A former Pakistani General speaks out his mind,
no holds barred
"The Army should submit to
Civilian Rule"
Mohammad
Shehzad
Lt. General (Retd.) Talat Masood retired from government service
in the end of 1990, as Secretary Defense Production in the Ministry
of Defense. From 1981 to 1988, he was the Chairman and Chief Executive
of the Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF) Board. He is the recipient
of the nation's prestigious military awards, Hilal Imtiaz (HI)
(Military) and Sitara-e-Basalat.
He
received his Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering from the Engineering
University and MS in
Defense and Strategic Studies from Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.
He did post graduate work at the Loughborough College of Engineering
and Technology U.K, and has attended several professional courses
abroad, including China and the US. He is a graduate of the Pakistan
Command and Staff College and the National Defense College. He
is also a fellow of the US Stimson Center.
Currently,
Gen Masood is on the board of a few multi-nationals, works as
a consultant to foreign companies and global consultancy groups.
He is a member of the executive committee of the prestigious Coalition
for Action on South Asian Cooperation (CASAC), and the South Asian
Comprehensive Security Project. He is also an active member of
a global non-governmental nuclear risk reduction group.
An
active member of the Ad Hoc Public Accounts Committee set up by
General Pervez Musharraf, Gen. Masood is the only vocal voice
on corruption in the Defence Sector.
He
speaks on national and security issues and regularly contributes
articles to national and foreign newspapers and magazines. He
is frequently invited for comments by national and foreign television
and radio networks.
A
day before the interview, when he was told that the questions
might be tough and would he like to answer them frankly, he said:
"You could be as rude as possible..."
These
days, he is not invited by the Pakistan Television to comment
on the current situation. He speaks his mind freely and the subservient
yes men at the Pakistan Television can't take the risk of airing
anything inconsistent with the establishment's line.
In this exclusive interview with for ‘South
Asia Tribune’ General Masood speaks candidly
on the thorny issue of India-Pakistan relations, and many sensitive
subjects:
Q:
Why is it that there is never a debate on the defense budget in
the National Assembly?
A: They have inherited it from the British probably and continued
with the practice of passing a one-line budget. It would be good
for the military and the civil to make it much more transparent
so that the people of Pakistan support the defense process without
any suspicion. It will also bring a sense of accountability in
the passing and spending of the budget.
Q:
A school of thought in Pakistan says that the establishment wants
permanent animus with India to give currency to the two-nation
theory...
A:
The creation of Pakistan meant that both India and Pakistan will
live in peace. I have no doubt about it. This is what the founding
father Quaid-i-Azam had visualized. I would still think this should
be the objective of the people of Pakistan and our leaders to
co-exist with India and other neighbors peacefully. Till that
time it is achieved, I don't think we would have really gained
much from all what has happened in the last 55 years.
Q: Do you think the state really doesn't want peace with
India in order to justify the two-nation theory?
A: I don't think it is the question of justification or non-justification.
There is a belief in Pakistan amongst extremist elements that
they should continue to hate and despise India, and that strengthens
the ideological foundations. But it is a very misplaced conviction.
I totally disagree with it. In fact, the greater the prosperity
of Pakistan, the better the relations with India and with other
neighboring countries. A greater cooperation in the region will
help improve the quality of life and ultimately it will be very
beneficial to Pakistan.
Q: Those Pakistanis and Indians who have been to one another's
country believe that the masses want to have friendly relations
with each other. This means the animosity and the bad blood exist
only on the establishment level?
A: That is very true. It is always the case. When people meet,
they find it much easier to communicate. Their friendship and
understanding enhances. That is why, it is important that both
the countries must encourage greater exchanges. I was extremely
disappointed when India cut off its rail and air links, including
other communication links with Pakistan. This is the particular
time to have people to people contact to ease tensions between
the two governments.
Q: Why secularism has become a dirty word in Pakistan?
A:
It is not understood actually. They consider secularism probably
something irreligious. Secularism by no means follows that you
don't practice any religion! You still operate in an ethical framework.
As far as Pakistan's secularism is concerned, one would still
operate in the Islamic ethical framework just like the Christian
secularism is based on the Christian ethical values. So, we will
still maintain our ethical values of Islam and we will have an
ethos which is based on our Islamic traditions. There has been
a deliberate attempt giving secularism a bad name perhaps through
misunderstanding and now it is also done deliberately and there
is sort of an ideological divide over this issue at the moment.
