Modi, Instead of Extending Olive Branch, ..... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ July 12, 2015

Modi, Instead of Extending Olive Branch, Should Isolate Pakistan Globally to Resolve Stand-off

PM Narendra Modi with Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif

History is a saga of surprises. The plain-speaking PM Narendra Modi has never been referred to as a diplomat. His meeting, however, with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Ufa, Russia, brought out a hitherto hidden aspect of his personality. Contrary to his usually loquacious self during confabulations with foreign leaders, he hardly spoke a word before or after his awkward assignation with his counterpart. Modi didn’t move an inch from his designated place to welcome Sharif, who had to walk over 50 steps forward for a handshake. At the end of an elastically hour-long rehearsed dialogue, Modi revealed himself as a polished diplomat who could tell someone to go to hell in such a manner that the person would actually look forward to the trip. Only time will tell if Sharif has walked into a trap laid by Modi or not, but it is evident that the Indian PM has changed the terms of engagement with Pakistan.

South Block mandarins wouldn’t relish the concept of a former Indian police officer and a Pakistani economist discussing the contours of the Indo-Pak relationship. The envoy class has so far been living under the illusion that international relations and dialogue was their monopoly. As has been proved time and again, only generals settle disputes while diplomats are kept busy doing policy pantomimes. By proposing the resumption of a dialogue between two leaders who are non-diplomats by training and tutelage, Modi has delinked terrorism from diplomacy. It is perhaps for the first time that the National Security Advisors of India and Pakistan will set the tone and tenor of discussions between both countries. The only previous example was when Brajesh Mishra, the NSA to PM Vajpayee, held discussions with his Pakistani counterpart Tariq Aziz just before the SAARC summit in 2003. But then, Mishra was also a former diplomat and the principal secretary to the PM. Modi had opposed a soft approach towards Pakistan during his 2014 election campaign when he held the UPA government responsible for the ‘Mar Jawan, Mar Kisan’ (Die Soldier, Die Farmer) atmosphere prevailing in the country. But in Ufa, he opted for the Vajpayee line, which espoused mature magnanimity by giving peace yet another chance.

It is still unclear why and how did Modi decide to resume direct contact with Pakistan. A few days before the Ufa meeting, Javed Ashraf Qazi, a senior Pakistan minister and former ISI chief, warned India that Pakistan will not hesitate to nuke India if needed. The Pakistan army also killed two Indian soldiers along the LoC. The NDA and UPA had previously called off talks after the rising number of border violations, and the Pakistan ambassador to India inviting J&K separatists for discussions incensed New Delhi. There are no indications that Modi had any formal or informal consultations with the members of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) over meeting Sharif before leaving for Russia. Other members of the CCS such as Home Minister Rajnath Singh, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley were either travelling or busy with other assignments. It is obvious that Modi took the gamble on his own. There must have been some pressing compulsions for the PM to deviate from his pre-election stance. Modi, it seems, has made a fair assessment about the impact the meeting would have on his core constituency and the opportunity it would provide the Opposition to attack him. Since NSA Ajit Doval and Foreign Secretary S Jaishanker were accompanying him, the PM made a unique decision. If the past record of Jaishanker is to go by, he would have pushed for a full-scale dialogue, since he has always favoured the US line on Indo-Pak. On the other hand, Doval is a hawk who has always pushed for an end to Pak-sponsored terror as a precondition for resumption of a meaningful dialogue. For Modi, the choice was between Do Nothing and Talk Everything diplomacy or following a Shame Pakistan, Secure India strategy. He voted for security.

Though the details about the terms of the NSA-level talks are yet to emerge, it is clear that Pakistan has agreed to discuss “terror in all forms”. Modi’s detractors could find fault with the government for agreeing to provide fresh evidence about the perpetrators of the 26/11 massacre because the UPA claims it had given enough proof for speeding up the trial in Pakistan. The PM may also face the ire of his supporters for not raising the issue strongly enough of prosecuting Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and Hafiz Saeed—financiers and masterminds of terror attacks in India. The only ironic solace for the PM will be the support he will receive at home from those who ideologically and personally abhor Modi but adore him when they feel he thinks like them on Pakistan.

But the success of Modi’s unconventional diplomatic adventurism in Ufa is tenuously linked with Sharif’s ability and capacity to deliver on the terror front. The idea of Pakistan survives and thrives only on anti-India fervour and actions. Terrorists and fire-spewing Pak generals know well that this nefarious notion of Pakistan will die the day its leaders and citizens start breaking bread with their Indian counterparts, and cricketers of both nations start running between the wickets to the applause of excited crowds. Pakistan was born out of hatred for India. The army has controlled it for the past 60 years, with the sole objective of remaining in a state of visible and covert warfare with India. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism nourished by the Pakistan army has made it impossible for even a tiny section of moderate elements across the border to mount pressure on their government to fight the fanatics in the system. The warmongers have sabotaged and subverted every legitimate move to settle all contentious issues with India.

Modi has to remember that Pakistan has contemptuously betrayed the Indian leadership too often by aiding and abetting terror attacks on India just before and after Indian PMs initiated peace moves. It has forced three wars on us. Both countries have signed over a dozen joint statements and mutual agreements on culture, economic and educational relations. None of these have moved forward because of unabated Pakistan-sponsored terror threat to India. All the confidence-building measures (CBMs) have achieved nothing except more blood and mayhem on Indian soil.

The sadistic twist in the tale is that Pakistan has been able to reacquire international acceptability by projecting itself as a victim of homegrown terror. Despite providing sanctuary to terrorists, it has been able to wrangle financial and military equipment from the three powerful members of the UN Security Council—US, China and Russia. Modi has to realise that the solution to the subcontinental standoff doesn’t lie in succumbing to the sugar-coated opinions of the peaceniks, pseudo-secularists and lovers of lavish Pakistani hospitality. India’s success depends on his strategy to globally isolate Pakistan and convince world leaders that today’s idea of Pakistan is a danger to them as much as it is to India. The rest of the world can use it against India only at its own peril. Pakistan can sow satanic seeds of an apocalypse, which can obliterate with fire more towers in New York, restaurants in Bali, media organisations in France, tube stations in London and hotels in India.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Ideological Compatibility ....... Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/January 04, 2015

Ideological Compatibility Among Ministerial Troika Strengthens Modi-fied Pak Policy

According to the great 6th century BC Chinese general Sun Tzu, who authored The Art of War, “Invincibility lies in the defence, the possibility of victory in the attack.” Now in 21st century India, for the first time since Independence, a strong defence and offence strategy is in place. This was evident on Friday when the Indian Coast Guard intercepted a Pakistani boat laden with explosives and terrorists whose ostensible purpose was to repeat the 26/11 attacks. The pre-emptive action was the outcome of a properly coordinated strategy prepared by the ministries of Home, Defence and External Affairs with the PMO fully in the loop on one of the most successful operations against India’s enemies.

