Frontline Pakistan | Ft. Lt. Gen (R) Tariq Khan | Episode 59 | Voicepk.net Podcast

Regarding PTI's talks, although it is a popular party, not everything they do is right. I also object to some of the things they say at times. Although I am pro-PTI. As a party, I understand it is a popular party. If PTI conducted these negotiations or had them conducted. If this was done to them. Then I don't think it was PTI's responsibility. The intelligence did it. Faiz Hameed did it. I don't think he knew what he was doing, and the decisions made at that time, I don't agree with them.

So you yourself are part of this setup. Did you ever try to find out what the obsession was? Smuggling, corruption, narco-trade, politicization, and the biggest problem is there is no governance. They say there is no money. I say there is corruption. If the IG is shut down, there is no corruption. The meaning of "mazaar" is that you want to bring people into Pakistan's mainstream. We could have at least had a referendum. We could have asked questions. They were afraid of asking questions. So then what questions would they ask? Then it's fine. Then talk to PTF, right? The one that exists now. What does Nawaz Sharif understand about Afghanistan? These are the people who used to say if you want to do terrorism, do it in KP. Don't do it there, in Punjab. India is doing it right now. Good, India is doing it in every situation. It is doing it for BALA and TTP as well. Now Afghanistan has become a willing proxy.

There is a very famous statement here by Warburton, which I keep telling people. He built the FC. He said, "Let the owners of the land be the keepers of the land." If CPEC succeeds, BRI will succeed. If CPEC does not succeed, BRI will also not succeed. Therefore, conflict has arisen between America and China, and Pakistan is caught in the middle. As for Saudi Arabia's agreement, I consider it a dead agreement. When they turn these people, whom they call militants, they make them an "Aman Committee" (Peace Committee). They surrender. In the Aman Committee, they first give them some vague, undigested weapons and let them go free. They fall upon the people. They start extracting revenue from them. So this becomes a problem. We will manage Afghanistan with the police. But it is not a problem for us. They think that in a two-front war, Afghanistan will become a front. It will not become a front. It will become a conflict. That's it. The lead role will always have to be a political role. A politician's role. It cannot be a military role. Whenever you play a military role, you will go wrong. Military is no solution. The military can only create an environment for a solution; it cannot be the solution itself.

Frontline Pakistan with Fazana Ali is once again at your service, and the platform is Voknet, and today we will talk about Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the overall region, and our guest is General Tariq Khan, former IG FC. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Your time is very precious, I know, but you have made time for us. First, I would like to thank you. You are welcome. Good, I was observing, and I myself remember, because if we talk about the war against terrorism, from '98 when I entered the field, after that, '91 happened, and all this. From September 2008 to October 2010, you managed the Frontier, and this was the period when all the operations were happening, and the province was surrounded by very dangerous terrorists. But before that, there were negotiations. Before that, the agreements made with terrorists, extremists, militants, whatever word you use, were not sustainable. They broke. Agreements were made, they broke. You wrote something in one of your articles, and now the current situation has come back to that same point. So I want you to start from there. You wrote in an article that negotiations with terrorists have always resulted in losses. You proposed talking through "Lohe Jirga" (tribal elders) and also said that it should never come under the responsibility of security agencies. Why did you say that?

Well, one question that arises is that if we were fighting the war at that time, why are we still fighting? Why have we been fighting this war for so long? I generally explain to people that at that time, we were fighting for our survival, and now, what people don't see is that terrorists are fighting for their survival. And there is a very big strategic shift in this. Between our survival and the terrorists' survival. Now, disturbing this, disturbing this process, with negotiations etc., is not in our interest. That's the first point. The second point is that I said this specifically at that time because it is not the government's job. It is not the government's job in negotiations. Because the history of the Taliban, the way they came, they were dacoits, thieves, people of that kind within the agencies. They overpowered that tribe, killed the elders, and took over and started generating revenue by force. Now, how much damage did they cause to people there? To their families, their children. Now, how can the government say that we forgive you? So, that's why I was saying, bring the "Lohe Jirga." Ask those who suffered losses what they say. So, that was the purpose of saying it. Good.

If I move from this government to the first government, which was Imran Khan's government, General Faiz was leading this entire process, and he believed that no, we should resolve this issue through negotiations rather than kinetic means, and even today he says that we were right. Look, regarding PTI, although it is a popular party, not everything they do is right. Uh, some of the things they say, I also object to at times. Although I am pro-PTI, as a party, I understand it is a popular party. There are two or three things. One of them is this, because PTI also knows that in all these security issues, intelligence plays the lead role. And these are happening under the purview of intelligence. This is our weakness in Pakistan. The government does not run intelligence. Intelligence runs the government. And that's a weak government. So, if PTI conducted these negotiations or had them conducted, if this was done to them, then I don't think it was PTI's responsibility. The intelligence did it. Faiz Hameed did it. I don't think he knew what he was doing. And the decisions made at that time, I don't agree with him. And I didn't agree with it even at that time. Good. I used to meet them at that time. I used to tell them that they were doing the wrong thing. They also had an idea of resettlement. There was no talk of resettlement in Afghanistan. Why were they so keen on resettlement? When we had fought so hard to drive them out of here. And they settled in Nuristan. And there, the Afghan commander Qazi Kari Abdul Rahman, who was sitting in Bajaur and running Bajaur, we drove him away, and he was made the governor of Nuristan in Afghanistan, and he opened refugee camps there. So, what was their obsession there to bring them back and settle them? For what joy? So, you yourself are part of this setup. Did you ever try to find out what the obsession was? No, being part of this setup doesn't mean we agree on everything. Look, actually, I sometimes see on social media that, well, when he was in service, why didn't he say anything then? How do you know what I said or didn't say? Right? This is an institution where our statements and recommendations are not public. So, whatever had to be said, we said it, and as per the army's principle, the commander makes a decision, and we follow it. But this did not happen during my tenure. This resettlement plan, I had retired by then, but even then, I kept meeting people and talking to them. I said, you are doing the wrong thing. But they were saying that if we don't do it, India will. India has already done it anyway. Sir, you yourself were part of the operations, right? As I said, from 2008 to 2010, this was the period when operations against terrorism, whatever we call it, the war on terror, war of terror, whatever you call it, we were a part of it at its peak. You also conducted operations. Did you conduct operations so that you could push the terrorists across the border? They would have to come back. We did not conduct operations for that. Field operations are field operations. They clear the area. Yes, and if someone was killed or caught or arrested in that area, that's half the thing. But we don't go after individuals, not after people. We won't cross the border after them. We couldn't do hot pursuit. That's someone else's job. Right? That's intelligence's job. They do that. So, we didn't try to drive them away. But with the kind of porous border, they kept escaping from us and went there as soon as they left. There were about 5000, 4000, 5000. 4-5000 were fighters. Fighters. Right. And along with their families, there were 30-35,000. 30-35,000. And those fighters and those 30-35,000 of their families are now a problem for us. We don't understand what to do with them. Actually, if you look at it, there are two or three things that are a problem for us, but we have created this problem ourselves. One, we have politicized it. Good. And by politicizing it, we don't know whose responsibility it is. And who is doing all this? Secondly, there are two or three enablers for this kind of environment. There are grievances among the people. The "mazaar" of FATA was not done properly. After that, there is corruption, then narco-politics. Narco-politics is a very important thing, within which they create their own parallel government. As I have been telling people, in Balochistan, near Girdi Jungle, there is a person named Sakhi Jan. His father did not give him the name Sakhi Jan. He pays everyone. One of his brothers is in immigration, one is in the provincial assembly. So, a complete parallel government is formed. And when there is corruption in that parallel government, it also affects immigration. False identity cards are made. Movement starts. Movement across the border starts. So, all these are enablers. Smuggling, corruption, narco-trade, politicization, and the biggest problem is there is no governance. You cannot collect garbage, you cannot provide electricity, you cannot provide gas, you cannot impose any kind of law. So, how will you handle terrorism? What can be handled? How can the government do it? The civil institutions it has, the police, CTD, they are not that equipped. Terrorists are more equipped than them. That is the government's responsibility. That is the government's responsibility. When there is a lack of governance, total lack of governance, then tell me one thing that is working. The traffic system in Pakistan is not right. Garbage is not right. When it rains, there are floods. If it doesn't rain, there is drought. Sir, please don't mind, but then I should put a question from the public to you: when such a large part of the budget is taken away, what is left for the civil administration?

