<p>Former spy chief <strong><span class="bold">Amarjit Singh Dulat</span></strong>, who was also former PM Vajpayee’s Kashmir pointsman, thinks a peace deal between India and Pakistan is possible, and perhaps in the offing, this year. In Bengaluru recently to launch his memoir, <em><span class="italic">A Life in the Shadows</span></em>, Dulat spoke at length to <em><span class="italic">DH</span></em>’s <strong><span class="bold">S Raghotham</span> </strong>on why he thinks both India and Pakistan have their best chance at peace now. Edited excerpts:</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>Quite atypically for a spy chief, you’re known as the engagement and dialogue person on the Kashmir issue. Is it that you only show the velvet in public? Is there also an iron fist behind it?</strong></p>.<p>There is no doubt that we (spooks) are sinners more than saints. You won’t find a Mother Teresa in an intelligence agency. So, it’s that kind of life. James Jesus Angleton (a former deputy chief of the CIA) referred to it as the “wilderness of mirrors”. So, there is skulduggery, there’s subterfuge, and then also loneliness. Particularly in times of crisis, you find that you’re all alone. People who say they’ve done this and done that (“for king and country”) …there’s an element of bragging in it. Generally speaking, we don’t have too many James Bonds in our business. There may be some John le Carre’s Smileys, but not James Bonds. This book, <span class="italic">A Life in the Shadows</span>, is actually a memoir, some people mistake it for an autobiography. It’s not an autobiography.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>What is the legacy that Gen Pervez Musharraf, who passed away recently, has left on the Kashmir issue?</strong></p>.<p>I was a great admirer of Musharraf. In fact, it was one of my unfulfilled desires that I wanted to meet him, but I never could. Having watched Kashmir for more than 35 years, I feel that there has been no Pakistani leader who has been more reasonable on Kashmir than Musharraf. From our point of view, the most positive thing was that he repeatedly said that whatever is acceptable to Kashmir and Kashmiris would be acceptable to Pakistan. There’s not been anybody else in Pakistan who has said that.</p>.<p>Of course, Musharraf got into trouble when 9/11 happened, and he had to willy-nilly join George Bush’s War on Terror. And 9/11 definitely helped us, because it put pressure on Musharraf. And as part of that pressure, he was also told that he had to behave with India. In the years following 9/11, militancy went down. The other positive thing for us (post-9/11) was that the average Kashmiri lost faith in Musharraf and Pakistan – if Pakistan could not protect itself, how could Kashmiris expect Pakistan to protect them?</p>.<p>That was one side of it. The other side was the more positive side of Musharraf -- when he came out with his four-point formula, which is still talked about in Kashmir. Broadly speaking, it meant a settlement on the Line of Control, and easing the coming and going of people on either side. Whether that is acceptable to either side now, I don’t know. But it was a reasonable formula. And from the Kashmiris’ point of view, here was a Pakistani leader who was talking peace and had come over with a formula reasonable enough for India to discuss with him. It’s a pity that Musharraf didn’t last long enough (in power).</p>.<p>Manmohan Singh is on record that they (he and Musharraf, after Vajpayee and Musharraf in Agra in 2001) were very close to signing an agreement. My way of looking at it is that there is no full and final settlement or solution to Kashmir, but at least a deal would give Kashmir maybe 12-15 years of peace. We missed a real window of opportunity for that in 2006-7. I remember that the Hurriyat leaders last went to Pakistan in February 2007. They came back with a clear message from Musharraf. He had told them, if you guys claim to be politicians, then go back and contest elections (in Kashmir).</p>.<p>In the meantime, Omar Abdullah had made a couple of trips to Pakistan. Omar came back from one of his trips and said to me, “I don’t know why we are wasting time, because Musharraf is talking such a reasonable language.” This was during the UPA government. He spoke to the PM, I spoke to the PM. We should have moved forward then.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>What happened that we didn’t?</strong></p>.<p>I think we dragged our foot, we took too long…Musharraf kept waiting for Manmohan Singh’s visit to Pakistan. The visit never happened.</p>.