Undoubtedly, the number of Pakistani incursions, LoC violations and terrorist infiltration has risen during the past six months, but the Modi government has decided to pay Pakistan back in the same coin, be it forceful retaliation to enemy fire or blowing up a terrorist boat. The wait and watch approach to Pakistan has been thrown into the dungheap. If comments made by the stakeholders of India’s security are indications, it is obvious that the PM has chosen to follow bullets-for-bullets tactics towards Pakistan.

The change in perception and strategy is not by accident. It is embedded in the composition of Modi’s Cabinet and the restructured security establishment. Earlier, various ministers and officials were able to impose their personal preferences when it came to dealing with Pak-led terrorism. There was little ideological connectivity between those who ran the ministries of Defence, Home and External Affairs. Modi has ensured that the Big Three—Home Minister Rajnath Singh, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar—complement, instead of confronting each other on national security. Not only are they die-hard Hindutva followers, but also none of them have been part of any kind of pro-Pak backroom diplomacy or belong to the peacenik club. No power player in any Western capital could ever have dreamt that an IIT-ian from a tiny state like Goa would be chosen to lead India’s gargantuan defence ministry. Swaraj and Rajnath are ‘fortunate’ victims of the class apartheid enforced by the Indian elite. Defence agents, international lobbyists and hawkers of Hawks jets, fighter planes, submarines and other defence equipment had thought it was below their dignity to include them on their mailing lists. Hence, the exclusivity of the three tigers has become India’s virtue.

The champions of dialogue and commerce with Pakistan would never have imagined the triumvirate occupying three of the five powerful corner rooms in South and North Blocks, where security strategies are evolved. Rajnath, Parrikar and Swaraj have acquired a reputation of a troika on a track, which means to destroy those hostile to India. They are working not for fame in Washington, London, New York, Mumbai or Lutyens’ Delhi but to make Pakistan an international pariah who breeds and feeds jihadists. Their mission is smooth, because the PM himself and NSA Ajit Doval have given them total support in their endeavour.

Defence analysts expect that ideological compatibility of the key players of Indian defence strategy will be able to restore some sanity to the Pak Army and its political leadership. Now, through Track-II brigade, they will not be able to infiltrate directly or indirectly Modi’s new fortress-like framework. Rajnath, Swaraj, Parrikar and Doval have minds of their own and directly report and discuss every issue with the PM. They have blighted the chances of many retired defence officials, superannuated diplomats, journalists and corporate leaders by making them irrelevant, and thus unemployable by any Janus-faced international agency or NGO, which encourages the arms race while propagating dialogue. Most of them were collecting commercial and strategic information during interactions with ministers and senior civil servants in previous regimes. All such informal espionage has stopped for the time being, since there are no conflicts of opinion either in the BJP’s political forums or the government hierarchy.

Modi, it seems, has learnt lessons from the past and has avoided choosing opportunists who pursued their own agendas without staying true to self-professed ideology. With promise of strong action against Pakistan during election rallies, Modi was deviating from the thinking of even Atal Bihari Vajpayee, whose political DNA made him evade confrontation in dealing with Pakistan. Kargil was forced on him. Vajpayee’s magnanimity was mistaken as weakness. During NDA I, there were differences between home minister L K Advani, foreign minister Jaswant Singh, defence minister George Fernandes and NSA Brijesh Mishra on Pakistan policy. Advani was overruled many times when he suggested strong action against the country whenever its terror plots were unearthed. The pro-US Mishra was always in favour of indulging Pakistan. Despite strong division within the Cabinet, Jaswant bartered with terrorists and accompanied them to Afghanistan to bring back a hijacked Indian Airlines plane in December 1999.

During the UPA’s rule, from PM Manmohan Singh to defence minister A K Antony, not one leader favoured an eye-for-an-eye approach towards Pakistan. Home minister Shivraj Patil, Antony and foreign ministers like S M Krishna, Natwar Singh and Salman Khurshid followed the diktat from the PMO or NSA Shiv Shankar Menon. The regime was habitually receptive to guidance from the US. Starting from 1950, none of the over three dozen defence, external affairs and home ministers had ever spoken—until now—in one voice on a decisive Pakistan policy. From Nehru to Manmohan, it was the acceptability among the classes and not the masses that dictated India’s response to its belligerent neighbour. All our leaders were influenced by non-state players of India or Pakistan while taking the final call. Modi has so far resisted all external pressures, which have tried to influence his strategic and diplomatic initiatives. The Modi-fied command and response mechanism has sent a clear message. The PM is convinced that any “strategy without tactics is the shortest route to victory”. Sun Tzu would agree.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Time to Adopt Modi Model ..... Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/ June 15, 2014

Time to Adopt Modi Model of Walk the Talk with Pak, Without Bending

All’s well that ends well, goes the proverb. The inverse is also true. With each new government’s debut, Indian diplomacy’s flirtation with Pakistan always begins well but ends up in bloody and bitter encounters after a few rounds of flying kisses and gregarious handshakes. Prime Minister Narendra Modi began his diplomatic innings spectacularly by inviting his counterpart Nawaz Sharif for his swearing-in ceremony on May 26. The Pakistan delegation was not only given disproportionate media space and diplomatic attention, but the effort was also bruited about as India’s sincere desire to normalise relations with a perennially hostile neighbour. Modi was determined to erase the impression of a hawkish Right wing leader who is out to rewrite Indian boundaries with brute force. His election campaign speeches were projected as a mission to bring pugnacious Pakistan to its knees. But as PM, Modi avoided doing anything of that sort. He chose dialogue and reconciliation instead of confrontation and disengagement.

