The veteran Pakistani Diplomat and Former High Commissioner to India Riaz H Khokhar shares his views on Indo-Pak relations, Kashmir dispute, American intervention in Pak politics and other host of issues with Greater Kashmir Islamabad Bureau Chief Nisar Ahmad Thokar.
After 9/11, geo-political environment and security situation in this region has changed altogether. Particularly America’s indifference towards Muslims has made the situation even more complicated. As a foreign affairs expert how do you see this whole situation?
There is no doubt that 9/11 was a horrific incident, I think every sane human being will not only deplore it but would certainly condemn it. There is also no doubt that it changed the strategic environment of the whole world. 9/11 is one day in 21st century that could never be forgotten because it has not only transformed life in America but it had a huge impact all across the globe including South Asia.
And South Asia has probably suffered the most. The American anger was understandable, however it is debatable whether it was wise to attack Afghanistan or not. Perhaps, lot of people in the USA, think it was a lopsided approach. Now we have been in a situation for the last eight years and what has the US achieved? I am not going to refer to Iraq as it stands out as a disaster on its own. Afghanistan is a disaster in the pipe line. So the situation in Afghanistan is very complicated and Pakistan got sucked in this war on terror. This has not been our war but it has now become our war. The most unfortunate thing is that the then Pakistani leadership headed by president Musharraf did not really think through the implications of this difficult war.
Well Iraq is altogether a different story, in order to get rid of one person Saddam Hussain; the US destroyed a whole country and killed several hundred thousand innocent people. They had to invent information and the intelligence to deceive the world community about weapons of mass destruction. As a result, thousands and thousands of people were killed. It is still not over and Iraq is a huge mess. It is not clear how stable Iraq would be. I am sure that all the neighbours of Iraq are wary and deeply concerned about the US intentions in the region.
Coming back to Afghanistan, Pakistan because of perhaps predominantly personal interest of president Musharraf, Pakistan got into this understanding with the US and got involved in this war on terror. You know we didn’t have a problem of terrorism in Pakistan, if you look at august 2001. Although we had violence here and there but there was no serious and sustained threat of terrorism in Pakistan. We have had extremist elements but we did not have terrorism of this nature you see today, indiscriminate killings, car bombs and suicide bombers. As a matter of the fact Musharraf’s personal agenda has landed Pakistan in a quagmire.
What was actually the problem that forced the former president Musharraf to join the US led campaign against war on terror?
Musharraf’s main problem was legitimacy. As you know he came to power after a military coup in 1999, and was ostracized by the international community. So he thought that 9/11 provided him a great diplomatic opportunity to legitimise himself. He was desperate.
Pakistan, itself a victim of terror, became a frontline state in war against terror. The decision has been largely flayed within the country. What is your evaluation? Do you think it was a step towards right direction?
Let me be fair to Musharraf, it was a difficult situation and the option given to Pakistan was either be with us or against us. But where Musharraf actually made a huge mistake was that he made an open ended commitment to the US.
Usually, in international diplomacy, you don’t make open ended commitments to a super power. Initially, the Bush administration had seven points in mind for negotiations with Pakistan. But without any serious scrutiny and proper analysis, Musharraf was too quick to accept all the seven points. The US leadership was utterly surprised.
What were those seven points?
Without going into the details, if you look at the book authored by Collin Powel, the former secretary of state and other subsequent material that has come out of the US, they were really surprised that Pakistan had accepted all seven points. They were just thinking that may be Pakistan would accept two or three points, but it accepted all seven. President Bush in fact complimented Powel for his excellent diplomacy. What was necessary that we should have drawn red lines that we will do this and will not do that keeping in view our vital national interests… Now we are in deep trouble because of the responsibilities that we should not have accepted.
After the US invasion in Afghanistan, Pakistan gradually transformed into a battlefield. There have been scores of suicide bombings all across the country. The people in Tribal Areas (FATA) continue to suffer attacks by American drones. What is your opinion in this regard?
Yes, Pakistan has faced massive violence. There has been a huge loss of life and property. More Pakistani soldiers have died in this war on terror than the US or NATO causalities in Afghanistan. Pakistan has suffered economically. The destruction that has taken place in Pakistan particularly in FATA region and NWFP (North Western Frontier Province) is worth billions of dollars. The figure is quite staggering. Government is talking of some 38 billion dollars’ losses. So the damage is huge and it is still not over. The situation in Afghanistan is worsening with each passing day. America is now reviewing its policy, but it is not clear which way the cat will jump. More fight seems to be in store.