Q:
Has partition sown the seeds of hatred between India and Pakistan?
A:
Initially, of course, there were certain wounds and scars of partition.
Even, those could have easily been healed and the situations should
have been forgotten had there been no lingering problem also left
behind. Unfortunately, the British left behind this problem of
Kashmir, which continues to sour our relationship with them. But
I don't agree with this statement. We can still maintain good
relations and work out a modus operandi where both the countries
can live in harmony provided the leadership shows statesmanship
on both the sides.
Q: A section of the educated populace thinks, military
will torpedo any possibility of 
peace
with India to justify its huge presence. Kargil is an example!
Do you agree?
A: I don't subscribe to this theory because if there is peace,
there will be a lot of economic prosperity and there will be far
more jobs you could ever imagine. Employment will not be a problem.
In fact, unemployment today is creating a lot of problem and that
is because your large funding is going to the defense and non-productive
activities and you are also discouraging investments – both
domestic and foreign - as a consequence of current situation in
South Asia. Peace with India will also be good for the defense
and security. So, it is a very narrow view of looking at things
and if there are people who think this way, I think they are misguided!
Q: Your views on this are deeply respected but please
tell us how many serving generals believe in it?
A: Well, anyone who applies his mind should come to this conclusion!
I cannot talk about others. There are some very wise people in
military who must be thinking in a very positive and progressive
way.
Q: But military will not be able to `rule' Pakistan, its
hegemony will end, if peace with India is forged!
A: I don't agree with that. Eventually, it is not in the interest
of the military to 'rule' Pakistan. It is in the interest of the
people of Pakistan and the military to become subservient to the
civil. The sooner it comes, the better it is for Pakistan.
Q:
Bismark, the German philosopher said that nations do need an enemy
to keep their people united. Have not we found India in this respect
to keep our people united?
A: I don't think India has been a unifying factor to that extent.
May be there are certain people who do agree in certain areas
regarding the Indian behavior - Indians' conduct in Kashmir for
instance or India's wrong policies in Kashmir, rights of the people
of Kashmir. But I don't think this should be the basis of unifying
Pakistan. The basis of giving an identity to Pakistan should be
its economic development, its cohesiveness, its prosperity, its
cultural identity. All these factors should contribute towards
unifying Pakistan giving it a national identity and not through
this negative process of hating one country.
Q: Pakistan and India have probably the worst relationship
in the world. Does the entire blame falls on India or some of
it also goes to Pakistan?
A: When you have poor relations with another country then both
the parties are to be blamed. I think, there is a greater responsibility
on the part of the larger country in the sense that the smaller
country always feels more insecure. To that extent, India should
show greater
magnanimity. It should help the smaller country to feel more secure.
It paves way towards cooperation and long term friendship.
Q: The UN required a plebiscite to be held in Kashmir,
provided, all the armies leave the state. Why did the Pakistani
army not withdraw beyond the borders?
A: It was a quid-pro-quo as there were many conditions which were
supposed to be implemented by both the parties. There was such
a great mistrust amongst them, neither agreed to the course of
action that they had to adopt. Over the years, now the things
have become far more complicated. The question of Kashmir is now
most fundamental and the most complicated issue between the two
countries.
Q: What have we got out of our obsession with Kashmir?
A:
Honestly, I don't know! We are, of course, very resolute about
Kashmir but I won't call it an obsession. Both the countries have
mismanaged their handling of the Kashmir problem. What is needed
- even now – is to again seek a political solution of the
problem. Both have been resorting to the military solutions. India
by oppressing (Kashmiris), Pakistan by, when India is not coming
to the negotiating table, using the military or the insurgency
operation or supporting the insurgency. All this further complicated
and vitiated the atmosphere. We have to first start a political
dialogue, create an enabling environment and then try to find
a solution to Kashmir and get over it.
Q: But didn't we initiate `Operation Gibraltar' in 1965
and the `Kargil' in 1999?
A:
This only shows our extent of frustration with India that we are
even prepared to take these high-risked ventures with India and
of course suffer in the long-run or in the bargain. These high-risked
adventures recoiled on us. It only goes to show that Pakistan
being a smaller country got extremely frustrated with India's
intransigence on Kashmir and acted in this fashion - not that
I'm trying to justify this but the fact that you have to see the
reasons why Pakistan behaved in this way.
Q: Nobody sheds a tear about the 1971 tragedy? We had
killed more numbers of Bengalis in East Pakistan than the Indians
might have killed Kashmiris in the Indian-held Kashmir!
