Author:
Publication: Washington Post
Date: November 9, 2001
Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee responded to written questions submitted to him by Washington
Post editors.
Q: What concerns do you have about
the American-led war against terrorism?
Has the U.S. campaign been defined
too narrowly, not taking fully into account India's concerns about terrorism?
Vajpayee: The ongoing campaign in
Afghanistan is against the perpetrators of the brutal terrorist attacks
in the United States on Sept. 11, the al-Qaeda network and its supporters
and hosts in Afghanistan, the Taliban. They are a major, but not the only,
source of terrorism in the world. I see this -- and President Bush has
also said this -- as the beginning of the war against the global terror
network. The war against terrorism will have to be fought on a global scale,
against terrorist groups everywhere. Safe haven offered by some countries
with shelter, resources, training camps and arms have helped terrorist
groups to build up a worldwide web of terror networks, with its hub in
our western neighborhood. There is a strong, almost seamless, link between
the terrorist groups operating against India and the United States. Therefore,
if the aims of the war are to be achieved in full, the entire network will
have to be destroyed.
Q: What specific steps have you
seen the United States take since Sept. 11 to address India's concerns
on terrorism? Do you consider them adequate? What further steps should
the U.S. take soon?
Vajpayee: We appreciated the U.S.A.'s
categorical confirmation, after the brutal terrorist attacks on Oct. 1
on the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly [parliament], that terrorism everywhere
would be condemned equally forcefully. I welcome the U.S. decision to proscribe
the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and Lashkar-e-Toiba.
This would have a salutary effect on other terrorist organizations targetting
India.
We also hope that, in the context
of our collective campaign against terrorism, the United States would succeed
in persuading Pakistan to stop sponsoring terrorism against India.
Q: Last month, American aircraft
struck a dormitory in Kabul used by the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. Was this
attack based on information from India or conducted at India's request?
Have there been other attacks on Afghanistan-based militants that India
has sought from the United States?
Vajpayee: The killing in Kabul,
of terrorists belonging to the Pakistani-based Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM),
comes as no surprise to us. We have known for a long time that groups such
as the HuM which have been created by Pakistan's intelligence agencies
for terrorism in India, also have close links with the Taliban. Pakistan
has been using the Taliban-controlled territories of Afghanistan for training
and other support to terrorism, directed against India. The recent killing
is merely one additional piece of evidence that highlights the close nexus
between Pakistan, Pakistan-based terrorist groups and the Taliban.
Q: What concerns do you have about
the Bush administration's policy pronouncements on Kashmir? Do you worry
that the Bush administration shares Pakistan's view that the Kashmir issue
is central to the Indo-Pakistani relationship and that the popular sentiments
of Kashmiris must be taken more into account in addressing the issues?
Vajpayee: All U.S. administrations,
past and present, have been aware of India's position on Jammu and Kashmir.
They have also been aware of the fact that the state has had elections
regularly to elect the people's representatives. The people of the State
have suffered over the years from terrorist attacks which have claimed
thousands of innocent lives. Thus, if there is a central issue in the India-Pakistan
relationship, concerning Jammu and Kashmir, it is the cross-border terrorism,
which we have had to counter.
Q: What role would you like to see
the United States play in seeking a solution to the issue of Kashmir? What
role would you like to see the United States play in settling the border
dispute between India and Pakistan?
Vajpayee: The Shimla Agreement and
the Lahore Declaration are bilateral agreements that have been freely entered
into by India and Pakistan. These are the cornerstones of our bilateral
relations, and commit both countries to address all outstanding issues
peacefully, through direct bilateral dialogue. There can be no place whatsoever
for any third party involvement, in any aspect of our bilateral relations.
When two people can speak the same language, why should either side suddenly
seek an interpreter?
Q: Bush administration officials
said they have told both India and Pakistan to avoid escalating tension
over Kashmir. What have you been told in this regard and what steps have
you taken in response?
Vajpayee: The events of the recent
years speak for themselves. We have always exercised restraint in the most
difficult situations, just as we have taken every initiative for dialogue
with Pakistan. When Pakistani forces crossed the Line of Control in Kargil
in 1999, we did not respond through attacks on their territory. When calls
for jihad against India are made from Pakistan, we do not respond with
similar offensive rhetoric. We have already conveyed to the United States
that we have no intention of complicating the current agenda and the operations
in Afghanistan. We do, however, have a legitimate right to take whatever
action we can in our country to thwart and respond to terrorism. This is
what I had written to President Bush. Restraint, like dialogue, has to
be a two-way process.
Q: India's apparent decision to
open fire on Pakistani military positions across the line of control on
the eve of Secretary Powell's visit to New Delhi was seen in Washington
as an attempt by India to send a message to the U.S.? Was a message intended
in this event, and if so, what was it?
Vajpayee: There is sufficient mutual
confidence, openness and candour in India-U.S. relations today. There is
no need for either of us to use any means other than speech or written
texts to send messages to each other! A large group of terrorists were
making a bid to cross our border from the Pakistani side. We took action
to stop them. We have had to resort to this step from time to time to prevent
large scale infiltration into India by terrorists from Pakistan.
Q: What concerns do you have that
[Pakistan] President Musharraf is allowing greater latitude for the activities
of anti-Indian militants to compensate for this participation in the anti-Taliban
effort?