Recent border encounters, however, betray the trust the Modi establishment has placed in Pakistani political leadership. Soon after Sharif’s return home, Pakistani troops engaged in their usual incursions, attacking innocent jawans and civilians. During the last four-six weeks, seven such incidents have taken place, killing nine security personnel. Since Nehruvian fellow travellers with vested interests in keeping the Indo-Pak issue on the boil control Indian diplomacy, they habitually try to insulate any new leadership against contrarian opinion. These professional peaceniks will try persuading the new Prime Minister to see an opportunity in sari and shawl diplomacy, thereby giving Pakistan’s democratically elected government another chance at duplicity. Modi is yet to dismantle the dialogue-for-peace lobby, which dominates South Block and the think-tanks floated and financed by it. Millions of taxpayers’ money is spent on foreign junkets for the faux-peace-vaudeville performers to visit salubrious cities for secret parleys and Michelin menus, which have yielded only more gore and blood on our borders. Most of them are even more devious than the NGOs that promote their agenda at the cost of national interest. Even the Track Two, Three and the umpteen number of channels are now coming together to sabotage any possible attempt by the PM to institute a credible nationalist mechanism to deal with Pakistan and also the US. They were spectacularly successful during the NDA regime led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The composition of these unofficial institutions holding semi-official confabulations with invisible interlocutors hasn’t changed in the past 20 years. Prime Ministers and foreign ministers have changed, but the pacifist pundits stay on, loaded with perks and pelf. They have made more foreign trips than India’s Foreign Secretaries or even the foreign ministers. A cursory look at their reports, presentations, and newspaper articles reads like the manifestos of political parties; immutable except for the first page and the cover. They conveniently ignore the harsh reality that India’s every goodwill gesture is reciprocated with either war or a terror attack. Instead of recording Pakistan’s history of betrayal, our self-appointed global peace ambassadors counsel every Prime Minister to aim for a global role by adopting soft postures. None of their reports refer to the wars fought in 1965, 1971, Kargil in 1999, the 2001 Parliament attack, and the 26/11 Mumbai massacre. They don’t see anything wrong in the inhuman killings of over 80, 000 Indian civilians and uniformed forces in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990. They see the mass exodus of Kashmiri pundits from Jammu and Kashmir as just an accidental result of peccant administration by a hawkish governor.

Though Modi has a mind of his own and can hardly be influenced by extraneous factors, it is difficult for him to forget the ignobility he faced from some foreign nations during the past 12 years. He was shunned by the Western powers, and denied visas to address meetings in America and London. Handling sensitive international relationships is Modi’s big challenge. Like his many other colleagues, Modi may not be seeking an endorsement from the American establishment or from its desi megaphones. But they have already unleashed their well-oiled machinery to influence people holding key positions in the government. Ambassadors and high commissioners of the countries, which had declared Modi a social pariah, are already hosting dinner conclaves for newly appointed ministers and new articulate MPs. They are calling on ministers and opinion-makers. Their only objective is to ensure that the Modi government doesn’t take a hard stand against Pakistan, the West’s most dependable ally and a big market for their defence industry.

But Modi is aware of his campaign promises to the people of India. His success in taming Pakistan would depend on his ability to destroy the terror camps across the border, either with cooperation from the Pakistan forces or by the Indian Army. Modi has been advised that glamorous handshakes with a leader who doesn’t have the authority to deliver on a single promise he makes to India are futile. Pakistan is controlled by four different fief-lords, each working within boundaries defined by them. If Sharif enjoys authority over civil administration, the ISI governs and nurtures Pakistan’s terror network over which the Prime Minister has no control. The Pakistani Army chief decides the contours of foreign policy. The delay in Sharif accepting Modi’s invitation was primarily because of the ISI and Pakistan Army’s delayed clearance. Top of the heinous heap is the Taliban, which is allowed to operate freely from various Pakistani cities. Unless the Taliban facilitates a favourable climate for a dialogue with India—or with Pakistan’s other neighbours—Sharif cannot leave his country or send officials to break bread with other diplomats.

Modi’s uniqueness lies in his out-of-the box thinking. On Pakistan, too, he should reject the choreographed summit meetings with Sharif and his silver-tongued Savile Row diplomats. Manmohan Singh left the office as a failure and India’s weakest Prime Minister, because he was advised to chase the Nobel Peace Prize by dancing with Pakistan. Modi has got a decisive mandate to deliver his promises through his performance on the Pakistan front. The time has come to junk the Nehruvian diplomatic model of yadda-yadda with Pakistan, and adopt the Modi model of walk the talk—that too, briskly and without bending.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

IN losing your neighbour's confidence ... Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/ August 11, 2013

In losing your neighbour's confidence, risk is of being gobbled up by Big Brother

“A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”—John F Kennedy.

For the past decade, the Indian establishment has been scrupulously adopting market mantras of the land of Kennedy. India’s economy is now more open than that of the mother of all open economies—the US. Both, however, have one thing in common. They are afraid to let people know the truth behind the establishment’s shady decisions. America wants to snoop on every global citizen. The Indian government is going out of its way to conceal the truth from the people. Defence Minister A K Antony’s statement last week followed this example. Within a few hours of Pakistani soldiers killing five jawans at the LoC, Antony was forced to say terrorists in Pakistan Army uniform were responsible. Who hypnotised him to try market the imaginary innocence of the Pakistan Army is a mystery. He finally accepted that it was indeed an act aided and sponsored by the Pakistan military. While the credibility of India’s defence establishment suffered damage, the incident raised questions about India’s dubitable diplomacy. A series of decisions by a cabal of diplomats have left none in doubt that they would go to any extent to promote their personal ambitions at the cost of India’s clout. Their success is evident in the PM’s unwillingness to call off the sham of a peace dialogue with Pakistan. Neither the bodies on the border nor the bombing of innocent citizens stands in the way. The similarity in statements made by both countries on the killings seemed to emanate from the same source. When Pakistan-based terrorists and ISI henchmen murder Indians, our rulers disturbingly don’t even catch a cold. In spite of a nationwide consensus in favour of teaching Pakistan a lesson by isolating it in the international community, the UPA is determined to host Nawaz Sharif at a friendly rendezvous in New York next month. India’s fixation for talks with Pakistan became more pronounced after UPA’s return in 2009. It was reflected in the joint statement issued after a meeting between PM Manmohan Singh and former Pak president Asif Zardari at Sharm el-Sheikh in July 2009. In a deviation from past policy, India delinked Pakistan-sponsored terror from composite dialogue. India accepted the inclusion of the Baluchistan issue in the statement, which had never happened before. Since then, the PM and his advisers on Pakistan have stuck to their resolve of pandering to our untrustworthy neighbour.

Obviously, South Block has adopted the Nehruvian principle of dictating the international agenda and become a power centre in itself. India’s diplomats lack long-term perspective; their horizons shrinking from a global overview to being camp followers of American diplomacy. Now we are neither a drop in the diplomatic ocean nor an invitee at the global high table. Pakistan, with its nuclear bombs and terrorists, is more acceptable to liberal Western nations than a secular and open democracy like India.

