Introduction: The Union Home Minister believes there will be no conflict if Pakistan abandons terrorism.
Q.: Do you think that the chances
of an armed conflict with Pakistan have reduced after your US visit?
A.: First, this is a question to
which my answer has been fundamentally different from what is expected.
For the past month or so, ever since Indian Government decided to recall
its High Commissioner from Islamabad and take a series of steps including
the deployment of the armed forces in a big way on the frontiers, the question
I have been asked is whether there will be a war. Let us realise that a
war of a different kind has been inflicted on us by Pakistan for nearly
two decades. After the attack on Parliament, the Government certainly considered
whether our response to that should continue to be what it was before December
13. It was decided, after due consideration, that enough is enough and
the situation calls for a different kind of response. That different response
has been continuing.
In the meanwhile I had the opportunity to visit the UK and USA where I said our fight is not with Pakistan but against terrorism. So, if Pakistan abandon terrorism, because of our steps we have taken, international public opinion or America's opinion — whatever the reason — I do not think there will be any further conflict.
Q.: You are the first Indian Home
Minister to visit Washington to explain the Indian viewpoint. Was your
visit necessary after the Prime Minister had made India's position clear
during an earlier visit?
A.: I think when the Prime Minister
and the Foreign Minister went there, they conveyed the problems relating
to terrorism very precisely and emphatically. They visited the country
after America itself had experienced what a terrorist attack can be like.
In my case, the visit was undertaken after December 13 and after India
felt it was imperative to take a series of measures. It was, of course,
in response to an invitation extended by the US's Attorney General and
I therefore availed of the opportunity to explain India's point of view
as best as I could. I met the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary
of State, the National Security Advisor and the Attorney General and found
them both understanding and appreciative of India's point of view. I do
not recall a single instance when a statement of mine was contradicted
by my hosts. All I was given was the impression that they wanted to see
an end to terrorism in India.
Q.: Was there any marked change
in Colin Powell's attitude during his visit to India as a result of your
interaction with him in Washington?
A.: I met him only a few days ago,
but did not meet him when he came here. From what I gather from our Foreign
Minister, he said that terrorism has to end. And therefore, India's stand
that it would like to wait and see how Pakistan acts on what Musharraf
stated in the course of his speech is justified. In fact, I have myself
reacted to Musharraf's speech. His speech related to international situation
and the problems that were being created in Pakistan itself by extremist
forces. He was clear that these forces have to be suppressed and he has
taken a series of steps in that direction. When he spelt out all this,
he made a statement that no other Pakistani leader had made in the past
--- an outright denunciation of theocracy, highlighting the dangers inherent
in religious fundamentalism.
But when it came to India, there was a sentence that stated terrorism would not be permitted in the name of the Kashmir cause. The statement, though brief, was to be broadly translated into the action I had spelt out during my US visit. We expect, one, no financing of terrorists. Two, no arming of terrorists. Three, no training of terrorists, Four, no infiltration of terrorists and five, no asylum to terrorists. Today, I said I have been in government twice. First in the Morarji Desai government from 1977 to 1979-80 and the second from 1998 to date. There is a marked change in the security environment then and now.
The reason is not J&K, communal riots or war. If there is a change, it is because of the threat of terrorism. Terrorism has to end and let us decide that as we decided at Shimla, that all issues between the two countries including the issue of J&K would be sorted out through dialogue.
Q.: Musharraf is primarily an American
prop in Pakistan. In such a situation can we expect Washington to be absolutely
objective in its dealings with India and Pakistan?
A.: I'm not sceptical in that regard.
There was a time when because of the Cold War, we were close to Moscow
and Pakistan was close to Washington. In the last 2-3 years however, the
American government and people have realised more and more that India and
America are the two largest democracies in the world with a commitment
to democracy, rule of law, pluralism and moral values. There is a growing
proximity between the two countries. The Pakistanis felt they would benefit
from supporting America in the battle against the Taliban. But, the Taliban
was, after all, Pakistan's own creation and we in India, have known the
terrorism inflicted on us by Pakistan working in tandem with the Taliban.
We have mobilised world opinion against terrorism. And after September
11, the point we were trying to make has come home in an emphatic manner.
The PM himself said let this become a decisive phase of our struggle against
terrorism.
A secular and democratic socialist republic like India always had an advantage over Pakistan when it came to image. If Musharraf succeeds as a modernist, would he not be forcing a situation where a party like yours might have to reassess its Hindutava agenda?
I do not think so. I feel that those who think Pakistan has a better image have some kind of soft corner for Pakistan and its leadership essentially because of the contrast that he (Musharraf) presents to Taliban. The fact that he made certain pronouncements more akin to democratic countries' approach to extremism in his speech is good. Good for him, good for us and good for the whole world. I do not grudge that.
Q.: The Americans seem to have secured
for themselves an important role in South and Central Asian affairs. In
such a situation and against the backdrop of Pakistan's distrust for bilateralism
do you think they will be able to keep off the Kashmir issue for long?
A.: Anyone trying to contribute
an opinion or judgement on the resolution of the Kashmir problem would
depend on us. Pakistan has wanted America to mediate for a long time. During
my visit to the US, I told them that as far as the question of J&K
is concerned India and Pakistan decided together in Shimla that this we
would sort out bilaterally. I believe this is our national consensus and
we do not need any mediation. Even China has endorsed our view.
Q.: It is believed in certain quarters
that Kashmir was internationalised like never before after Pokhran II.
In retrospect, do you think it was a mistake to go nuclear and give Pakistan
a legitimate excuse to carry out counter tests at the Chagai hills and
neutralise the conventional military superiority which India had?
A.: I do not think so. For a long
time, whenever an incident of violence occurred, J&K used to be internationalised.
But then, because of our sustained campaign against cross-border terrorism
and the different kind of war that India is facing, we found subsequently,
it was not Kashmir that was internationalised, but terrorism. After September
11 things have radically changed. Even in the US there were very few questions
on J&K. Most were on terrorism.
Q.: What do you think will happen
in the UP and Punjab elections? Are you already looking for coalition partners?
How would the Central Government be affected if your party loses?
A.: I do not think the present
situation indicates that our adversaries are going to win in either Punjab
or UP. I think the Akali-BJP alliance in Punjab and the BJP-led alliance
in UP will win. The situation was particularly bad in UP about eight months
ago after Kalyan Singh left us and for a brief while, we had a government
that was unable to impress. But after the arrival of Rajnath Singh as chief
minister things have kept on looking up and today we go to the elections
with a sense of confidence, confident of a renewed mandate.
Q.: There were some drastic changes.
The BJP UP list has omitted 40 sitting MLAs and three ministers. Could
it be taken as admission that your party was running a government with
help of legislators and ministers of doubtful integrity?
A.: No, they were not our men,
mainly they whose support we had to take. That necessitated the changes.
In other cases, it is generally the anti-incumbency factor which has been
taken into account and a very bold decision has been taken which I am sure
will pay results.
Q.: What is your party's stand on
elections to the posts of President and Vice-President?
A.: This is not something on which
any individual member of a party would make a pronouncement. It has frankly,
not been considered, apart from an occasional, informal chat here and there.
We have to sit down and consider the matter from all aspects.