SPIEGEL Interview with Pervez Musharraf

[T-Faz]

The statements about militants has diverted from topic at hand but it would be good to shed some light on it and understand the context in which it is being said.

This militancy that was nurtured for Kashmir was a part of Zia's doctrine. Having ousted many of our great and brave generals, the regime at that time concentrated solely on proxy war owing to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The art of arming and using insurgents was perfected in the 80's against the soviets to such an extent, that Zia decided to use it in Kashmir too. 'Death by a thousand cuts' was the motto and the Soviets suffered from so many cuts that they did not have any strategy left to counter the Mujahideen threat. Militancy in Kashmir rose during the late 80's and early 90's because this was the strategy at that time. This is what Musharraf is alluding to in this interview and it is very fair to say that this strategy was a failure and caused colossal damage to us.

As soon as General Asif Nawaz become COAS, he stopped utilizing this technique and that has been followed by all other Army chiefs who followed his tenure. The problem arose in relation to this strategy that the militants created turned their guns onto their own countrymen. They started attacking minorities and this harmed us a lot as it continues to do so.

This strategy was a part of a bygone era and is over. Musharraf has done the right thing in stating what had been done, similarly Sharif also stated that their Afghanistan strategy was a failure.

The matter is all but dead, the militants are our enemy now, India underwent the same experience with Tamil Tigers. The rogue elements we so often hear about are remnants from the era when they utilized this technique and still do so against our own and others.

 

[T-Faz]

1. Pakistan regular and non regular warriors ILLEGALLY invade Kashmir, a sovereign land till that time.

Pakistan only send forces because the people of Kashmir wanted to join Pakistan but its ruler had other plans. Before India sent its forces to Kashmir as it was threatening to do with Hyderabad at that time, it was better to take some of the land that in a fair process belongs to Pakistan.

2. The barbarity of the attackers forces the ruler to seek amnesty and join India in the process.

It was the barbarity of the ruler that forced the leaders of India to initiate Kashmir Committee to help the suffering people of Kashmir. Incidentally a break away group of congress called Ahrar was made to disrupt this committee.

Kashmir Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. JL Nehru promises the people of Kashmir their right to self determination on the condition that Pakistan armed forces beat a retreat.

Distorted history, read the following.

Though Jawaharlal Nehru once vowed to "abide by the will of the Kashmiri people," India has always found reasons to avoid holding the referendum. Ex-Defense Minister Krishna Menon has bluntly explained why India opposes the plebiscite: "Because we would lose it." The popular Moslem leader, Sheik Abdullah, first supported union with India. When he changed his mind, the Indians clapped him in jail.

Nehru's Heart. Everything about the Kashmir problem is deeply emotional. The land itself produces little but scenery. Kashmir's mountain rim is so impenetrable that there is only one year-round road to the outside world—and it goes to Pakistan. Nehru was determined to keep Kashmir because it was his ancestral home and, as he put it, "a piece of my heart."

Asia: Ending the Suspense - TIME

4. Pakistan never packs up because they know they dont exist in the hearts and minds of Kashmiris.

We do and that is a fact, when a leader of Kashmir says he wants to accede to Pakistan, you can bet your soul that there is still support for Pakistan. Though I may say, not as much as it was a few decades ago.

5. Pakistan starts a war on the pre-text of freeing Kashmir. Less does she know that the locals will kick the but-ts of their forces and force them out.

Slightly true but it was only a small population that was against Pakistan, as getting *** kicked. You might wanna look up General Akhtar Hussain Malik and operation Grand Slam. This will tell you who was kicking whose ***.

6. When all fails Pakistan indulges in training merceneries and terrorists. This results in ethnic cleansing and changes the demography of Kashmir forever.

As I said it was Zia's doctrine, it does not happen any more.

7. People in Kashmir are systematically brain-washed by people who were paid by Pakistan.

Contradictory statement, first we are not in the hearts and minds of Kashmiris but they are easily manipulated to do our biding.