Look, you are still considering me with the army, which I am very happy to be with the army, but I am not part of the army at this time. I am also part of the public. No, that's fine. But the question is, from your answer, my question is, people ask a question, but they don't understand that 18% of the budget is one part. 18%? Yes. So, what about the remaining 82%? Why don't you ask about that? Why don't you ask about the schools? Why don't you ask about the failing SOEs (State-Owned Enterprises), PI? Why don't you ask about the steel mill? Why are you focusing so much on this 18%? An institution where a vehicle never breaks down, where diesel never runs out, where salaries are never stopped for anyone, this is an official institution. You are criticizing it more, and the other things are fine, let them continue. I am looking at that 80, 82 percent, whatever it is, there are many other pieces in it. You have taken out a big piece from each. What remains from that, then there is police, there is health, there is education, there is water, there is employment. There are salaries. That's the biggest thing. So, my point is, we are making a comparison, aren't we? Comparing the police. You said that the governance of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government, that province cannot manage it. Look, sir, the biggest scandal of KP police was the weapons one, in which the IG police was arrested. Yes. That was a scandal, wasn't it? Yes. So, then I am telling you that even if you reduce this 18% by, say, you reduce it, what will you do with it? And will we build schools? So, what was the benefit then? Or tell us what it will be used for. No, I was hoping that we would also equip the police and CTD. So, do it, who is stopping you? When it is done, corruption creeps in. They say there is no money. I say there is corruption. If the IG is shut down, there is no corruption. Yes, that case also went on. Absolutely. So, then, whatever you touch, there is some problem in it. I have said before that the leadership in all our institutions is either corrupt, obligated, or compromised. On the other hand, there is no corruption. Which side? Your side. Look, it might be happening. But where they talk about corruption, it may be at the leadership level, but the systems there, the laws, the regulations, the army acts, etc., that are in place, do not allow so much corruption at the rank and file level. Okay. When a vehicle runs, I will tell you, there are five or six projects for it. For a vehicle to leave. But if you talk at the senior level, then what can I talk to you about? People are talking about it there, like the corruption that is happening. But we are making a comparison, aren't we? When we are comparing, then an entire institution is running on 18%. It has never stopped. It has never reported any shortage. Right? And it is always available to you. Right? But nothing else is running, is it? Which institution is running, do you think?

Let's go back to the FATA issue. Now it has become part of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. You were not very much in favor of the merger anyway. You had another idea. Look, first of all, we should have learned a lesson about merger from Swat. Good. We also rushed into merger there. Chitral was included. Chitral was put in Malakand Division. The geography is different. The language is different. The religion of the people is different. And we joined it there, and Swat has not been stable yet. After that, we brought back FCR. We brought back FCR, failed. After that, we brought in the constitution, and finally, we brought Sufi Muhammad and told him to make his own constitution. So, shouldn't we have learned a lesson from that? That there is a way to do it. Now, here, we said to merge it. FCR was not the reason. FCR was not the reason for the war. Good. If we had to remove FCR, we could have removed it. But merger means you want to bring people into Pakistan's mainstream. We could have at least had a referendum. We could have asked questions. Right? We should have asked them, "You have merged into KP, you have made a separate province." They were afraid of asking questions. So, then what questions would they ask? Then it's fine. Then talk to PTF, right? Then, with the current situation, with the current problems, then do it with them. By the way, in your opinion, what would the questions have been? If I say there is a referendum ballot, there are three questions on it. What would they be? I think people would say, "Let us make our own province." No, no, I said, what would the three questions be? Would you want to merge? Would you accept the normal constitution? Yes. And if you do, do you want to make a separate province, or do you want to make it together with KP? Now, when we talk about small provinces, we have made one province even bigger, which was already difficult to control. Moreover, its western border is not even established. So, then you have merged it with a province whose border is not established with Afghanistan. We... So, what I recommended, and was asked about, was that within the Governor's Secretariat, this is an evolutionary process. It cannot happen overnight. So, we would call all the elders in the Governor's Secretariat, two from each agency, and some legal teams with them, and gradually amend the laws towards the constitution, adjusting all the points and national issues. And this would have taken at least three or four years, perhaps five years. We would release some funds for each phase, which they haven't done to this day. Road construction, judicial setup, police setup, all that would have been happening simultaneously. Then it would have been very easy. But we made it difficult for ourselves. Everything becomes politicized. Everything becomes politicized. That, we did this, and now no one is ready to take responsibility for it. No, but this happened during Nawaz Sharif's tenure. No, everyone used to say that Nawaz Sharif should end this, end FATA. This is what Quaid-e-Azam also said. That's why Saffron was created, a ministry was created, which was so corrupt that they became unconscious after eating. Good. I was interviewing Hamid Mir. He said that Quaid-e-Azam had promised that we should not have the 25th amendment. No, no, not like that.

The promise is not about marriage. The Quaid-e-Azam had spoken to them about negotiations, saying that this is our zone and he had removed the army and military from it. He said that you will proceed according to your traditions. Yes, but along with that, we also formed the Ministry of SAFRON so that we could gradually win them over and integrate them with Pakistan. Do you think the primary purpose of forming the Ministry of SAFRON was this, and no other purpose? And what was the other purpose? Well, the purpose was that you should gradually adopt it. But they remained engaged in some other work. After that, we don't have the distinction of what FATA is. What is FATA? A Provincial Administrative Tribal Area and a Federal one. There is no distinction as to what is what within it. So you just say that since it has been politicized, let's quickly finish it. And it's not there now. Now, at the juncture where we stand, you are also saying that many people say, coming to the new situation, I remembered that old thing, that many people say this war we fought, the war against terrorism, this war against terror, was not our war at all. Listen, terrorism in Pakistan started after the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan. Pakistan has always been an example of weak governance. There are Shia-Sunni riots, Urdu language riots, problems in Karachi. If you look at Pakistan every year, I have the complete record. I can tell you how many incidents there are in Pakistan: killings, political killings, ideological killings. Terrorism was definitely there. But it could not be controlled. Now what happened is that after '91, when the story of the Soviet Union here... this will become too long. Anyway, in FATA, the fighters from the Soviet Union era, the Mujahideen, etc., who had settled, some of them even got married. They became misguided and said we have to fight a war against the United States, we have to do Jihad. Pakistan made three or four requests at that time. Number one, take citizenship, set aside your weapons and get registered. And if you don't want to, we will send you back to your country. They said, no, this is what our Islam says, we can do Jihad. So we will do it from here. Meaning, they are telling the state that we are a separate entity, and we will continue the war from your land, regardless of your approach. Now, what should the state do? What is the deal with them? Then why didn't the state think at that time? Stay on this point. Second thing, when the state was interfering in the 80s at America's behest, it didn't think then that if we leave our assets behind, how will we manage them later? By the way, I am surprised because people's memory is so weak. We did not interfere at America's behest. I have no particular liking for General Zia's era, I don't like his administration, but the reality is that while he was in power, the Soviet Union came into Afghanistan in 1979 for warm water ports or whatever it was. After that, we were on the menu. We had to fight the war. America had made Pakistan its pawn. Someone had to assist. No one assisted. Pakistan then, in its own way, started a method and system of Jihad, which was successful. Two years later, Carter offered General Zia in the United Nations, I don't know how many million dollars, saying that some lentils are cooking for us, so we also want to put our share in it. At that time, there was a very famous statement by General Zia, which appeared on the headlines of Newsweek and Times, on the cover page. He rejected the American assistance. After that, Saudi Arabia gave $3 billion dollars, and later on, America gave $3 billion dollars, and the operation started. But that was later, when Pakistan had already successfully restricted them. Do you think so? I don't think so. I was in the army at that time, I know. It's not that I think so, I was there. When we talk to various people from that era, like intellectuals or now politicians, it's up to them what they say. But I am telling you the facts. In 1979, America was not there, there was no support. Pakistan was alone. When Pakistan managed the situation, America arrived about two years later, and it arrived because we had managed it. If we hadn't managed it, it wouldn't have arrived. Okay. Okay. Now, the confusion that arises is that when American money and resources came, and the corruption that happened in it, and people made money here and there, and favoritism started, giving to some and not to others, that's a separate matter. Sir, let's put the money aside. Money is not an issue, is it? Money comes and goes. The main issue is that it was the point at which we often say that we became part of someone else's war or became its fuel. This was the turning point that gave birth to extremism in our land. You said that we got into terrorism from the time of Liaquat Ali Khan. Extremism, extremism has always been here. Before that, Shia-Sunni, our MNA, Tariq, was he not killed on the motorway? Was he not killed on the main road? Who killed him? We didn't kill each other, did we? Was he not killed within this ideological extremism? Look, this is not about debate, it's about facts and reality. In 1979, the Soviet Union