'Musharraf's survival will depend on army chief'

REGARDING OUR NEIGHBOUR: M K Narayanan says the army will remain the power centre in Pakistan.

        

Featured Blog

Suhasini Haidar

This Too Shall Not Pass

Featured Slideshows

Karan Thapar: Forgive me, in 2002 he was, in fact, the full fledged DGMO.

M K Narayanan: Oh yes , sorry my mistake. I think there have been contacts, but by nature the impression about him is that he is a professional soldier. He is not a man with great political ambitions.

Karan Thapar: He is not a Napoleon?

M K Narayanan: He is not a Napoleon. That is too much to say. I think the soldiers who know him, think of him as a professional soldier. They also think that he is a loyal individual and that is what makes people think that the relationship between the civilian President Musharraf and the Army Chief will be reasonably smooth, at least in the short term.

Karan Thapar: From 2004 until very recently, General Kayani was also the Director General of the ISI. In that capacity, was he responsible for much of the terrorism that India has faced or do you subscribe to the view that under him Pakistan took meaningful and perhaps even credible steps to contain and curb terrorism?

M K Narayanan: Well, I don’t think we have that much of intelligence. Even if we did, I don’t think I should answer that question on candid camera but let me try and give you an answer which will meet half way.

I think the trouble with the ISI is that the leaders are sometimes persons who come in from outside. They don’t remain there long enough to get a total grip over the organisation. Other professionals, who have their own ideas and mandates, remain within the organisation. I don’t think the ISI changed under Kayani one way or the other. There was possibly, some kind of a tactical restraint, imposed from the outside—possibly by President Musharraf or by whatever the establishment was then.

But I think that applied only up to a certain point. In terms of the larger issues of mentoring Lashkar-e-Toiba and, to some extent, the Jaish-e-Mohammed etc, I don’t think there was any fundamental change in the attitude.

Quite often, there are elements in the system that do things which are not fully and totally known to you. But the point I am trying to make here is that General Kayani was certainly not the Hamid Gul, if that would answer the question for those of us who know Hamid Gul.

Karan Thapar:: Hamid Gul being a hardliner, Hamid Gul being a man who is almost dedicated to pushing terrorism.

M K Narayanan: ... and a great author of the belief —bleed India through a thousand cuts.

Karan Thapar: Do you have serious qualms about Kayani or are you reasonably satisfied with Kayani as the new Army Chief?