8. IA enters Kashmir and quells the miscreants.

Quells to you, kills to us.

9. Well terrorism fails, Pakistan resorts to Kargil. Pakistan looses the war and her face in the international community.

Militancy was abruptly stopped in 1992/3 when the new Generals moved in. Kargil came much later, so your statement does not really make sense.

10. Kashmir remains a part of India. All the sacrifices on the IA and common civilians have strengthed resolve to not give up Kashmir.

We still have a rather large chunk and so does China. Strengthen your resolve to take it back then.

11. Pakistan gets a taste of its own medicine and is in crisis.

It is a difficult period, i agree but every nation has to go through such times. Remember emergency rules, assassinations of leaders, riots between different religions and what not in India.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

The statements about militants has diverted from topic at hand but it would be good to shed some light on it and understand the context in which it is being said.

This militancy that was nurtured for Kashmir was a part of Zia's doctrine. Having ousted many of our great and brave generals, the regime at that time concentrated solely on proxy war owing to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The art of arming and using insurgents was perfected in the 80's against the soviets to such an extent, that Zia decided to use it in Kashmir too. 'Death by a thousand cuts' was the motto and the Soviets suffered from so many cuts that they did not have any strategy left. Militancy in Kashmir rose during the late 80's and early 90's because this was the strategy at that time. This is what Musharraf is alluding to in this interview and it is very fair to say that this strategy was a failure and caused colossal damage to us.

As soon as General Asif Nawaz become COAS, he stopped utilizing this technique and that has been followed by all other Army chiefs who followed his tenure. The problem arose in relation to this strategy that the militants created turned their guns onto their own countrymen. They started attacking minorities and this harmed us a lot as it continues to do so.

This strategy was a part of a bygone era and is over. Musharraf has done the right thing in stating what had been done, similarly Sharif also stated that their Afghanistan strategy was a failure.

The matter is all but dead, the militants are our enemy now, India underwent the same experience with Tamil Tigers. The rogue elements we so often hear about are remnants from the era when they utilized this technique and still do so against our own and others.

One can understand however, why the militant would run lose in Pakistan the way they did... They should have been incorporated in the regular army in some way instead of disbanding them the way it happened...

Despite the fact that I hate Takfiri ideas... the question can rightly be asked why did Pakistan take dictatation from America after 9/11... We had nothing to do with 9/11 and should have kept out of the whole affair... when people accuse Musharaf of treason it should be remembered that the Pakistani army faced rebellion from Takfiris it was because of what Musharaf did i.e allow America to use our own airfields to launch attacks inside Pakistan/Afghanistan... furthermore under his term tens of FBI offices were established in Pakistan... I mean what is this... are we some sort of a slave country... do we not have any dignity to have stated openly that we disapprove of 9/11 attacks and would do our best to finish off such elements within Pakistan/Afghanistan but cannot allow America to just threaten us to be bombed to stone age etc... What did we have to do with 9/11... If anything we were upset at the events too!!!

Please try to understand... The reason why the Takfiris have had any success (if at all) against the Pakistani army it is because Musharaf has created a very bad public opinion about Pakistan's military... If you ask ordinary people today they generally have a very low opinion of the military... this is because instead of being seen as defenders of the nation Pakistan's army is now being seen as an army of mercenaries employed by the US of A...

My final question would be... Are we supposed to believe that the millions of dollars that we are pouring into our military for years is just for defence purposes? that we are unable to "solve" the Kashmir or for that matter the "India" problem once and for all? I m sorry to say but such a scenario helps the top brass of Pakistan's military enjoying their millions but leaves everything else as status quo...

Such a corrupt system cannot continue... The Army has a duty to protect its people... not just practice and sit in barracks... and attack your own cities at the behest of the USA... If these militants could have been controlled in the past, there is no reason to think that they can not be controlled today...

