Related Stories "Govt has a rule that only a fixed percentage can join Army from a state. This quota must go""Failure to qualify for the Olympics is the catalyst for the change that needs to occur"‘Long-term big subsidies in energy prices are well worth getting rid of’‘The wealthy in India need to do much more for the country’‘I would put Shah Rukh Khan in a situation in which he was the underdog...vulnerable’

•Minor tactics, that’s a very fauji expression.

Small tactics. My reaction was, ‘General, you are a man of the army. Naturally, your thinking is on the lines of what is the right strategy, what are the right tactics. I’m a man who has been in public life, and I can tell you that it’s not a small thing. The day Gen Musharraf decides to hand over Dawood to India, every citizen in the country will start thinking, “For the first time, Pakistan has a leader who is totally different from the earlier leaders.” You cannot imagine how you will touch the chord of every Indian.’

•Did you find him capable of thinking big, thinking out of the box.

No, by that time he had recollected himself, and said with a straight face, ‘Well, Mr Advani, let me tell you, Dawood is not in Pakistan.’ I didn’t pursue it. That was not the idea.

•You saw Musharraf from close then. I bet you got a lot of insight, understanding, on him, at least from people who keep track of such things, when you were in government. And you’ve seen him subsequently. Describe him in two sentences, one, what do you find remarkably good about him, and two, what do you find remarkably disappointing about him.

I would say that he’s not a fundamentalist. But he has an obsession that, as leader of Pakistan, he has to take back Kashmir. His obsession is with Kashmir. It’s still there. It’s still there because even after the January 2004 joint statement with Pakistan, made with Vajpayee, I see no attempt being made to undo the infrastructure of terrorism that has been created. That’s still there, and that is kept as a kind of a reserve.

•But isn’t that now striking back at Pakistan, the same infrastructure?

Yes, I’ve always held that the Puranic katha of Bhasmasur has a relevance to all countries, all times: that if you create a Bhasmasur, you may create it targeting someone else, but that Bhasmasur will start targeting you, the creator.

•Do you see, now with its current problems, with more security men being killed in Pakistan in three months than in a year in India, if we leave out the Naxalites, do you think now there’ll be a fundamental change? Or that a fundamental change will be forced on them?

I don’t know. It all depends on the thinking of the leadership. It depends upon who comes to power now. It depends upon the relations the new power set-up has with the general. And what is the attitude of the army. I remember Benazir Bhutto telling me, ‘Your country has been a successful democracy, we have not been.’ She identified two factors that have contributed to this situation: Firstly, that the Indian army is apolitical, completely. And secondly, India has a totally independent election commission. These are the two factors that have ensured the success of democracy in this country. I would say that the third factor is the culture and tradition of this country, which has not only toleration for a different point of view, but actually respects all different points of view.

•But that culture, political culture, was also given to us by Jawaharlal Nehru, and we have to be grateful to him for that.

I have praised Nehru for that but I don’t think this analysis is very relevant to modern times. My own assessment is that tolerance for a different point of view is imperative in a democracy but intolerance in the field of religion is common all through the world. It is only in India, that the culture has been such, the tradition has been such, that even a person like Charvak, who propounded rank atheism and materialism, he also was described as a rishi. He was not tried. In the West . . .

•He basically promoted hedonism.

Yes, in the West, even scientists have been persecuted.

•Since we are on Musharraf, and terrorism, one question that has never been answered, the Kandahar hijack. Do you now regret that we made too much of a concession? Because every time you raise questions about this (UPA) government’s record on terrorism, Kandahar is brought back.

It is brought back by people who themselves suggested it. I don’t remember exactly who was present, but there was an all-party meeting after the incident, and the general advice given to the government was, ‘You decide, how to deal with the issue, the crisis. But from our side, the safety of the passengers should be the first priority.’

•Did the Congress also say that?

I don’t remember that but the general . . .

•But where was the need for (Union External Affairs Minister) Jaswant Singh to go on that plane?

That’s a side issue.

•But that’s now become a central issue, because. . .

They have made it a central issue. He thought there would be other diplomats also there and he’d be able to answer things best there. But I have always said I was not happy with the decision . . .

•Not happy with the decision to release terrorists.

Yes, I was not happy with the decision, but at the same time, the lives of 160 passengers being at stake, and the information we got, which I have mentioned in the book, that they are likely to blow up the plane, if the Government of India doesn’t . . .

•Did you ever raise this question with Jaswant Singh, that where was the need for you to go? Because every time you raise questions on this government’s record on terrorism, that will be raised . . .