<p class="Question">And then 26/11 happened, and any chance of reconciliation was lost…</p>.<p>For the time…That has always been the tragedy of India-Pakistan relations. </p>.<p class="Question"><strong>So, the recent revelations by Gen Qamar Bajwa, that PM Modi was to go to Pakistan, stay in a temple there for nine days, and then come out with a peace accord that would freeze the Kashmir issue for 20 years. Is that all true? Is it still possible?</strong></p>.<p>I wouldn’t know. But coming from the (recently retired) Pakistan army chief Gen. Bajwa, there has to be some truth in it. I mean…there may be some exaggeration in it. I think this year -- this is my hunch, my gut feeling -- that something should happen because the Pakistanis are very keen. And they are in a big mess. So, it could be a question of Modi actually bailing out Pakistan. And he could do it…I feel Modi is the right man, he is under no pressure to move forward, but he can move forward.</p>.<p class="Question">It will have to be seen how Pakistan’s current economic mess develops…</p>.<p>It’s not just the economic mess…</p>.<p class="Question">Yes, there’s the economic crisis, there’s the energy crisis, and the TTP (Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan) attacks inside the country…</p>.<p> Pakistan does need help at this point of time.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>But is there really somebody on that side who can take the initiative with India forward? Is that what Nawaz Sharif, who is expected to return to Pakistan soon, coming back for?</strong></p>.<p>I was just going to say that. Nawaz is the key to the whole thing. He’s had a long holiday in London, and it could not just be for a holiday and reading. So, if he’s coming back, then he must be coming back with a purpose other than just coming back to his country. And I think that should also help the process move forward. Because let’s face it, Nawaz Sharif has been one of our favourites when it comes to dealing with Pakistan.</p>.<p class="Question">If he initiates it, this will be Nawaz’s fourth bid for peace with India…</p>.<p>Nawaz has been in the forefront of it all. Our leaders also have been more comfortable with Nawaz. Let’s see.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>That is on the India-Pakistan level. What about the Kashmiris, post-Article 370? Are they also willing to somehow settle this issue now?</strong></p>.<p>Kashmiris are always willing to settle the issue of Kashmir. There is very little the Kashmiri wants or hopes for now. There's a sense of hopelessness, they're very sad. They know that Article 370 is gone and is not going to come back. When it was abrogated, I spoke and wrote against it. Not because it was a big deal, but because it was nothing. It was just a fig leaf. Why did we need to do it if it gave the Kashmiri a sense of dignity? Actually, Article 370 went out in 1975, when Sheikh Abdullah signed an accord with Indira Gandhi. But that accord was never implemented. What the Kashmiri expects now is that if Kashmir is an integral part of India, then they should be treated like the rest of India, with the same dignity, with the same justice, and with everything that you get in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh or Karnataka.</p>.<p>Also, we say that militancy has come down. That this “muscular policy” (the so-called Doval Doctrine) has helped to bring down militancy. But how long will it stay down? I wouldn’t guess. I hope it continues to work, but time will tell. I am a firm believer in engagement – to keep talking, and never stop talking. I may be wrong…</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>So earlier, you had people you could talk to – the Hurriyat, the Kashmir regional parties, etc. Many of them have been made or are perceived to be irrelevant. So, who do we talk to now?</strong></p>.<p>…I think the more important Kashmiri mainstream leaders like the Abdullahs and Mehbooba Mufti should certainly be continuously engaged. There is also the Mirwaiz, who is a separatist, so to say, but I think he's sufficiently mainstreamed. And given an opportunity, he would like to join the mainstream.</p>.<p class="Question">Are you expecting an election to happen there soon?</p>.<p>…the Kashmiri leadership seems to believe that there will be an election, but I don't believe it. I don't see an election in 2023, because I see Delhi is quite happy running Kashmir from Delhi. Again, recently, I heard that there will be an election in April/May. I hope that person is right, but I don't see that happening.</p>.<p>Watch the full interview</p>
