The following is a compilation of questions to and answers from Ikram Sehgal, some in keeping with answers from the other panelists such as Gilles Dorronsoro, Visiting Scholar, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Shuja Nawaz, Director South Asia Center
The first question to the panel sounded more like a suggestion, and it went like this: “It seems to me almost like Pakistan saying it wants to find the terrorists is like OJ (Simpson) saying he wanted to find his wife’s killer.
Maybe I am missing something here but obviously Pakistan has spent a quarter of a century building terrorist groups and supporting them across the border. Let us see facts as facts – Pakistan is in the terrorism business?”
Mr Sehgal replied: “Wrong, absolutely wrong! The ISI is served 90% by the Pakistan Army. What you are saying is that the ISI is funding terrorists to have its own personnel killed. This is nonsense! Many years ago, Pakistan was not in the terrorism business but in the business of supporting the freedom fight in Kashmir.
Somewhere along the way the lines blurred and that was wrong. Pakistan has made great sacrifices and lost many army officers in the fight against militants, so Pakistan is definitely not supporting terrorism. With so many army officers having been killed, it is nonsense to suggest that Pakistan is in the business of supporting terrorism.
Asked about the threat outside of the Taliban, the Haqqani network and how well entrenched and large it was, Mr Sehgal said the Haqqani Network had never acted against mainland Pakistan. Some militant groups had sought refuge with the Haqqani network, he said, adding that sooner or later the Pakistan Army would have to act.
“At the moment the Army is really stretched, they need far more helicopters because there are very few roads and these too are almost inaccessible. We really need a heliborne effort and that is really stopping us (Pakistan) from going after the Haqqani group,” he said.
Asked to evaluate the “Nation Building Effort” by the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Afghanistan, Gilles Dorronsoro said “We don’t know what the real impact of PRTs is. There is no study to gauge the impact of PRTs.
“The problem in the Afghan war is that we are checking the inputs, i.e. the amount of money and men and the output, but never the outcome. I have found only one study on this. When you have US$ 1.2 billion in cash in just one year and there is no paper or anything, (how can one gauge) the impact on society? ….it is creating social tensions within groups and tribes as some people have become extremely rich in a few years and a small group of people are taking away 80% of the money.
Ikram Sehgal interjected “I’d like to add something here. Some of this money comes back to Pakistan. We have 3.1 million Afghan refugees staying in Pakistan (1.6 million in camps, 1.5 million in cities). The price of real estate has gone up and if we discuss the transit trade, more than 60% of the transport plying between Karachi’s port and Afghanistan is owned by Afghans with Pakistani road licenses”.
Asked what would happen if Iranian forces lost patience and ventured across the border (into Pakistan), given that a few days ago there was a bombing in Iran and Iranian President Ahmedinajad called up President Zardari and basically said “You take care of this problem or else!”
Mr Sehgal said Pakistan is in a very difficult position as far as Iran is concerned. He said the militant group Jundullah did operate from the Pakistani side and “we did ignore them officially”. He said Pakistan also had very good relations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE “who are wary of Iran’s intentions” but this was a serious situation that Pakistan had to address because it couldn’t afford to have a volatile border with Iran with its army stretched as it was.
The interviewer said “The Pakistan Army is not fighting the Taliban and President Obama is running out of time because next July 2011 he has to reassess that strategy. There are reports, although denied, that there are plans for US to go into Pakistan and operate against the Afghan Taliban” and then asked “The dangers or benefits of this strategy?”
Mr Sehgal replied that the Afghan Taliban did not exist in Pakistan, the Taliban did. But the Taliban in Pakistan was a separate entity and that Gilles went to a great length to explain that, he said. “If there are US boots on the ground inside Pakistan I don’t think any Pakistani government will not react. For starters they will stop all supply routes – that is the passive way. Second is that they will fight back on issues, and that will be a total disaster. This is not confined to the Pakistan Army but envelops the masses,” he said.
Asked about the merits of the argument by some who say that there should be a de facto partition of Afghanistan and that that would be the most realistic outcome and perhaps that would reduce US reliance on Pakistan, Mr Sehgal said he thought this was unrealistic. “If you have division it will create problems for Pakistan also, because there will be the question of Balochistan and then Sindh will start thinking on the same lines and pretty soon the question of Pakhtunistan will crop up,” Sehgal said.
Panelist Gilles Dorronsoro said he didn’t think that just stopping poppy cultivation would cripple the Taliban because they had plenty of funding from businessmen in Pakistan and from international networks, Ikram Sehgal said he disagreed because Afghanistan’s diverse society’s dynamics determined that one had to find local solutions that would ultimately have to entwine with each other.
He said India too must engage with Pakistan particularly on the Kashmir issue. He said he didn’t think Kashmir could be resolved in one or two lifetimes, however if there could be an arrangement on Kashmir as opposed to an agreement, things could move forward.
Mr Sehgal also said “I am one of those who believe that we should not have gone into Waziristan in 2003 without adequate forces. But I think the Pakistan Army is responding to every attack very adequately.”