came to Afghanistan. Pakistan formed a resistance. It's just a part of history. Why are we debating it? Sir, we are debating it because we suffered from it. We didn't suffer any loss. We saved Pakistan from it. Sir, my child is still a jihadi. No, that is because of this. It's not because of this. Everything has a reason. As I said, when America gave aid to Pakistan, and it was misused, that's a separate matter. But when Pakistan, one thing, I am talking about ideology. My youth, the youth of Pakhtunkhwa, are taking up arms. They are taking them up on the basis of ideology. But that was not the purpose, was it? If the management is not right, and you treat something incorrectly, then your car might have an accident. And after that, you say, look, because of that, our accidents kept happening. If you didn't drive the car properly, you would have an accident. Okay, who was supposed to drive the car properly? The government, wasn't it? That's the government's problem, isn't it? That's what I'm saying, there was mismanagement in everything. Mismanagement is happening even today. Okay, an argument is also given here that in both periods, 9/11 and the 80s, we had dictators, not politicians. That's correct, that's correct. But what do you want to say about that? If there were politicians, would there be any difference? Yes, they would have dealt with things politically. What benefit would you have gotten from that? I'm not saying dictator or politician, it's a hypothetical thing, isn't it? We don't know what will happen or what won't. The politicians of that time, it's called the Decade of Darkness. Benazir and Nawaz Sharif were taking turns. Those 10 years, which are called the Decade of Darkness in history, during which Pakistan's economy was destroyed. We haven't recovered from it yet. After that, these are things we can do to each other. I've said it, we keep giving examples from history according to our wishes. But the point is, facts are facts, aren't they? What happened, you can't ignore it. Okay, that's not our topic. Politics is not our topic. But if it comes up, then this is an argument. You talked about nuances. No problem, it's an experience. We are here to learn from you. I am not saying that dictatorship is a good thing. I am saying democracy is a good thing. But that's not relevant, is it? That if there was a dictator, it happened only because of him. I understand that anyone there would have tried to resist the Soviet Union. Anyway, I am saying the same thing, that I am presenting that conversation to you, that this is your opinion. They are saying that since Mr. Zia did not have popularity, no one in the world was talking to him, so he tried this point and made a position for himself in the world, right? By fighting someone else's war. Mr. Musharraf also had the same problem, that he also toppled a government, so he also needed the attention and patronage of foreign powers or, you could say, the West, so he did the same. So I am just presenting that argument to you a little bit, since you were part of that process, so isn't this argument correct? No, I don't think so. I think anyone there would have had to make some decision. So if there was a politician there, if parliament was sitting, what would they have said? Would they have become partners with the Soviet Union? What would they have said? They would have said something, wouldn't they? What would they say? Okay, I am not in favor of dictatorship, but that was one thing where I am saying that the decision at that time to resist the Soviet Union was a correct decision, and its subsequent mismanagement is a separate issue. Okay. And 9/11 was also a correct decision. Of course, 9/11 was a unanimous decision of the United Nations. A unanimous decision of the United Nations Security Council becomes your national law. What do you say? That you would fight from the side of the Taliban, then from the world? That was the choice, wasn't it? Either fight with the Taliban or fight with the world. The second thing is that when you talk about General Musharraf, this was a unique country in the world, a unique country that was part of that Security Council in the War Against Terror. In which there wasn't a single soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq under the command of the United States, nor did we go outside our territory, nor did we put anyone under American command. Where the entire European force, if it moved, even an animal, could not move without American permission. So there is no value in this, no recognition that we never served under the United States and we never put any army in Iraq or Afghanistan. No recognition. They are not ready to die. Actually, when we look around us, the whole debate is here, what happened on our soil? What was the result of that on our soil? We came out of that well, didn't we? We came out of the well. Look at the world. Then we are fighting the TTP. There were 42 countries in Afghanistan. We were not included in that. No, those countries were in their respective places. Those 42 have gone. They are dealing with their own matters, good or bad. The ground is still hot today, isn't it? The fire is still burning here today, isn't it? So then that mismanage, that complaint, you keep saying mismanage. Okay. Now, regarding the current situation between Pakistan and Afghanistan, I want to ask about a strategy. What would you call it? A word is used: strategic depth. What is that? I need to think about that a little. Strategic depth is a label that was put on Pakistan, and everyone who wants to speak against Pakistan or against the army uses it. Firstly, the Pakistan Army never made any such program of strategic depth, nor did they have any such plan. This was a paper written at NDU a long time ago by a Brigadier. Later he became Chief, Mr. Aslam Beg. But at that time, it was a paper at NDU, which has no relation to running the army or making strategies for the army. Secondly, what is the definition of this label? It's a military definition that the whole world recognizes, that you can fight from another place, you can continue the war after losing, from another place. Will Pakistan fight in Afghanistan after losing? Such a thought is not there. And if we talk about strategic depth, we have kept 4 million refugees. We managed Afghanistan during the time of the Soviet Union. After that, when the Americans came, we managed them. We have given strategic depth. We give them warm water ports and transit trade. Whatever assistance, diplomatic assistance, we provide. So, strategic depth, do we give it or do they give it? We are giving them strategic depth. They have never given us anything. What has Afghanistan given? You have also written in one of your articles that Pakistan and Afghanistan are natural neighbors, and one day they can even become a confederation. I think it can happen because our geography, our ethnicity, our languages, our ideology are such that we can form a loose confederation. And it is a landlocked country that we can give access to our ports. And in my opinion, in my opinion, this confederation can be formed for security, administration, and the welfare of the people. And these suggestions have come before. Okay, so why do we become so bitter? We politicize it. We politicize it. They politicize the Durand Line there, and here we politicize Afghanistan. Their government. Sir, politicizing means making oneself famous by saying that I have taken a stand. Just like Karzai there, what is the need? He has become Karzai, or the other one, Ghani. These are two heads of state who could not live without an occupation army. Oh, at least you, say something human. They also used to talk about the Durand Line, saying we will become very popular here. No, when Mr. Musharraf went to meet Mr. Karzai, he immediately started talking about it, saying, yes, on a lighter note, yes, when are you going to accept the Durand Line? You would say such a thing as soon as you meet. It creates a human environment. Yes, that's right. Yes, that's correct. The way we make statements and so on. Otherwise, before that, look, Mr. Nawaz Sharif was trying to talk and improve matters. Many times, when Mr. Musharraf also came, there was a dialogue going on to bring all Afghans together and try to create a stable Afghanistan. Sharif tried to understand Afghanistan. These are the people who used to say that if you want to do terrorism, do it in KP, don't do it there, don't poke your nose in Punjab. So they had poked their noses, hadn't they? Ours, the Pashtuns. There is no sincere person. There is no sincerity. If you look at history or anywhere, you won't find anyone who was thinking much about Pakistan or Afghanistan. Okay, so who should think now? Now, at the pace we have reached, the border is closed. Trade has stopped. Today, when I was coming to you, our driver's relative, you know the fresh fruit from Afghanistan that we like. A simple man, he told me that his 2 crore rupees have drowned. This is an economy, isn't it? Then if you go to our industrial sector, the medicine sector, our Pashtunkhwa people have suffered a lot. So damage is happening. Now Afghanistan has stopped trade, and Pakistan has not stopped trade. Afghanistan announced that it would stop trade, and they told their shops to finish and remove Pakistani goods. Now this announcement has been made. This is an official announcement. They have announced it on state media. The trade balance between Pakistan and Afghanistan is in Pakistan's favor. So I know that stopping it will cause damage to Pakistan. But for Afghanistan, it is devastating. People there will start dying of hunger. There will be a lot of destruction, and its purpose was also that people should abuse Pakistan more. That's where people-to-people relations come in. So, do you think that a few days ago, I told you about Mr. Muttaqi's statement, he is saying we have no problem, we are doing it with Turkmenistan. He named two countries in Central Asia. He named Iran. What, we have no problem with Afghanistan's relationship? It's okay with Turkmenistan, with Tajikistan. Over there, Tajikistan has asked Russia to bring its army. We are okay with Iran. Iran has killed seven people on the border with China. I am talking about their statements. China has warned. Otherwise, let them make whatever statements they want. An ignorant person is making a statement, so what will we consider? But there is tension, isn't there, sir? Now you see, three terrorists come as suicide bombers and try to hit the FC headquarters, Frontier, now Federal Constabulary. It's good that it was immediately pushed back and that thing was saved. But look at this. Every day, because all the news from Pakhtunkhwa lands on my desk, you are also seeing it. Dera Ismail Khan, Lakki Marwat, Bajaur, Peshawar, North Waziristan, South Waziristan. Police forces, police forces. Now they have started targeting the civil administration as well. In July, look at the AC Bajaur, and just the day before yesterday, Nasiristan. So how will this be resolved? It can be resolved. There is no problem. But the first thing is that one should understand that we are in a conflict. This is part of a conflict, and this is the form of the conflict. This is how it is. The Afghan government says that we have 4,000 suicide bombers. A government itself acknowledges on state media. We have 4,000 suicide bombers, who may or may not be there. I don't care about it. It's not very relevant. But they are saying now.