<p>Former spy chief <strong><span class="bold">Amarjit Singh Dulat</span></strong>, who was also former PM Vajpayee’s Kashmir pointsman, thinks a peace deal between India and Pakistan is possible, and perhaps in the offing, this year. In Bengaluru recently to launch his memoir, <em><span class="italic">A Life in the Shadows</span></em>, Dulat spoke at length to <em><span class="italic">DH</span></em>’s <strong><span class="bold">S Raghotham</span> </strong>on why he thinks both India and Pakistan have their best chance at peace now. Edited excerpts:</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>Quite atypically for a spy chief, you’re known as the engagement and dialogue person on the Kashmir issue. Is it that you only show the velvet in public? Is there also an iron fist behind it?</strong></p>.<p>There is no doubt that we (spooks) are sinners more than saints. You won’t find a Mother Teresa in an intelligence agency. So, it’s that kind of life. James Jesus Angleton (a former deputy chief of the CIA) referred to it as the “wilderness of mirrors”. So, there is skulduggery, there’s subterfuge, and then also loneliness. Particularly in times of crisis, you find that you’re all alone. People who say they’ve done this and done that (“for king and country”) …there’s an element of bragging in it. Generally speaking, we don’t have too many James Bonds in our business. There may be some John le Carre’s Smileys, but not James Bonds. This book, <span class="italic">A Life in the Shadows</span>, is actually a memoir, some people mistake it for an autobiography. It’s not an autobiography.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>What is the legacy that Gen Pervez Musharraf, who passed away recently, has left on the Kashmir issue?</strong></p>.<p>I was a great admirer of Musharraf. In fact, it was one of my unfulfilled desires that I wanted to meet him, but I never could. Having watched Kashmir for more than 35 years, I feel that there has been no Pakistani leader who has been more reasonable on Kashmir than Musharraf. From our point of view, the most positive thing was that he repeatedly said that whatever is acceptable to Kashmir and Kashmiris would be acceptable to Pakistan. There’s not been anybody else in Pakistan who has said that.</p>.<p>Of course, Musharraf got into trouble when 9/11 happened, and he had to willy-nilly join George Bush’s War on Terror. And 9/11 definitely helped us, because it put pressure on Musharraf. And as part of that pressure, he was also told that he had to behave with India. In the years following 9/11, militancy went down. The other positive thing for us (post-9/11) was that the average Kashmiri lost faith in Musharraf and Pakistan – if Pakistan could not protect itself, how could Kashmiris expect Pakistan to protect them?</p>.<p>That was one side of it. The other side was the more positive side of Musharraf -- when he came out with his four-point formula, which is still talked about in Kashmir. Broadly speaking, it meant a settlement on the Line of Control, and easing the coming and going of people on either side. Whether that is acceptable to either side now, I don’t know. But it was a reasonable formula. And from the Kashmiris’ point of view, here was a Pakistani leader who was talking peace and had come over with a formula reasonable enough for India to discuss with him. It’s a pity that Musharraf didn’t last long enough (in power).</p>.<p>Manmohan Singh is on record that they (he and Musharraf, after Vajpayee and Musharraf in Agra in 2001) were very close to signing an agreement. My way of looking at it is that there is no full and final settlement or solution to Kashmir, but at least a deal would give Kashmir maybe 12-15 years of peace. We missed a real window of opportunity for that in 2006-7. I remember that the Hurriyat leaders last went to Pakistan in February 2007. They came back with a clear message from Musharraf. He had told them, if you guys claim to be politicians, then go back and contest elections (in Kashmir).</p>.<p>In the meantime, Omar Abdullah had made a couple of trips to Pakistan. Omar came back from one of his trips and said to me, “I don’t know why we are wasting time, because Musharraf is talking such a reasonable language.” This was during the UPA government. He spoke to the PM, I spoke to the PM. We should have moved forward then.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>What happened that we didn’t?</strong></p>.<p>I think we dragged our foot, we took too long…Musharraf kept waiting for Manmohan Singh’s visit to Pakistan. The visit never happened.</p>.