What more is in store for Afghanistan, what more is in store for Pakistan? But whatever one has read it seems that the US wants to shift its focus of war from Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Now that there is change in US administration, do you foresee any shift in America’s policy vis-à-vis this region?
No, it is the continuation of Bush policies. More forces have been brought in and now there is talk of deploying additional troops in Afghanistan.
Many people believe that it is the beginning of what the US think-tanks presume as clash of civilizations. Do you believe in such theories?
I think we must not look at it in that context. Rather we should see it as an effort by a super power to destroy Al-Qaeda and remnants of Taliban in Afghanistan to eradicate extremism and terrorism from the region. But strategy based on military power is far from effective. Bombing is not the answer.
A powerful idea has to be fought with an even more powerful idea. It is a war where you need to win hearts and minds of the people. Many people view foreign forces in Afghanistan as “occupation forces”. History proved that Afghanistan hate foreign forces. This is a historical truth.
How do you see the political situation in Afghanistan as it has a direct impact on the geo-political situation in this region? Do you think Mr. Karzai would be able to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan?
You see in Afghanistan, the war of winning hearts and minds of the people is already lost, due to the useless, incompetent and ineffective puppet regime. It has miserably failed to stabilize the political situation in the country. Karzai no doubt lives in Kabul but he can’t venture out of his palace, he is unpopular and is basically seen as a puppet. He has patronised warlords, drug lords and corruption.
A peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan is indeed very essential for Pakistan. Certainly an Afghanistan at peace with itself and more concerned about the welfare of its people, is what Karzai should have focussed on. He has let down his own people and his masters as well. Look at the recently held elections in Afghanistan. It was a fraudulent election. I don’t see Karzai as an asset for the US or an asset for the people of Afghanistan. Frankly speaking he should have been dumped by the US. His election is a huge embarrassment for the USA and the west.
It is for the first time since 1947 that Pakistan had to mobilize its troops on its western border. The government had also launched a full-fledged military offensive in the Malakand division, which is largely perceived as a conspiracy to destabilize Pakistan. What is your opinion in this regard?
We have deployed over hundred thousand troops along the Durand line. Basically in two contexts, one of course, as a member of the United Nations, it is our responsibility under the Security Council resolutions that we should not allow any terrorists to be operating from our area. Our forces must ensure that there is no illegal cross border activity. Secondly, the military operation in Swat and Malakand division has to do more with the indigenous Pakistani Taliban and criminal elements who have joined the Tehreek-e-Taliban.
I am not suggesting that there are good or bad Taliban. That is for us to judge later on. But the main thing is that the Taliban operating in Swat thought that they could challenge the writ of the state and could get away with it. The government of Pakistan, particularly the Pakistan army realized that this was a very serious threat emanating from within the country and therefore it had to be crushed. So it is in that context army operation was carried out in Swat to flush out these extremist elements who had challenged the writ of the government. You know these misguided Moulanas, Sufi Muhammad and Fazllullah had no business to start this thing. They basically thought that they would get away and be able to dictate their own terms to Pakistan. I really give huge credit to Pakistan army for taking this threat seriously and have dealt with it effectively.
Coming to the second part of the question, you know when you are facing a threat; there is an internal situation wherein the regional players would try to take advantage of it. This is a natural phenomenon and usually it happens….but I would say that the initial activities and all the negative things were generated by these local Talibans who were trying to impose their own value system and agenda and latter they were aided and abetted by criminal elements…who had found refuge in FATA and adjacent areas of Swat. And they are the ones who started looting, plundering and murdering.
Basically three things happened, as you know Moulana Sufi Muhammad said that they don’t accept the constitution of Pakistan. Secondly there was an incident of a woman who was lashed publicly, I think that stirred the soul of every Pakistani…and they realised that this is not what they wanted….no question. Islam enjoins that we respect women and not mistreat them. The public beating of the poor girl was a horrifying experience and generated a wave of anger in Pakistan. People of Pakistan were stunned and shocked.
It was really a horrifying incident, whether it was a genuine or not is a separate issue.
Moreover there were gruesome incidents of slitting throats. Public executions were a horrible experience for the people of Pakistan. We have had violence in the country but not of this nature. So these are actually the various factors that turned the tables on them. And that is why the people of Pakistan stood right behind the army.
There is a perception 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 take on this?
I don’t want to get into this kind of speculative thing. I think even the ideas of US coming and snatching or capturing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals is utter nonsense. Let me be clear that Pakistan’s nuclear assets are in safe hands and there is no need to worry about.
