Author:
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: February 9, 2002
Between the three of them,
Najma Heptullah, Sikandar Bakht and R.L. Bhatia mapped the entire
Islamic world for over a fortnight, seeking to advocate India's case
against terrorism. Their success has been in getting countries in the region
to unequivocally condemn the December 13 attack. There were, however, other
issues too where the delegations did not create a manifest shift
in policy or resolve long-held misgivings, such as Indo-Israeli relations
and the Indo-Pak face-off over the Kashmir problem. But, as the Parliamentarians
tell SONIA TRIKHA, India got more than a fair hearing on these
issues.
On the Islamic world's response
to India's stand on terrorism and the difference between terrorism
and the Kashmir issue
NAJMA HEPTULLAH (Congress): For
the first time they condemned terrorism. Significantly, a country
like Saudi Arabia had not condemned the December 13 attack on Parliament,
but after I went there and explained the issues, they spoke out against
the attack. I think it is very important that the Saudi Crown Prince
condemned Osama bin Laden and made a clear distinction between Islam
and terrorism, saying there is no room for terrorism in the religion.
Equally significantly, we were
able to convince Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Sudan that there is a difference
between the Kashmir issue and terrorism, that Kashmir is a political
issue which Pakistan is trying to turn into an Islamic one by bringing
it into the Organisation of Islamic Conference. I was told privately
that Pakistan's attempts to bring resolutions on the Kashmir issue
are, in fact, not even discussed in the OIC. The Sudanese assured
us that in the next session of the OIC, India can look forward to
another resolution that actually supports India's stand on terrorism.
R.L. BHATIA (Congress): We
gave Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and the leadership in Syria and Jordan
details of Pakistan's action in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, on
Parliament and in the rest of India. All of them condemned the attacks.
We told them that India is ready to talk to Pakistan but cross-border
terrorism should stop and Pakistan should hand over the 20 criminals India
wants.
SIKANDAR BAKHT (BJP): The
thrust of our talks was the state of relations with Pakistan. There
was a lot concern on war. Our response was India has never attacked
Pakistan. They have attacked us repeatedly. We told them this is
not just about Musharraf either. We have been suffered terrorism
for 20 years, that was long before Musharraf came on the scene. Now, he
must stop the terror.
On Indo-Israel relations and
comparisons with the Palestinian problem
HEPTULLAH: We explained that
India's good relations with Israel can only be helpful to the Arab
world in their talks. There is no strategic military relationship
with Israel and we don't need it.
BHATIA: This question came
up everywhere. In the government, in the universities, in the media.
There are concerns that India which has been a friend of the Arabs
for long is now tilting towards Israel. Their question was, is there
any shift in policy?
BAKHT: Unfortunately, this
issue was raised before us. But we told them that Indo-Pak relations have
nothing to do with the Israel-Palestinian situation. The Israelis
and Palestinians have been fighting for centuries. Our problem with
Islamabad is fairly recent. We impressed on the Islamic countries
that our relations with Israel has not meant any change in relationship
with Palestine.
On fears of an Indo-Pak war
HEPTULLAH: They are very worried
about the army buildup and said that any war in the region will affect
them too. They told us that India is a wise country and we look to
India for leadership in the region. We would like it to act wisely in matters
of war.
BAKHT: They repeatedly told
us that war must be avoided at all costs. Tensions have been high
and they said, war will be harmful for India, for Pakistan and for
them too. But I must add that they didn't condemn Pakistan either.
Their emphasis was that India and Pakistan must walk together.
