Officials in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) promptly expressed 'deep disappointment ' and a strong sense of puzzlement about the remark. They were only partially mollified when Japan, much later, as part of the G-8 countries, signed a communique in Cologne asking for full respect for the Line of Control in the future.
'We feel Japan has been highly insensitive in making such a remark when we have evidence in the form of bodybags coming back every day, ' said an official. Japan 'should know how it feels to have intruders in its territory...just one month ago its navy had to push out North Korean gunboats from its own territorial waters, ' the official added for good measure.
But Yoshifumi Okamura, political counsellor at the embassy of Japan, does not see it in quite the same light. 'We don't have any independent satellite to verify the intrusion, ' says Okamura, in defence. 'We are going by circumstantial evidence. ' But critics argue that Japan gets its information from US satellites in any case and therefore has no need of its own satellite.
'When North Korea tested its ballistic missile which overflew Japan, it was the United States that gave them the information, ' points out an mea official. K.V. Kesavan, Japan analyst at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, believes the reaction to Kargil is a cumulative result of the rancour following the nuclear tests. He too is sceptical of the need for independent verification' that Japan is trumpeting. 'All this is very disppointing because we know that Japan supported nato in the Kosovo crisis and they had no independent satellite there either. '
Okamura believes New Delhi hasn't been serious about providing hard evidence to many sections of the diplomatic community " barring the P5. 'When the Kargil conflict began, I tried getting the map with the LoC demarcation and a meeting with Vivek Katju (joint secretary for Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan). I tried to contact him thrice on the phone, but he did not respond. ' Okamura also waited for the joint secretary for East Asia to get in touch with him, but T.C.A. Rangachari did not call even once. 'It was not until June 15 that Foreign Secretary K. Raghunath met the Japanese ambassador, Hiroshi Hirabayashi, and showed him a copy of the demarcations. 'He was the first senior official who attempted to explain the Indian position, ' says Okamura.
But mea officials don't agree. 'All the ambassadors had been called when the Kargil conflict began and the charge d'affaires of Japan had met with Katju very early on as well. ' Further, the Indian ambassador in Tokyo had explained the situation to the Japanese ministry of foreign affairs. But this was obviously not enough. Kesavan sees merit in the Japanese argument that India should have sent a senior emissary to Japan when the conflict began. 'Japan feels slighted that after giving so much aid to India, they (the Indians) don't even listen to advice (regarding nuclear testing), so why would they ever let themselves be manipulated in this manner? '
Officials within the mea believe Japan has had a one-point agenda with regard to India since the nuclear tests " to get India to give up its nuclear option and sign the ctbt. Everything, including the not-so-small matter of cutting off one billion dollars of aid since the nuclear tests, let alone Kargil, is seen through that prism. But Okamura emphatically denies that the perceived lukewarm response to India's views on Kargil is an extension of the frosty foreign policy since Pokhran. 'There has been a lack of eagerness on the part of India to explain the situation to us at the top level, so why are we expected to support India so eagerly ourselves? '
Japan's pique peaked further at the G-8 summit in Cologne when only a select few countries were approached by India to get them to make a statement in favour of New Delhi's position. However, says Okamura, 'Pakistan has handled its diplomacy much better " Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi got a letter from Nawaz Sharif before the G-8 and I understand Sharif gave one to all G-8 countries. ' It's another matter that the G-8 (including Japan) appears to favour India in its communique without naming either of the countries. However, Okamura says 'Japan would like to express its condolence for the loss of so many Indian lives, but unfortunately India is making it hard for itself, by not bothering to take us into confidence, '
So while India tends to its own wounds on the diplomatic front, perhaps it would do well to apply some balm as well to senior officialdom in Tokyo.
Tags