General Distrust

Transcript of the BBC Special programme, Aapki Baat BBC Ke Saath withformer foreign minister of Pakistan, Sartaj Aziz and former Indian highcommissioner in Islamabad, Satish Chandra. 

Nagendar Sharma: Can General Perez Musharraf be trusted after the latest disclosures inhis book, In The Line of Fire?

Satish Chandra : In my view General Musharraf cannot be trusted and I havefirm reasons to say so. In his book he has talked about Indian nuclear programmebeing based on Pakistani centrifuges, now this is the biggest lie. The fact isthat Indian nuclear weapons programme is neither based on their centrifuges noris it Uranium based—our programme is plutonium based. Next, Gen Musharraf haswritten a lot of things about Kargil, which are totally untrue and I know thisas I was the member secretary of Kargil Committee set-up by government of India.I would like to remind you about the General’s interview to Khaleej Times inMay 2001, in which he had himself admitted that leaders have to speak lies attimes and that he also has to do it—do not forget, since student days, his friendsused to call him Tricky Mush.

Sartaj Aziz : Well, it has become a trend in the world for leaders to writeautobiographies, and we should not forget that such books are an exercise inself-protection and promotion. General Musharraf is trying to make use of theprevailing mood in the world against terrorism. So far as Indo-Pak relations areconcerned, leaders on both sides must accept the fact that people of India andPakistan want peace and friendship, and playing the blame-game would not helpanyone.

Listener from Ambedkarnagar : Sir, General Musharraf has said in his bookthat talks between him and Vajpayee had reached a decisive stage at Agra, andthat someone above both of them vetoed the outcome of this summit. What do yousay? Is President Musharraf referring to hardliners in the BJP ?

Satish Chandra : If there was anyone above two leaders in Agra, it was thealmighty God. Despite whatever General Musharraf may have written in his book,the fact remains that no agreement could be reached because Pakistan was notready to act on terror. General Musharraf insisted on distinction betweenfreedom fighters and terrorists. Tell me, with such a stance, how could anagreement be reached there? It was not because of anyone else, but GeneralMusharraf himself that Agra failed.

The problem here is also the over-enthusiasm our leaders display in beingfriendly with Pakistan whenever the top leaders of two sides meet. Look at therecent Havana joint statement. Now we have agreed to have a joint mechanism onterror with Pakistan—in my view, this would prove to be counter-productive. Itis known the world over that not only today, but since the last 50 years, Pakistanhas been openly aiding and abetting terrorist activities in India, and byagreeing to this mechanism we have given away the psychological advantage we hadon this issue. By this joint mechanism, we have ended up equating ourselves withPakistan on terrorism, which was not required. It is Pakistan which has beenusing terrorism as a foreign policy tool and not India, then why should we havea mechanism with a country which uses terrorism as an instrument as a part ofits state policy?

Listener from Mumbai : Mr Aziz, do you agree with what General Musharrafhas said with regard to Kargil in his book ?

Sartaj Aziz : Well, General Musharraf’s account does not tally with whatIndia’s Gen V P Malik has said in his book. General Musharraf is right when hesays that historically both countries were violating the LoC spirit and alsothat Kargil was a defensive operation. However, I do not agree with GeneralMusharraf’s view in his book that it was Kargil which helped in bringing backthe Kashmir issue to international focus. In fact, Kargil led to disruption ofLahore process initiated by Nawaz Sharif and Atal Behari Vajpayee. The militarytakeover completely destroyed the process.

Nagendar Sharma : Mr Aziz, General Musharraf has also said in his book that NawazSharif and his cabinet were fully aware about Kargil since the very beginning.You were the foreign minister at that time, what do you have to say?

Sartaj Aziz : This statement of General Musharraf is not correct. He hasmentioned about the date of February 5, 1999. I was present in that meeting.Discussion was held regarding the road disruption along Neelum valley and thepossibility of an alternate road. Kargil was not mentioned in this meeting. I would like to saythat some of the things said about Kargil in the book are notcorrect. I would agree with some of the things he has written about Kargil, butnot all.

I also do not agree with General Musharraf that the political leadership lostthe gains made by the Pakistan army during the Kargil conflict. It was Mr NawazSharif who, during his visit to Washington, when the conflict was on, resolvedthe matter in a way which benefitted both India and Pakistan. The militaryoption cannot solve any problem between the two neighbours, military entry pointcould not have solved Kargil and, for that matter, this option would not be ableto solve anything between the two South Asian neighbours.