No neighbour takes us seriously. There was a time when nothing would move in Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Maldives and Sri Lanka without India’s involvement. Now, they ignore us and also threaten to join hands with China and Pakistan. The new Maldives dispensation cocked a snook at us by cancelling the building contract of an Indian company. Bhutan chose to open a dialogue with China after India’s short-sighted move to withdraw oil subsidies. First, India revised the 63-year-old Indo-Bhutan friendship treaty in 2007, which gave Bhutan the freedom to devise an independent foreign policy. But our diplomats were busy cozying up to the US, and ignored Bhutan.

In the case of Sri Lanka, India’s top leadership reversed its policy on human rights, which led to not only DMK’s exit from the UPA but also to the island nation turning hostile to India. Now it is creating more trouble by arresting Tamil fishermen on a daily basis. It has invited China to take over strategic port construction activities. India’s Bangladesh policy is worrying. Dhaka has acted decisively against fundamentalists and terrorists. President Sheikh Hasina wanted concessions in a revised treaty Teesta River treaty and the exchange of territory along the Assam border. The agreement could not be signed because of Mamata Banerjee’s veto; the UPA failed to resolve the boundary issue because the BJP was uncooperative, even though it would help India to get rid of terrorists infiltrating through Bangladesh. Ever since Hasina acquired power, she did not allow top jihadis from Pakistan to hide in the country; she even extradited some to India. She ensured judicial punishment to fundamentalists and invited top Indian entrepreneurs to set up businesses. But our diplomats do nothing to ensure the stability of a genuinely democratic and modern political leadership because Dhaka is not an attractive posting.

Our diplomats are busy playing golf and smoking cigars in Nepal, a playground for extremists from China and Pakistan. Despite having a massive Indian-origin  population, Nepal is not an ally. Like other neighbours, it perceives India not as a dependable friend but a ferocious foe. South Block, it seems, has forgotten the saying that once you lose your neighbour’s confidence, you run the risk of being gobbled up by Big Brother and losing your identity acquired at a huge cost and through hard work by leaders like Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me  on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Teekhi Baat with Salman Khurshid/IBN7/January 19, 2013

‘India is not influenced by anyone on Pakistan’

Union Minister of External Affairs Salman Khurshid speaks  on India’s response to recent killing of Indian soldiers by Pakistan and India’s foreign policy, during Teekhi Baat on IBN7. Excerpts:

You look worried. Is it due to the Chintan Shivir or due to Pakistan?

Well, it’s because of Teekhi Baat. When you invite to the show, one has to be wary of the hot spice.

But considering what Pakistan has done and the reactions it has evoked from across India, you must be worried.

It is worrying and we have raised the issue.

You spoke with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ms. Khar...

We have spoken to Pakistan. We raised the issue of murdering two Indian soldiers and beheading one of them. We also said that no matter what, there is no need of any intermediary.

You are clear that no third-party intervention is needed.

We have maintained this stance for years. And today we have reached a stage where people say that our bilateral relations can be normal. So, there must be dialogues.

You said that till now the dialogue had a peculiar tone, tenor and style. Would you review that?

The prevailing condition has impacted the dialogue. If the condition is normal, then the dialogue will be good.

Your party spokesperson wants to snap cultural and business ties with them.

This is what some people in the party and public think. It has no connection with the decisions. People exchange ideas and the government gets a sense of it. But, it is the government’s job to decide.

Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj has demanded 10 heads of Pak soldiers. Was it  an appropriate statement?

We understand the pain of the family of murdered soldiers. Every party understands that. Earlier too, when defence personnel sacrificed their lives, we recognised them in whatever way we could. It is not someone else’s decision to support the bereaved families.

After this incident, Pakistani hockey players were sent back. They felt insulted. Why did you invite them in the first place?

When there is an incident, the reaction will reflect the prevailing condition.

But is it right to invite players from Pakistan to play here, earn money?

Even our people go there. It is the society’s decision, and the government accepts that.

For some time, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Maldives have been snubbing us. Do we have weaknesses in our policies?

In the recent years, Bangladesh and Myanmar have cooperated with us in combating terrorism. Such cooperation was not there for decades. I recently went to Bhutan. The talks were from heart to heart. But, the world is changing. We must adjust our relations with the whole world accordingly.

You had said that policies will be decided under Prime Minister’s leadership. But I now see you reading statements from papers. It seems that someone else writes them.

It is not so.

The Pakistan policy is written somewhere else and read at somewhere else.

No. We are part of the same place where policy is formulated. Why shouldn’t the policy be formulated with the one who is leading us?

Do you speak about Pakistan in a soft manner under international pressure?

We have to do our duty, and carry out our responsibilities. 

What is your duty?

It is to keep the nation safe; to maintain peace around us and in the whole world. No allegation of disturbing peace should ever be levelled against us.

It seems you are influenced by America or somebody else regarding Pakistan.

We are not influenced by anyone.

There is no American pressure on you?

America is not pressurising us. But we talk to all the nations, be it Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, the neighbouring nations, Canada.

But now there is no war.

We are not in war time.

When you are attacked, you would go to war...

If there is an attack, we will protect ourselves. Now we want an answer to the pain that has been inflicted upon us.

But if such incidents are frequent, then at least you would not keep quiet...

Why are you talking about the future? We will talk about what has happened today and what we are doing today.

And you are satisfied?

We are fulfilling our responsibilities. The society has to get satisfied, the public has to get satisfied.

Thank you for coming to our studio.

Thank you Prabhuji!

No More FOP talk.../Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/January 13, 2013

No more FOP talk. A rabid Pakistan must be told to behave or...