Someone is overlooking the obvious which is that this war on terror is only designed for one goal in mind... to split apart Pakistan by using the very institution that is supposed to be protecting our country... and of course the corrupt politicians too!!!

 

[karan.1970]

The statements about militants has diverted from topic at hand but it would be good to shed some light on it and understand the context in which it is being said.

This militancy that was nurtured for Kashmir was a part of Zia's doctrine. Having ousted many of our great and brave generals, the regime at that time concentrated solely on proxy war owing to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The art of arming and using insurgents was perfected in the 80's against the soviets to such an extent, that Zia decided to use it in Kashmir too. 'Death by a thousand cuts' was the motto and the Soviets suffered from so many cuts that they did not have any strategy left to counter the Mujahideen threat. Militancy in Kashmir rose during the late 80's and early 90's because this was the strategy at that time. This is what Musharraf is alluding to in this interview and it is very fair to say that this strategy was a failure and caused colossal damage to us.

As soon as General Asif Nawaz become COAS, he stopped utilizing this technique and that has been followed by all other Army chiefs who followed his tenure. The problem arose in relation to this strategy that the militants created turned their guns onto their own countrymen. They started attacking minorities and this harmed us a lot as it continues to do so.

This strategy was a part of a bygone era and is over. Musharraf has done the right thing in stating what had been done, similarly Sharif also stated that their Afghanistan strategy was a failure.

The matter is all but dead, the militants are our enemy now, India underwent the same experience with Tamil Tigers. The rogue elements we so often hear about are remnants from the era when they utilized this technique and still do so against our own and others.

I agree to most of your post except the highlighted part..The interviewer specifically asked why he had to form and arm underground groups to fight India in Kashmir..It was not refergint to the bygone era of Zia.

SPIEGEL: Why did you form militant underground groups to fight India in Kashmir?


Musharraf: They were indeed formed. The government turned a blind eye because they wanted India to discuss Kashmir


Please note when the interviewer was talking about Pakistan, he was not using the pronoun You but was using the word Pakistan

 

[Von Hölle]

The statements about militants has diverted from topic at hand but it would be good to shed some light on it and understand the context in which it is being said.

This militancy that was nurtured for Kashmir was a part of Zia's doctrine. Having ousted many of our great and brave generals, the regime at that time concentrated solely on proxy war owing to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The art of arming and using insurgents was perfected in the 80's against the soviets to such an extent, that Zia decided to use it in Kashmir too. 'Death by a thousand cuts' was the motto and the Soviets suffered from so many cuts that they did not have any strategy left. Militancy in Kashmir rose during the late 80's and early 90's because this was the strategy at that time. This is what Musharraf is alluding to in this interview and it is very fair to say that this strategy was a failure and caused colossal damage to us.


As soon as General Asif Nawaz become COAS, he stopped utilizing this technique and that has been followed by all other Army chiefs who followed his tenure. The problem arose in relation to this strategy that the militants created turned their guns onto their own countrymen. They started attacking minorities and this harmed us a lot as it continues to do so.


This strategy was a part of a bygone era and is over. Musharraf has done the right thing in stating what had been done, similarly Sharif also stated that their Afghanistan strategy was a failure.

The matter is all but dead, the militants are our enemy now, India underwent the same experience with Tamil Tigers. The rogue elements we so often hear about are remnants from the era when they utilized this technique and still do so against our own and others.

You are right on many accounts but wrong on some very crucial historical facts.

You are right that the strategy of bleeding India by thousand cuts was Zia's legacy ..but it did not stop there ..during Zia's time focus was on Punjab ..but by end of his tenure focus shifted on Kashmir.

As Punjab militancy was almost on it deathbed..and the final nail in the coffin was Benazir Bhutto's handing over the ISI trained ring leaders list of Punajbi militants to Indian PM ..one of the reason for ouster from power.


