- Resolve easier issues first
- Focus Kashmir talks on cross-border terrorism
- Gilgit, Baltistan and rest of PoK has to be part of any agenda on Kashmir
- Make borders matter less and less
- Taking Baglihar to World Bank premature
The external affairs minister K. Natwar Singh lays out India's line on Kashmir, hours before Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was to arrive in India to watch an ODI cricket match between India and Pakistan. Excerpts from a hard-hitting interview to V. Sudarshan:
India has made additional suggestions to back up the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus link, like designated meeting points for separated families along the border. Why is Pakistan not excited about them?
We look at the LoC not just as a divide but as a bridge. We need to work towards a situation where borders, even in our part of the world, begin to matter less and less. In addition to the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus, we have made additional proposals for cooperation in the context of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). We have offered a mechanism for allowing interaction at some select points between people on both sides of LoC, such as Poonch, Mendhar, Suchetgarh, Uri and Tangdhar in the Kishenganga valley. This would be another step towards easing the rigours of the divided families on both sides of the LoC. We would also like to begin pilgrimages across the LoC to Hindu, Muslim and Sikh shrines. We have also proposed trade and cultural interaction across the LoC, promotion of tourism in the area, and cooperation in management of environment and forestry resources.
To what extent was Gen Pervez Musharraf personally involved in clearing the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service?
He conveyed his approval to the proposed travel arrangements to me personally when I met him in Islamabad on February 16, 2005.
Yet, Musharraf keeps running down the importance of CBMs. He recently told a TV channel—and those remarks are on his personal website—that "CBMs are going ahead but we have to check the CBMs." Can he choke off the oxygen to the CBM process?
CBMs are integral to any meaningful resolution of bilateral issues, including J&K. We need to be practical and realistic in our approach and not let our formal positions thwart cooperation opportunities. We believe that an incremental, step-by-step approach would be useful in taking the process forward, and relations between our two countries will certainly gain if we continue to implement proposals that help in building trust and confidence and in enhancing cooperation.
Musharraf's grouse is that the composite dialogue process isn't moving forward on the Kashmir issue. Is he trying to hustle us?
We have moved forward in a remarkable manner since April 2003. Relations have been restored at the level of high commissioners; transport and communication links have resumed; people-to-people exchanges are taking place across the spectrum in large numbers; there has been a resumption of visits by pilgrim groups; our high commission in Islamabad is currently issuing over 10,000 visas per month; the ceasefire has held for over a year.
We have successfully completed one round of the composite dialogue and commenced the second round. I have often said that we expect neither a spectacular breakthrough nor a dramatic breakdown in the dialogue process.
We are ready to remain engaged for as long as it takes. It would not be prudent to impose a time-frame or deadline for a resolution of the J&K issue, an issue that has defied solution for so long, and which, by all accounts, is complicated.
How wary are we of Agra-type fiascos when we think of 'summit' meetings between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Musharraf?
We seek peace and friendship with Pakistan. We must not be deterred by roadblocks along the way. There must be no going back on the present process. High-level meetings are an important element in providing impetus to the process, but must be well-prepared.This government will not repeat the mistakes of the nda government, which were evident at Agra.
After all this talk of "options available", as Musharraf puts it, on Kashmir, has he either informally or formally let India know what these are, especially considering that our stance is that whatever options there could be should be consistent with the situation on the ground, that there can be no redrawing of maps?
The Pakistan government has not given us any formal or informal options on J&K. The prime minister has reiterated on several occasions that we are ready to look at all options, short of redrawing the boundaries and another partition of the country. In fact, it was Pakistan which did not pursue discussion of this issue from 1972 till 1989. Pakistani leaders themselves, from time to time, argued for easier issues to be resolved first, and the more intractable ones later. Others have suggested that, through a process of confidence-building, the two countries should first establish trust, which would enable them to address complex issues more productively. That is the reason why we believe that CBMs are imperative and need to be taken forward with greater vigour.
In Kashmir, political processes have been revived through free and fair elections at which the turnout of voters was above the national average despite threats of terrorist violence. We are engaged in a dialogue with the elected representatives of the state. The prime minister has also made it clear that we are even ready to talk to those not elected but have given up the path of violence. There is progress in this dialogue, despite some elements' unwillingness to come to the table.
With Pakistan, the discussion on the J&K issue must be focused first and foremost on the need to end cross-border terrorism and dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism across the LoC. There is the issue related to Pakistan's illegal occupation of a portion of J&K, which comprises Gilgit, Baltistan and other Pakistan-occupied areas. There is also the issue of a part of the state which has been illegally ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963. In any dialogue on Jammu and Kashmir with Pakistan, these issues are also on the agenda.
The US not only seems to be arming our proliferating neighbour with F-16s but helping pay for them as well. What impact could this have on the bilateral peace process? Is this a useful contribution the US is making towards peace in the subcontinent?
The US decided on a five-year security and economic assistance programme to Pakistan in June 2003 with $1.5 billion earmarked for military supplies. This was when the previous government was in power. The supply of F-16 aircraft flows from this decision to resume military aid. We have no objection if the US helps Pakistan in economic and social sectors. In fact, we welcome those initiatives that strengthen Pakistani civic society and move it away from fundamentalist trends.
However, military assistance, particularly when unrelated to counter-terrorism efforts, conveys a political signal both within Pakistan and vis-a-vis India-Pakistan relations. It strengthens those who are rooted in the past and are out of step with the expectations of people in both countries for better ties. It consequently has repercussions for our dialogue that is currently at a sensitive stage. We have conveyed our concern to the US, most recently when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited India and before that, when Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was here. The prime minister himself voiced our disappointment to President Bush when they spoke on March 25, 2005.
Why do we need to say that the dialogue with Pakistan will continue even if there is terrorism in the Valley? Why should India take Pakistan off the hook so easily on such a sensitive issue?
There is no question of taking Pakistan off the hook on the issue of cross-border infiltration and terrorism in the Valley.Unlike the flip-flop in the policies of the earlier government, when they held sudden summit-level meetings without adequate preparations, we have consistently reiterated our serious concerns on terrorism at every forum of interaction. During my meetings with Pakistani leaders and during the PM's meetings with President Musharraf and prime minister Shaukat Aziz, we have conveyed to Pakistan clearly and unequivocally the need for full implementation of President Musharraf's categorical commitment made in the joint press statement of January 6, 2004, that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan's control to be used to support terrorism in any manner. In fact, the entire dialogue process hinges on Pakistan honouring its commitment in letter and spirit.
Pakistan has requested for the appointment of a neutral expert by World Bank on the Baglihar project. What is the status? Has Pakistan asked for stoppage of work on the project?
Pakistan has approached the World Bank for the appointment of a neutral expert to resolve the Baglihar issue. We remain committed, in principle, to an amicable settlement to the issue bilaterally, in a result-oriented and time-bound manner. We are convinced that the design of the project does not violate the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty. Pakistan's fears that Baglihar will give India the capability to either flood their country or to withhold water are completely misplaced. Our own Salal project is located downstream from Baglihar and would be the first to be affected if India took any such action.
We continue to believe that continued discussions would help resolve the issue. Any involvement of the World Bank is premature. Pakistan has asked India to stop work on the Baglihar hydel project. We cannot agree because the project is important for the economic well-being of the people of J&K. In any event, the Indus Water Treaty does not envisage suspension of work while the two sides discuss their differences.