I am a terrorist. That's all I know what to do. So this is a form of conflict. This is what it is. Now, what is its solution? The first thing is that there should be governance, which is what I was saying when the government, terrorism is a complicated affair. It's not such an easy thing. It's complicated. External resources come into this. Grievances start in some community or society. Someone else picks up that grievance and fuels it with oil so that it keeps growing, and they fulfill their political requirements from that country. So, insurgency or militancy always happens with external sources. Currently, India is doing it. Well, in every way, India is doing it. It's doing it for BALA and also for TTP. Now Afghanistan has become a willing proxy. In our enmity, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." So, they are engaged together with them. Now, this is a complicated thing. As a country, as a nation, when nothing else is going right for us, how will we fix terrorism? Let's fix something first. The first thing is to fix governance. The second thing is that this kind of war, it is a people-driven war. A people-driven war is not answered by the security apparatus. It is answered by the people. You secure the area with your people. Just like in Bannu and Lakki Marwat, people have risen up. They have removed the militants, and this is the way. And that's why I was saying, let's establish a jirga. Let them make decisions. Let them enforce their law within their area, and the military should support them. This is what the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is also saying. You also, Sohail Afreedi sahib, the minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, said that let us talk to the people. But here it is being said that no, there is no kinetic approach for the Pashtun government. This will be done by the center. It's the federation's. Who to talk to? Who not to? Then do what is happening. You asked me a question about its solution. I am telling you that the answer is to involve the people. Take care of your areas. There are many ways to do this. There is village-based defense. In this, elders are seated. In this, elders detail the people. In every village, there becomes a security apparatus. A communication system is established. Police presence is there. Military support is there. There are arrest points. There are complaint cells. People can call them. This whole method, that is not there. This will only happen when the federation and the province are on the same page. I told you earlier, as long as there is no governance, governance means that there should be some government, some recognized government. When there is no recognized government, how will you proceed? Don't you think our decisions are very emotional? Like in 2021, I remember you mentioned in one of your articles that I also feel this thing, I don't know if this is my personal feeling. In 2021, when the regime change was happening in Kabul, you were celebrating here. Now you are upset with them. So, we, the public, also raise this question: yesterday your thinking was something else, today your thinking is something else. So, does this harm us? Does it cause us a lot of harm? It's not about emotionality. There is no institutionalized approach. There is no system of institutions. Ours is not a system. Just like you asked me if there is no corruption in the army. I said that at the top level, there might be, but not in the rank and file. Because there is a system. If I have to drive a car, I have to apply on some paper, there is a VDR, a vehicle record, a trip sheet is made, and so on. So that car cannot move around haphazardly. There is an audit of its petrol, training, etc. So, that is a system, an institutionalized approach. When you break that, and the institution ends, and institutionalized thinking ends, then individuals come. What is the meaning of an individual in state functions? An individual means nothing. In 2021, our emotionality was the achievement of an individual. Yes, yes, that was the achievement of an individual. There was no institutional approach in that. What are you talking about? What are you talking about? I am talking overall. I was told, and we were also told in briefings, that no, we are keeping a close watch, and if this happens, then this will happen. A very positive picture was shown. Then exactly two years later, it was said that no, believe me, we have reached a point where we are playing our cards very carefully. Where did those cards go? No, that's what I'm saying. There is no institutional approach. An individual thought it was right. It failed. Just like Faiz Hameed said, "Bring them in." Now, Faiz Hameed wouldn't have thought of it alone, but this is an individual approach. Over there, people in Swat are making noise, asking why you are letting them in. No one talked to them. In an institutional approach, you talk to people. So, this is the point, and we have seen the result. In fact, related to Faiz Hameed sahib, there are also talks that he came with some pre-decided things. I don't know what he decided. You bring a man from Sindh or Punjab and tell him to go and talk to the Afghans now. What will he talk about? I asked the question, meaning Faiz Hameed sahib decided something, are the minutes available? No, look, at least call those people who understand a system. Let me give you an example. There was a check post outside a fort in Manzai. When I was in 14 Division here, before IGFC, in this area, I remember this area because I know the people. Here, these people used to make arrangements. We had sweets at the check posts. How much would it cost? Because children travel in buses. We kept sweets for the children. We arranged for water for the women. We also kept some shawls, etc. And we would check the men and let the rest sit in the vehicles. And no one minded it. No one objected to the check post being there. In fact, children, we used to say, you can pick up with both hands. Pick up if you can. Now, if you show anger at the check post, as if you are an outsider and you are directly administering the people here, then anger will be generated. If you are angry, they will also be angry. So, there is a very famous statement by Wibton, which I keep telling people, who made the FC. He said, "Let the owners of the land be the keepers of the land." The FC was made on this. When the FC was made, he kept the salary at 5 rupees and gave a red cap. Frontier Constabulary, that's a different thing. Frontier Corps. I always said that the name of the Frontier Corps, it was the core of the Frontier Scouts. Why did you change its name to FC? Because now it's merged with the Constabulary. It was the core of the Frontier Scouts. That was its original name. Wibton made it in the 1800s. "Let the owners of the land be the keepers of the land." So, when I was IGFC, these people, they are called Mashar, who were with the FC in Bajaur, they used to call them Mashar. Okay, when I used to come, they would say, "Mashar, let's go." Okay? So, they used to talk like that. Patrols used to come out. Patrols should still be there. I don't know why they have stopped them now. A patrol goes into the village, they know everyone. We meet, we talk. If someone complains, they would hit the person who owes money a couple of times and get the money back. Everything was fine. That was not a separate army; it was the territorial army of that area. It used to maintain peace. They tried to reorganize it and started destroying it, as we do. Why don't we learn from our mistakes? We don't learn. Someone comes, thinks he is Einstein, and starts. History is written. An Englishman, Wibton, said, "Let the owner of the land be the keepers of the land." And some of our locals will come and start their own new spectacle. The owner of the land is now being threatened. So, where are we heading, sir? That is the problem. It's true that a cycle of the global economy is running. It has been running for centuries. First, it was Britain, then America, then Russia, then Britain, then who knows what after America. China. What is this story? See, this is actually a sequence. Economies have been running in the world. This is not something new. Okay. First, Portugal's