'We Will Win This War'

Brooklyn Institution, Sept 10

Stephen P. Cohen: Thank you very much.

Let me apologize in my rush to have a brief introduction to omit the title of your talk. For the record, aswe know now it was "India and the United States: Meeting the Challenges of the 21st CenturyTogether." You've used one phrase that I hadn't heard before which I shall plagiarize liberally, and asan academic I'm entitled to do that. "Twin towers of democracy." I think that's a marvelousmetaphor.

A year ago it wouldn't have meant very much, it would have seemed like a cliché. But now it resonates verydeeply at least here and I think I shall use that myself and perhaps give you credit for it. [Laughter]

We have time for questions.

Woolf Gross, Northrop Grumman Corporation: You enumerated some of the [inaudible] community[inaudible]. One of the problems that I think we have, especially [inaudible] foreign military sales andmilitary cooperation. One of the [inaudible] requires all export licenses to go to Congress, no matter howlittle value they may have. I wonder if you [inaudible] this problem [inaudible], as well as [inaudible].

Yashwant Sinha : Thank you. This is an issue that I have already taken up in my various discussions with theU.S. Administration officials yesterday. I've been assured that this is an issue which they are aware of andthey are trying to do their best to ensure that it is facilitated further in the future. I will also be takingthis up in my discussions with the representatives of the Congress today, later in the day.

Steven Solarz: One of the challenges both our countries will face in the 21st Century and arefacing now is what to do about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What would be the view of India toward a U.N. Resolution calling for a resumption of an inspection regimein Iraq, giving Iraq a deadline by which to permit the resumption of an unfettered and unrestricted inspectionregime, and authorizing the use of all necessary means to remove Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in theevent that Iraq refuses either to permit the resumption of an inspection regime or to fully cooperate with itif it is in fact reestablished.

Yashwant Sinha : It has been, Mr. Solarz, our stated position that Iraq should fully comply with the U.N.Resolutions. And if the United Nations were to take up this issue again and issue new guidelines for theweapons inspectors to go in, we would be supportive of that process.

The only caution that I would suggest at this point in time is that the final resolution should not be madedeliberately so impossible that no country can accept those conditionalities. So there is a need for reason indealing with this situation. There is also a need for credible evidence about Iraq having weapons of massdestruction. And I think as and when this issue is discussed in the United Nations countries concerned will beable to carry conviction within the United Nations and the people in the rest of the world,

Swadesh Chatterjee, Indian-American: The last six to eight months always we hear mostly aboutU.S.-India relations is all about Kashmir and Pakistan. And if I look at it, the visit of Colin Powell,Armitage, all people who are visiting India, their basic issue is Kashmir and Pakistan. I think it is hightime that U.S.-India relations is just not about Pakistan, and I want to know are you addressing that issuewith the Administration that where these U.S.-India relations are heading, away from Kashmir and Pakistan?

Yashwant Sinha : I am glad that you raise this issue and let me hasten to add that I entirely agree withyou. In fact this is what Secretary of State Powell and I agreed to in Delhi when Mr. Powell was visiting usin the month of July. And let me also tell you that yesterday when I met with Secretary Powell we have spentmost of our time discussing the Indo-U.S. bilateral relationship and not India-Pakistan. It came upincidentally by way of my updating him on the latest situation. I will also go on the record to say thatIndia-U.S. relationship is not hostage to India-Pakistan relationship as indeed no bilateral relationship ishostage to any other bilateral relationships. I am happy that you have raised this point.

My appeal to the media which might be present here is to emphasize this point that we have discussed thewhole breadth of our relationship and not merely India-Pakistan. It is a very compelling subject and oftendraws our attention, just as I find that Iraq is something which is compelling attention here. But there ismuch more to India-U.S. relationship than merely Pakistan.

Self-employed businessman: They say that Indians have become a powerhouse in information technology because we speak the Englishlanguage. What is the language of diplomacy that [each day] the same words are being recycled but there's noheadway being made on this terrorism issue because from all reports the intelligentsia and everyone, it isknown where the problem lies but still the U.S. Administration fails to recognize where the center ofterrorism is. Even now they've reported in the U.S. papers that the goal of al Qaeda has been moved fromPakistan. Was it that difficult to prevent that or seize those assets because each time its natural allies,pillars of democracy, world's largest and the first democracy, but the question is can there not be open andfrank talk with them, and can India not go ahead with it own agenda? Because in January the Prime Ministersaid that we should have gone for hot pursuit after the December attack on Parliament.

Yashwant Sinha : Some of the words that you find often repeated represent concepts. It is important for usto keep reminding ourselves of those very important concepts. So a repetition of those words is inevitable indiplomatic [inaudible].