The Shame of Sharm el-Sheikh is haunting India. As the blood-thirsty, trigger-happy Pakistani Army continues its bloody adventurism on our borders, the authors and architects of the spirit of Sharm el-Sheikh ridicule the martyrdom of Indian jawans in the name of glamorous diplomacy, which fetches them more air miles and seats at the head tables of international think-tanks. For the past one week, every instrument of state, corporate India, diplomacy and academia have been used to dismiss the inhuman killing of our jawans as a mere border skirmish. They even ignored the pious sermons of Hina Rabbani Khar, the glamorous Pak foreign minister. While congratulating her country’s media, she hoped the Indian media would follow its Pak counterparts and refrain from hyping the bloody border clashes. It is not because of her wish that the Indian establishment’s response has been muted on the Pakistan Army’s escalating aggression. Instead, the vociferous silence of those who shout and scream at minor incidents reflects a mindset that allows the maiming of Indian pride. These elements have systematically been capturing Indian think-tanks, infiltrating centres of power and dominating international seminar circuits. All of them plead for peace as if they have invested in the welfare of Terror Company. Strangely, all our corporate leaders, members of business fora, Bollywood icons, outspoken academics and hyper-secular NGOs have maintained a cryptic silence over Pakistan’s military transgression, as if their money taps would dry up—or fear that none of them will ever be invited to be a keynote or source speaker at various global meetings organised by the Track-II ‘peace’ enterprises for hire. The same spirit is haunting vantage points in South Block. The brutal massacre of poor jawans from the backwaters of Mathura and the sanddunes of Rajasthan have failed to rouse the anger of the elitist class who rose like a phoenix to condemn the brutal gangrape of a girl in Delhi. Corporates and political parties rightly fought for the braveheart. What makes them behave like lambs when it comes to the beheading of Indian jawans on wintry borders, while the rich and mighty lead a luxurious life in Mumbai and Monte Carlo? It is really disgusting to see some Yuppies, Puppies and others trotting out unsubstantiated incidents and rumours to underplay Pakistan’s sinister designs to resurrect the spectre of 26/11 and of the 2001 Parliament attack. These are the same messengers of that invisible spirit that has kept Afzal Guru alive. If Kasab was convicted and hanged through speedy justice, then why the delay in Guru’s case? Was the colour and quality of the blood of those who died in the Mumbai attacks any different than those who lost their lives protecting India’s rulers? Pakistan has violated ceasefire conditions more than 100 times. As a knee-jerk response, we threaten appropriate action but wait for an appropriate time, which never comes. We know that war is not an option. But meekly getting back headless bodies is a humiliating body blow to the might of Indian nationhood. Unfortunately, those who espouse the cause of nationalism also surrender to the overbearing glamour of Pakistani hospitality, music and support. Those who want to name and shame Pakistan are also the ones who support and promote sports and cultural ties with it. Rich and beautiful people from across the border are the star attractions at wine and dine parties in Indian cities. Not only do they get royal treatment, but also take back dollars for their presence and performance in the drawing rooms of India’s chattering classes. Back home, not one of them would open their mouth on handing over terrorists to India while their Indian hosts use every visible and invisible platform to restrain the government.

This class of Friends of Pakistan (FOPs) genuinely feel that a dialogue with our untrustworthy neighbour would ensure permanent peace. But they forget that the villains of peace survive and thrive in Pakistan. Why don’t they take out candlelight processions, host dharnas, organise seminars in New Delhi and New York to demand the repatriation of the 20-odd terrorists residing in Pakistan for the past 20 years? Why don’t they hold fasts at Jantar Mantar and in front of the Pakistan Embassy demanding Hafiz Saeed’s extradition to India?

Unfortunately, the FOPs refuse to recognise that Pakistan is a failed state. It has become fashionable to blame non-state players and protect the establishment from direct fire. Since the US establishment decides and dictates the tone of the Indo-Pak relationship, FOPs take the cue from the Americans. Until the 1990s, the number of FOPs was confined to academic institutions and very limited cosy nooks of the Indian government. But ever since economics replaced defence as the guiding and compulsory principle of India’s relationship with Pakistan, both governments—NDA and UPA—have been bending over backwards to accommodate American strategic philosophy as the bulwark defining India’s response to Pakistan’s offensive and humiliating conduct. In fact, it is India that is ignoring the sentiments of Bharat, which wants to teach Pakistan a permanent lesson. Some may argue that going to war should be the last option. But India can assert itself only if it isolates Pakistan internally, and chokes it economically as it did following the attack on Parliament and 26/11. Nothing hurts Pakistan more than global untouchability. While India, dominated by FOPs, wants to indulge in dinner diplomacy, Bharat wants to snap all commercial, cultural and sports relationships with Pakistan until it behaves and delivers. Ignoring your enemy with contempt is much more lethal than fire-spitting missiles.

Prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me  on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard Magazine/May 29, 2011

It's All Out in the Open Now, So

Why the softness on Pakistan?

Practising politicians are rarely prophetic as they live only in the present. They refuse to read the writing on the wall if it is politically inconvenient. They don’t mind killing their conscience to serve their fake drawing room constituencies. This is exactly what our ruling establishment is doing when dealing with Pakistan. All of them concede that Pakistan is almost a dead nation, yet they want to engage those who aren’t safe even in their own country. They live at the mercy of those who pose a threat to India. While bloodthirsty fundamentalists continue to demolish all the civilised and democratic institutions of Pakistan, large-hearted leaders from the US and their Indian fellow travelers continue to lobby for a dialogue. They have no logic. They don’t even have an idea about whom to talk to. For them, a healthy and stable Pakistan represents a golden future. These regular yatris from Lutyens’ Delhi to Lahore are more concerned about their evening parties where champagne is spilled than about the blood spattered all over the streets of Pakistan and in Mumbai during 26/11.

If any more evidence of Pakistan being the most favoured and safest haven for terrorists was required, it was there in the form of the audacious attack on the Karachi naval base last week. Earlier, the US army killed the Badshah of Terror Osama bin Laden in an area that was barely a few kilometres away from the seat the Pak military establishment. In the US, David Headley left no one in doubt during his ongoing trial that he was trained and funded by the Pakistan’s dreaded and unconstitutional ISI.

Headley even gave details about the names of Pakistani officials, terror funds and terror attacks planned against India. Yet Indian peaceniks have turned their backs to the facts and plugged their ears. While American opinion makers are furious over Headley’s revelations and confessions, Indian authorities have chosen to hide behind diplomatic camouflage. While the US is waging its war on ISI-sponsored terror, Indians are debating through media and TV channels on how to make Pakistan a stable and viable state. Predictably, the US is speaking with a forked tongue. One argues for the safety of their country and its strategic interests. Another advises India to wait and watch, which means let the ISI divert its terror outfits to hit at will on Indian soil.

It is amazing that our leaders and cheerleaders for Pakistan behave like ostriches. In private, however, they admit that Pakistan is the global godfather of terror. Even a hardcore diplomat-turned-politician like Natwar Singh admitted during a TV interview, which he gave as India’s foreign minister in 2004, that Pakistan was a failed state. But fearing diplomatic disaster, he withdrew his remark before it was telecast. He, and all those who both preceded and followed him to South Block, held almost similar views but never spoke their mind in the presence of colleagues or fellow diplomats. Hardly a day passes without women losing their husbands, children their parents and mothers their children in Pakistan, but its rulers instead of flushing out the killers boast about targeting India and that too on the floor of their parliament. General Pasha, the man whose ruling passion is harbouring and training terrorists isn’t bothered about the implications of his warmongering.

