Tehelka: Is Benazir Bhutto’s assassination a death knell for Pakistan?

Hamid Gul: Accidents and wars don’t destroy a country. It is the political process that can damage it. Fortunately the emerging leadership of the Pakistan People’s Party has shown solidarity with the federation.
Tehelka: But the assassination of a former prime minister indicates the growing threat to Pakistan from the jehadis.
Hamid Gul: It is not the jehadis who have killed her. She was rather protective of the jehadis in the past. Benazir was never soft on the Kashmir issue, let me tell you that. I served as the ISI director-general under her. … It was not the jehadis but that is what the Americans would have us believe. They have designs for Pakistan and I strongly believe that the Americans have got her eliminated because this is the way they deal with countries like Pakistan. They either use them or subdue them. In the case of Pakistan, it is both.
The Americans worked out a model during the days of Zia-ul-Haq. Junejo was brought in to give the label of democracy and to gradually ease Zia out of office after he had been used but it didn’t work out. Zia got wind of it and removed Junejo from office. The Americans got very upset and destroyed Zia.
I make no bones about saying this. I’ll quote from Nixon’s book In the Arena (page 109) in which he says when Zia-ul-Haq’s plane went down, “instantly it came to my mind that why we Americans destroy our friends after we have used them”. America is a very important player in our domestic politics.
Tehelka: But she apparently came back after a nod from the Americans?
Hamid Gul: She came back because she had a sense of history and she wanted this blemish of corruption to be removed from her name. She was pushed into this situation. Benazir had said two things before she landed here -- one was about AQ Khan (the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb) and the other about Al-Qaeda -- that she would permit the Americans to strike Al-Qaeda targets.
These are two things the Americans very badly want. One is a pre-emptive doctrine which has not yet been consummated. Even Musharraf has been resisting a direct ingress, howsoever pro-America he might be. So, how could Benazir do this? How could she hand over AQ Khan to them?
But she came and in the 70 days she spent, not once did she mention either AQ Khan or the Taliban. She had drifted from the agenda and no wonder Musharraf said before and after her death that the lady had broken her promises.
I have direct knowledge that my name was included in the list of people she felt she was threatened by but immediately after she landed here, she sent me a message and then another just three days before her assassination. She asked a source to tell General Saab to understand who got my name included. She said she would come to my house soon after the campaigning ended. She also told me through the source that haven’t I noticed that she is not talking of AQ Khan. Everyone knows that the Americans will never accept a populist leader, particularly in a Muslim country.
Tehelka: Isn’t it one of Pakistan’s essential problems— being willing to be led by the Americans?
Hamid Gul: This is one of the fundamental contradictions in Pakistan’s governance and political system. Unfortunately, you in India don’t realize this. America wants to be the master not a friend.
Tehelka: Pakistan is often referred to as the most dangerous place on earth. Does this bother you and the Pakistanis a great deal?
Hamid Gul: The Americans call it a dangerous place because they have designs for Pakistan. The Israeli lobby will never rest in peace until they have snatched our nuclear weapons. In the war against terror, Pakistan is the target.
Tehelka: But the jehadi stranglehold is evident from the increasing number of suicide attacks.
Hamid Gul: That is pure and simple revenge. It is in Pashtun blood. It has nothing to do with Islam. These are revenge attacks. The girls who were burnt in Lal Masjid were from Swat (northern Pakistan). I know that Lal Masjid inmates were ready to surrender.
Tehelka: The Army and the ISI have not allowed democracy to take root, right?
Hamid Gul: Partly the politicians have been responsible for this but it is true that the army has not allowed the politicians either. The Army is the strongest organ in the executive branch. Even now, when the judiciary rebelled, see how the Army fell upon it and strangulated it. And when the media started to side with the judiciary, they tried to kill the media too. This is the story of Pakistan.
Tehelka: Being a former chief you are absolving the ISI.
Hamid Gul: It is the Army chief who has had ambitions not the ISI. I have served the institution for 36 years and the ISI never wanted to have anything to do with politics. But the Army chiefs always wanted to enjoy power. He doles out ambassadorial posts after retirement and allocates housing plots, agricultural land.
Tehelka: You are willing to concede the Army’s hold over the Pakistan polity. What about the ISI?
Hamid Gul: The ISI is a branch related to security. The first line of defense has to be handled by the intelligence agency so it continues to grow in power. The ISI has played an important role and it has in its charter -- through a prime ministerial decree signed by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto -- a political cell, so the politicians are at fault and the Army chief and his coterie of generals are at fault.
Tehelka: The Indian Army has never had political ambitions.
Hamid Gul: I will not reveal the names now but some Indian generals were seriously thinking of emulating the Pakistani model, especially after Operation Blue Star. I agree, the political leadership of India was far more mature and committed to the idea of democracy than the leadership of Pakistan, after Quaid-e-Azam (Muhammad Ali Jinnah) and Liaquat Ali Khan.
Tehelka: Please reveal the names.
Hamid Gul: I will not. That’s my choice.
(Source: Tehelka Magazine)