<p class="Question">And then 26/11 happened, and any chance of reconciliation was lost…</p>.<p>For the time…That has always been the tragedy of India-Pakistan relations. </p>.<p class="Question"><strong>So, the recent revelations by Gen Qamar Bajwa, that PM Modi was to go to Pakistan, stay in a temple there for nine days, and then come out with a peace accord that would freeze the Kashmir issue for 20 years. Is that all true? Is it still possible?</strong></p>.<p>I wouldn’t know. But coming from the (recently retired) Pakistan army chief Gen. Bajwa, there has to be some truth in it. I mean…there may be some exaggeration in it. I think this year -- this is my hunch, my gut feeling -- that something should happen because the Pakistanis are very keen. And they are in a big mess. So, it could be a question of Modi actually bailing out Pakistan. And he could do it…I feel Modi is the right man, he is under no pressure to move forward, but he can move forward.</p>.<p class="Question">It will have to be seen how Pakistan’s current economic mess develops…</p>.<p>It’s not just the economic mess…</p>.<p class="Question">Yes, there’s the economic crisis, there’s the energy crisis, and the TTP (Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan) attacks inside the country…</p>.<p> Pakistan does need help at this point of time.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>But is there really somebody on that side who can take the initiative with India forward? Is that what Nawaz Sharif, who is expected to return to Pakistan soon, coming back for?</strong></p>.<p>I was just going to say that. Nawaz is the key to the whole thing. He’s had a long holiday in London, and it could not just be for a holiday and reading. So, if he’s coming back, then he must be coming back with a purpose other than just coming back to his country. And I think that should also help the process move forward. Because let’s face it, Nawaz Sharif has been one of our favourites when it comes to dealing with Pakistan.</p>.<p class="Question">If he initiates it, this will be Nawaz’s fourth bid for peace with India…</p>.<p>Nawaz has been in the forefront of it all. Our leaders also have been more comfortable with Nawaz. Let’s see.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>That is on the India-Pakistan level. What about the Kashmiris, post-Article 370? Are they also willing to somehow settle this issue now?</strong></p>.<p>Kashmiris are always willing to settle the issue of Kashmir. There is very little the Kashmiri wants or hopes for now. There's a sense of hopelessness, they're very sad. They know that Article 370 is gone and is not going to come back. When it was abrogated, I spoke and wrote against it. Not because it was a big deal, but because it was nothing. It was just a fig leaf. Why did we need to do it if it gave the Kashmiri a sense of dignity? Actually, Article 370 went out in 1975, when Sheikh Abdullah signed an accord with Indira Gandhi. But that accord was never implemented. What the Kashmiri expects now is that if Kashmir is an integral part of India, then they should be treated like the rest of India, with the same dignity, with the same justice, and with everything that you get in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh or Karnataka.</p>.<p>Also, we say that militancy has come down. That this “muscular policy” (the so-called Doval Doctrine) has helped to bring down militancy. But how long will it stay down? I wouldn’t guess. I hope it continues to work, but time will tell. I am a firm believer in engagement – to keep talking, and never stop talking. I may be wrong…</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>So earlier, you had people you could talk to – the Hurriyat, the Kashmir regional parties, etc. Many of them have been made or are perceived to be irrelevant. So, who do we talk to now?</strong></p>.<p>…I think the more important Kashmiri mainstream leaders like the Abdullahs and Mehbooba Mufti should certainly be continuously engaged. There is also the Mirwaiz, who is a separatist, so to say, but I think he's sufficiently mainstreamed. And given an opportunity, he would like to join the mainstream.</p>.<p class="Question">Are you expecting an election to happen there soon?</p>.<p>…the Kashmiri leadership seems to believe that there will be an election, but I don't believe it. I don't see an election in 2023, because I see Delhi is quite happy running Kashmir from Delhi. Again, recently, I heard that there will be an election in April/May. I hope that person is right, but I don't see that happening.</p>.<p>Watch the full interview</p>