December  2001 
Special Report

‘All those killings, all those human rights violations were not the fault of a government’

ADITI BHADURI in conversation with Masood Khalili, Afghanistan’s ambassador to India since February 1996

On a mellow December after noon, I was ushered into the opulent drawing room of Masood Khalili, Af ghanistan’s ambassador to India since February 1996. Representing the Northern Alliance, he was a close friend of Ahmad Shah Masood, the Lion of Panjshir, and was with him when he was assassinated by Arab journalists in a suicide attack in September. Having himself suffered severe injury and emerging as the sole survivor, Dr Khalili returned to Delhi after treatment in Germany and remains confined to the house.

For a long time now you’ve been representing the Northern Alliance and the Rabbani government in Delhi. You were a close friend of Masood Shah and were with him when he was killed. In fact, you were the sole survivor of that suicide bombing.
It’s hard to talk of that incident. I’m very sad my friend was killed by two Arab terrorists. I was severely wounded too, but I’m glad I was with him till the end. We stayed up that night till four in the morning and talked of everything, including poetry. I’ll never forget that night. It’s very hard when you lose a friend.

The National Alliance or the United Front and all parties that constitute it amassed quite a deplorable reputation for human rights violations between 1992 and 1996, which is why the Taliban were able to come to power.
Well, there was fighting going on after the Soviets left. Hekmatyar, who was planted by Pakistan, by the ISI, in Kabul, was killing people in the name of Afghanistan, in the name of Islam, in the name of things he himself didn’t believe in. But all those killings, all those human rights violations were not the fault of a government.

There was so much foreign interference going on and we were still trying to consolidate our hold. There were problems in Kabul when we were there. We honestly couldn’t control the situation, couldn’t protect people from that kind of chaos, but we still tried to keep the offices open for women, tried to deter extremists from disturbing them.

You say your government was trying to protect the rights of working women, yet one of the Rabbani government’s first decrees was to ban women newsreaders from TV.
No, I tell you we never said or did that. We never said women should not go on TV or radio. In fact, we were encouraging them to go out and work. But they were seeing violence out there, there was a war going on, rockets were being launched on Kabul, civilians were being killed. Those poor newsreaders left Kabul. We never told them to leave, to stop working; we wanted to protect them. For example, there was one newsreader, Miss Kohzat. She read news on TV and radio and we escorted her to work every morning.

Why then, in spite of such a policy, was the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan not included in the Bonn talks?
First and foremost, RAWA doesn’t represent a lot of women in Afghanistan. They are Maoist, communist. I don’t question why they are so — that is their choice. But the people of Afghanistan are traditional and against communism and I think it will take time for the communists to prove they are not traitors.

But RAWA was also anti–Soviet?
But they are Maoists, communists. When we had a communist government and a communist movement in Afghanistan, 1.5 million people were killed during the Soviet invasion. So it would indeed have been difficult to include them in anything because they were called traitors.

But RAWA has been doing a lot of good work in spite of whatever ideology they might follow?
As I said, I don’t know much about RAWA. They are mostly vocal on their computers, websites, but inside Afghanistan (laughs) indeed we have no woman belonging to RAWA.

Would you say the women delegates at Bonn were more representative of Afghan women?
Of course. They were introduced by different factions in Afghanistan. And they are not parties like RAWA.

There were massacres in Mazar–e–Sharif.
Yes, that was not a policy, hundreds of Pakistanis were there, hundreds of Arabs were there, hundreds of Chechens were there, so we had to defeat them.

The NA is welcoming many Taliban defectors to their side as "brothers". What about the foreign fighters – would you be offering them amnesty if they surrender?
According to all values that we cherish — spiritual, moral, traditional — if they do surrender we will ask international organisations like the Red Cross and others to take care of them, as we did. We asked the UN to take care of them but they fired back. I hope they have learnt the lesson not to fire back and instead honestly surrender.

The NA’s history has been quite complicated. Each faction has changed and switched sides and loyalties as and when the situation demanded. Were these differences manifesting themselves at Bonn, for example, between Rabbani and Qanooni?
We’ve always had differences but thank God we are doing very well ethnically, socially. We are not creating problems but helping each other. Bonn was a very good example that in the NA or UF, we have indeed been making history by cooperating with each other politically to build Afghanistan’s today and tomorrow.

Unfortunately, again it was Pakistan that was trying to create animosity between one ethnic group and another. They failed. Now Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazars, Uzbeks and other nationalities are working together to set up an interim government for six months.

Most of the world feels a new government in Afghanistan should be headed by the king as a symbol of Afghan unity and peace. Rabbani is, however, against that option.
When we entered Kabul, we did not want to lead or be No. 1 in Afghanistan or in the interim government. Then it was proposed the king lead and we welcomed it. If he can do it, why not? The king can be a symbol, a democratic–minded person. After all, he had ruled Afghanistan for 42 years, introduced democracy. We had four elections during his time. He’s also a Pashtun — a community which constitutes 40 per cent of Afghanistan’s population. If he can lead, why not? We are 100 per cent ready. But if he’s old and can’t do it, we would still say someone else should be the head, not us.

Obviously, a UN peacekeeping force for Afghanistan is on the cards.
Of course. We accept any international force that can ensure peace, security and order.

Would you impose any time frame?
No, in a war you cannot have a time frame. It may take a week, it may take a year. Until the war is over, until terrorists are curbed, until al–Qaeda is chased out of Afghanistan, until we are safe. This is what we’ve wanted for the last five years from the West, from America, from India, from the regional powers, from Russia. Please help us to help the world, to break the backbone of terrorism in Afghanistan.

Yet it was the NA that first hosted Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan by Yunus Khales in Jalalabad.
No. Yunus Khales was a chief and he was independent enough to accept Osama Bin Laden and he did not do it with any bad intention. Khales did not accept him as a terrorist and the NA was not there in those days. Even Khales cannot be condemned for this. It is the Taliban and Pakistan’s ISI which paved the way in 85 per cent of the areas controlled by the Taliban for Osama Bin Laden and the thousands of al–Qaeda members to manoeuvre.

If you get Mullah Omar what would you do with him?
I hope we can capture him, but I don’t think we will. He will die or commit suicide. Osama Bin Laden would be handed over to an international tribunal, to the Americans and they can do whatever they want with him.

It is well known that the USA is seeking a foothold in the region to access the oil and gas of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea.
No, I don’t think this is their aim. In the new scheme of things, their goal is to destroy terrorism.

It was with your active cooperation that India was able to send in a mission to Kabul, reopen its diplomatic mission and station a medical team.
India has played a very positive role as far as Afghanistan is concerned in the past 10 years. First, they did not interfere in our internal affairs. Second, they always wanted sovereignty and self-determination for Afghanistan and respected its independence. Third, in times of any difficulty, floods or earthquakes, India rushed its doctors, established clinics. Despite being poor, they have always sent help. India is a great country, which has had relations with Afghanistan for centuries, independent of any other country.

How do you view future Indo–Afghan relations? We had made ourselves unpopular with the Afghan people when we supported the Soviets in Afghanistan.
The relation over the past 10 years shows the future. We can’t wait to see our fruits back in Indian markets. This is a country with which we’ve had relations for centuries. 

TOP