Pakistan sees jihad as low-cost option to bleed India: Haqqani
New Delhi, May 17: Prosecution of jihadis in Pakistan is difficult as the system considers them to be "the good guys", according to Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's former envoy to the US.
Talking about his latest book, 'India vs Pakistan: Why Can't We Just be Friends?' Haqqani told IANS in an email interview that Pakistan considered jihad to be a low-cost option to bleed India and that this was the only way for it to ensure some form of military parity.
Haqqani, who's an integral part of the powerful elite in Islamabad and was adviser to four prime ministers, talks in his written replies about jihad, relations with India, Pakistan's own tryst with the scourge of terrorism, and the nexus between ISI -- Pakistan's military intelligence service -- and the Islamic jihadi forces. (Excerpts)
Read
More:
IS
launches
smartphone
app
to
turn
kids
into
jihadis
Q.
Can
you
explain
ex-ISI
chief
Shuja
Pasha's
statement
on
26/11
terror
attack,
"Log
hamare
the,
operation
hamara
nahi
tha"
(our
people
but
it
was
not
our
operation)?
A. Pasha said, "our people" were involved, he didn't say it was Pakistan army officers or ISI men. Pasha could have meant Pakistanis or he could be referring to LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) as "our people." However, Pasha had told ex-CIA Director, General Michael Hayden, that "retired Pakistani army officers and retired intelligence officers" were involved in the planning. General Hayden says so in his book. Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of State, has also written the same.
Since 26/11, Pakistan never went into the depth of the case even though proof was presented. We did arrest some, but we have not successfully prosecuted those responsible and until that is done, questions will remain.
Q.
Rice
had
warned
Pakistan
to
shut
down
terror
operations.
However,
nothing
has
changed.
A.
Prosecution
is
difficult
in
a
system
where
jihadis
targeting
India
are
seen
as
'the
good
guys'.
Yes,
Secretary
Rice
had
told
Islamabad
to
shut
down
all
terrorist
operations.
But
that
wasn't
the
first
time
and
certainly
not
the
last.
Pakistan
has
persisted
with
the
same
policy
since
the
1990s.
When
pushed
by
US
on
terror:
first
deny,
then
list
Pakistani
grievances,
bring
up
Kashmir
and
blame
India,
provide
commitments
and
assurances
and
end
again
with
denial.
This
is
not
working.
Q.
Though
US
had
named
Zakiur
Rehman
Lakhvi
of
LeT
as
the
26/11
mastermind,
he
is
roaming
around
freely
in
Pakistan.
What
is
stopping
Islamabad
from
taking
action?
A.
Pakistan
sees
jihad
as
a
low
cost
option
to
bleed
India.
The
security
apparatus
views
terrorism
as
irregular
warfare.
Islamabad
feels
this
is
the
only
way
to
ensure
some
form
of
military
parity.
Q.
Is
there
a
concerted
attempt
by
the
Pakistan
army
to
thwart
peace
talks?
A.
As
an
analyst,
I
have
seen
that
over
the
last
69
years,
Indian
and
Pakistani
leaders
have
met
53
times
and
yet
been
unable
to
change
the
course
of
their
ties.
Whenever
the
two
try
to
move
forward,
the
military
has
reacted.
Civilian
and
army
leaders
have
lost
power
after
attempting
to
make
peace.
Q.
What
should
be
Pakistan's
policy
on
Kashmir?
A.
Having
a
normal
relationship,
people-to-people
ties
and
trade
doesn't
mean
giving
up
on
legal
or
political
claim.
The
question
I
ask
is:
Is
Kashmir
really
Pakistan's
'jugular
vein'
if
it
has
survived
for
69
years
without
it?
Should
the
two
risk
nuclear
mass
destruction
over
a
quarrel
they
have
not
been
able
to
resolve
for
so
long?
However, Pakistan's military has insisted on resolution of the Kashmir imbroglio before opening trade or travel.
Q.
Pakistan's
Kashmir
policy
remains
by
and
large
in
the
hands
of
the
military
even
when
a
civilian
prime
minister
holds
office.
How
can
we
expect
a
solution?
A.
Under
civilian
prime
ministers,
Pakistan
has
moved
forward
with
India.
But
Pakistan's
security
establishment
insists
on
controlling
foreign
and
security
policy,
including
the
Kashmir
policy.
They
have
not
been
able
to
reach
any
long-lasting
solution.
Pakistanis
realise
that
it
is
only
civilian
leaders
who
can
actually
reach
a
solution.
Q.
In
your
opinion,
Indira
Gandhi
had
been
magnanimous
with
the
Shimla
Pact,
but
Pakistanis
saw
the
absence
of
pressure
for
a
full
settlement
of
Kashmir
as
an
opportunity
to
keep
the
conflict
alive.
Should
she
have
been
more
assertive
on
Kashmir?
A.
Mrs
Gandhi
did
not
trust
(prime
minister)
Zulfikar
Ali
Bhutto
but
she
saw
him
as
preferable
to
a
military
regime.
For
India,
domestic
unrest
or
balkanisation
of
Pakistan,
is
not
a
favorable
development.
The compromise was to declare in Shimla that "the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations." This was meant to preclude any future war.
Q.
The
book
mentions
how
Pakistan
intelligence
had
passed
on
the
information
of
10
terrorists
who
sneaked
into
Gujarat
in
March.
Do
you
feel
that
its
a
sincere
move
to
preempt
a
crisis
after
Pathankot?
A.
It's
very
positive
that
Pakistan
has
shared
intelligence
with
India.
But
it
was
more
because
pressure
from
India
and
US.
India
cancelled
scheduled
talks
and
(Prime
Minister
Nawaz)
Sharif
was
eager
to
resume
dialogue.
It
was
less
likely
that
this
move
reflected
concern
for
possible
Indian
casualties
and
was
more
to
do
with
the
need
to
deflect
international
pressure.
Q.
Are
you
hopeful
of
a
breakthrough
in
Indo-Pak
relationship
after
Pathankot?
A.
The
two
foreign
secretaries
met
in
New
Delhi
for
the
Heart
of
Asia
conference
and
Prime
Minister
(Narendra)
Modi
is
scheduled
to
travel
to
Islamabad
for
the
SAARC
summit
in
November
this
year.
So,
talks
will
continue
as
before
but
for
a
breakthrough,
the
two
sides
need
to
move
beyond
simply
cancelling
or
rescheduling
talks
and
create
an
environment
for
change.
Q.
You
also
talk
about
the
shrinking
space
for
friendship
and
increasing
'saffronisation'
of
India.
How
harmful
is
this
for
ties?
A.
Indo-Pak
ties
have
become
a
victim
of
two
parallel
and
contending
nationalisms.
In
recent
years,
we
are
increasingly
resembling
each
other
in
rage,
resentment
and
public
displays
of
religion.
Q.
How
do
you
see
US
policy
towards
Pakistan
in
the
wake
of
US
elections?
A.
Neither
of
the
current
Presidential
candidates
have
expressed
a
positive
view
of
Pakistan.
What
should
worry
my
countrymen
is
that
entire
US
thinktank
and
the
average
American
share
the
same
view.
Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State in 2011 said, "You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors." US policy towards Pakistan has been built on what I call 'Magnificent Delusions'. Pakistan saw the US as its superpower ally who would build its resources to stand up to India, but Washington never saw India as a threat. US and Pakistan have very different goals but still assume they can get the other to work to their advantage.
IANS