Western world is very scared of Pakistan’s nuclear technology. Why?
This is an old problem; basically there is no rational reason for it. One fear is that the extremist organizations are present in this region and they may get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals. I think this is far-fetched, very imaginative and has got nothing to do with reality.
Terrorism has now become a global challenge. In your opinion what is the way out to fight this threat?
Well, there are several reasons but in order to tackle this menace we have to address the root causes of terrorism, which is that, the people who have been deprived of the basic rights must given their fundamental rights. In Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir you see the people are still living under foreign domination and the illegal occupation. This I think is one of the major causes that is contributing to extremism and terrorism.
What I really mean to say is that fundamental issues in the Muslim world like Palestine-Israel issue and Pakistan-India dispute over Kashmir has to be resolved. More importantly, the people of Kashmir have to be given their natural and legitimate right to decide their future.
Also in the Muslim world there is huge resentment about the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Western polices, the policies of the US administration, particularly president Bush generated lot of hatred in the Muslim world.
There has been severe criticism on Pakistan’s foreign policy? As an expert of foreign affairs do you think there is need to review and re-evaluate the policy?
Well, Pakistan’s foreign policy is made keeping in view the vital interests of the country’s internal dynamics and of course the external environment. There is a symbolic relationship between the internal and external policies.
We may have made some mistakes here and there in some context but essentially our foreign policy is centred on our relation with India, USA, European Union, China and the Muslim world. By and large I would say these relationships stand on their own. For example we have excellent relations with china. It is a trouble free relationship. The two countries having completely different social and political systems but they have developed a model relationship between two neighbouring countries.
Similarly, we have excellent relations with all Islamic countries. We have no problems with European countries. This is one of the best examples I can give you of Pakistan’s successful foreign policy. However, we do have problems in our foreign policy, especially with India and some issues with the US.
Indeed our relations with India are a very complicated subject. Not much progress has really been made despite our efforts to improve our relationship with India. We have not been successful this is a long and sad story……….
Our relationship with other world counties are also trouble free, co-operative and friendly and some of our friends have helped us a lot in different situations. Our relationship with America has gone through various stages there have been positive as well as negative phases. However in our relationship with USA, today, the American factor is dominating our foreign policy. As I told you earlier we have got into a situation because of this war on terror. This has complicated our foreign policy.
We have benefited marginally from the US relationship in terms of economic and military assistance but we have also suffered enormously. What the current situation in and around Pakistan is that we continue to suffer and there is no idea as when and where this saga is going to end.
So there are voices in this country who do argue that Pakistan’s foreign policy should be in its own vital self national interest. But some times personal interests of our leaders take precedence. Musharraf ignored national interests and one seas continuation of that approach in the present regime in Islamabad.
Coming to Indo-Pak ties, due to the prevailing hate syndrome and hostility, the people of India and Pakistan have miserably failed to reap the benefits of regional economic co-operation, backwardness, poverty, hunger and unemployment are the major challenges. Do you think the two nations could afford to be at loggerheads any longer?
Fundamentally it is in the interest of India as well as Pakistan to have good relations with each other. This is something, shall we say, a desire on both sides and I think it is there. Actually the problem is how to work out a modus vivendi between India and Pakistan. We have fundamental problems….the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is one principal problem that has been causing ill-will between the two nations. You know there have been wars, conflicts and tensions over this issue. So this, I think, is the root cause of the problem between India and Pakistan.
Secondly, we have other issues flowing out of it, the Siachen, and the water issue, which is becoming more serious by the day. We may not link them together but there is a certain degree of linkage after all the rivers are flowing through Kashmir. So this is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed.
Then you have Sir Creek and other minor matters for instance trade between India and Pakistan is not an issue, I think it can be easily sorted out provided the trade serves the interests of both the countries.
The trade between the two countries has reached to $ 2 billion and the potential is huge. What is actually happening at the moment, the balance of trade is heavily in India’s favour. Indian exports are 1.5 billion and Pakistan exports to India are 350 million. You see the huge gap and it is growing. We have to explore ways and means to narrow the gap. If it is not narrowed there will be a clamour in Pakistan to restrict Indian exports.
In other areas there is a dire need for confidence building measures, and developing improved contacts at all levels. We need to facilitate free flow of people if it is possible, I don’t know how it is at the moment but visa has been the big issue between the two countries.
What about back door diplomacy? Do you think it would be helpful to bridge the gap between the two neighbouring countries?