was dominant. This was the global economy. Spain took over from Portugal. Holland took over from Spain. Holland had introduced the banking system. Okay. And Dutch banking is still the strongest. England took over from Holland. Then Great Britain established the practice of colonies, etc. And after World War II, America, they had the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 when the whole of Europe was destroyed after the war. And Great Britain handed over the global economy to America, and the dollar became equivalent to gold. And the IMF and the World Bank were established there. An agreement was reached, and America started controlling the world economy. Now, the average lifespan of global economies is about 80, 90 years, 100 years, after which decline begins. America's decline has started. Okay. Currently, China is competing with America, giving it competition, whose economy is becoming larger than America's. In terms of purchasing power, in terms of GDP, it is becoming larger. Therefore, conflicts are starting in the world. In Ukraine, which Europe and America have now lost. In Venezuela, something is happening. A spectacle, and America wants to show its presence. America has 800 bases in the world. Military bases. China has two. Only we. And China's economy is expanding greatly, and there is conflict. China's economy is still developing on BRI, the Belt and Road Initiative. It will connect 33% of the world. Currently, its showcase window is Gwadar and CPEC. If CPEC succeeds, BRI will succeed. If CPEC does not succeed, BRI will also not succeed. Therefore, conflict has arisen between America and China, and Pakistan is caught in the middle. We are caught. We are caught because of CPEC, and these BALA and TTP are sitting on the routes of CPEC. We are sitting, or we have been made to sit. Understand both. Okay, there were grievances there. Those grievances were exploited by external powers, and it started. So, in that account, and I have written many articles on this, that if you have a dispute over CPEC, then China was also trying to bring Afghanistan into CPEC. But Afghanistan has many problems right now. So, there are other problems there. So, this is a global issue. China, of course, has maintained very good connections with them. They have made the most investment. But China has now warned them after Chinese assassinations in Tajikistan. So, China has now warned them that perhaps we will... their drones given by India and Israel to Afghanistan. China and Pakistan are destroying them. Sir, if I ask you, if we want to stabilize this region, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and then from there, Turkmenistan, for example, these are about seven. Can't there be a confederation of these? Anyone can form any confederation in the world. But currently, Pakistan cannot contribute to the stability of any other country because it is not stable itself. If we are not stable ourselves, how can we contribute to the stability of other countries? So, what are we doing now? If we look at the Middle East issue, the Palestine and Israel issue, there are also some discussions. Then we have also made an agreement with Saudi Arabia. So, what is going on? See, these things are not public, so we don't know their details, what kind of agreements were made behind closed doors, and what agreements were made. What was given? What was taken? We don't know. We can only speculate. I understand that the agreement with Saudi Arabia is a dead agreement. No agreement can be made in Saudi Arabia without America's permission. We cannot even fly any planes there without American clearance. Their clearance will be given to you. In their airspace. America will be involved in it. And Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have made statements that if an attack happens on one, we will consider it an attack on the other. So, who will attack Pakistan? Afghanistan or India? So, Saudi Arabia has a huge investment in India. What do you think? Will Saudi Arabia also break its ties with India? And if an attack happens on Saudi Arabia, who will do it? Iran or Yemen? So, will Pakistan start a war with Iran? So, this is symbolic, and I don't see any practical manifestation of it. But this task that is happening, you and I are talking, it will be released in a week. But right now, you and I are talking, and something is also happening in Saudi Arabia. I am talking about Afghanistan. Regarding Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban went there. Now, Saudi Arabia, "Save us," and a delegation from Pakistan, which Pakistan has not announced. But that was also for peace negotiations, but I don't think it will work. Do you think there is this fear in Afghanistan? On one hand, they go and get pictures taken and make statements while sitting in India, and then you are saying they went to Afghanistan. Afghanistan went. Saudi Arabia did not go to Pakistan. But they sent a delegation, and then Pakistan, I think, sent representation. But Pakistan is not announcing anything. There is no benefit in announcing it. It doesn't lead to anything. Pakistan's requirement is one: dismantle TTP. If you can't, let us do it. If you want to work with us, then do that. They don't agree to any of the three. Why don't they agree? What do you think is their compulsion? Their compulsion is that this Afghan government is not a popular government. The Afghan government is an interim government, and it has been interim since 2021. It's been four years. Okay? It's still interim. So, it is not yet a formally elected government or a representative government. It has two parts. One part is the Kandahari group, which is more extreme. And there is the Haqqani group, which is based in Kabul. They have some conflict among themselves. But their control over Afghanistan is through the foot soldiers. The foot soldiers they have, in my estimation, are between 40 to 50,000, their own people. And TTP is a separate entity with about 6,000 people. And now Christina Marks, the representative from Denmark, the President of this Security Council committee, also said that there are 6,000 TTP who are destabilizing. Now, if the Kandahari group moves against these 6,000 TTP, they will join with the Haqqanis. If the Haqqani group does it, they will join with the Kandahari group. If both do it, they will join with Daesh or ISKP. So, they will destabilize the entire Afghanistan. The second thing is that the foot soldiers, their 40-50,000, have connections with them. Sometimes they come together with them, which is why you see so many Afghan dead bodies here, who are also fighting, etc. These are the same people. And if you tamper with them, the foot soldiers get angry. And they don't want to anger these foot soldiers either, because they are sitting on their territory. So, these are also problems. So, these are their compulsions. Compulsions. So, how can we... this is a very important compulsion, isn't it? Because they know that if they act in this way, as you have detailed, this is a very dangerous situation for any government. At a time when we know this situation, what is your suggestion for the current government or the overall setup that is making decisions? What should be done then? Pakistan should provide full-scale intelligence support and specifically mount joint raids with them. Joint monitoring of the border should be done. Joint headquarters should be established with the Afghans, within which they can monitor. And in this way, they can control. The boots on the ground, the actual fighting, etc., should be done by the Afghans. But Pakistan can open its establishment there and provide them with coverage, surveillance, and electronic intelligence, and things like that. And the process of going after one's enemy, this occasional disease of jets or sometimes they say drones have arrived. I am talking about Afghanistan. So, this kinetic approach, this also continues. The kinetic approach is not a wrong approach. I don't know because I am not connected with the government at the moment, nor with military plans, etc. But the purpose of the kinetic approach is to overwhelm the Afghan government and bring them to the negotiating table and have discussions with them, and I don't see any...