Pakistan simply shifted its focus Kashmir and the year..militancy was at its peak during entire 90s ..including Asif Nawaz's tenure from 91 -93.

It did not see a downtrend until famous U-turn speech by Musharaff in 2002 (after the parliment attack).

Pakistan was forced to abandon this policy ..under US pressure(due to 9/11)..and Indian threat to wage a war Op Parkaram.

How ever what had just happened was that ISI had simply stopped supporting these terrorist organisation monetarily (due to which Musharaff was attacked twice.

But by this time these organisation were able to stand on their own feet and were able arrange their own funding...no steps were taken to curb them ..they continue to function till this day.

 

[T-Faz]

One can understand however, why the militant would run lose in Pakistan the way they did... They should have been incorporated in the regular army in some way instead of disbanding them the way it happened...

The militants were never a part of any institution, they work independently, only being utilized by intelligence agencies as and when required. You should look up the case of Sufi Mohammed and the Malakand uprising after he returned from Afghanistan in the 90's.

Despite the fact that I hate Takfiri ideas... the question can rightly be asked why did Pakistan take dictatation from America after 9/11... We had nothing to do with 9/11 and should have kept out of the whole affair... when people accuse Musharaf of treason it should be remembered that the Pakistani army faced rebellion from Takfiris it was because of what Musharaf did i.e allow America to use our own airfields to launch attacks inside Pakistan/Afghanistan... furthermore under his term tens of FBI offices were established in Pakistan... I mean what is this... are we some sort of a slave country... do we not have any dignity to have stated openly that we disapprove of 9/11 attacks and would do our best to finish off such elements within Pakistan/Afghanistan but cannot allow America to just threaten us to be bombed to stone age etc... What did we have to do with 9/11... If anything we were upset at the events too!!!

The reason Pakistan had to side with US was because of we would not want to be on the opposing side of a Superpower with an international alliance. The terms of partnership could have been better discussed but if we had opposed US, Pakistan would have suffered a lot consequently in the form of economic, social and war related damages.

Please try to understand... The reason why the Takfiris have had any success (if at all) against the Pakistani army it is because Musharaf has created a very bad public opinion about Pakistan's military... If you ask ordinary people today they generally have a very low opinion of the military... this is because instead of being seen as defenders of the nation Pakistan's army is now being seen as an army of mercenaries employed by the US of A...

Truthfully speaking that is your opinion and is subjective, one cannot paint all the others to have the same view. Moderate elements know the importance of siding with powers for a cause, this current predicament is also our problem and it has been for some time. Refer to Sufi Mohammed and his uprising to understand my argument, we had to fight the militants now or later. Better now with a powerful coalition by our side.

My final question would be... Are we supposed to believe that the millions of dollars that we are pouring into our military for years is just for defence purposes? that we are unable to "solve" the Kashmir or for that matter the "India" problem once and for all? I m sorry to say but such a scenario helps the top brass of Pakistan's military enjoying their millions but leaves everything else as status quo...

Such a corrupt system cannot continue... The Army has a duty to protect its people... not just practice and sit in barracks... and attack your own cities at the behest of the USA... If these militants could have been controlled in the past, there is no reason to think that they can not be controlled today...

Someone is overlooking the obvious which is that this war on terror is only designed for one goal in mind... to split apart Pakistan by using the very institution that is supposed to be protecting our country... and of course the corrupt politicians too!!!

Your opinions are highly subjective and without any proof of what you are stating. Believing in conspiracies will not get us very far though.

 

[mohd497]

excellent replies by musharraf want to see him lead us again against poverty,corruption,extremism and every day lies and finger pointing.

 

[DGMO]

Musharraf has been known for his frank assesments in the past, and many have claimed that he's too honest at times.

Given he's come out with a statement about Pakistan training militants, how will the army react to his revelation (not a total surprise, but not something to shout about)?

Surely it's something they can do without, as it is negative PR, and drags them into the picture unnecessarily. Is he alienating a source he so very much needs for his own political survival? It seems so.