Vajpayee: Pakistan has not ended
its sponsorship of cross-border terrorism in India. On Oct. 1, terrorists
attacked the State Assembly in Srinagar. The leaders of a Pakistan-based
terrorist group openly claimed responsibility for these attacks. This does
seem to beat out what you have said. Pakistan must realize that it cannot
support the campaign against international terrorism on one hand while
sponsoring terrorist groups in India on the other.
India has the resolve, strength
and stamina to resist this terrorism.
Q: Within a broad-based future government
to replace the Taliban regime, how large a role must the Northern Alliance
have? Many American analysts in Washington assert that the Northern Alliance
alone does not have enough support in the south to win allegiance from
Pashtuns and thus guarantee a stable long-term government. Do you agree?
Vajpayee: For peace and stability
to be restored in Afghanistan, it is essential that a broad-based, representative
multi-ethnic government is established, free from outside interference.
The last decade of civil strife in Afghanistan was mainly on account of
military foisting the Taliban regime on the people of Afghanistan.
As an important ethnic group, Pashtuns
will naturally have to find adequate representation in any future multi-ethnic
government in Afghanistan. However, the nature and structure of this future
government will have to be decided by the Afghan people themselves. India
have always had close historical ties with the Pashtuns of Afghanistan.
Several Pushtun families, who escaped the conflict in Afganistan, have
in fact sought refuge in India for the past 20 years.
Q: Would you accept a dominant role
for Pashtun elements in the future Afghan government and could Pashtun
commanders and tribal leaders who have supported the Taliban play a prominent
role in this future government?
Vajpayee: There is a very strong
consensus amongst the Afghan people for the establishment of a broad-based,
multi-ethnic government, with adequate representation for all ethnic groups.
As I have stated before, the exact nature and structure of this government
will have to be determined by the Afghan people themselves. The Afghans
are far too proud a people, to accept a government imposed from outside.
It would be a grave mistake to include
any element of the Taliban in a future Afghanistan government. The international
community cannot afford to live with an Afghanistan that continues to export
terrorism and violent ideologies to the rest of the world.
Q: In your opinion, what are the
main themes of Indian popular reaction to the war in Afghanistan? Are you
concerned that opposition to the war domestically may constrain your own
ability to act in alliance with the U.S. as the crisis unfolds?
Vajpayee: The Indian people have
been victims of international terrorism for over two decades. We all understand
that only strong measures are needed to root out the scourge of terrorism.
The Indian people are acutely aware that the campaign in Afghanistan can
at best be only one phase in a much longer and more difficult campaign
that has to be joined if terrorism is to be defeated. Terrorism could not
have acquired its current proportions without the active aid and abetment
by countries who sponsor terrorism as instruments of foreign policy.
Q: Where is the BJP in its evolution?
What steps must it take to become a clear majority party at the national
level in India? Can that status be achieved, and how long will it take?
Vajpayee: The BJP is a political
party in India with a distinct agenda. The popular appeal of this agenda
can be gauged from the fact that the party won the largest number of seats
in Parliament in the last two general elections in our country. We have
joined together with other parties to form a coalition government. In doing
so, each of the coalition partners has had to give up some part of its
agenda. Such compromises are expected in a democracy.
I think the BJP has a dynamic agenda
and will, in course of time, succeed in gaining an absolute majority of
seats in our Parliament.
Q: President Musharraf has himself
acknowledged that the American-led military actions in Afghanistan are
generally unpopular with the Pakistani people but has continued to provide
a range of support for the effort. How concerned are you about the stability
of Musharraf's government?
Vajpayee: As a neighbor of Pakistan,
we have always been concerned at the direction in which Pakistan's society
has been moving. This is the direct consequence of the shortsighted policies
pursued by Pakistan's military-dominated establishment ever since its creation
in 1947. Pakistan must realize that the sponsorship of groups practicing
terrorism and propagating extremist ideologies, eventually poses a threat
to Pakistan's own long-term stability.
Q: How confident are you about the
security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons? What steps would you encourage
either Pakistan or the United States to take to secure these weapons? What
preparations should be taken for the eventuality that the weapons could
fall into militant hands?
Vajpayee: The question about the
security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons should be addressed to the Pakistan
government. It is not for us to answer for them. India has for years voiced
serious concern about their nuclear weapon programme, its clandestine ways,
their aims and ambitions, and the frightening identification of extremists
and jihadis with those nuclear weapons. It is to be hoped that the official
Pakistani claims about the safety and security of their nuclear weapons
would be backed by actions on the ground and safeguards against unauthorised
access.
Q: How would you describe for Americans
India's nuclear weapons doctrine? How does that doctrine apply to this
crisis? Does the possibility of an unstable Pakistani government raise
new questions or concerns for India's nuclear policies?
Vajpayee: India's nuclear doctrine
is purely defensive. Our minimum credible deterrent is based on no-first-use
of nuclear weapons. We do not wish to get into any arms race and are fully
committed to a unilateral moratorium on nuclear test explosions. Instability
in Pakistan leading to unauthorized access to their weapons would certainly
be a matter of grave concern. It is for this reason that India had suggested
in Lahore in 1999 a set of nuclear C8Ms to begin with. We re-emphasized
this at the Agra summit in July this year. However, we have not received
any indication of Pakistan's willingness to respond.
