are more establishment-oriented.
So you mean this attitude has to change?
Yes, definitely it has to change, unless the attitude changes, I think one should not expect much progress apart from that you will see a slight movement at government level. For a substantial progress you will have to take much bolder and greater initiatives. Just talking on terrorism and marginalizing other issue is not going to yield desired results.
Q: Composite dialogue was basically initiated to explore ways and means to settle all out standing issues including the core issue of Kashmir but so for no progress has been made on this front even India is not ready to budge an inch over Kashmir. So what is there for Pakistan to gain out of peace talks?
Well Pakistan has an interest in having good relations with India irrespective of Kashmir, I mean Kashmir is an extremely important issue but it does not mean that if it is not resolved we should have very bad relations with India because that creates other problems for Pakistan. Pakistan at this time wants peace at its borders and wants to focus on its internal problem. So it is both strategically and tactical perspective important for Pakistan to have a reasonable level of understanding and peace with India. However, we should continue to pursue on Kashmir but it does mean we should not try to have good relations with India.
Q: You are regularly interacting with Indian intellectuals and think tanks do you see any change in their mindset?
Well I am disappointed that after Mumbai attacks there has been a drastic change in their thinking and they seem to be very disillusioned with Pakistan. May be there had been a serious setback as a result they lost confidence but it will take some time and I think time would be a healer before we expect they would start moving towards some form of normalization.
: Kashmiri leaders have expressed dissatisfaction over the outcome of peace talks, saying that there was a dire need to set time frame to resolve long-simmering dispute of Kashmir. What is your opinion in this regard?
I think Hurriyat is quite justified and someway perturbed because India wants to have solution of Kashmir on its own terms completely. So for as the flexibility is concerned, Indians are not even prepared to budge an inch, their intransigence so strong that they would like to settle Kashmir totally on their own terms and conditions as they realize that Pakistan is in a weak position internally and externally. To the contrary Indians have an advantage of adopting a policy that converges with the policy of the US, the European Union, China and Russia. So that is also a big boast to India to keep Kashmir problem suppressed. So I think we have to understand and wait in the sense and look for an opportune moment to pursue our view point.
Q: What is the way forward to settle the dispute?
Well I have a feeling that if trade, cultural and other linkages continue at a very faster pace between the two sides of Kashmir and also economic linkages continue between India and Pakistan it is quite possible that two countries would realize that they have stakes in each other and they might work towards finding a solution of Kashmir problem. Having a hostile approach towards each other and being very intransigent and inflexible and trying to build up the military aspects, I think we would not achieve much.
: General ® Musharraf also suggested a 4-point formula to resolve Kashmir dispute. How do you see that?
I think Musharraf came up unilaterally with that formula as a result he lost a lot without gaining any thing out of it. You know he gave concessions without even India responding to them. So I think we need to start in a way in next dialogue asking India exactly what does it want and then try to develop some framework as how to solve Kashmir issue. So for as 4-point formula is concerned it is not necessary that we use that as a benchmark, it had certain aspects of it which were detrimental for Pakistani side. May be it was a bold initiative but I think Musharraf gave in too much without achieving anything. He gave an impress as though he wanted to solve the issue without solving the problems of Kashmiri people.
Q: In past, India and Pakistan have been holding talks randomly; virtually there has been no road-map as how to move forward on various issues systematically. Do you think there is a need to have an appropriate and well thought-out policy to bring about a solution of all issues particularly the issue of Kashmir?
Yes absolutely, it would be a big achievement if we could really lay down a roadmap for Kashmir. If not for the solution we should at least draw a roadmap for the process and it is quite possible that over a period of time we can find a solution of Kashmir dispute.
Q: Pagwash International has been playing a vital role in promoting peace and harmony across the globe, would you give us some insight about the efforts that the organization has been making to bring the people of India and Pakistan close to each other. And what sort of role it can play to resolve Kashmir dispute?
Well Pagwash essentially a nuclear oriented organization that has been striving for a nuclear free world but at the same time it realizes the fact that nuclear problem is also because the conflicts continue in the various parts of the world. Had there been no conflicts there would have no need to achieve nuclear capabilities for various countries. In recognition of its efforts in seeking a nuclear-free world the organization was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1997. And Pagwash continues and pursues those efforts and policies, so for as your question is concerned Pagwash International held so many discourses wherein people from different shades and opinions were brought together to share their view point. You know it arranged several meetings in which NGOs, former diplomats, military officials and think tank people from both India and Pakistan were invited that has really helped to develop better understanding.
As you know Pagwash was the only institution that brought Kashmiri leadership of entire hue, which means the political spectrum on both sides together first in Nepal and then in other places and even in Pakistan. So I think our contribution in bringing two sides close to each other and suggesting lot of confidence building measures both for Kashmir, nuclear and other things has been quite reasonable.
Q: How productive these discourses have been?
I think they have been quite fruitful in the sense that it helped a lot to iffuse the tensions besides providing good ideas to the respective governments. In fact Pagwash doesn’t have a solution to any conflict; all that it wants is to create a platform and the framework to facilitate dialogue between the various sides which are not talking particularly when governments are not talking Pagwash plays an important role.
Do you have any plan to arrange such conferences on Kashmiri soil I mean Srinagar or Muzaffarabad?
Although not in immediate future but surely we will do that as we think the process even if it doesn’t continue at the government should never stop because people to people contacts are the best contacts and the way forward in South Asia.