A: These are two different issues. The role in Bangladesh, the
creation of Bangladesh, is the most unfortunate the way it happened.
Now we are happy that the people of Bangladesh have carved out
a country for themselves and we have very good relations with
them. But the way it happened was extremely sad and tragic for
both the parties. I hope we will learn certain lessons from this.
It is true that mistakes were committed by both sides. They should
apologize to each other and try to forget those and never repeat
it again.
Q: Is Kashmir worth risking a nuclear war?
A: Nothing is worth risking a nuclear war because it is suicidal.
Both the countries should think in terms of de-escalating the
nuclear capabilities and work towards disarmament and improvement
in relations.
Q: What would you say if you were to undertake a cost-benefit
analysis on Kashmir?
A:
No doubt, Pakistan has paid and continues to pay a very high price
of it. And so does India. We need to get together. There is a
need for a political resolution of this. There is no point in
expanding an armed forces, escalating tension, or only harnessing
the energy and channelizing it into areas which are counter productive,
instead of doing the development and fighting poverty together
or improving the quality of life of the people of South Asia.
Q: Nobody is willing to listen to us at present and everybody
is twisting our arm to stop 'cross border terrorism'. We are being
told by the international community that the UN resolutions on
Kashmir are not binding. Don't you think we have completely lost
our case on Kashmir?
A: The Indians have been able to sell their case very well. There
is no doubt about it as far as this 'cross border terrorism' is
concerned. They have capitalized on the world's fears, and particularly
the western world's fear about Islamic militancy. They have lumped
this Kashmir problem - which is of course totally different, which
is a conflict, which is an issue between India and Pakistan, and
also the denial of the rights of the Kashmiri people- as a `terrorist'
problem. It is completely wrong, but they did succeed in gaining
sympathy. There is no doubt people are still accusing us which
to me is not fair because if they think that if Pakistan is supporting
the mujahideen, then why do they not accept the international
observers? And if they are so certain that the militant groups
are crossing, then why do they not shoot them or capture them
if they are so certain as to from which area and where they are
crossing. Why don't they tell us from where they are crossing
so that we could take action against them. I think they have an
agenda which is far more than mere accusations. The international
community should agree and make India agree to the fact that there
should be some UN observers, or neutral or impartial observers
along the Line of Control so that they could be the best judge.
Big powers can just dictate any thing. One party is saying, we
are not supporting; the other party is saying, you are supporting.
In order to be fair to both the parties, you should have neutral
observers. India should have no hesitation in accepting that.
This is the only way.
Q: Even after becoming a lackey-state of the US, Pakistan
has failed to become its 'blue-eyed boy'. India, despite doing
nothing, has a special place with the US. What is the reason?
A: India is a larger market. It is democratic. It is not a threat
to them. The Islamic militants and Pakistan's militancy is not
liked by the West. We have to be realistic that India is a much
larger country. They share values. Then it is the question of
the China factor. So, they think that there could be a kind of
strategic alliance with them as well. All these factors need to
be considered. Pakistani leadership and Pakistani people should
keep this in mind. It is no point in grudging the fact that India
has a special place with the United States. More important point
is, we should develop a place in the international world and we
could do this. May be we can't be as important as big countries
are. But we are not a small country. We are a country of 140 million
people. We are well located. Only if we could improve our economy,
and have political institutions, and good market, I tell you we
will gain the respect of international community. And we will
be able to play a role both at the regional and global level which
is commensurate with the size of our country.
Q: General Aslam Beg at a public seminar said that India
can't win a war with Pakistan. Isn't it the case with Pakistan?
Didn't India win the 1971 war? Wasn't Pakistan's retreat from
Kargil a sort of defeat?
A: You have packed up quite a few questions! There will be a stalemate
if there was a war because India is not in a position to overrun
Pakistan. And Pakistan is in a position to give India a very hard
and bloody nose. The 1971 situation was totally different. You
had your own people against you. You had hostile India in between.
You had all the disadvantages. I hope India is not mistaken in
comparing the present situation with the 1971 situation! Both
the countries now have nuclear weapons. The armed forces and the
country is very cohesive, as far as the policy on Kashmir is concerned,
against India's hegemonic designs. There should be no miscalculation
on part of India.
The writer is a freelance journalist. Email: rageshri2@yahoo.com
Email Story | 
Discuss Story