Now. It is not visible. You yourself have said, and even indicated, that the local element in this can play a very important role. So, shouldn't the local element be taken along? There are two parts to the terrorism in this. One is external, which comes in from Afghanistan, and the other is internal, which is within Pakistan. For the internal one, there should be a collaborative effort between the government and the locals. For the external one, there is nothing other than kinetic operations. Intelligence-based kinetic operations. But they say that our intelligence-based kinetic operations... but they say that this way you are breaching our sovereignty. So, there will be no discussion on them breaching our sovereignty. We are doing it in response, aren't we? It's our response. It's not our initiative. Correct. You also talked about a local element. That is very important. Because if I look at the operations you conducted against terrorism, at your strategy at that time, the result we got was that there was peace for a long time. Right? Those elements were eliminated. Now, who are the facilitators? Do you think, or how much do you think? Because I am asking you this. Firstly, you are a son of this land. Secondly, you have seen all this up close. You have also conducted operations against them. So, what do you think, how much facilitation is currently being provided to them by us? It's not about facilitation. Actually, what happens is that the government agencies and intelligence agencies, etc., create their own patterns. When they create these patterns, and when they have contact with them. Firstly, when they turn them, which is called turning a militant, they make them into peace committees. They surrender. They give them some initial concessions in the peace committee, unregistered weapons, and let them roam free among the people. They then prey on the people. They start extracting revenue from them. So, this becomes a problem. Then people say that these are government people. The government also gets a bad name, and these peace committees are unacceptable. That is why I am saying that the elders of the area should establish their own system. So, people also call this "Good Taliban." It can be called that. But "Good Taliban, Bad Taliban," well, I don't believe in it at all. Only, only Taliban. That's a good Taliban is a dead Taliban. Right? There is only one. One kind. Whatever else there is, all these stories keep going on. But the peace committee, you know, is totally unacceptable. But you must remember this. I also remember. I had asked one of my IGs that when the issue of the passes happened, they started forming Lashkars. It's a kind of peace committee, isn't it? They used to call it that too. So, was our strategy not right then? But the meaning of Lashkar, people should understand first. What is the meaning of Lashkar? The meaning of Lashkar in Pashto is called "Chalvasti," meaning the 40th person. In a community, the 40th man details it, and the remaining 39 provide him with logistical support. Now, if a Lashkar asks for weapons and ammunition, he is not a Pashtun. It means he doesn't have weapons. Right? A Lashkar never asks for weapons. They ask for logistics, like someone to take care of his family, run his shop, or manage his business. Secondly, a Lashkar has a specific geographical area of operation. Thirdly, it has an objective; after this objective is met, it ends. Fourthly, it has a time for rotation. These four things need to be established. A Lashkar is not open-ended, like just forming an army and then it keeps roaming around, harassing people. This is what people understand as destruction, and people don't understand. That's why I am saying that understanding the system is very important. Ask those who know and act according to that system. Exactly, this is the point where the debate on every question of ours ends: ask the locals. But the problem is going elsewhere. Okay. The Afghan government also makes an accusation that Daesh is in Pakistan. Do you think so? See, when the TTP gets hit, they become Daesh. Right? And they keep changing their names. So, there is no Daesh. It's the TTP that keeps changing its name. Even now, they have formed a new Lashkar, which consists of various types of TTP people. All of them. Daesh is entirely in the north of Afghanistan, and now there were about 400 people from the ETIM (East Turkistan Independence Movement), now they have become 4000. Four towns have been established in Ghazni. In those four towns, various types of Daesh, ISKP, and ETIM are all settled there. Drone activity has also started on them. We don't know who is conducting the drones. Are the Chinese doing it, or are we, or are Turkmenistan? Who is doing it? I don't know. But people are complaining that drones are flying over us 24 hours a day. So, something must be happening there.

Now, Afghanistan's leaning towards India. There are many such discussions here too, that based on this, India might have made a program to do "Sindhu 2" as well. Do you feel that if the West and the East suddenly ignite together, then what results will come from India? Yes, see, Afghanistan and India coming together is not new. I told you, from 1947 until now, Afghanistan's relationship with Pakistan has never been good. During Ashraf Ghani's government, they refused the little aid we could provide by going to Amritsar, publicly, to humiliate us. So, this is an old account. As for "Sindhu 2," if we are saying that India and Afghanistan have joined hands and therefore put Pakistan in trouble, then Pakistan and Bangladesh are also together, Pakistan and China are also together. There are also issues in Ladakh and other places. So, we are in a better position than them. So, let them do "Sindhu 2." So, do you think there is such an intention? It was said that the end of November has passed. Now, perhaps in December, Afghanistan might take such a big step to help India. No, not to help India. What will Afghanistan do? They are saying that they said, "You heat up the West front, and we will handle the East." But we can manage Afghanistan with the police, and that is not a problem for us. Those who think that in a two-front war, Afghanistan is going to become a front. It will not become a front; it will become a conflict. That's it. That's it. It's not that big of a problem for us.

But here, the situation is such that it seems very big. Actually, Pakistan has shown a lot of restraint, and there is strategic silence at the moment. And that restraint has been shown because of the UAE and Qatar. Otherwise, Pakistan's intentions at this moment were very dangerous. What they were about to do to Afghanistan right now, they were going to do something very bad to them. So, it's good that they stopped. Instead of permanent enmity, shouldn't there be some room left for a friendly relationship in the future? We are neighbors, aren't we? Neighbors cannot be changed. And this kind of neighbor, where I am saying, it's an unnatural conflict. Unnatural. Friendship is natural. So, we have tribes on the borders, right? Now, when I go, the tribals, they have become part of us now, they have been merged. But still, those tribes are very angry. They say, what have we done to each other? Pashtun tribes on that side, Pashtun tribes on this side, but so much hatred. Now, Afghanistan's total population is somewhere around 44 million. Yes. Out of 44 million, the Pashtuns there, they are about 15 million. Yes. This makes about 45, 46, 47% of their population. So, the majority homogeneous ethnic group is Pashtun. Yes. In Pakistan, there are 30-35 million Pashtuns. They are 18% of Pakistan's population. So, 30 million are here, and 15 million are there. If the Durand Line or the tribes are to be moved here and there, then let the Durand Line be moved there. Correct. What kind of talk is this? So, we cannot take 30 million people to Afghanistan, can we? So, let everyone stay in their own place, that would be better. So, let them stay. If they stay, then it's fine, they are happy. But if someone wants to unite people, then for uniting, I am in favor of it. Let's take the line that side. The 15 million will join very easily. And find me one person in Pakistan who says that I want to go to Afghanistan happily. Nobody wants to go. So, they will come. They will come happily. I don't know if they will come happily or not. But this idea, I also see it on a lot of social media, and in some articles, and in conversations, in private gatherings, these things happen. It was even discussed in a briefing. But I am just saying, the common man does not like it at all. No, he doesn't. But the thing is, is it Pakistan's responsibility? If here, I am also a tribal. I am also a Khattak. It is written that although our division with Afghanistan has not happened, people have been divided. But is this Pakistan's responsibility? Not Afghanistan's. Meaning, one part is on that side, one part is on this side. A larger part is here, a smaller part is there. So, we merge the smaller part with the larger one. But this larger part of yours, yes, it loves that side. And they do, don't they? They are with it ideologically too. They do, don't they? So, we will merge them. So, you... well, no, that cannot happen. Everything has to fit only with Afghanistan, that we lift 30 million Pashtuns from here and give them to Afghanistan, and everyone will be happy. Tell them, no. 30 million. By the way, I sometimes think that Afghanistan's anger is fundamentally also a matter of recognition, could it be something like that? But it shouldn't be. Because when the Taliban were there before, right? When we were the children of Benazir, and their Interior Minister at that time used to praise them a lot. So, at that time, Pakistan had recognized them. Right? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, three countries recognized them. We haven't recognized them yet. But we organized an OIC meeting in September. Then we organized a meeting of regional countries. Then we allowed them to open an embassy. Then we talked to the United States to release their 9 billion. We tried hard. What else can we do? Pakistan, in its own consideration, you understand, has tried every effort. It has tried, right? Now it's Afghanistan's turn. It's not about begging. Yes. Be reasonable. Be reasonable. Yes, now Pakistan has made every effort, and I say that Pakistan can also do people-to-people interaction, Pakistan can provide assistance. It can be for the people. Now, United Nations convoys are going, the border is opening. Pakistan had not announced the closure of trade, that was closed by Afghanistan. But now Pakistan has opened systems for aid. You must have heard about the solution to terrorism, which people say is important to talk about: it is a buffer zone. Yes, I read this in one of your writings. How is this? But see, firstly, the way people understand a buffer zone, that Pakistan will go and create a buffer zone. How much will it create? 