Author: Alex Perry
Publication: The Times
Date: June 17, 2002
Introduction: TIME talks to Indian
Home Minister Krishna Lal Advani about Kashmir, India's hardline element
and the war on terror
TIME: Why do people call you a hardliner?
Advani: It's simple. These phrases,
hawkish, hardliner, strongman - they make for good copy.
Do you have a large influence over
the government?
Every decision taken by the government
is as a result of discussion between several prominent members. In other
countries the president or the Prime Minister takes most of the decisions.
Here the Prime Minister is the final person, but there is a lot of interaction
between him and his ministers. Ever since we have been facing this problem
of cross-border terrorism, national and international security has become
intermingled and so in my position as Home Minister I have become involved.
The Prime Minister and I have worked together all these decades, for 50
years so our coordination is extremely good.
Do you back the Prime Minister's
previous peace initiatives?
I think the country is extremely
fortunate to have a leader of his understanding and vision, his sense of
identification with all sections of the people, and at the same time a
person who is willing to take really radical initiatives. India would like
to have warm and close relations with Pakistan, we would like for all issues
including Kashmir to be discussed. But in Jammu and Kashmir, this proxy
war, this undeclared war whose main ingredients are the training, arming
and financing of jihadis and infiltration, terrorism and sabotage - if
this continues, then dialogue will be meaningless.
Is there any chance of making similar
bold moves now as Vajpayee has in the past?
There is no question of that now.
We have been found wrong in our judgment again and again. The Agra summit
failed [in 2001] because [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf
took a firm stand that there was no such thing as terrorism in Kashmir,
that it was a freedom struggle. But since about 1992 the fighting has been
by people from Pakistan and Afghanistan mobilized in the name of a jihad.
A systematic terror structure was built up by the [Pakistani secret service]
ISI.
Was India disappointed when the
U.S. sided with Pakistan in the war on terror?
I told the American ambassador
Mr. [Robert] Blackwell, the government of India supports you, but you must
understand that the people of India, the common man, do not understand
or appreciate what you are doing. For him terrorism is identified with
Pakistan and the Taliban, so he is intrigued that a country which is itself
a terrorist country, a terrorist state, which has sponsored terrorism against
India for nearly two decades in Punjab, Kashmir and ISI cells right across
India - how can that be the principal ally in the battle against terror?
Of course geography and tactics dictate that Pakistan should be on your
side, I understand that, and you are in a position to force them to do
what you want, but the people will have their reservations.
Turning to your own portfolio, are
you happy with what happened in Gujarat?
[On February 27, a crowd of Muslims
burned nearly 60 Hindu devotees alive in a train at Ghodra, an event that
led Hindu extremists to riot across the state of Gujarat. Unofficial death
tolls count more than 2,000 dead, the overwhelming majority Muslims, and
the violence continues to this day.]
Ghodra was horrible, but what happened
afterwards was equally reprehensible. We cannot condone either. But it
did give me satisfaction that the government took action against the wrongdoers.
Most people would say the opposite,
that the police and the state apparatus stood back and let the violence
happen, and that nothing has happened to them.
Nearly 200 policemen died, so I
do not think there was any complicity from them. And as for [hardline Hindu
nationalist Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra] Modi, if there was any evidence
of his complicity or being inactive, he would have been punished. He himself
offered to resign, and we all said: Why?
Are you worried about the Prime
Minister's health?
He had some problems with his knees
and he was reluctant to have the operations and was in acute pain. But
he had it and now he is fine. There is no concern. We would certainly like
him to contest the next election [in 2004-5]. My ambitions are fulfilled
when the party is in government and Mr. Vajpayee is the leader. We have
been in government before and we were in opposition together for 50 years,
and now we are together in this government.
Is the Indian government leaning
to a more hardline position?
This is a country so vast and variegated
that the government here cannot afford to be extremist. It has to be moderate,
and particularly a coalition government which has nearly two dozen smaller
partners. We formed a coalition on the basis of a minimum common program
acceptable to all: good governance and economic reform. We are not returning
the BJP to its original agenda. In Gujarat, some middle class people did
not react in the correct way, but the party stuck to its program drawn
up with the coalition government. There is no question of being pressured.
And though Godhra produced a reaction in urban areas of Gujarat, it did
not spread throughout the state nor across the rest of the country. In
fact in the last four years, incidents of communal violence have been minimal
compared to the last decade.
Do you see any way out of the present
impasse with Pakistan?
There has been one major change
in the last 10 days. The U.S., Britain and other members of the coalition
who earlier were telling us privately that Pakistan should stop cross-border
terrorism have now said so publicly and forcefully. That's a major change
which has made the people of India happy that maybe Pakistan would respond
to international opinion. But when Musharraf says he is willing not to
initiate a war, what does he mean? He has initiated a war already. He would
be more honest to say he is not going to declare a war. He has to stop
this war. That is India's demand.