Nagendar Sharma : Mr Satish Chandra, when India feels so strongly about cross-borderterrorism, then why does it fail to place its view at the international leveleffectively? Many countries do not accept what India says about violence inKashmir...

Satish Chandra : Well, India does place its views on terrorism effectively, butthe West does not show interest in it because in the view of many countries,Pakistan’s support to terrorist activities in India does not affect them. Thisis a fallacious impression, as in our view terrorism mutates and it does hurtthe West also. Look at 9/11 attacks, I say that the US itself was responsiblefor those attacks, as it has been historically supporting Pakistan and it wasthe result of this support that rabid terrorist elements continued to flourishin Pakistan with the active support of ISI, which is the biggest supporter ofterrorism in the world.

Nagendar Sharma : But Mr Chandra, why is Indian leadership not consistent in its tieswith Pakistan? A look at the past decade shows flip-flops from Indian side. AtalBehari Vajpayee’s Lahore visit was followed by Kargil. Then, later Mr Vajpayeewas perhaps the first leader in the world to legitimise General Musharraf’sdecision to elevate himself as President just before Agra summit, the failure ofwhich was followed by attack on the Indian parliament, and now barely two monthsafter Mumbai blasts, present prime minister Manmohan Singh signs Havana jointstatement. Why?

Satish Chandra : This is because Indian leadership is so keen on goodrelations with Pakistan, and in this over-enthusiasm our leaders go much beyond what the existing ground realities would permit. It is strange that ourleaders in a bid to revolutionise our relations with Pakistan tend to reach thepoint of no return, as ground situation cannot support their excitement.Aspirations of leaders are divested of reality and that is why India has to meetwith failures time and again.

Sartaj Aziz : I would like to say that the Havana joint statement is a goodstep and should be sincerely taken forward. It is always helpful to have a jointmechanism. Mumbai blasts is a good test case for this mechanism. If a jointinvestigation could be carried out for Mumbai blasts, then the evidence would becredible in the eyes of international community. If those who have been arrestedare made to go through joint investigation, then the case would certainly besolved and both nations would be able to reach to the roots of terrorism.Otherwise if you keep on arresting people and deriving confessional statements,it would not help either country.

Listener from Bhagalpur : Sir, Pakistan has in the past rejected allevidence provided by India with regards to involvement of ISI and terroristorganisations like Lashkar-e-Toiba in acts of terror in India. Would Pakistanthis time cooperate in investigation of Mumbai blasts?

Satish Chandra : In my view, history is a witness to Pakistan’s inaction onterrorism. Look at Dawood Ibrahim and Maulana Masood Azhar. Both are wanted inmany cases of terrorism in India, and have been roaming freely in Pakistan—istheir leadership ready to hand them over to India? So far as the latest case ofMumbai blasts is concerned, even before looking at the preliminary evidence,Pakistan rejected it. So to hope for anything from that country would only belike living in a world of illusions.

Sartaj Aziz : Well, if one was to blame ISI, then Pakistan can also turnaround and easily point to the involvement of RAW in sectarian violence in ourcountry. The fact is that India and Pakistan both have been victims ofterrorism. We have been facing acts of terror from elements who infiltrate fromthe Afghan border and commit violent acts in our territory, so pointing fingerswould be of no use. The need of the hour is to jointly fight the menace.

Listener from Lucknow : Mr Sartaj Aziz, how do you react to GeneralMusharraf’s assertion in his book that Kargil was a victory for Pakistaniforces?

Sartaj Aziz : Technically, in the short run, one may say so. However, it isdifficult to establish the victory or loss in a conflict after the ceasefire.From army's point of view, this may be different, but once both countriesdecided to return to normal positions, victory or loss cannot be claimed.

Nagendar Sharma : How do you perceive General Musharraf's rule?

Sartaj Aziz : General Musharraf is trying to elicit the support of differentcountries in the world on the issue of terrorism. However I feel that issuesconcerning Pakistan can only be solved when there would be a true democracygoverned by rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution . Unfortunately,General Musharraf's book does not spell out a roadmap for any of theseessentials of a democracy.