 

[T-Faz]

I agree to most of your post except the highlighted part..The interviewer specifically asked why he had to form and arm underground groups to fight India in Kashmir..It was not refergint to the bygone era of Zia.

SPIEGEL: Why did you form militant underground groups to fight India in Kashmir?

Musharraf: They were indeed formed. The government turned a blind eye because they wanted India to discuss Kashmir

Please note when the interviewer was talking about Pakistan, he was not using the pronoun You but was using the word Pakistan

You are right on many accounts but wrong on some very crucial historical facts.

You are right that the strategy of bleeding India by thousand cuts was Zia's legacy ..but it did not stop there ..during Zia's time focus was on Punjab ..but by end of his tenure focus shifted on Kashmir.

As Punjab militancy was almost on it deathbed..and the final nail in the coffin was Benazir Bhutto's handing over the ISI trained ring leaders list of Punajbi militants to Indian PM ..one of the reason for ouster from power.

Pakistan simply shifted its focus Kashmir and the year..militancy was at its peak during entire 90s ..including Asif Nawaz's tenure from 91 -93.

It did not see a downtrend until famous U-turn speech by Musharaff in 2002 (after the parliment attack).

Pakistan was forced to abandon this policy ..under US pressure(due to 9/11)..and Indian threat to wage a war Op Parkaram.

How ever what had just happened was that ISI had simply stopped supporting these terrorist organisation monetarily (due to which Musharaff was attacked twice.

But by this time these organisation were able to stand on their own feet and were able arrange their own funding...no steps were taken to curb them ..they continue to function till this day.

Musharraf was a part of the army during Zia's time, was he not. As soon as Gen. Asif Nawaz initiated his tenure, things were slowly being turned back and you should know that it takes time to end a strategy in place. The extremist ideology was slowly undone and the channels of communication with these militants stopped.

However elements within ISI did not want this to end, these are referred to as rogue elements and are the reason why militancy continued if any. Musharraf had to abruptly end it during the time you stated but suffered as a consequence of doing so. It is more logical to slowly undo all the ill's and start with a clean slate.

As for Punjab militancy, the support was limited to non existent. Had Pakistan wanted, it could have really damaged India but it was busy with the Soviet situation. Infact I was reading an article from Time Magazine where Indira stated that the problem in Punjab was due to Pakistan and the editorial itself was very critical of this view as it was common practice to blame it on Pakistan.

 

[karan.1970]

Musharraf was a part of the army during Zia's time, was he not. As soon as Gen. Asif Nawaz initiated his tenure, things were slowly being turned back and you should know that it takes time to end a strategy in place. The extremist ideology was slowly undone and the channels of communication with these militants stopped.

However elements within ISI did not want this to end, these are referred to as rogue elements and are the reason why militancy continued if any. Musharraf had to abruptly end it during the time you stated but suffered as a consequence of doing so. It is more logical to slowly undo all the ill's and start with a clean slate.

As for Punjab militancy, the support was limited to non existent. Had Pakistan wanted, it could have really damaged India but it was busy with the Soviet situation. Infact I was reading an article from Time Magazine where Indira stated that the problem in Punjab was due to Pakistan and the editorial itself was very critical of this view as it was common practice to blame it on Pakistan.

He was not big enough to be responsible for a task as big as promoting militancy in India. Even in 1987 he was a lowly Brigadiar General during the unsuccessful counter attack in Siachen. And thats the time the insurgency in Kashmir really started..

 

[Developereo]

Friendship with India, you can gain much more from India than from Kashmir.

You are saying we should sell out Kashmir for economic gain. Ain't gonna happen!

So unless Pakistan makes India insignificant in the world political order, no country will take sides and it will remain locked between India and Pakistan. Understand that while Pakistan needs the world to take its side to change the status quo, India does not. Status quo works fine for us..