The second issue is I don't think anyone is trying to mislead anyone else. When we discuss these issuesbetween ourselves we are very frank, we are very open, and we clearly understand where each side is located.

But let me also tell you that the war against terrorism is not going to be won in a hurry. It is somethingwhich has to be tackled meticulously, determinedly, resolutely, and we will have to wage a long, long fightagainst this menace of terrorism.

You are quite right in saying that some of the recent events in India were horrendous. They did cause agreat deal of pain and the Prime Minister was quite right in saying there were time when we thought we were atthe end of our patience, but ultimately there are many many other issues which have to be taken intoconsideration, into account, have to be factored in before you decide on your next step.

So while there could be a certain amount of impatience with what is happening, those who are in theposition of taking decisions also carry a tremendous burden of responsibility on their shoulders and I suggestyou trust them in the U.S., trust them in India. There is no way in which we can fail. There is no way inwhich we cannot win this war. We will win this war, but we need patience.

From Russia. Tass News Agency: Mr. Minister, Russian President Vladimir Putin as I know in the end of this year plans to visit India. Whatdo you expect from this visit? Also, what do you expect about role that Russia plays in your region? Thankyou.

Yashwant Sinha : We are greatly looking forward to the visit of President Putin in December to India. Thiswill be his second trip to India after he assumed the presidency of Russia. Our Prime Minister was in Russialast year. And these high level exchanges are a regular feature. Our Foreign Secretary was in Moscow only theother day. I'll be visiting Moscow later next month. And Russia is a very important strategic partner ofIndia. We value that relationship. And we think Russia has an important role to play in our region. It has animportant role to play globally.

Yonah Alexander, International Law Institute: As all of us know, education in hatred is one of the sectors that encourages terrorism. In your view, whatcan the international community do in a concrete way for example to diffuse some of these illogical elementsin the education, for example, in the Madrasas?

Yashwant Sinha : I don't know what the international community can do except encourage national governmentsto change the system of education. There is a lot of change which is taking place in many countries around theworld in the old system of Madrasa education. In our own country, in India I am aware of the fact that nowMadrasas are taking to information technology, they are using computers to train their students in a totallydifferent kind of environment, and I think that is a kind of sustained effort which we need to pursue not onlywith regard to Madrasa education but with regard to all education which is based on religion.

Professor Harold Gould, University of Virginia: I'd like to just follow up in a kind of a foot-notish way on the question that Congressman Solarz raised andparticularly your answer because you said that of course on the one hand India is prepared to obey whateverjudgments the United Nations makes on an issue of this kind. And then you said that in addition you wouldreally want to see more proof, more evidence that the menace emanating from Iraq is great enough to warrantsome major change in policy coming out of the U.N. and possibly the U.S..

Then it occurred to me, India is closer to the Middle East in a way than the United States is. India isknown to have an extremely effective and comprehensive intelligence system of its own and it certainly hasalways been quite aware of things that have been going on in regions around it like the Middle East. And I wasjust wondering whether India has anything to add to its own intelligence knowledge about the actual degree ofdanger that Iraq presents in relation to this question of whether something further should be done.

Yashwant Sinha : I'll answer this question in two parts. The first is when I talked about credible evidenceI was referring to the need to convince the international community that Iraq has weapons of mass destructionwhich need to be dealt with. From what I see in the newspapers all around, I find that there are doubts in theminds of international community, various important leaders with regard to that. And that's where we need tocarry conviction. [To be in a] position to carry conviction.

As our own intelligence is concerned, we'll share that intelligence with whoever is willing to exchangenotes with us about Iraq and about other countries.

Question: On this point the Administration [inaudible] might argue that if they do have weapons of massdestruction it's too late to do anything because [inaudible] on its neighbors or on the United States[inaudible]. So therefore [inaudible] acquire weapons [inaudible].

Yashwant Sinha : More the reason therefore to be able to move to the U.N. system and carry conviction there.

Mona Sehgal, Indian-American: I was wondering, there is some fear among people that the word terrorism might be used injust blanket ways, too extensively. I was wondering if you would address the issue of state-sponsoredterrorism, especially the complicity of the government, state government in Gujarat, and the communal violencethere.

Yashwant Sinha : This is an issue which has come up. You cannot equate what happened in Gujarat with eitherterrorism practiced by one side or the other and state terrorism. What happened in Gujarat you have alreadysaid was most unfortunate, but I'd also like to remind you that in the police filing in Gujarat during thedisturbances, over 200 people have been killed belonging to both communities. And that figure should show thedetermination of the Administration to tackle the violence which had erupted.