30-40 kilometers will have to be created, right? It means going inside Afghanistan's territory and creating a new border there. The one we currently have is not being managed, so how will a second new one be managed? Yes. This does not mean a buffer zone. A buffer zone means a joint mechanism that operates independently within 10 kilometers, jointly by both governments. I am saying independently here. The influences on the border right now are of smuggling, narco, corruption, cross-border movement, which is illegal, and things like that. Let there be an independent entity formed by Afghanistan and Pakistan, operating within a 10-kilometer belt, where there is absolutely no control of any politician or any government. It should be an independent entity with proper objectives, and it should operate accordingly, then it will be controlled. A buffer zone. So, this is your idea, or is there any debate about it? What I am telling you is my idea, but the idea of a buffer zone is old. But they don't know what this buffer zone is. No, I am saying, this idea of yours, has it been discussed anywhere? Have you sent it somewhere? No, no, no. No one has spoken to me, but I had written a paper before for Iran, that let's create a 10-kilometer independent force that is not under the influence of any politician or government. Let it operate there for a while, change its command on a time-based rotation, sometimes Iranian, sometimes Pakistani. Similarly, do it with Afghanistan and try to secure this border. And I think this is a way to do it. What you are thinking, obviously, those think tanks sitting there, who are looking at all these matters, your opinion should reach them, shouldn't it? It will reach. But the real thing is that they will sabotage it. Who wants smuggling to stop? Who wants drugs to end? There are influential people sitting there. They will mock this suggestion, saying, what nonsense is this? No, when we are talking about border management, this is also a part of border management, isn't it? We have to do this. But that is also a part of border management, isn't it? The influential person is sitting within the government or in some position who will sabotage it. You will not allow it. The DG has told us this in three or four briefings. In his press conferences, he explained a lot about how these matters are happening. The National Election Plan had border management as one of its parts. So, why are we not doing it for this very reason? Because of this, they will never let it work. Because everybody is affected. People within the government, ministers, etc., they are affected. Do you understand? Ministers? Oh yes, all are involved in this. What does corruption mean? Corruption is this. This narco mafia creates a parallel government. So, all the people sitting in positions, powerful people, they will not allow this. And this narco mafia is sitting in positions at the provincial level and at the federal level, at every level. They will control your immigration, they will control your NADRA, they will control your identity cards, your documentation. They will not leave anything of yours. So, how will the problem be solved then? I don't know. But somebody has to sit down and put their foot down. Until you restore these institutions and strengthen them, this will not work. This is the point, sir, that what I come to, finally, I definitely want to talk about the Middle East because it is related to us. We people keep saying this again and again: this talk of creating a narrative. See, we have to go to our root level because extremism has now entered our roots, hasn't it? In every house, you know. It's not a lie that there are facilitators, everything is there, or you can say there is an ideological alliance. To end that, we have to create a narrative, right? And to create a narrative, you have to work at this root level. Yes, absolutely. I understand that Pakistan's situation is also like this. You have to work in reverse order. Perhaps start with local bodies. Okay. And local bodies in such a way that there is a town hall system in which everyone is included. Because if you don't do that, and people are not included in governance, they consider themselves irrelevant and do not participate in any development. So, complaint cells, etc., at the town or village level. Well, what suggestions can I give you? I am not qualified in this. But I understand that we have to bring people's relevance. We have to bring it somehow. So, we have greatly angered the people. That's the system, irrelevant people. The people of the land on which you and I are sitting are very angry with the federation. See, and you know, now it will become political. But what to do? When I was the CEO of my regiment, I went on a reconnaissance in the desert with two or three jeeps. Brand new jeeps. And they were making a lot of noise, the roof was off. I was feeling very happy, roaming around. And we stopped near a well. Absolutely, in the desert. We were drinking water. There was brackish water in it, there were some animals, and a small child was also drinking water from it, and his stomach was protruding due to malnutrition. And I was looking at my jeep, its wireless sets, and its antennas, and such a new jeep, and I was looking at the child. What difference did it make to him whether I was an Englishman, a Hindu, or a Muslim? Ask him. Ask him, who is the president, who is the prime minister, what is the political structure? It was completely irrelevant to him whether he was in Pakistan or India. It made no difference to him. His condition showed that he was not relevant. And I felt ashamed of myself, where I was roaming, what I was happy about. We have all now reached that stage. We are all irrelevant. So, do you think that this PTM...

A creation has happened. All of them thought that they had become irrelevant, so we came. And as for PTM, this Pishthan Manzoor Pishthan, we were doing Operation Jaljala when they came out from Chakmalai. He was saved and was educated here in Banu's school. In APS, we don't talk about these things, do we? About how, after that, they got an opportunity to create a ruckus there. We said, "Sir, they killed us," and the war was announced by Baitul Masood in January 208. So, flowers are not thrown in war. War means there will be damage. Damage has occurred. So, they are just carrying that around, aren't they? But they forget what their own story was. They call that story a foreign war, don't they? So, an opportunity arose, someone even funded it, and with that fund, it was made. As I said, external resources always look for greed and create it. So, this is an example. But sir, look, I am also a resident of this soil. If you go out in DL Khan now, you will see dust flying, right? Correct. I say you have to come to the city with a four-wheel drive. Here, the road is unknown. The Chief Minister of this place has also been here. Okay. 13 years have also passed. He also became Chief Minister. Then, before that, whom will you complain to? Pakistan Peoples Party, then after that, you can say Jamiat Ulema Islam has also been in the center. In every government, I am just saying this. So, here, I, when I come home, the same garbage in the streets, the same drains, the same dirty water. When it rains, it becomes like a river, the Sindh river comes into the drains. So, this is good. Then, after that, bathing in various places, and then when you are walking, you don't know if there is gunpowder under your feet. So, Manzoor was talking about this, sir. No, no, he was talking about it, but he is also a part of this, isn't he? Of this society. If extremism has tightened its grip on my society, then what is my fault? They were a few people, weren't they? Okay, we also say that, okay, then how did TTP form, right? This is also a history, isn't it? People also question this. We have come from there. No, how TTP formed, they still ask this question. I know how it formed, right? These were small-time, as I said, robbers, thieves, who started collecting revenue within your agencies, by force, right? He used to sell something outside, he went into the mine. He occupied the state's land there. After that, he started collecting revenue from there. Money started being collected from the vehicles going from the mine to the rubble. In this way, he made revenue. The state remained silent. Yes, that's what I'm saying. I was in Bajaur, there was an old man, there was fighting, and he was sitting on a charpoy, and shelling was going on. I was surprised that it wasn't affecting him at all. Absolutely. When I sat down with him and asked him what was happening, "Don't you people feel ashamed that you allowed them? They came in, took away your families, took away your children." So, he stood up and said to me, "Before this, where were you?" I told this to General Kiani sahib. I said, "You know what he said? He said, 'We were abandoned. We were left alone. There was no state here.' After that, we had built about 60-70 forts." I said, "We will never leave you." And we built them. So, the problem is that there was no state. Well, some people are also against the army going into FATA, aren't they? Many people also say that if they had continued this, improved it, strengthened it, then the army would not have needed to go there. It was not needed. I agree with you. And this is exactly what happened when the Soviet Union issue arose. When jihad started, when mujahideen were brought from all over the world, when 3 billion from Saudi Arabia came and started settling there, then the whole system changed. When the system changed, the traditional tribal rules, the Jirga law, and FCR were completely abolished. We did not respect it. Some people used to say, "Go learn Islam from Bush." We used to say this to the armies, to George Bush. Who used to answer them? So, FC, it should have been strengthened. FC should have been given more control. FC was acceptable. FC was present. FC could have controlled it. But instead of FC, the army itself came. When it came itself, then the army will handle it now. Now the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa will move towards repealing the act and dealing with civil power. What will it do? They are saying they will do something. So, what difference will that make? There is no need to repeal the act of civil power. The army comes under Articles 245 and 147 of the constitution, which are passed by the provincial government and the federal government. If it was not passed unanimously, when Maulana's government was there, they unanimously said that the army would not take action, so no action was taken. When the operation happened in North Waziristan, when our school was attacked in APS, it was a