A visitor's view from Islamabad

The writer with Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan in Rawalpindi on April 8, 1999.

A number of factors have contributed to this, and speaking astrologically, a number of stars favouring peace have lined up. The principal ones are (a) US pressure to deal with the terrorist situation regionally, (b) a genuine desire among the leaders of both the countries to tackle all the bilateral problems, including the question of Kasmir in order to accelerate economic progress in the region, (c) enthusiastic support for it among the people of both the countries, and last but not the least, (d) the balance of nuclear power, creating, particularly in Pakistan, a new found self confidence.

This atmosphere was not created in a day and President Pervez Musharraf, more than any other leader, has taken a political and personal risk in working assiduously for it, particularly in the last couple of years. There have already been a number of attempts on his life (six times, to quote him), and on the last two occasions, mercifully, he had narrow escapes. Prime Minister Vajpayee's peace initiative has been taken within a democratic framework and it enjoys the public support of major political parties. Therefore, there is an expectation of continuity of this policy, even in the post-Vajpayee era. The scenario is different in Pakistan as it has largely been created by President Pervez Musharraf himself. His sudden disappearance from the scene may therefore break the edifice of peace that he has so painstakingly built-up. His personal security is therefore of a vital importance. The fact that unlike his predecessors he has abandoned the hitherto perceived security of the Rawalpindi Cantonment in favour of the seclusion of the Presidential Palace, "Aiwan-i-Sadr' in Islamabad, is indicative of the nature of insecurity that now haunts him.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

General Musharraf did not appear to be any different from his military predecessors when he, in 1999, installed himself as the Head of Government, sending Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif into exile. Many, including the present writer, had doubts about his durability. Five years later even in his second term as President, the uncertainty about his future persists. Initially, when he captured power he seemed to believe in developing a working a relationship with Talibans in Afghanistan in an attempt to 'smoothen their rough edges' and to steal the thunder of the fundamentalists in his own country. But 9/11 changed it all, and he took an 180 degree turn in his policies. Cynics like a professor of international relations in Karachi University whom I met this time, held that like all his military predecessors, viz. Ayub, Yahyah and Ziaul Haq, his policies lack vision and that like them, General Musharraf's primary concern is to hold on to power. Ziaul Haq found his strength in hobnobbing with the Mullahs and bringing religion into politics. In the beginning, Musharraf had also held on to that strategy, until the international situation arising out of 9/11 forced him to take an about turn.

On January 12, 2002, in a significant speech over the electronic media, a new Musharraf, as it were, emerged. While stressing the need to improve relations with India, he strongly condemned fundamentalism and religious bigotry in his country and termed these as curses. Coming from the leader of a Muslim country, it was a courageous performance. His critics said that he had only succumbed to US pressure, but a large section of the educated population of Pakistan, who had become wary of the spread of fundamentalism in Pakistan, welcomed it enthusiastically. Ekram Sehgal, a noted Pakistani columnist said, "From being somewhat a cynic I have become a believer. This man means something to Pakistan. He may not be Mohammad Ali Jinnah, but Pervez Musharraf is certainly an original by himself and in the future he will be looked up to by Pakistanis in his own right, if not as much as Jinnah, certainly not much less." Praful Bidwai, the popular Indian columnist, exclaimed appreciatively, "South Asia has never seen anything like this."

Since then, over the last two years President Pervez Musharraf's political journey has seen many ups and downs. He held a general election, that according to many, was neither free nor fair, in which he aligned himself with religious conservatives, staged a doctored referendum to obtain legitimacy of his capture of power, and in the post-election period, in an exercise of 'democratisation' has installed Zafarullah Khan Jamali as the Prime Minister in a political cabinet. Amidst all these, President Pervez Musharraf worked hard to change the 'mindset' of his people with regard to his policy of friendship with India. A former foreign minister of Pakistan, who had been a colleague of mine in the Pakistan Foreign Service, and whom I have always regarded as a 'hawk', told me the other day in Islamabad that President Musharraf's successful effort in changing the 'mindset' of Pakistanis has brought peace closer than ever before. He, and many like him are now enthusiastic supporters of President Musharraf.

This time one sensed some buoyancy in Pakistan's economy and the wind of peace seems to be creating a favourable climate for local and foreign investment. Inflation is under control, and for the first time in the last eight years, the GDP growth is likely to hit 5.3 per cent mark. Enhanced cultural exchanges between India and Pakistan have given a further filling to the enthusiasm for establishing durable peace between the two countries.

Pakistanis are happy that talks on Kashmir are very much on the cards and that the recent Vajpayee-Musharraf understanding is unconditional and not unrealistically time bound. Official level talks are about to begin and meaningful discussion at the political level is expected after the forthcoming Indian general elections. There are speculations galore in Islamabad about the possible courses of action in Kashmir. A modified and porous Line of Control, keeping a provision for a referendum in the not too near future, are possibilities that are discussed with some optimism. There is hope that in the next two or three decades, with accelerated economic development, the concept of sovereignty will acquire a European hue with relaxed borders and much increased people to people contact. The positive sides of thousands of years of shared history, including the commonalities of language, culture and ethnicity seem to be coming to the fore more than ever before.

There are, however, some in Pakistan, not necessarily opposed to Musharraf, who fear that he may be moving too forward too fast having to act under outside pressure and that it has made him the prime target of certain groups. A bullet or time bomb, involving President Musharraf, it is feared, could put the clock disastrously back.

