---

Let’s start with the deal between Benazir Bhutto
and President Pervez Musharraf. How do you see
these talks between the leader of the Pakistan
People’s Party, the largest democratic political
opposition party, and a military ruler?

A dialogue is always positive, and if it is
transparent, and it’s for a principle, then I
believe that it is absolutely essential. But the
way this whole dialogue has been handled - I
would prefer not to call it a deal and I hope it
does not end as one - is the secrecy of it; the
objective of it.

What is the objective?

To those of us who have been at the forefront of
a movement that wants democracy, we feel this
dialogue actually gave the army another lifeline.
The lawyers’ movement (for the restoration of
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary) made Musharraf
feel vulnerable for the first time and to take
advantage of that would have been correct, but in
a different way.

Had the political parties all got together and
said, ’General, you are vulnerable, you have seen
that people do not like army rule. Let’s sit down
and talk about exit of the army’, I think people
would have welcomed that.

But the manner in which this has been conducted,
the fact that the ISI chief was the political
broker in London does not augur well. Benazir has
just given a statement that even Nelson Mandela
had negotiations with the apartheid regime. I
hope she will reread her history.

Nelson Mandela came to negotiations after he had
broken the apartheid system. He was saying ’now
that we have broken your back, how are you
willing to hand over power’. Here, it is, ’now
that the lawyers have broken your back, how are
we willing to adjust with each other’. It
demoralised those who were asking for the army to
stay away from politics.

Is this a message that the army’s role in
politics is here to stay and the political
parties have to adjust to it?

I think the message coming out of this is that
the political leadership is out of touch with
reality. No one can deny that on the streets of
Pakistan, people were asking Musharraf to go.
There were slogans against military in politics.
There was complete clarity in that movement.

There is an argument that such an understanding
(between Benazir and Gen. Musharraf) is required
to prevent chaos; that “undiluted democracy” will
lead to all sorts of forces rushing in...

There is that thinking. But, at the end of it,
the argument is that a partnership between the
military and civilians has never sustained
itself. So what kind of partnership are you
asking for?

Nothing (that was tried before) worked. Second
thing is that there are moments in history; here
is a moment when people in Pakistan have
categorically said they are willing to come out
and sacrifice. We have never before heard this
kind of resentment against the military. This is
a changed Pakistan. The mood has changed. You’ve
never seen the judiciary take on the executive in
this manner.

Do you not believe Benazir when she says that
what she is doing is for democracy; that she is
stripping a military ruler of all his powers, his
uniform; that this is the best transition to a
full democracy?

I have no reason to disbelieve her. But I think
she’s being unrealistic if she thinks she can do
it. And regardless of how laudable her reasons,
there is a manner of doing it.

When there have to be negotiations, it must be
between politicians. It cannot be with ISI
chiefs, or high ranking bureaucrats. The whole
manner of the negotiations shows who is in
control and who wants to be in control.

It is unrealistic to think that Musharraf would
have negotiations with People’s Party for giving
up power. Why would he not want to have it with
the people of Pakistan? If he is sincere about
giving up, he can do it on television.

Is Nawaz Sharif the only politician now who
understands the mood of the people? He seems to
be saying all the right things.

Politicians always say the right things. We have
to test them. I believe that activists and civil
society in Pakistan have a very long struggle
ahead. We have to constantly remain the watchdogs.

What does Nawaz Sharif’s proposed return augur for Pakistan?

If he comes, we would all welcome it. The
politicians of Pakistan have a role to play here.

But he’s not a liberal politician. He is a
religious conservative. He did not particularly
like a free media; his civil liberties record was
poor.

Yes, Nawaz had a dreadful record of human rights.
And his understanding of the issues involved is
rather bleak.

So why would you welcome him?

The reason I would welcome him is that I think
the political leadership needs to be here, and we
can challenge a political leadership.

The very fact that democracy is acceptable to
people is not because you get pure leadership but
that the system has its own dynamics.

If there are free and fair elections, and
anti-Americanism is going to be big factor, do
you think it could end up strengthening the hands
of the religious extremists?

Anti-Americanism will be a factor but I certainly
do not believe that, despite what the Americans
have done, people are going to stake their lives
on religious extremism just because they hate the
Americans. They love themselves far more.
Pakistan is very different to other Muslim
countries.