In my opinion back door diplomacy has its limitations. Nothing should happen between India and Pakistan behind the backs of the people. Honestly speaking, I have serious reservations vis-à-vis the back channel diplomacy initiated during Musharraf’s rule. Because if parliament in India and the parliament in Pakistan, people in India and Pakistan don’t know what was being worked out how you can come to an understanding, you can’t shock and surprise your own people.
Musharraf is being blamed for giving too many concessions to India. People think that he was working on a “Sell out” on Kashmir and Indians were so happy and thrilled with him.
However, I believe that there should be no difference what is happening on the front channel and what is happening on the back channel. If they are operating on different spheres then there would certainly be other problems, sending wrong signals. I would say that we should have formal contacts for enhanced diplomatic relations, we should have more meetings more exchanges at all levels.
What about composite dialogue process?
Composite dialogue process I think is good provided both the countries pursue it sincerely. But there is so much lack of trust and confidence in each other that it stifles real progress….
What is the reason that India and Pakistan have not been able to settle the log-simmering dispute of Kashmir?
Primarily there are three parties to the dispute, India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In my opinion the people of Jammu and Kashmir are the most important party and they must decide their own future. Whether, they want to join with India or Pakistan. If they decide they want to be with India, we will accept it. If they decide that they want to accede to Pakistan, it seems that India will not accept it. The historical fact since 1948 is that India is scared that people of Jammu and Kashmir will decide against being with India.
But we as a nation stand for Kashmiris’ right to self-determination and strongly plead that the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be given this right. India had made a commitment in the past and you know they took the problem to the United Nations. India even tried its best to have Pakistan declared as an aggressor but failed. Then we had series of UN resolutions, which were voluntarily accepted by India, Pakistan and the world community. These resolutions enshrined and sanctified the right to self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and determined how it should be honoured through a free and fair plebiscite.
What about UN resolutions?
Those who think the UN resolutions are outdated are doing a great disservice to the Kashmiri cause. Here I would like to say that huge responsibility rests on those who claim to be the leaders of Kashmiri people. They should be vigilant and should neither compromise with Pakistan nor with India. They must hold steadfastly to the principle of self-determination and protect the interests of their own people.
Do you believe in out of the box solution? As it was suggested by the former president of Pakistan?
What out of the box solution? Whatever Musharraf had suggested was absolute nonsense. He was basically ensuring that for all times to come Kashmiris remained enslaved under Indian domination. This is what he worked out…..Where is the solution now…..? He was neither sincere to the people of Kashmir nor to the people of Pakistan. Many people here believe that he had no authority and no right to barter away the future of Jammu and Kashmir by his so-called back door diplomacy. He did not ask any body. In India, prime minister was answerable to the parliament. Musharraf was not answerable to any one. He thought he was God’s gift to Pakistan and he could play around with the fate of the people of Pakistan and the fate of the Kashmiris through his secretive back door diplomacy. He thought he was the only gifted mind in Pakistan. Basically he tried to appease India.
I know that other than a few people and a few so-called leaders, Musharraf’s policies had no support among the people of Kashmir. A few compromised individuals were with him. As a matter of the fact Musharraf undermined Pakistan’s principled position on Kashmir.
You have been High Commissioner to India in 90s and certainly you have had interactions with Indian leaders and government officials there. Did you see any change in Indian mindset vis-à-vis the issue of Kashmir?
Well when I was in India, those were very difficult days. I noticed no change in Indian mindset.
You were described as a “Hawk”, a hard liner. Why?
Well I think it is very naïve and stereotype way of branding people. I remember Mr. Natwar Singh who was once asked a similar question. I think he said, “We are not birds”, we are people and we have interests, the interests of our countries”. I don’t care whether I was described as a hawk or a hardliner. I was doing what I was asked to do. I did it faithfully. However, I have great respect for Indian leaders and great respect for my colleagues in the Indian Foreign Service, which is one of the best diplomatic services in the world. Very able and competent people, who know how to defend their country’s interests and I respect people who defend their country’s interest faithfully.
During the early years of Musharraf government, you served as a foreign secretary. In the meantime India and Pakistan formally decided to initiate peace talks so as to resolve all outstanding issues. Would you like to share with us the agenda that was set out for the bilateral negotiations?