Exactly, that was the whole point of my original post. Pakistan needs to do better than the status quo which, as you say, works for India while the Kashmiris keep dying. This is one of the reasons I have my doubts about Musharraf -- he wanted to make the status quo permanent.

Economic clout will bring allies and allies will bring pressure upon India. As India opens up to the world, it becomes more vulnerable to international economic pressures.

Being indegenous does not depend only on genesis, but also on means of sustainence.

The Gaza Palestinians are sustaining their struggle just fine. Without Pakistani help, the Kashmiris would still continue to resist India, albeit less violently.

 

[Von Hölle]

Musharraf was a part of the army during Zia's time, was he not. As soon as Gen. Asif Nawaz initiated his tenure, things were slowly being turned back and you should know that it takes time to end a strategy in place. The extremist ideology was slowly undone and the channels of communication with these militants stopped.


However elements within ISI did not want this to end, these are referred to as rogue elements and are the reason why militancy continued if any. Musharraf had to abruptly end it during the time you stated but suffered as a consequence of doing so. It is more logical to slowly undo all the ill's and start with a clean slate.

As for Punjab militancy, the support was limited to non existent. Had Pakistan wanted, it could have really damaged India but it was busy with the Soviet situation. Infact I was reading an article from Time Magazine where Indira stated that the problem in Punjab was due to Pakistan and the editorial itself was very critical of this view as it was common practice to blame it on Pakistan.

Facts on ground do not support your assumption ..if support was being withdrawn then militancy should have decreased(even marginally) not increased.

Kashmir militancy was at it peak during 1994..when more than 6000 attacks took place..and this was 1yr after Asif Nawaz's tenure.

second peak came in Musharaff's tenure itself ..when numerous Jihadi outfits sprang up.

It was only after 9/11 (specifically after 14 th may 2002 when 34 women and children were killed in Kashmir by LET, war was imminent) that Musharaf has to withdraw ISI's support.

Khalistani militant support was significant.. that how Benazir Bhutto had the list of militant heads in India which she handed over to Rajiv Gandhi...which why she was not allowed complete her first tenure and was labelled as security risk by ISI.

 

[Gene]

This is such a shame for a country that it's former president openly declares that "we support terrorism”. the country in one hand support terrorism & in other hand yelling for peaceful resolution through UN...pathetic
by saying so Mr Musharraf declared proxy war against india.if freedom of a state is behind their logic to support terrorism, why should not india support Baluchistan & other region?

now the world will learn the true face of pakistan.

 

[Spring Onion]

So now that you have had your chance ..you won't mind if Indian does it again in Pakistan!!..It only fair ..now that you are openly supporting terrorism..you won't mind Indian interference in Pakistan??

If and but? there is no if and but. rather India is already doing terrorism in Pakistan.

On the other hand We have NOT yet started any interference in India.

 

[T-Faz]

Facts on ground do not support your assumption ..if support was being withdrawn then militancy should have decreased(even marginally) not increased.

Kashmir militancy was at it peak during 1994..when more than 6000 attacks took place..and this was 1yr after Asif Nawaz's tenure.

second peak came in Musharaff's tenure itself ..when numerous Jihadi outfits sprang up.

The groups had a lot of other 'allies' by then and were functioning independently. It is very logical if you were to correlate all the events of those times. Like I mentioned Sufi Mohammed, a Mujahideen, came back to Pakistan in 1993/4 and wanted to implement Sharia in Pakistan. He was able to initiate a deadly movement in Malakand where the army had to kill over a thousand people to end the uprising. The groups were equipped with the know how to function well independently or in conjunction with other groups.

Khalistani militant support was significant.. that how Benazir Bhutto had the list of militant heads in India which she handed over to Rajiv Gandhi...which why she was not allowed complete her first tenure and was labelled as security risk by ISI.

Could you please refer to what you are stating here. I would like to see some documents or articles that state Pakistan supported the militancy in Punjab.