I don’t fear that through a ballot, you will have
religious militant extremists coming in. But if
you don’t have a ballot, there is far more danger
of this happening.

You were critical of the way the government handled the Lal Masjid issue...

It was not easy for the Human Rights Commission
to take this stand on the Lal Masjid because many
of our members are confirmed radical secularists
and we have been against religious extremism,
terrorism and militancy.

But we believe that if government can use
excessive force against anyone, they can use it
for us as well tomorrow.

Well, the government also tried negotiations and
agreements in the Federally Administered Tribal
Areas, but that has not worked either.

I don’t want to sound negative at all. To combat
terrorism is in the interests of Pakistan; it is
crucial for Pakistan. But as an informed citizen,
I do not know what is happening in FATA.

So it is very difficult for me to make a judgment
whether they are doing it the right way or not.

I can only say that I know that children and
women have been killed. I know there has been no
enquiry. I know this is not a transparent
operation. I also know that political parties are
not allowed to have any activities in FATA.

You are actually depoliticising the place and
pushing the population into the lap of anyone
there who is able to organise them.

I, as a citizen, can only see that terrorism in
my country has expanded rather than reduced since
Musharraf took over, and since September 11. We
did not have the kind of Talibanisation in Swat
and Dir and Mardan, and in FATA, even in pockets
of Balochistan.

There were people saying after 9/11 that this may
be a blessing in disguise for us. But it
certainly has not been so far.

It did help to dismantle some camps that were
operating cross-border in Kashmir...

It may have helped India but my first concern is
about my own country, my own people.

Looking back at eight years under Musharraf,
would you give him credit for anything?

If a Prime Minister does his duty, are you going
to give him credit for it? I would give credit to
somebody who has done something positive, for the
well being of the people. I don’t give anybody
credit for not killing me.

What Musharraf’s government has done that needs
credit is that he did pass the Women’s Protection
Law. It was not passed in the way we would have
liked it, but it was a step in the right
direction. Musharraf’s government put one-third
women in the National Assembly. That is something
we will give him credit for. But I will not give
him credit for not beating him up.

What about the whole television, private news channels boom?

It was already in the pipeline. And Musharraf did
not lock it, for whatever reasons.

Do you think any of the others would have made an
effort to restore Katas Raj (a historic Hindu
temple in Punjab province)?

These are patchwork. There is a dual policy. You
cannot wish away things simply by making a
speech. There has to be hard work behind these
words. We find a huge gap between what Musharraf
says and what he does.

Excuse my saying so, people outside Pakistan
really do appreciate the Musharraf government a
lot and find that he is extremely liberal. Those
who have been victims of the wrath of this
government do not think of him as liberal.

In this last month, there has been a lot of talk
about 60 years, comparing India and Pakistan. And
many commentators have raised questions about the
future of Pakistan. How do you see it?

I would say that Pakistan survives because of the
energy and the resilience of the people.

The leadership, particularly the military
leadership - and this is something that people
have now recognised - has committed mistake upon
mistake. The country broke up because of them;
the economy is in a mess because of them; wars
with India happened because of them; tensions
with Afghanistan are because of themŠ They are
the ones who insisted on recognising the Taliban;
they are the ones who later gave protection to
Taliban; they are the ones who created divisions
between the provinces.

The economy is not a mess. Seven per cent growth...

Seven per cent growth... we can see where that is
going; to the cronies of the military and the
military itself. The military is training civil
servants and the police, they are heading health,
education and humanitarian initiatives here. And
nothing works; that is the best part of it.

It has become dysfunctional, the place.
Musharraf’s devolution plan has come to naught.
The police does not work.

Unfortunately even the military does not work. In
a country where 150 soldiers have been kidnapped
and there is no sense of urgency, it’s amazing,
and depressing. Parliament does not work here;
the judiciary was scandalous prior to the chief
justice movement.

So what is working? Private schools? That’s it.

What is your prediction for the coming days?

It’s very difficult to predict what may happen.
And I’m not saying that if tomorrow general
elections are held free and fair, which I doubt
will be done, that we will suddenly become
worthy, and we will change course immediately.

We have a long way to go, but we have to give it
direction, and we cannot do it with the military
telling us how to lay down our policy