There has been a popular perception that what happened was state-sponsored. I do not share that view. Iwill tell you very candidly and frankly because those of us who are aware of what happened and what theAdministration did are convinced that the Administration did try to tackle the problem as effectively aspossible, and this time Gujarat, is not new, this kind of communal violence and Gujarat did not happen for thefirst time. And this time the situation was brought under control much faster, much quicker than in the past.

Rajesh Kadian: Would you also comment on the level of Indo-U.S. cooperation in the neighboring countries, especiallyAfghanistan and Nepal. And also in terms of the pacification of the countryside. Thank you.

Yashwant Sinha : We are in touch with each other, both with regard to the reconstruction of Afghanistan andwith regard to what is happening in Nepal. In fact we are in touch on all issues relating to our immediateneighborhood and we exchange notes, we exchange views, we keep each other informed.

Gautam Adhikari, Asian Center for Democratic Governance which is a U.S.- India project, partneredby the National Endowment for Democracy here and the Confederation of Indian Industry in Delhi.

On cooperation on issues of democracy, are there specific policies that you are likely to discuss ordevelop jointly with the United States on general issues of democracy, and specifically on regionalstrengthening of democracy? Supporters of democracy often point out that it's a good instrument for peace andstability. They also suggest that the major wars that have been fought between India and Pakistan have alwayshappened when Homeland Security was under a military dictatorship. So are there specific issues that you'relikely to discuss, and are you going to talk about the region?

Yashwant Sinha : As for the issue of democracy and particularly the promotion of democracy is concerned, wehave been talking to each other, and as I mentioned in my intervention earlier, U.S. and India cooperated insetting up the community of democracy. We'll be meeting in Seoul in South Korea later this year in November. Ithink that will be an opportunity for U.S. and India, in fact other democracies to discuss how we promote thedemocratic spirit all over the world. And this will have to be reduced, as you said, to more specific issues.And also prepare a strategy about how we take the democratic spirit forward throughout the world.

The other point which I have already mentioned in my earlier intervention is the promotion of democracy notmerely at the national and sub-national level, but also democratization of the international organizations.That's also very important because we cannot profess to be committed to democracy at one level and have atotally different approach at another level.

So it is something which has to be dealt with comprehensively, both in terms of national as well asinternational responsibility.

Deepa Ollapally, U.S. Institute of Peace and the Center for the Advance Study of India at theUniversity of Pennsylvania: Minister, I would like to hear your perspective on what we're reading about, theU.S.' positions and attempts to get more parties to participate in the upcoming elections in Kashmir, how youhave found the U.S. role in the upcoming election. Thank you.

Yashwant Sinha : It's been a useful role. We are aware of the discussions that they have been having and weourselves have been very keen that the elections in Jammu and Kashmir should be inclusive. Therefore, India'selections are always open, inclusive, anyone can participate. In this particular case three are certainprofessedly separated areas in Jammu and Kashmir. They have been invited to participate in the elections andprove their support base. I am glad to be able to tell you that some of the elements of that group are alsoparticipating in the elections as independent candidates, and one notices a change in language of the Hurriyatwhich is encouraging.

So it is our hope that the electoral process in Jammu and Kashmir will be more inclusive than has been thecase perhaps in the past.

Allen Cronstadt, Congressional Research Service: Minister, I'm curious ifin your time in your current post in meetings with U.S. officials has the word benchmark come up at all? Andmore generally, do you feel you'd agree that the issue of nuclear nonproliferation has fallen by the waysidein terms of Indo-U.S. relations in the past year?

Yashwant Sinha : What kind of benchmark did you talk about?

Allen Cronstadt: I meant the five benchmarks that used to be talked about in terms of nuclear nonproliferation andthe bilateral relationship between India and Pakistan.

Yashwant Sinha : Some of them I have dealt with in the intervention which I made earlier, but those areissues that we are discussing even today. I'd like to say there is perhaps much greater understanding of thoseissues between the two sides than was the case to begin with.

The other point which I have made in my intervention is we are a responsible nation, we are a responsibledemocracy, and therefore the kind of apprehensions which were there in the beginning, those apprehensions haveby and large given way to a more reasoned, more rational approach.

We are carrying our discussions, our bilateral dialogue on those issues even today, the dialogue which as Isaid earlier Mr. Talbott started with my predecessor, Mr. Jaswant Singh. Those are issues which we are indiscussion with the U.S..

Stephen P. Cohen: Mr. Minister, let me thank, you very much for an articulate and informative presentation. You'rewelcome to come back to Brookings any time. Your predecessor actually will be here in a couple of weeks.

Before you go I'd like to say a few things on my own. The U.S.-India relationship has been compared withthat of France and the United States, a France that reserves the right to criticize us and perhaps feelscomfortable only if it does criticize.