Introduction: In the course of a turbulent 18-month stay in Islamabad, Vijay K Nambiar, India’s high commissioner to Pakistan, saw both the high of the build-up to the Agra summit, and the low to which Indo-Pak relations plummeted after December 13. Nambiar’s recall from Islamabad by the Indian government marked a dramatic escalation in tension between the two countries. He tells Rashme Sehgal that the Pakistan government needs to prove its stated commitment to reforms:
Q.: Shouldn’t the Indian high commissioner
be present in Pakistan to push our demand for the extradition of 20 terrorists?
A.: Communication is needed at
a time like this. But we have to wait for a certain assurance that our
concerns are being addressed in an adequate manner.
Q.: What kind of a signal is the
Indian government hoping to send to Pakistan through the troop build-up?
A.: We have sent a very clear signal
that cross-border terrorism is unacceptable. In the past, it was something
that was being pushed up and down like a lever. We have made it very clear
that the movement against jehadi groups affects us. We have also demanded
that the 20 individuals who we see as criminals be brought to book. Fourteen
of these are non-Pakistani and they should be handed over to us.
Q.: But the Pakistani government
claims it has no idea about their whereabouts?
A.: These individuals have been
functioning in tandem with the agencies connected with the establishment.
They have been written about in the Pakistani media. Their Pakistani linkages
are evident to the public. The government’s explanation, therefore, does
not carry much credibility. Islamabad has to show some kind of seriousness
in seeking them out. They have properties, relatives, associates — all
that can be used to track them down. The Pakistani government must take
these measures to restore its credibility and show its seriousness in addressing
these questions.
Q.: Why are they holding on to those
14 non-Pakistanis?
A.: It follows a certain logic.
They believe they will continue to serve as leverage. It has to do with
a mindset, an attitude which believes that you use whatever lever you can
take hold of in order to aggravate the political problem for us. Look at
some of the statements issued by general Javed Nasser when he was head
of Pakistan’s Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. They were openly pro-Khalistani
although they have no resonance anywhere in India. Obviously, they are
trying to bring back some sort of support by artificially propping them
against us. Handing over these terrorists would be a first step towards
showing a change of attitude.
The fact is, in 1989, an agreement was reached between our home ministry and their interior department, which clearly spells out that fugitives from the law would be handed over on both sides without following cumbersome procedural requirements.
Q.: How much credibility would you
attribute to president Musharraf’s January 12 speech?
A.: In India, it is difficult to
accept his words as guarantees. We are, therefore, naturally less ecstatic
than the western world. But if they are translated into action, they could
provide a basis for moving away from earlier mindsets. Pakistan must take
effective action against terrorist organisations and their training camps,
and halt their flow of finances. If these steps are taken effectively,
cross-border terrorism will be curtailed for good. But Pakistan’s Kashmir
Committee has not changed its hawkish stand on Kashmir one bit? It is true
that they have not changed their position on Kashmir. But if there is no
terrorism, then the essential basis for communication can be established.
We hope that with this recognition, the situation on the ground will also
change. Only then can complex questions which have troubled our relationship
be handled.
The present situation, with Jammu & Kashmir being declared the central issue by Pakistan, is no-go for us. Our entire relationship cannot be made hostage to one issue. There are larger bilateral issues including trade, people-to-people contact and cultural relationships. Our prime minister has clearly said that we must discuss all issues.
Q.: Why has the situation on the
border escalated to such a dangerous extent?
A.: The level of cross-border terrorism
has exhausted the patience of the Indian people. After December 13, it
was being seen as an aar paar ki ladaai (fight to the finish).
Q.: What about the international
fallout of this conflict?
A.: There is a larger international
dimension to this conflict. We are aligned to the global coalition against
terrorism and we need to take advantage of their stated position and use
it in our favour. After all, we cannot have one standard of terrorism for
Afghanistan and another for us. But at no point do we want outside, third
party intervention in this dispute, because a third party will have its
own axe to grind. This will only serve to further complicate the bilateral
situation. We need patience and deliberation to resolve this problem. If
Pakistan’s internal situation helps us, then that is to our advantage.
Q.: Is the increasing tension just
a case of shadow-boxing on both sides?
A.: We will have to wait and see.
It seems to be much more than shadow-boxing. We have to see how effective
the fallout will be. If it results in extermination of terrorist organisations,
then it will be a big help. If they show selectivity in clamping down on
organisations, then we will have genuine reasons to doubt that their actions
are meeting our concerns.
Q.: How do you react to president
Musharraf’s statement that he is determined to modernise madrassas?
A.: He wants to prevent the use
of madrassas for political purposes. The Pakistani president is talking
about introducing a modern curriculum. He is also talking about long-term
reforms that need to be undertaken. The majority of Pakistanis do seem
to be standing on his side.
Q.: How has the Pakistani army reacted
to these reforms?
A.: It is not for us to make a
public assessment. One has to recognise that the military establishment
has a certain discipline, a certain strength which must be taken into account.
Q.: Pakistan has also prepared a
list of Indian terrorists that they want extradited?
A.: We have to see what list they
come up with.
Q.: How long was your stay in Pakistan?
A.: I stayed there a little over
a year-and-a-half. My stay was conditioned by the political landscape in
Pakistan. It was restricted by the fact that there was no parliament. Political
parties were not functioning as the country was ruled by a military ruler.
In that sense I did not get a full measure of the political rule there.
The press, the NGOs are all working under a predetermined sub-text.