Why should he? He was, after all, addressing a captive house that enjoys only a token mandate from the people of Pakistan. None of them dared question the ISI chief about his dangerous plans to attack Indian defence and civil installations. Meanwhile, as Pasha was spewing venom, our leaders were still talking about talks. From Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to most Congress leaders, all pleaded for an incensed India to ignore the hawkish boast of a frustrated military establishment across the border. Moreover, American leaders visiting the subcontinent were exhorting their Indian counterparts to restrain themselves from speaking the same language as Pakistanis. Even the American collaborators in India are more active now than they have ever been before. Using foreign-funded think tanks, they have mounted pressure on Indian political, corporate and social circles to prevent the Government from taking any sort of action against Pakistan. None of them has spoken out for the repatriation of 45 fugitives, including Dawood Ibrahim who lives like a monarch in Pakistan. Not even a single NGO has demanded the dismantling of terror camps operating across the LOC. Instead, they go about collecting crowds and inviting Pak chatteratti and glitteratti to participate in Indian cultural festivals in return for generous remuneration. Even India’s hawkish Home Minister P Chidambaram admitted in a candid interview that while India has a limited capacity to undertake an Osama-type operation in Pakistan, it has constraints. It is clear that even his hands are tied.

For the past few months, as more and more evidence against Pakistan’s patronage of terrorism surfaces, Indian movers and shakers retreat further into their shells. While candlelight peace processions and seminars have almost vanished, so have those who were aggressively advocating an offensive against Pakistan; instead they are seen participating in seminars and conventions abroad. Escaping the summer heat seems to be more important than turning up the heat on Pakistan. Suddenly our over-enthusiastic defence chiefs also have lost their bravado and have stopped giving vent to their inner feelings. Defence Minister (Saint) A K Antony always preaches tolerance, even in the wake of serious provocation. Chidambaram will be reflecting the mood of the nation if he demands a level-playing field for Indian forces when he meets US Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Chidambaram should demand the destruction of the evil empire of terror, whose access to Pakistan’s nukes will always be an ominous possibility. It can be done with US cooperation. Or if need be, in spite of them.
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Race Course Road/The Sunday Standard/May 08, 2011

Osama fallout hurts Manmohan's dreams

Is there a rift between the Government and the Congress on Pakistan? Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is all for continuing the dialogue with Pakistan which is steadfast in refusing to take action against the 26/11 perpetrators. Last Friday in Paris, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao also elegantly articulated India’s current Pakistan policy. Home Minister P Chidambaram, though miffed with our hostile neighbour, had earlier advocated discussion and dialogue. On the other hand, Congress leaders refrain from speaking in public on this policy, privately favouring the suspension of talks. They are upset about the open defiance of India by pro-Pakistan elements in Srinagar like Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s procession protesting Osama’s killing. Many Union ministers and Congress office-bearers have warned the party high command about the negative impact of India’s soft Pakistan policy on the public mood, especially after the Abbottabad raid. Powerful foreign office mandarins influenced by American thinking are ignoring all political feedback; they are determined to push a Keep-Pakistan-Happy policy. The Ministry of External Affairs has mounted enormous pressure on the Government through opinion-makers, saying any reversal of India’s attitude towards Pakistan at this state would strengthen pro-Taliban elements. The survival of many think-tanks, managed and run by former diplomats and academics operating from India and abroad, depends on Indo-Pak relations. Some are upset with the revival of a pending demand for Pakistan to hand over 25 terrorists, including Dawood Ibrahim. Salman Bashir, Pakistan’s foreign secretary, took advantage of this rift, stating undiplomatically that “I only see them (statements) as symptomatic of trends and tendencies within Indian establishment and their armed forces to subvert the agenda of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. I don’t think Indian leadership would really subscribe to this”. On the same day , General Kayani issued a veiled threat to India. With Pakistan refusing to yield and the US asking India not to compare 26/11 with 9/11, Manmohan’s grand dream of peace with Pakistan could be in jeopardy.

Manmohan takes it easy for now

If Congress leaders and top civil servants are to be believed, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has drastically cut down on public appointments. He is also avoiding political meetings. As against over a dozen appointments a day, he is now accepting less than half-a-dozen meetings and so-called courtesy calls. Many chief ministers have called off their New Delhi visits since they weren’t sure of getting an appointment with the PM. He is particularly avoiding meeting corporate leaders and even some of his own party leaders. Manmohan, however, continues to hold weekly Cabinet meetings and important Cabinet committee meetings as well. Manmohan watchers feel he is catching his breath so he can deliver a powerful punch later in May.

Telecom scam politicking thickens

Though a divided BJP took Murli Manohar Joshi’s 2G scam report to the people, no one has a clue to its ultimate fate. Will Speaker Meira Kumar forward it to the Government? Or will she turn it down over the letter written to her by 11 of the 21 members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) rejecting Joshi’s findings? Meira won’t say. Is she waiting to discuss the matter with all parties before taking a decision? Insiders say the findings may be referred back to the PAC for a final decision. Since the report has been neither accepted nor rejected formally, the Speaker is within her rights to ask the committee chairman to take all into confidence once again. Since the UPA now has a clear majority in the reconstituted PAC, the Congress may not be averse to the idea of discussing and demolishing the Joshi report and save the PM from embarrassment. The Congress, however, is keenly watching the growing rift between the Parliamentary and organisational wing of the BJP over the 2G scam. No Opposition leader attended the first public meeting in favour of Joshi’s report organised by the Delhi unit of the party. BJP President Nitin Gadkari, Joshi and former Union minister Yashwant Sinha, who was also one of the BJP members of the PAC, addressed the meeting. Neither Joshi nor Sinha is given prominence in the party’s parliamentary affairs. Though the decision to take the issue to the people was taken at L K Advani’s home, it was left to the party chief to decide the names of the speakers and mode of agitation. Is the BJP trying to recast its image as a constructive yet accommodating opposition party?

More power to VIP security

The Government has decided to eliminate all bureaucratic roadblocks when it comes to the protection of national leaders. The exercise, obviously, has begun from the Special Protection Group, responsible for the security of the prime minister and his family, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Recently, the Government decided to extend the financial powers of a secretary to the director, SPG, who holds the rank of only special secretary. Bharat Vir Wanchoo, a 1976-batch IPS officer from West Bengal, will now have the power to clear projects, equipment and other requirements up to a limit of Rs 25 crore—Rs 5 crore more than a GOI secretary’s sanctioning powers. Wanchoo will enjoy this privilege as long he heads the elite force. A confidant of the Gandhi Parivar, he superseded five senior IPS officers to be appointed the SPG director after the UPA won in 2009.