unanimous decision that the army would not act, so the army said, "Now you tell us." They said, "Then you do it." So, that was a political decision. Now, do you think if a political decision comes again, will it be a wise decision at this time? No, that's not the issue. First of all, the army and the political structure or the people in such matters are not separate entities. They are organs of the state. Now, if a political structure cannot handle its affairs, it should ask the army for help. What is so complicated about this issue? Then how will the police handle it, sir? For example, Ismail sahib wrote a very excellent article in Dawn recently, perhaps you have also seen it. One sentence from it seemed very strange to me. He was saying that a policeman's gaze is on the one in front of him, and another is on the sky. A quadcopter is coming now, isn't it? So, we are not that strong. We are not. We are strong. We should be able to cover this area. And a quadcopter is not such a sophisticated thing that we cannot handle it. You can support the police, can't you? There is no problem with that. Even the Air Force can support the police. It's not a problem. Make a decision, what do you want to do? So, you think the problem is the decision? Yes. But look, if you want, I can send you a document later on how to deal with terrorism. It's a document that I have printed and given to people in the army as well. The leading role will always have to be a political role. A politician's role. It cannot be a military role. Whenever you take a military role, you will go wrong. The military is no solution. The military can only create an environment for a solution, it cannot be the solution itself. Exactly. Finally, going towards the end, this issue of Pishthan, what do you think, are we going to become a part of it, or does anyone need us, or how will this issue be resolved? And if it is resolved, because Iran is also our neighbor, if a matter of the East is going on, and Ibrahim Akkad's talks are also gradually becoming a part of it, what is going to happen? Look, sir, first of all, I don't know what agreements have been made behind closed doors or behind doors, but the Abraham Accords are a part of Greater Israel. Greater Israel extends to the Nile River in Egypt, for which a map also exists. In the context of the army, there is a conflict going on in Gaza, and we want to jump into it. Why do we want to jump into it? The problems in Palestine are the same as in Kashmir. We cannot give that argument politically against Palestine if we want Kashmir to become a part of us. So, one thing should be clear: until the issue of Kashmir is resolved, until the issue of Palestine is resolved, we should remain firm. Our stand should be firm. Secondly, if we have to go there, and if we have to send the army, then is it peacekeeping or peacemaking? If it is peacekeeping, then all the parties involved have already made their agreement, and we just have to act as referees. Well, I don't recommend that, but still, it is acceptable. But peacemaking means that you will forcibly impose peace on all parties. Will you give them? On whom will you impose it? On Hamas? On Israel? Can we do it? Should we do it? I strongly say that you should not do it. You cannot do this. You simply cannot do it. Do you have any information about this? No, I don't have any information. No one has told me anything. I only understand from what is written in the press that we should stay away from this. We have no role in this. The question here is, can we stay away from it? Why can't we? What is our connection with Palestine, except for a political commonality? What is happening with Palestine and what is happening with Kashmir is the same thing. If America says, look, if America says, then it means our sovereignty is never absolute, and sovereignty is only as much as you have strength. If we have that much strength, then whatever America says, then Pervez Musharraf is a great hero for not being in Afghanistan or Iraq, for which people curse him. Why are they running away now? This is your opinion, sir, but they say that Pervez Musharraf, we have already had this debate. But people think that Pervez Musharraf, at a telephone call, people say many things. But the reality is in front of you, isn't it? Our army did not put any person under American command, as others did in the world. We did not go to Afghanistan, nor to Iraq. We had to clarify our intentions, which we did. You gave your land, sir. You gave your bases, didn't you? We did not give any land, nor any bases. Our agreement was only for logistics, and logistics, they went through here. You talk about mismanagement. I will come to that. We mismanaged this because if we had to do logistics, there should have been some rules and regulations. We did not implement them. We allowed it, and that's where corruption starts. When this movement begins, and as for the bases, we had one base, and I was the brigade commander at that time, I know what was happening there. In Balochistan, Shamsi Base, we had given it to the UAE. Okay. And the UAE had given it to them. This is an excuse, of course. They must have given it after asking us. For recovery, for recovery of pilots, it was acceptable. But later they started using it for drones. And they were removed from there from our area. As for the other F-16, the F-16, it was in Sindh, in which place, Jacobabad. When F-16s arrived, the maintenance crews with F-16s were to be done by the Americans. They came with that team, and they were in Jacobabad. And which base did we give? That's what I was talking about. Yes. And which base did we give? That's all I was talking about. Yes. So, to inflate this thing and make it a very big issue, I thought Pakistan was doing well. If we again criticize and polarize our society and start fighting amongst ourselves and create destruction, will we not become a part of them? The next thing you mentioned at the beginning, China and this and this and this. I hope not, but it depends on how much strength the government has. Why are you showing so much love for criticism these days? Do we need any political legitimacy and things like that? All of this, as I always say, no, no, Sadaf sahib, Trump sahib comes and goes. I don't want to use this phrase, but such an atmosphere is being created that if Modi sahib is slapped, if one plane crashes, then two will crash. Trump himself will go to jail during his tenure or after it, but he will definitely go. No, I'm just saying. Befriending him is not such a big deal. You also wrote a famous quote of Kissinger. Mine was that, you know, with American friendship, what do you call it, being an enemy of America can be dangerous, but being a friend of America is fatal. It's fatal to be a friend of America, and America will absolutely throw you out when it comes to national interest. You are meaningless. You are nothing. By the way, this is a perception that Afghanistan is the graveyard of superpowers. Do you disagree with this? No, look, the thing is, first of all, Pakistan should never have gone into Afghanistan. The nature of our war is different. We do not want to occupy. Our war is related to distance, meaning air force and such wars where we will not have boots on the ground in Afghanistan. So, the question of this idea that it is the graveyard of empires applying to us does not arise. But this idea also needs some thought. From Alexander's time to today, whoever had to pass through Afghanistan has passed through. Right? No one left milk there. Now, when they talk about how we did this to the British, that, that. The British, during Dost Mohammad's time, wanted to remove him and put Shuja in his place. Shuja was from the Durrani family. They brought him from Multan and made him king there. He stayed there for three or four or five years. After that, relations soured, and the British told us that we are leaving. They had 4000 troops, and about 12,000 families and followers. According to a negotiated settlement, they were to return to India. We attacked them. We killed their women. We killed their children. We killed their animals. We killed them all. A Dr. Brydon reached Jalalabad. Afghanistan says that we have destroyed everyone. Right? But there was no destruction there. In the same year, 1842, George Pollock, calling it the Army of Retribution, went back in the same year. And he blew up the Kabul bazaar. He destroyed the whole of Kabul. After that, he went to Ghazni. The gates of Somnath in Ghazni, which Mahmud Ghaznavi had brought from Ghazni, brought back to India. So, their doubt should be removed as to what happened there. Well, that was Britain. But let's move on. After that, the Treaty of Gandamak happened, where they again removed Dost Mohammad's son and made their own Abdul Rahman king, who later signed the Durand Line. Right? After that, the Third Afghan War in 1921, in which they used the air force for the first time in 1919 or 1920. Then the Soviet Union came. The Soviet Union had completely occupied Afghanistan. If you want to say who did this, there were the mujahideen who came from all over the world, and secondly, Charlie Wilson. Charlie Wilson, who brought Stinger missiles and shot down 350 aircraft. It became a game-changer for the Soviet Union, and at that time, the economy collapsed, and Gorbachev ordered a withdrawal from there. So, they withdrew. But they didn't lose any war as such. They left from there. They lost because of that, not because of the Afghans, but because of American resistance. They couldn't have managed without it. And now America, and when America was there, it was a political decision for America to withdraw. They did not lose a single tactical battle. Not one. Not one tactical battle that America lost. It was a political decision by America that the cost was becoming too high. Some casualties were also mounting, and they decided that they were leaving. And they left. Therefore, Afghanistan never captured anybody. They have never won any war. Right? Okay. They can sustain an insurgency and control roads. And they showed a good performance against America for 20 years. But it's not a graveyard of empires. Whoever attacked there, attacked, and whoever had to leave, left. Sir, thank you very much. There is much more to talk about, but obviously, there are time limitations. Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Tariq sahib. You were with us. Listeners, it's like trying to put a river into a pitcher. I think we could talk for another hour or two like this because of your experience in the war against terrorism and overall things. But anyway, he has given a very good line on how this problem can be avoided, which we are currently facing. Now, let's see if someone listens to this, it would be very good. That's all from our side. Forzana Ali, please give permission. Allah Hafiz.