The agenda of composite dialogue process is all clear, there were eight areas in which Jammu and Kashmir and security issues in my opinion is the most important issues. Then there is trade and several other issues. But Kashmir is actually the most important issue on the agenda. The composite dialogue will ultimately succeed or fail depending on the progress we make on these fundamental issues. I believe that both India and Pakistan must sincerely pursue the composite dialogue and make efforts to resole all disputes. India is at the moment too pre-occupied with the question of terrorism and we are pre-occupied with Jammu and Kashmir. So we have to find some middle road and make sincere and serious efforts to resolve the problems.
Most importantly, the people of Jammu and Kashmir are suffering; the people of India and Pakistan are also suffering. This has to end. South Asia is facing multiple problems and most important issues are problems related to the development of this region. In the Composite Dialogue we have made marginal progress in some areas such as trade, people to people contacts etc. but no real progress on Kashmir and on durable peace in South Asia.
In order to resolve fundamental disputes, do you think the dialogue process should be properly institutionalized to ensure a smooth progress?
Dialogue is already institutionalized but at the moment there is a dead lock because terrorism is the key issue for India. And this is the reason that the foreign ministers of both the countries who met in New York recently could not agree as how to proceed on the dialogue.
Although we don’t dismiss it as a problem, we recognize it is an issue between India and Pakistan but one should not ignore the fact that Pakistan is itself a victim of terror, we have so many problems, we want to solve it provided India first co-operates with us. What is happening at the moment India is accusing us and we are accusing India of interfering in Balouchistan and FATA (Tribal Areas). It is a blame game that must come to an end. The only way is that we must sit down seriously and solve the problems. If India lays down conditions that we will not do this until you do that it will not work out. Pakistan will not allow India to push it against the wall. So the best bet is to co-operate sincerely and seriously if we want to deal with the scourge of terrorism.
What is the motive behind the Indian approach? Do you think India is trying to back out from talks?
Well I don’t want to read the motives in Indian approach. To be fair to India what happened in Mumbai was a horrible incident, many people were killed and the city was badly hit. So I condemn it. I think the people of Pakistan also felt it badly and deplored the action. Now it has become a problem, India does not want to move forward unless this issue is resolved but this is not something that could be resolved in 24 hours. It will take time, like India we have our own courts and we have our own procedures. We have to put solid evidence before the courts. So in this area we need India’s co-operation. India has taken a position that “we have produced evidence” and you hang the person. This is not enough. Our courts are no different from Indian courts. Will such evidence stand up in Indian courts?
What is the scope and future of Composite Dialogue Process?
Well I hope the dialogue is resumed sooner the better would be for both India and Pakistan and the region and the international community. War between India and Pakistan is totally unacceptable and therefore we have just one option that is dialogue to find solutions to all our problems.
Do you agree with president Zardari’s idea of leaving Kashmir settlement to next generation?
Not many people in Pakistan will agree with it. His late father in law, the martyred Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the martyred Benazir Bhutto would certainly not share his view.
Under the given circumstances what is the possible solution of Kashmir dispute?
Well it is not for me to decide what would be the solution. Solution actually comes through sincere dialogue. When you talk about out of the box solution that means you have to come up with some creative solution in which there is a win-win situation for all of us particularly for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Their rights and aspirations must not suffer or sacrificed. They are the ones who have to decide... And here I would say people of Kashmir must strengthen their leaders and it is equally important for Kashmiri leaders not to allow their own interests to override the interests of their own people. They have to be more assertive. And the demonstrations, agitation whatever they want to do must be peaceful. Adhering strictly to peaceful means would certainly strengthen their moral position.
Pakistan has announced an autonomy package for the people of Gilgit Baltistan that generated a new debate in Kashmiri circles, what is your opinion in this regard?
Look they did have certain needs, certain demands and as long as they are met administratively and politically without undermining Pakistan’s over all position on Jammu and Kashmir, I am for it. After all they have a right; they are not different from people of Pakistan and the people of Azad Kashmir. They must be treated fairly and equally and should be given all the opportunities as we people are enjoying.
Any message you want to convey to the people of Kashmir and the leadership of India and Pakistan?
My message is simple that India and Pakistan must get engaged in substantive dialogue to find solutions to all the problems. Let us work for peace and stability in South Asia. Let us work for the development of this region.
For the people of Jammu and Kashmir, I pray for their wellbeing and hope that one day they will Inshallah see, feel and breathe freedom. And for the several thousands who have been martyred, I salute them and respect them for their supreme sacrifices. They will always live and live forever.
Note:
It may be recalled here that Mr. Khokhar was High Commissioner to India in early 90s when Kashmiris intensified their struggle for right to self-determination. Before assuming the charge as the country’s foreign secretary, he also served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the Unites States of American and China.
