‘It’s easy to say go to war with Pak, but you’ve to think of the consequences’

Why is our policy towards Pakistan so harsh we do not want talks? There would be no solution like this?
It is right that there would be no solution without talks, but can anything be achieved by cross-border terrorism? If you look back, after Prime Minister Vajpayee called Gen Musharraf for talks to Agra and it resulted in a failure, Pakistan launched an undeclared war against India.

So many acts of terrorism have been committed that nothing can be achieved by talks in the present circumstances. If a gun’s pointed at your temple and you are asked to talk, would you be in a position to?

Pakistan would first have to stop cross-border terrorism in order to build an atmosphere conducive to talks. Only then can the talks be fruitful.

You are talking about cross border terrorism, and the Indian govt has repeatedly tried to get Pakistan declared as a terrorist state. But America and other major powers have not accepted the Indian demand.
That is incorrect. All powerful nations or groupings in the world, whether it is the US, or European Union or Japan or Russia, have on many occasions during the last year-and-a-half publicly accepted that cross border terrorism is going on, infiltration is on and Pakistan should stop.

That it hasn’t is a different matter. But the understanding of the world is clear in this matter. Just a couple of days ago, the US ambassador to India Robert Blackwill spoke on the matter. Recently. the Japanese foreign minister visited India and she accepted this fact.

But as far as the US is concerned, Pakistan is an important ally in its war against terror.
Yes. As soon as America declared its war, Pakistan immediately came out in support. But this is the same Pakistan which was one of only three countries in the world to have recognised the Taliban regime.

After the attack on Parliament, the then foreign minister Jaswant Singh went to US but what was the result ? Cross border terrorism by Pakistan still continues? Why is the Indian foreign policy so flexible?
It is natural that every policy should be flexible. Whether it was the attack on Parliament, the Kaluchak incident and similar other incidents, India exerted a lot of pressure on Pakistan and the international community.

It was the result of that pressure which forced Gen Musharraf to mention in his January 12 address that Pakistan would not encourage terrorist acts in Kashmir. It was an important development that a Pakistani ruler had to say this.

It is correct that Pakistan has not lived up to its promise. Here it is not important what the US or the EU says. It is our battle and we will win it. Support from different parts of the world is a welcome step, but the fight is ours.

Traditionally India has been a non-aligned nation. We were once pro-USSR, now we’re tilting towards the US. Isn’t this contradictory
There is no contradiction. It is correct that India is trying to build close relations with the US, and it’s being done from both sides. When two big countries of the world try to come close, it’s a positive step, not a tilt.

About non-alignment: I was recently in South Africa to attend an important meeting on non-alignment. Our point at that meeting was that the issues taken up in the 20th century such as anti-colonialism, anti-racism are not major issues any more, we’ve succeeded in solving them. Now we would have to look at the issues of the 21st century. The issues identified by the Indian side were accepted unanimously. These would be discussed in the next meeting to be held in Kuala Lumpur in February.

The recent NRI summit in Delhi did not give any importance to NRIs from the Gulf.
If an impression has somehow been created that the NRIs from the Gulf have been ignored at the NRI conference, it’s not good. As far as dual citizenship is concerned, it can only be given to NRIs living in countries which allow dual citizenship. You would know that in the Gulf countries there is no provision for dual citizenship; if you opt for Indian citizenship, you will lose the citizenship of the country in which you’re living.

If India’s foreign policy is not under pressure from the US, why did the Army return to the barracks without any action,despite having been deployed on the border for nearly a year?
The decision to deploy the Army on the borders after the attack on Parliament wasn’t taken under US pressure.

We said very clearly when de-escalation was announced that the purpose for which the army was deployed had been served. With the army on the border, Pakistan was pressurised, the international community was pressurised. Terrorism has been going on in Jammu and Kashmir for the past 10-12 years, the pressure which was built up last year hadn’t been seen earlier.

Any visible result of the pressure?
The visible result was that the President of Pakistan himself said on more than one occasion that he was committed to fight against terrorism, he would not support any terrorist activity in Kashmir — we got this assurance. There has been a decline in insurgency in Kashmir.

But there’s been no change in Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir?
When we talk of a change in Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir, why talk of one year? Let’s go back five decades, when Pakistan started sending insurgents into Kashmir.

India says it won’t talk to Pakistan until cross border terrorism stops, but the US wants both nations to talk.
We’ve said several times that India is under no pressure from America to talk to Pakistan. There is no policy which is being made under pressure from the US, whether it is strategic, foreign or economic.

The people of America may want India and Pakistan to talk, but then they have a right to form their opinion. Likewise, Indians also want that there should be a peaceful solution to the Iraqi problem — so opinion cannot be equated with pressure.

You may deny it but seems that our policy is under severe pressure. Our Parliament was attacked and we couldn’t retaliate.
It is very easy to say that there should be a war with Pakistan, but the consequences of war would have to be kept in mind. When the Indian Airlines plane was hijacked in December 1999, what was the general atmosphere in the country?

We do talk about bravery and say that attack country A or B, but when the consequences of war are highlighted, those advocating war today would be speaking in a totally different language. And I don’t accept this talk of a ‘soft state’. Was it a sign of a soft state that we deployed our army on the border and achieved what we wanted?

Is the Indian policy towards Sri Lanka changing with the appointment of Lt Gen Satish Nambiar as advisor to the Sri Lanka govt?
Lt Gen Satish Nambiar has been asked by the Sri Lankan government to study the problems facing one side in the ongoing peace process. This is a matter between Lt Gen Nambiar and the Sri Lankan govt, and India has nothing to do with it. India wants the peace process in Sri Lanka to go on, but talks would have to be between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE. There is no scope for any third party mediation.

Returning to Pakistan, Gen Musharraf recently said that had the Indian troops crossed the border, the war would not have been a conventional one?
Yes, Gen Musharraf did say this and he also said that he had sent this message to India through friendly nations. America was the first country to deny that any message was put across by it. Then after a couple of days, Gen Musharraf himself clarified that he was not talking about unconventional weapons i.e. the nukes.

So India stands firm on its stand that it would not talk to Pakistan till the time it does not stop cross border terrorism, and the Indian foreign policy has not achieved what it was aiming at — isolating Pakistan?
We have covered a lot of ground with this policy. By following this policy alone can we succeed in creating an atmosphere conducive for talks. Merely holding talks won’t solve any problem, it’s the outcome of the talks that’s important. And the atmosphere for talks will be created only when cross-border terrorism ends. The world now accepts the fact that cross border terrorism has nothing to do with the people of Kashmir. It is just an act to weaken India.

(Courtesy BBC)