INTERVIEW with ASIF ALI ZARDARI/India Today, July 21, 2008

“I DON’T REMOTE CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT”

It’s not often that a Pakistan politician sits down for an interview and refrains from what is a favourite topic—India-bashing. Asif Ali Zardari is the exception. The 52-year-old co-chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party (ppp) spent much of a 90-minute interview (watch interview) with me for Aaj Tak tv channel talking about completing Benazir Bhutto’s unfinished task and the need for strengthening Indo-Pak relationship. Excerpts:

Q. How much has your life changed after Bibi’s untimely death?

A. Not just my life has changed, but that of Pakistan and also of the world has changed. As long as she was around, I had no worries. She was there to take care of everything.

Q. You were in jail for almost 11 years. You both were fighting, Bibi from outside and you from behind the bars.

A. Yes, we were together in our fight. Even today, I feel she is very much around, in spirit.

Q. In my last interview with her, Bibi told me, “I know that my life is under threat but I’m going to Pakistan just for the sake of democracy. My biggest task will be to end military rule”. She sacrificed her life to restore democracy in the country. But even six months after her death, military rule is not yet over.

A. Her sacrifice will not go waste. We are working towards restoring democracy. Military rule is there but it is not Pervez Musharraf who is holding any such post.

Q. People of Pakistan elected both the pml-n and the ppp with this hope. Both of you were for his removal. So why is it taking so much of time?

A. Unlike India, we never had a coalition government. This is the first-time for us. Both the parties have almost equal number of seats. Even if we combine together, we will still fall short of the required number to oust him. We don’t even have the support of other parties.

Q. Have you set any time frame for Musharraf’s ouster?

A. Politicians seldom stick to deadlines. But we will pack him off soon.

Q. You are the working president of the party though your son Bilawal is the chairman. Why so when you could have done it yourself?

A. We have chosen Bilawal because he is our future, he is our present. Our new slogan: Bhutto ki tasveer Benazir, Benazir ki tasveer Bilawal (Benazir is Bhutto’s image and Bilawal is Benazir’s). Bilawal is our future. I am just a trustee of Benazir’s legacy.

Q. People say you are Pakistan’s Sonia Gandhi. Like she controls the Government from 10, Janpath in Delhi you do the same from Bilawal House in Karachi.

A. No, I don’t try and control the Government from Bilawal House as most of the time I am in Islamabad. "Soniaji is a great leader and I am trying to learn the nuances of democracy from her, no doubt. She is my role model." And if I had to control the Government, I could have very well become the prime minister. I had the option of taking up the post but I chose to manage the party instead. It is a greater responsibility.

Q. In last 100 days, you haven’t done anything substantial to speed-up probe in Bibi’s assassination.

A. Here in Pakistan, I see a larger conspiracy behind her assassination. I just don’t want to find out who killed her, but my sole motive is to let the world know what her death could lead to. It could lead to Balkanisation of Pakistan which would mean Balkanisation of the entire region.

Q. It was believed that Bibi was a staunch supporter of the US. And she was eliminated entirely for this reason. She was a target of the fundamentalists, so do you think you are also influenced by America?

A. We have sought the support of all political parties to restore democracy in the country. America, Britain and India, all are democratic forces. Bibi went to all such countries and her visits acted like a catalyst which in turn was of great help in the longer run. She ruled even though she stayed away from the country.

Q. Is ppp soft on the US, like Nawaz Sharif pointed out a few days ago? Do you agree that the US is interfering a lot in your domestic matters?

A. America is an ally. Taliban was a problem and will be a problem. We have to fight them out and we are trying our best to oust them. We may have to talk it out or have to fight with the fundamentalist forces. We might have to motivate them and bring them into our fold.

Q. Why don’t you forget Kashmir for a while? Why should India and Pakistan fight over it?

A. We can’t forget Kashmir. Like you, we also want an amicable solution to this problem. We want to talk out this issue. We want trade. Think of it, both India and Pakistan together can become superpower.

Q. For confidence building measures, India feels that Pakistan should dismantle its terror camps in Kashmir and stop interfering in its domestic matters. Will your government do so?

A. Neither we interfere in anyone’s matters nor we like others to interfere in ours’. We are against terrorism.

Q. Sharif said that visa should be abolished. Will you support him?

A. If he brings this Bill in Parliament, we have enough majority to promulgate it.

Q. To improve trade, why don’t you give any preferential treatment to India?

A. We are willing to give preferential treatment and want the same in return. We want India to play the role of an elder brother in the subcontinent. Pakistan can very well become a catalyst for India’s progress. If India and Pakistan unite, we will undoubtedly become a force to reckon with.Now, five rapid-fire questions:

Q. Who is your friend, Sharif or Musharraf?

A. Nawaz Sharif.

Q. Who do you hold responsible for Kargil fiasco?

A. It is history’s ex-factor and I hold both of them responsible for it.

Q. Will you ever be able to arrest Bibi’s assassins?

A. Bibi, in her book, had written that her death would become the catalyst for change. We will certainly get hold of them, but we want to change the nizam (system) of Pakistan.

Q. Would you like to become the prime minister of Pakistan?

A. I will not say that I will never become one, but surely will try not to.

Q. Will you join hands with China to procure weapons or befriend India to become an instrument in Pakistan’s progress?

A. I would like Pakistan to progress for which I would not mind being friends with both India and China.

INTERVIEW - BENAZIR BHUTTO, India Today-September 24, 2007

"Musharraf can’t become President"

For seven long years Benazir Bhutto has been dreaming of returning to Pakistan, the country she has served as prime minister twice. As she began finalising the details of her impending return to her homeland, the excitement was laced with uncertainty. Not surprising, since last week another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, who too was on a homecoming after eight years, was bundled from one airplane to another and banished to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader spoke to India Today Editor Prabhu Chawla for Aaj Tak. Excerpts:

