Talk The Talk

The full transcript of BBC Hindi special programme Aapki Baat BBC Ke Saathwith BJP leader in charge of its external affairs cell, the former minister forexternal affairs, Yashwant Sinha  

Nagendar Sharma: Would the ongoing peace process between India and Pakistan, continuingfor the last couple of years, lead towards solving theKashmir issue in reality or would the two sides merely keep talking?  

YashwantSinha: I think solution to any problem can only be found through talks -- if they proceed in the right spirit and ample time is devoted, any issuecan be solved. But to think that the solution would be found instantly: in my view,that sort of thinking is not correct. I thinkKashmir is not the only issue between India and Pakistan: Siachen, Sir Creek, trade and terrorism areequally important issues, and talks should continue on all these as well.

Listener from Delhi: Sir, I have been going regularly to Kashmir and Ifind that the environment has really changed there in the last five-six years. Thenwhy do we insist on round table conferences and talking to separatists? Why don’twe allow this issue to die its own death and let the people of that state livein peace -  as whenever the government takes a big step like talks etc., there isan escalation in violence which only harms the common people 

YashwantSinha: I agree with you on the point that it is not important tohold such high-profile talks especially when it comes to Kashmir. Thistime, when the Prime Minister went to Srinagar, many violentincidents took place leading to loss of lives of many innocent people in thestate. In fact, out of the organisations invited for this high-profile conference,many did not attend it and even the Prime Minister had to return to Delhiearlier than scheduled due to the situation in Kashmir. Therefore in sensitivematters, it is advisable to do things at a low key and without letting thoseopposed to it even notice it, instead of hyping and drumming it up, which provescounter-productive.

Listener from Kathmandu : Sir, India is viewed with respect in Nepal,especially after its support to the pro-democracy movement here. Now Maoistshave begun talking to the government. Would the Indian government continue tosupply arms to our country in the changed circumstances, and would Maoists alsocontinue to get arms? Also why has the Indian government not reacted so far onthe latest proposal? Does it mean India is not happy with it?  

Yaswhant Sinha: Well, I am not here to speak on behalf of the government as Iam in the opposition. However, the recent developments in Nepal -- the massmovement which led to installation of an interim government and restoration of parliament-- are certainly welcome steps. Talks between Maoists and Nepalgovernment are at an early stage and it remains to be seen what the outcomewould be. If the Maoists are ready to give up arms, they should bewelcomed in the mainstream. The difficulty would be if they refuse to give uparms, such a situation would not be helpful for stability in Nepal. So far asthe reaction of India is concerned on the resolution of Nepal Parliament, well, theUPA government must answer this.

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Sinha, at a time when India’s neighbours are facing difficultsituations due to their internal crisis, be it Nepal, Sri Lanka, or evenPakistan and Afghanistan where the tension is rising. Does the absence of a full-timeforeign minister hamper diplomatic intervention?  

Yashwant Sinha:It is important for any government to have a full time external affairs minister. The Prime Minister can keep this portfolio for sometime, there is nothing wrong with it. But at such a crucial time, not to have aMinister hampers diplomatic intervention at important forums and levels. Such animportant and complex ministry cannot be allowed to be rudderless for long. Afull time external affairs minister must be appointed without any delay, as thecountry has been without one for nearly six months now.

Listener from Kanpur: Sir, your government initiated peace talks withPakistan, and they were held at many venues, but nothing tangible came out. Nowthe UPA government has been in power for two years, and they have been continuingfrom where you left, but it seems the two countries are moving around in circles. Canthe people of two countries expect any tangible results?  

Yashwant Sinha: Well, both India and Pakistan would have to give more timefor talks between themselves. Let us not forget that Kashmir has been an issuebetween the two countries for nearly 60 years now. To think that an issue whichhas been there for six decades would be solved within six days or months would notbe correct. Pakistan tries to make Kashmir the focus of talks, this is what Indiahas to avoid. We never allowed that to happen, as we think that all issuesbetween the two countries deserve to be the focus. I say, at times, the path beingfollowed becomes your goal, this is what needs to be done by India and Pakistan.Ever since the talks began, the atmosphere of enmity has evaporated, many steps havebeen taken since then which have led to people of both sides feeling animprovement. Talks must continue, both sides should try and agree on as manythings as they can and this is the only way which could lead to real improvementof relations between the two neighbours.

