Guest guest Posted January 20, 2002 Report Share Posted January 20, 2002 > The Rediff Interview/Dr Ajai Sahni, Executive Director, Institute of > Conflict Management > > > Ajai Sahni has been studying Pakistan closely and watching President > Pervez Musharraf's moves since Kargil 1999. Dr Sahni is executive director > of the Institute of Conflict Management, New Delhi, which researches > various issues connected with terrorism and brings out a quarterly called > Faultlines, which publishes articles written by the best experts in the > country on various issues of conflict in the world. > > In a conversation with Ramesh Menon, Dr Sahni said Musharraf was acting > under pressure from the West and there was nothing new in what he had said > in his address to the nation, except that he had admitted that terrorism > was alive in Pakistan, which had made some grave mistakes. Excerpts: > > Whom do you think President Musharraf was addressing when he spoke on > Pakistani television? > > After a weeklong build-up, Musharraf finally delivered his dramatic and > historic speech, ostensibly to the people of Pakistan. To give an element > of credibility to this pretence, the speech was in Urdu, but its audience > was very apparently the rest of the world, particularly America and other > Western nations. The charade of sincerity was strengthened by an > appearance in conservative civilian apparel, not the > dictator-president-general's uniform that he often dons in his many > combative addresses, where he habitually issues a number of gratuitous > warnings to India regarding any possible 'military adventurism'. > > Did you see a change in his position? > > There was much 'live' interpretation on several news channels about > Musharraf's 'body language', dress, choice of words and change of tone -- > and subsequent reams of commentary in the print media. > > But is there really a dramatic shift in Musharraf's position? There was no > radical shift in his position at all. In fact, way back on June 5 last > year, he had been even more harsh in his critique about fundamentalists > when he was addressing ulemas (Islamic scholars). But despite what he > said, his support for fundamental elements and jihadis continued. > Musharraf continued with his practices. He continued to support terrorism > and was actually doing the opposite of what he was saying. > > That there is a shift is a fact that cannot be escaped. But it is far from > a willing transformation or voluntary embracing of a new and enlightened > perspective. It is, rather, the result of the comprehensive and cumulative > collapse of Pakistan's policies -- in Afghanistan; in Kashmir; internally, > in the exploitation and management of sectarian conflicts; and > internationally, in the brinkmanship that helped generate worried Western > financial relief in the past. > > What would you say the speech uncovered? > > Today, the entire cover of 'deniability' has been ripped off, and the > world has become fully aware of Pakistan's culpability in the rising tide > of violence that culminated in the outrage of September 11 in USA, but > which was manifested over decades in bleeding wars in Kashmir and other > parts of India, that directly produced the tyranny of the Taliban in > Afghanistan, and that created an international network of Islamist > terrorists across the globe. > > Was he acting under pressure? > > It is only a series of coercive diplomatic initiatives that has eventually > produced the succession of gradual and grudging concessions -- beginning > with Pakistan's reluctant membership in the international coalition > against terrorism -- that have now been articulated in a speech that > Musharraf manifestly drafted under enormous US pressure. > > Was not President Musharraf aware of what was happening within Pakistan > all these years? > > Any objective assessment of what Musharraf said cannot ignore the fact > that the speech represents a complete falsification of recent history. It > is also a falsification of the Pakistani State's -- and Musharraf's own -- > role in Afghanistan and Kashmir, and in the rise and consolidation of > Islamist fundamentalist terrorism across the world. > > Was not the president of Pakistan making it seem that he was at the helm > of a major war against terrorism... > > The speech seeks to project an activist Pakistani State under Musharraf > that has consistently sought to contain and neutralise Islamist extremist > institutions and activities sourced in Pakistan. > > Nothing could be further from the truth. > > What about his statements on Kashmir? > > For all the politically correct platitudes that he may articulate, the > inescapable fact is that the fundamental ideology -- and, consequently, > character -- of the Pakistani State remains intact. > > This was underlined by Musharraf's statement that "Kashmir runs in our > blood". A shift in strategies may have been necessitated by events, but > the objectives remain unchanged. Pakistan has long held that Kashmir is > the core issue in its relations with India, and this position remains > unchanged. > > Is Kashmir the issue here? Or is it Pakistan's politics? > > His position is misleading, if not incorrect. > > The core issue is not Kashmir; it is Pakistan itself, and the ideology of > hatred and exclusion -- the two-nation theory that claims that people of > different faiths cannot live together. This is what lies at the root of > the conflicts in South Asia. > > This ideology is in irreducible opposition to the Indian pluralist, > liberal, secular, constitutional democracy. > > The conflict in Jammu & Kashmir is not about a piece of land or about the > five million Muslims in that province. This is a pan-Islamist ideology > that commits Pakistan not only to seek the secession of the Kashmiris, but > of nearly 150 million Muslims in India. > > The tension in the region can end only when this ideology itself is > abandoned. When this happens, the wars of our time will appear absurd and > irrational -- even as the Cold War between Russia and the US, or the > tensions between the two Germanies, appear so unnecessary and wasteful > after the ideology of Communism collapsed. > > So, apart from President Musharraf's rhetoric, nothing has changed... > > It must be abundantly clear that Pakistan's root ideology of religious > exclusion and hatred has not been abandoned. > > Indeed, this is something that cannot be abandoned on a military > dictator's fiat -- voluntary or coerced -- but can be based only on > radical transformations in the ways of life and thought that are accepted > by large majorities of the people and of the politically influential > classes. > > Do you see something happening on the ground in Pakistan? > > Given Pakistan's current circumstances, even the reluctant and coerced > measures that have been initiated will severely circumscribe the sphere of > Islamist extremist violence in the region. And also of Pakistan's proxy > war against India. Economic, political and coercive diplomatic pressures > as well as an international media spotlight will require at least apparent > compliance on demands to control the madaris, the Islamist extremists, and > visible subversive interventions by the ISI. > > It is, however, necessary for this pressure to be sustained. On the issue > of Islamist extremism and its covert war against India, Pakistan under > Musharraf will continue to concede no more than is forced out of them -- > and this, again, is evident on the general's assertion that "there is no > question of handing over any Pakistani" accused of terrorism (in the > present case, by India). The general claims that "this has never been > done" -- but he apparently forgets, or conveniently glosses over, the > manner in which Mir Aimal Kansi and Ramzi Ahmed Yusuf were handed over to > USA. > > What does it all mean for India? > > India must, consequently, predicate policies and responses, not on the > basis of what is said -- or on the theatrics of unsolicited 'handshakes' > -- but on the objective circumstances and events on the ground, and on the > realpolitik of shifting national, regional and international power > relations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.