'We Talked With A Firm Voice'

The discussion was, assuch, initiated by Shri Mulayam Singhji who raised certain important points butI would like to kickstart my reply by referring to the speech of ShriMadhavraoji because he spoke in his capacity as the spokesperson of the CongressParty. 

According to him the whole nation is confused and the Government is noexception but it seems that he is himself in a dilemma. There may be differencesof opinion in so far as the achievement of the purpose of initiating talks isconcerned but it is not justified to say that the whole country and theGovernment was in a dilemma. Everybody is aware of the circumstances under whichthe talks were held.

It has been said that there was no preparation for the talks. Prior to thistalks were held at Lahore which form a very important stage in our bilateralrelations. It is a different story that Lahore negotiations landed us in Kargilbut there is no need to link the two developments. 

Lahore negotiations occupy avery important place in our relations with Pakistan. Terrorism was condemned inthe final declaration signed at the end of the negotiations. Pakistan hadacceded to it. Though there were certain skirmishes during my Lahore visit butthe transfer of power that ensued in Pakistan has changed the whole scenario. 

Wedid not succeed to make the Pakistani delegation agree that the cross-borderterrorism should find a mention in the declaration. They went a step forward andtermed it as the freedom struggle. This was totally unexpected of them and thisis where the atmosphere of negotiations got sullied. 

We repeatedly tried tobring home to him that terrorism is no solution to the problems. It is adouble-edged weapon. There have been certain incidents of terrorism in Pakistan.General Musharraf has gone to the extent of saying that he wished that he couldpersonally go and shoot the terrorists with his own revolver. 

Terrorism is posinga threat to them as well. Therefore, terrorism should not be encouraged in anyform. Terrorism can neither be termed as the freedom struggle nor a jehad. Butthe problem is that our relations with Pakistan have continuously beenfluctuating. It has been our determined policy to improve our relations with ourneighbours but not from a pedestal of weakness.

Quite surprisingly, some visiting Pakistani journalists were heard as sayingthat the valley of Kashmir was like a ripe fruit which was likely to fall soonin their lap. That the Indian armed forces were tired of fighting terrorism. Ido not know how this misunderstanding was created and how such rumours werefloated. May be that such kind of publicity influenced the attitude of thePresident of Pakistan. 

There should be no misunderstanding in anybody's mind.India is a strong country and our armed forces are fully prepared to meet anykind of internal challenge and external aggression. They are mistaken. If theyhad formulated their policy and strategy on the basis of this misinformation,then, they were destined to fail the negotiations. We do outrightly rejectterrorism. Jammu and Kashmir is an inseparable part of India. 

For GeneralMusharraf, Jammu and Kashmir may have no other significance but that of a pieceof land. He hardly talked of Jammu, omitted Laddakh and focused on Kashmir andKashmir alone. He said that there was no scope for the improvement of bilateralrelations unless the problem of Kashmir is addressed. 

During the Simlaagreement, we had agreed to hold talks on Jammu and Kashmir. During the summitlevel talks also the question of Jammu and Kashmir was discussed threadbare. 

Wefirmly told the Pakistani delegation that if they insist on the centrality ofthe Kashmir issue, then we shall be constrained to turn the pages of the historyof Jammu and Kashmir and pinpoint the facts as to how Pakistan launched thetribal invasion and tried to hinder the accession of the state to India againstthe wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. 

I was astonished to hear from himthat if they would not have launched the tribal invasion, they could not havesecured the part of Kashmir lying under their occupation today. So, where wasthe basis of negotiations?

We offered them an agenda for talks twice. We also declared unilateralconfidence building measures. We said that we were ready to talk but the issueof Kashmir was an intricate one. The manner in which a naked dance of terrorismis being perpetrated and killings of innocent people resorted to, is no freedomstruggle and under these circumstances it is very difficult to proceed ahead. 

Ihope that Pakistan will reconsider its approach and bring about a change in itsperception. We will, on our part ceaselessly strive to bring peace. Friendlyrelations with our neighbouring countries is a matter of firm resolution for me. 

Pakistan has, from the very outset been trying to grab Kashmir by force. Afterperceiving that it was impossible for her to win Kashmir by force, it adoptedthe tactics of proxy war and encouraged terrorism. But these machinations willnot make Pakistan succeed in its objective. 

Had my Lahore visit not beenfollowed by a transfer of power, we would have been able to improve ourrelations in different fields as per the agreement reached there and continuedto talk on Kashmir. It is better if we continue to talk on Kashmir and improveour relations. 

If we have to fight, it is the poverty, disease and unemploymentwe should fight against. The whole world has made strides on the developmentalfront and we have been bogged down in such a messy struggle which does not seemto get solved in near future. 