Listener from Kanpur continues: But sir, the fact remains that when AtalBehari Vajpayee went to Lahore, it was followed by Kargil. Even now when PrimeMinister Manmohan Singh went to Srinagar for the round-table conference, therewas large-scale violence, where are things headed to now?  

Yashwant Sinha: Well, when Mr Vajpyee was the Prime Minister and I was theforeign minister, we travelled to Pakistan in January 2004 for the SAARCsummit. The joint statement of six January, 2004 of India and  Pakistanclearly says Pakistan would not allow its soil to be used for terroristactivities and violence would be controlled. All these were clearly stated. Nowthe problem is that Pakistan forgets its commitment after a few days, thechallenge for India is to make Pakistan stick to its commitment.

Nagendar Sharma: But how would that be possible ?  

YashwantSinha: That is possible by reminding Pakistan about its commitmenteach time we talk to them. In fact, India should reiterate this in the beginningof each round of talks. Talks would have to be continued with Pakistan, andif there is a deadlock on any issue, it should not treated as a setback.Recently, talks on Siachen did not yield any result, but there is nothing to bedisheartened about, such talks should be held again. The key is to continue totalk, but wemust put forward our viewpoint strongly and frankly, as sweet-talking is of nouse. We should be firm and we should talk.

Listener from Sagar (MP): Sir, there is no denying that talks shouldcontinue, but can we expect results at the level at which talks are being held?We cannot keep on blaming Pakistan all the time, why don’t we own up ourmistakes as well? Don’t you think these talks should be held at the highestlevel and their frequency should be increased to make them reach a logicialconclusion?  

Yashwant Sinha: You have simplified the matter too much. It is not thatsimple. I agree that we have also made mistakes in the past, and I think thatthe mistake we made was in judging the real intention of Pakistan regarding theterrorist activities from its soil. Indian government should adopt a toughposture on terrorism, only then would we be able to force Pakistan to keep itscommitment of January 6, 2004 regarding not allowing its soil to be used forterror activities.

Listener from Bihar: Sir, how long can the talks continue when resultsare not visible at least not on the surface, and common people cannot befaulted for the impression that the two nations are going round in circleswithout moving forward?

Yashwant Sinha: I fail to understand why we lack patience. What is requiredis the boldness to continue talks with sincerity. If we can continue to talkwith China on the border issue, despite having fought a war with it, then whynot with Pakistan? We had chances in the past to solve the Kashmirissue, but we did not do it. Now talks is the only answer.

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Sinha, which chances are you referring to?  

YashwantSinha: It is recorded in history that we lost the chances we got for a finalsolution on Kashmir. First was when Pakistan attacked Jammu & Kashmir in 1947,Indian forces were able to push back Pakistani forces quite a bit. Similarly in1948, had we not accepted the ceasefire, we would have been successful inliberating entire Kashmir from the control of Pakistan. Instead we made themistake of taking this issue to the United Nations, which was not required atall. Then, during the Bangladesh war, after we captured nearly ninety thousandPakistani troops, talks were held in Shimla, where instead of keeping the finalsolution pending, we should have said that we want the final solution now and itwould have happened also

Listener from Kashmir: How should India proceed in talks in the presentcircumstances when Kashmir has seen escalation in violence?  

Yashwant Sinha: We should clearly understand that on the one hand we haveour relations with Pakistan and this includes talks on Kashmir issue, whichshould not have been internationalised, but now it is a reality. On the otherhand is our state of Jammu & Kashmir. We should be talking to Pakistan onissues which concern both the countries, but the worry begins when the internalJ&K issueis treated as tri-lateral. We have to avoid this situation, Indian governmentalone has the right to solve its internal matter, meaning talking to those whoare outside the mainstream also in our state. In fact, we should question thelocus-standi of Pakistan on Kashmir and ask them in which capacity do they talkabout this issue

Nagendar Sharma: What should be priorities of government's foreign policy now?  

Yashwant Sinha: Foremost and immediate priority of our foreign policy shouldbe the immediate neighbours. Presently, many of our neighbouring countries arefacing serious situations, and these could have a direct impact on us. Whendomestic crisis worsens, people flee their own countries and enter India asrefugees, which could become a headache for us. Next priority should be oncontinuing border talks with China, as these are crucial for relations betweentwo countries, which are important for the world as well.