The basic fundamental mistake that you are making is in thinking that if infiltration and the cross border terrorism is gone down by 50% that's good enough, it's not good enough. It has to go down 100%. Terrorism has to stop.
Earlier you were saying the west has lost its moral right, now you are saying it has gone down 54%, something has been done, something that the west has..
Something has been achieved because of the steps that India took.
How can you say that? How do you know it wasn't due to pressure from the United States?
Because the pressure did not work. In the run up to the elections in Jammu and Kashmir, 800 people had been done to death. Because we know that in August and in September the infiltration levels had reached very high proportion almost at par with last year.
Minister, what do you expect the international community to do that they have not done already? You know that they put pressure. You know that Bush has spoken to Musharraf. What else do you expect the west to do?
I expect the west and anyone else who is interested in this to put enough pressure on Pakistan so that Pakistan is able to put a complete and permanent stop to infiltration from across the line of control and not permit its territory to be used, not have the whole elaborate infrastructure of terrorism in its country to promote cross border terrorism.
What kind of pressure?
All kinds of pressure
What kinds of pressure? Give me an example..
Whether economic, all kind of pressure can be put.
You think the west will endanger Musharraf's position?
I don't know, you tell me..
Clearly not, do you want to endanger his position.
No, I don't. I would not.
Would you prefer some of the religious parties ...
Why should you think that the alternative to Musharraf is the religious parties?
They have done pretty well there, haven't they?
They have done pretty well there because of exactly the way the west had behaved with Pakistan.
But you'd rather have a Pakistani leader who listens sometime to the west than a religious leader who doesn't listen to the west at all?
No, I don't buy this theory at all, sir. My point is that the alternative to Musharraf in Pakistan is democracy in Pakistan. That is my position and the west is not looking at democracy at all. They are looking at a dictator - a military dictator at that - and the religious parties as if there is nothing in between. Why can't we have a democratic system in Pakistan?
Why do you think that pressure from west will be anymore successful in persuading Pakistan to do what the west wants? It hasn't been successful in getting you to do what the west wants.
Because we are not the aggressors, we have not unleashed terror against Pakistan or any other country. We are the victims.
You have appalling human right records in Jammu and Kashmir
That's not our view.
It's the view of the US State department.
It might be the view of anybody; it is not Government of India's view.
So you deny all the accusations?
No, we are denying the allegations. The only point I'm making is that we have an elaborate setup to monitor human rights and we take action against anyone who is guilty of it. We have an independent and free judiciary, we have an independent and free media and they make Indian society as open as any other society in the world. We have a human rights commission, which looks into these cases.
And why are the reports year after year coming out of the US State Department still citing serious abuses, significant human right abuses particularly in Jammu and Kashmir, carried out by the security forces?
Because the security forces are not garlanding the fidayeen (suicide squads) who are attacking them in order to kill them.
No, Minister. They are accused of extra judicial killings, faked encounter killings, deaths of suspect in police custody, and excessive use of force. Is that something to be proud of?
I'll just take the last point, excessive use of force, who is going to...will they sit in judgment in Washington and decide that in a particular action, excessive use of force was done? Or will it be judged by the people on the spot? It has to be judged by the people on the spot, who are facing those terrorists, who are there to kill them.
Arbitrary arrests and incommunicado detentions. Is this justified?
No it's not .I like to tell you that in each case we have machinery to go into them. The US or anybody else should take a note of that, and sitting there so far away, we will not trust that they are always right on facts.
The US says that your machinery does not work. It says the problems are acute in Jammu and Kashmir where the judicial tolerance of the government's heavy-handed tactics, the refusal of security forces to obey court orders and terrorist threats have disrupted the judicial court orders.
The security forces have never disobeyed court orders, nobody in India can disobey court orders not even a Chief Minister.
Did you point that out to Colin Powell when you met him? This comes from his department.
If he had raised this with me I would have replied to him. I don't have to raise all the state department reports with Colin Powell or anybody else when I meet them. If issues are raised with me I will reply to the issues.
So you are saying it's not true.
I am saying that the report of the situation has to be studied on the ground. And that we don't have to depend on the US State Department or any other foreign office or human rights organization. We have human right machinery of our own and there are any number of instances where the government has acted on the advice of the human rights commission, the judiciary has looked into these things.So just as we will not like to judge any other country in this matter without going into all the facts, we would not like to be judged by any other country without going into all the facts.
So you reject all the accusations that are contained..
I don't agree with that.
Why would the US make it up?
I don't know what their sources of information are. Have they sent a team here to make inquiries into these cases? Have they investigated? How do we know that these are not based on reports, which are not dependable?
But the effect of these reports, year after year, undermines you in the eyes of those governments who believe them. It seriously undermines your attempt to claim the moral high ground in Jammu and Kashmir. It seriously undermines it in the outside world.
It is not a question of us claiming moral high ground either in Jammu and Kashmir or anywhere else. The point is we are engaged in a deadly fight against terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. Now the whole world is realizing the menace ofterrorism. And I think all their concerns with human rights, with personal liberty and everything else, is undergoing a change, quite clearly. It is very easy to sit in judgement at a far away and safe place and pronounce judgement on what is happening on the ground in the face of terrorist violence..
According to the Hindu newspaper, ensuring security in Jammu and Kashmir is not just about preventing unlawful activities of militants, its about ensuring the climate of economic and social opportunities, and not least good governance, Minister. That cannot just be laid at Pakistan's door, can it?
Nobody's laying the blame at Pakistan's door. I never said that. I am saying the best assurance of good governance is democracy.
So at least you have stopped rigging the elections in Jammu and Kashmir.
We have had a free, fair and violent election in Jammu and Kashmir.
At last, it was free and fair.
At last. But it did happen. There had been free and fair elections in the past also.
It was a corrupt and inefficient government, Minister, wasn't it?
I don't think I'll agree with you there. Just because a party losses power doesn't mean it was corrupt and inefficient. We have done a lot for the development of Jammu and Kashmir, we will continue to do that. People are entitled to a better quality of life and the government of India has always done its best. We will always do our best.
On the one hand you are hailing the results of a new free and fair elections and on the other hand the BJP is snipping the new Chief Minister, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, complaining about his activities. He has only been in office a month. Are you seeking to help him or hinder him?
I can't answer for BJP but as far as the Government of India is concerned, they have assured Mr. Sayeed of all help from the government. BJP is a political party and it has its own views and it has a right to those views.