‘Indo-Pak — Not even the chaprasis are talking’

There’s a history of breaking the logjam, of trying to build bridges with India in terms of technology transfer and military-to-military cooperation. The US became India’s largest trading partner in 1987 itself; this just didn’t happen in the last two years of the Clinton administration. India as the largest country in the region, not just South Asia but as a large, important Asian partner for the US is recognised.

Do you see India and the US engaging in any particular area?
On the positive side, this whole IT sector development brings India into the global world. That’s not a government driven policy on both sides. It makes this relationship a modern one which can have a positive impact. In other words, issues between India and the US are not only traditional and strategic but a 21st century issue on which India and the US have a built-in tie.

Do you see a strategic role for India in South Asia?
I’m a little concerned about the strategic part. Sometimes it implies that India is going to be used as a hedge against China. I don’t know that America wants that role. I haven’t heard anybody say it. I certainly recognise that India wouldn’t want that role. Because you have normalised your relations with China. You’re trying to resolve your differences even on the border issue. I don’t see why India would play China off against America.

Can India-Pakistan be delinked from India’s relations with the US?
This relationship is not a result of problems with any third country, be Pakistan or China. The hyphen between India and Pakistan has already been removed in 1984. The India-US relationship should be delinked from any other relationship. I think now there is enough oomph. There’s enough meat in the relationship. But that does not mean that there won’t be problems.

What problems? The lifting of US sanctions remains an issue here.
We are two large countries in two different parts of the world and we won’t see everything eye to eye. For example, there’s an assumption in India that because the US will not, at least in the immediate future, be submitting the CTBT for ratification to the Senate, there’s no interest in arms control issues.

But the President and Secretary of State have said they want to look at arms control efforts separately and afresh. Sanctions have been linked to the nuclear issue because that’s why they were slapped. Unchecked growth of nuclear capabilities is not popular. No American Government would like to see a nuclear arms race in this region.

Do you fear that will happen?
South Asia, because of the problems between India and Pakistan, is considered a potential nuclear flashpoint. You’ve got a history of conflict. You’ve got shared borders. You’ve got nuclear weapons capability. India is building up and so is Pakistan in response. That runs against the logic of time. A push for greater nuclear capacity and for the first time in history zero official contact.

What is your view of a dialogue between India and Pakistan?
There is zero official dialogue. Forget Prime Ministers meeting, there aren’t even chaprasis (peons) meeting. As essential policy there is crisis management, not a dialogue. This situation between India and Pakistan will have to end. There will be some push to try and get these two talking and re-engage. I am very convinced that India and Pakistan should have a dialogue. I think everything else has been tried and it hasn’t worked. Both countries want to decide this bilaterally and I think that’s good.

What is the way to break the deadlock where the Indian government is calling for an end to cross-border terrorism before talks could begin?
You can’t take maximum positions at starting point. Some very important steps will have to be taken. The unilateral ceasefire came from here. Pakistanis did something in saying maximum restraint on the LOC. It wasn’t as good as saying everything will stop, but it was a serious response. And it was good that the Indians didn’t dismiss it.

Pakistan may not be able to switch off terrorism but when things are said by groups on Pakistani soil attacking a leader here or targets, the Pakistani government should condemn those actions. They are not being made by the government and I hope they are being made without its support. But if it’s made from their soil and they don’t condemn it then that’s not good.

I think the changing relations between India and Pakistan and the best chance for that in recent history was Prime Minister Vajpayee’s very courageous visit to Lahore. It really a chance to change history and it was extremely unfortunate what happened: Kargil. Not only did it negate it, but also slid back the process.

Can there be progress in the immediate future on Indo- Pak talks?
I was pleased that Pakistan offered help after the earthquake, it’s a poor country and they can’t give what Japan can give, but they offered help which was accepted. They moved fast and you moved fast. To have not reached out would have been horrendous; to have not accepted would have been petty.

Also, if Indian and Pakistani leaders come face to face on the margins of any international meeting, I hope they won’t turn away from each other. Minimum steps need to be taken by both sides which creates a stake for both. There’s no stake for Pakistan if India says we won’t talk till you come to the ultimate point. These small steps have created a stake and made it look like a serious possibility that more will come.

What is your view of South Asia?
South Asia is the only region today that has no regional capacity. It does not act as a region with the WTO or any institution. As a result, everybody suffers. Somehow, that’s not working out in these parts. SAARC, absolutely nothing.Some leader in Asia said the Indians it is wonderful that you are interested in ASEAN, but why don’t you do something about SAARC? And I have heard it repeated and cited by others. It was set up in 1985, it’s nearly 2005 and we are still talking about re-engagement. This inability to get along is giving this region a reputation as a cantankerous part of the world.