President Musharraf's political path, since his takeover of power, has hardly been smooth and he now faces a fresh difficulty which might cause him trouble and hurt him politically. The charges of nuclear proliferation against Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the architect of Nuclear Pakistan, who is regarded and acclaimed as a national hero, has put General Musharraf in more of a difficult situation than may meet the eye. The Pakistani population in general is now in a state of trauma, for they cannot believe that a nuclear scientist of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan's stature would act illegally out of financial lust only. This disbelief, though not expressed perhaps for tactical reasons, is likely to be shared by the International community in general and the United States in particular. President Musharraf has proved himself to be a friend in need and it does not help, it may be thought, to make life more difficult for him at this stage. But the fact remains that President Pervez Musharraf's credibility has been severely tarnished. People find it difficult to believe that nuclear proliferation involving these countries, one of which is North Korea, can take place without the knowledge and consent of the nuclear scientist's political and military masters. And even the most unlikely event of this happening without the authorities' knowledge, does not do Pakistan's credibility as a responsible nuclear power any good. Pakistan is more dangerous than Bin Laden, repeatedly cried out the 'Washington Post', in a recent editorial.

President Pervez Musharraf's efforts over the electronic media to convince his listeners that Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan and Co have acted on their own out of financial lust is not likely to find permanent and unqualified acceptance either nationally or internationally. "You cannot shield a hero and not damage the nation", argued President Musharraf the other day on the television. But the fear is that a large number of people will take this explanation as making a scapegoat of a hero. This feeling may not suddenly blow up on the face of the Musharraf regime, but simmer it will, adding to its discomfiture.

Here it is important to understand the position of honour and esteem in which Pakistanis hold Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan. An interview that I took of him in Rawalpindi on April 8, 1999, at his now famous and self named A. Q. Khan Laboratories will remain a memorable experience. The Daily Star of May 03, 1999 published my article in my then regular column, "Frankly Speaking," under the title, "A Meeting with Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan -- the Architect of Nuclear Pakistan." I had then written, "It is, I think, important for a nation to have heroes and Pakistan has them. Pakistanis of different persuasion, with very few exceptions, regard Allama Iqbal as the dreamer of Pakistan and Mohammed Ali Jinnah as the Father of Nation. To that short list of heroes a third name has been added, for how long only time can tell. It is that of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the architect of Nuclear Pakistan".

In preparation for the interview I had tried to read up a couple of articles meant for layman on the centrifuge system of enrichment of uranium. Most of the things I read went over my head and what little I knew was not, I felt, adequate to engage Dr. Khan in a discussion on the making of a nuclear bomb! Nor would it be appropriate, I thought, to draw a scientist into a discussion on the ethical aspects of possessing nuclear weapons. Dr. Khan as a scientist had, I thought, only performed his duties to his country, by giving the task his very best. I therefore, consciously decided that in the interview I would try to find out something about the man behind the Pakistan bomb. Here quoting from that article of mine may not be irrelevant, "Standing next to him it was difficult to imagine that less than a year ago this man had engineered the explosion of nuclear devices , which were eighty times more powerful than the Hiroshima bombs.

It was frightening to ponder that in a nuclear free for all between India and Pakistan, one of these bombs could kill nine million people living within a radius of seven square kilometers of the Delhi city centre and that if an Indian "Agni" missile with nuclear war head appeared over the skies of Rawalpindi-Islamabad, it could obliterate all forms of life beneath it, in a giffy. In a supreme irony of history, in a nuclear confrontation, India and Pakistan could destroy vestiges of their thousands of years of shared past. A couple of "Agni" missiles of India , with nuclear warheads could , for instance, wipe off historic Taxila, a city , as the legend has it , founded by Taksha, a nephew of Lord Rama and possessing priceless relics of the days of Chandra Gupta ,Vimbisara, Ashok and Kanishka : in short a city which in its ruins bears testimony to the civilization that was ancient India. Similarly, a couple of Pakistani "Ghouri" missiles could destroy in seconds, much of the examples of Muslim India's glorious past, adorning Delhi and Agra of Ibrahim Lodhi, Nizamuddin Awlia, Akbar, Shahjahan and Ghalib.

Dr. Khan had reassuringly told me that this was not likely to happen because of the nuclear balance that had been achieved in the Sub-continent. He pointed out that the West had maintained nuclear peace for the last half a century. "One hopes," I had said that "Dr. Abdul Kalam, the Indian nuclear scientist, would agree with him. After all ordinary mortals inhabiting today's Sub-continent do not have much more than the assurance of eminence of science and the sanity of political leaders, between them and a nuclear holocaust!"

It is an irony that while the Indian nuclear scientist, Dr. Abdul Kalam, a Muslim, is today the respected President of India, his Pakistani counterpart Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, with a few others stand accused on the dock. That Dr Qadeer Khan was being treated as a 'sacrificial lamb' to shield others is a suspicion that was expressed to me while I was in Islamabad, even before his formal "apologies" and "pardon", came about.

In that pleasant spring afternoon, of April 8, 1999, sitting relaxed in his office, and in reply to a question put by me, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan had said that the expenditure incurred in the nuclear research was less than that of buying an F-16 fighter aircraft. He had added that in nuclear research, what was needed was "knowledge and experience and not money."

To be utterly convincing it will need more than verbal assertions in the media that Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan and his colleagues had acted completely on their own in this ghastly attempt at nuclear proliferation. Suspicions are likely to linger that people in higher authority were involved.

Faruq Choudhury is a former Foreign Secretary