Shrimati Gandhi had asked me to keep in mind theSimla and Lahore Agreements during my talks with General Musharraf. But he hadno taste for Simla and it, probably, developed a bad taste in his mind. He wasinterested in shredding the Simla and Lahore pacts and start afresh. It was hisendeavour that Simla and Lahore do not find a mention in the final declaration.We did not accept this. 

President Musharraf said in Delhi that the issue ofKashmir cannot be settled by a war. But he failed to simultaneously add thatthey have devised a new way of laying their hands on Kashmir by way of short ofwar measures. I found that he was least interested in any issue other thanKashmir.

During the discussion here a point was raised that why did not we call offthe talks once Pakistan was not ready to adhere to the agenda. Negotiations arenot initiated and withdrawn like that. Besides, during the all party meetingnobody expressed the opinion that the talks should be suspended if they do notagree to the agenda. 

Still we have developed a consensus on certain issues andwe will continue to talk but from a firm and strong pedestal keeping in view theunity and security of the country. I am grateful to the hon. Members for theirsupport extended to me during the all party meeting prior to the talks but theunanimity of opinion expressed then has changed today and it is perhaps becausean element of politics has creeped in as elections are around the corner now. 

Weshall have to build consensus on the question of Kashmir. We have no differenceof opinion in so far as the national unity and security is concerned.

It would not have served any purpose to hold official level talks. It wasnecessary to ascertain the mindset of the person who was holding the reigns ofpower in Pakistan. He had come here with a one-point agenda and wanted to startafresh from Agra itself. I insisted that this process was set in motion atTashkent. 

We never entered into negotiations with an element of fear nor did wego in for media blitz. Terrorism is again raising its ugly head. Can the recentincident in Doda be termed as a freedom struggle? I think that Pakistan cancheck put these activities if it so wishes and, to my mind, it should checkthese incidents. 

We are in favour of friendly relation and it is a litmus testfor that. I said to General Musharraf that if he insisted on centrality of theKashmir issue, we will be forced to go into the pages of history and see how onethird of Kashmir was illegally occupied by Pakistan and how a part of it wasgifted to China and that there was no democracy in the occupied Kashmir. 

On hisinsistence on the wishes of the people of Kashmir, I asked him whether he hadsought the opinion of the people of Pakistan before he took over the reigns ofpower. He did not expect such a frank and straight forward talk. It was goodthat such talks were held in a congenial atmosphere. 

Now, you may ask as to howit was possible? Everything is possible in diplomacy and we will endeavour tomake possible what looks impossible. We will strive to improve our relationswith Pakistan without compromising our interests. We enjoy the support of theinternational community in this. 

The President of Pakistan had himself offeredto talk anywhere, anytime and any place. There was also an indigenous demand fortalks. The smaller countries were saying that since India was emerging as agreat power, that is why it was adamant on not holding the talks. But theatmosphere was not favourable for talks immediately after Kargil.

The problem of Kashmir is not easy to handle. It is associated with oursentiments. We do not accept the two nation theory on the basis of whichPakistan was created. But since Pakistan is there, we wish them to progresswhereas Pakistan is trying to dismember India. We will never let them succeed. 

The Constituent Assembly had taken a decision on Kashmir. The voice of thepeople of occupied Kashmir is gagged. Elections were held there recently butlater the power was handed over to an Army General. By whose authority didPakistan gift a part of Kashmir to China? 

We were told that if we reached abilateral accord, they would take that part back from China. I replied thatthere was no credence in this theory. Hence, they should recognize the truth andshun the practice of whipping up a frenzy. 

India is a great country with liberalpolicies. But our liberalism should not be construed as our weakness andinability to protect our national interests. We will try to improve ourrelations while upholding our interests. We seek the support of the whole Housein this endeavour.

Much was talked about media publicity. We did not conduct the summit throughthe media the way Pakistan did. But it seems now that we shall have to bringabout some changes in conducting diplomacy in view of the presence of electronicmedia.

Summit level talks are held within the parameters of decorum andstatements are not issued every now and then. There was no such thing in Lahorebut here it seems that media publicity was being used as a weapon of aggression.This did not reflect well on our people who thought that their leadership wasdumb stricken. 

I had made a statement to their delegation in the presence ofGeneral Musharraf stating that we will not yield before terrorism and nobodyshould under-estimate our capacity of suppressing terrorism. But we did not leakthis to the press immediately.

We talked with a firm voice but our firmness wascoupled with decency. We upheld the parameters of decorum during the wholeprocess of talks and we also suffered due to this. We will try to take necessarysteps in future in this direction. 

But there is no sense in saying that it wasdue to this factor that the talks failed. We have understood each other. Theball has been set rolling and we will continue to talk on some issues. I amconfident that Pakistan will change its perception.