Q. So how do you feel about your impending departure for home?
A. I am very excited. Seven years is a long time and I am wondering what changes have taken place.
Q. What do you expect? A red carpet or the reception that Sharif got?
A. I don’t know how I will be received. But I am not in the same boat as him. He has been convicted by the court of law and sentenced for treason and tax evasion. He had traded his imprisonment for a 10-year exile in Saudi Arabia with his family and this involved foreign guarantees. I was given the same offer. But I refused. So unlike Nawaz Sharif, I cannot be put on a plane and sent out.
Q. But the Government will not allow you also to return as there are charges pending against you.
A. The corruption charges against me have not been withdrawn. As far as I am concerned, I am out on bail and should not be arrested. I stayed out so I would not lose my freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of movement and association.
Q. Is there an agreement with General Musharraf that he would be your presidential choice and you will be his prime minister?
A. The discussion or transition to democracy has not been successful so far. I am going back in an uncertain environment.
Q. Is there any deal with him?
A. Of course not. Please do not use this word. It is unfair to my long history of suffering.
Q. I know you will not admit it but you went to Abu Dhabi to meet him.
A. That was a non-meeting.
Q. Non-meeting or no meeting.
A. Neither side has officially admitted to the meeting. But contacts between the regime and PPP have been taking place since 1999.
Q. General Musharraf’s popularity is on the wane and he needs a civilian face to stay in power. Are you willing to protect him?
A. Whether he needs someone to protect him or not, only he can answer. But the people of Pakistan need someone to fight for their rights.
Q. You are Benazir Bhutto,who is in exile, facing persecution and whose father was executed. Is it right on your part to compromise with someone who has deposed an elected prime minister?
A. I cannot compromise. I am seeking the restoration of democracy.
Q. Prime ministers rarely survive their full term in Pakistan. You yourself were dismissed twice. Is there something wrong with the DNA of Pakistan which makes military rulers throw out elected rulers?
A. I feel very upset to hear that there is something wrong with the DNA of Pakistan. Unfortunately, the military has impeded the democratic growth of Pakistan, unlike in India where you have a democracy and a peaceful transfer of power. India is also emerging as an economic powerhouse and is a force to reckon with on the world stage.
Q. But we have the same blood. We are only divided by geography.
A. Because of the military, Pakistan has not developed institutions or has had a stable environment where growth can take place.
Q. Have you set any pre-conditions for your return to Pakistan?
A. There are no agreements. I am going back unconditionally.
Q. You have been holding talks.
A. Everybody is talking. Sharif has been talking since 2000, otherwise how could he go to Saudi Arabia?
Q. Will you allow Musharraf to continue as President?
A. There has been a dialogue, but there has been no agreement. The dialogue is not about personalities but about holding of free and fair elections to get civilians in power.

Q. If Musharraf gives up the uniform, can he be the President?
A. First, this question is premature. Second, it is not for me to choose the President. The people will decide.
Q. Will your party support Musharraf if he stays in uniform?
A. We oppose a unformed presidency.
Q. What comes first? Kashmir or uniform?
A. That’s a good question.
Q. You are dodging the issue.
A. No, I am not. It is not based on one element. If today, for example, Musharraf announces that he will give up the uniform, it doesn’t mean there will be an agreement. Same if he were to lift the ban on twice-elected prime ministers from contesting.
Q. You have not defined the transition of democracy.
A. We are for holding of free and fair elections.
Q. In India, we cannot make a general the President under our Constitution.
A. In your country, you make even a nuclear scientist the President. If we did something like that in Pakistan, there would be utter chaos.
Q. But our nuclear scientists do not sell state secrets abroad. Why don’t you make a rule that prohibits generals from becoming President?
A. I think you are right. In Pakistan, we make rules but the military does not allow us to implement them.
Q. Has Musharraf lost the will of the people?
A. Opinion polls suggest that.
Q. Should he go?
A. This is for the people to decide.
Q. You represent the people, don’t you?
A. I am no Nostradamus. I cannot predict events.
Q. The judiciary has been very active in Pakistan.
A. Yes. Under the restored chief justice. We have great satisfaction that there is a check from the Supreme Court in disputed matters. But there are disputes over everything.
Q. Are you going to be a future prime minister or prisoner?
A. There are questions that don’t have answers. Will elections be held? Will they be free and fair? Will opposition parties get together?
Q. The only permanent answer is that Musharraf will stay.
A. That is also uncertain. The question is if Musharraf is eligible to contest another term in office. According to the Constitution, as a former army chief, there’s a two-year bar on a government servant to contest. So this issue will end up in courts.
Q. So you are saying Musharraf should give up the uniform, the ban on twice-elected prime ministers contesting elections should be lifted and …
A. It is important that all corruption cases against party workers be lifted and immunity be given to them. This is in everyone’s interest.
Q. Do you support Sharif’s deportation?
A. The courts have to rule in this matter. Every citizen has the right to come back. But the other argument is that Sharif traded his rights to live in Pakistan for the dropping of charges against him.
Q. Is your fight against Sharif or Musharraf?
A. My fight is for democracy.
Q. But he has scored a symbolic victory over you.
A. I don’t buy it. Very few people were present at the airport when he arrived. He made a mistake by making a deal, involving foreign parties and so on. But people can review mistakes. And I hope he will.
Q. People say America is playing the intermediary between you and Musharraf.
A. They are going back and forth in Pakistan in the larger interest of the war against terrorism.
Q. Are you not talking to them? Aren’t you the US nominee for the prime ministership of Pakistan?
A. Of course, we have been talking to them. They talk to all parties. This is the nature of political discourse. We welcome their democratic support.
Q. But unlike you, Sharif is clear that he will not talk to a dictator.
A. I disagree, because he did talk.
Q. That was earlier.
A. We are told that he talked. He was supposed to be travelling on Gulf Air earlier, but he went on a state PIA plane later.
Q. Are you saying he had a secret deal with the Government?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Will you become prime minister under Musharraf as President?
A. This will depend on the people of Pakistan if they get to vote in free and fair elections.
Q. Assume that the elections are fair.
A. I can’t do so because of the ground realities. The point is Pakistan is in turmoil because of so many issues and no one knows the course. Things could lead to an emergency, a military rule and deferment of polls. Even the militant hardliners are frightened of democracy. They seem to have adopted a Minus 3 Formula now—first it was opposition to me, then Sharif and now me, Sharif and Musharraf. The hardliners who formed the Mujahideen and became members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda do not want the people to get back their rights because their agenda will be rolled back.
Q. So for you, restoration of democracy is more important than whether Musharraf stays in power or not.
A. No. For me, the right of the people to choose their leaders is most important.
Q. And is it none of your business whether Musharraf is chosen or not?
A. The question is whether he is eligible or not.
Q. You are also not eligible to become prime minister under the current laws.
A. Yes, but I can contest elections and Parliament can change the law.
Q. But you would like to become prime minister.
A. Yes. If people give me the mandate, it will be a great honour.
Q. In the event of your party coming to power, is your candidature for prime ministership certain?
A. Of course, my party has only one candidate.
Q. So your mission to Pakistan is to return as prime minister and restore democracy.
A. I can sit back and ask why should I take the risk? But I believe every Pakistani has the right to live in Pakistan.