'Words Must Be Followed By Action'

Intervention by the minister for external affairs in the discussion inRajya Sabha. Unedited, verbatim

Mr. Chairman, Sir, while making the statement in the morning to the House,hon. Home Minister indicated that I would intervene in the debate from certainForeign and External Ministry angle. Sir, had it been merely a question ofviolent action by some individuals or some groups on a property or onindividuals, there would have been no necessity for my participation in thedebate or in the discussion. That was perfectly within the domain of the HomeMinistry. But, there are certain angles which are to be looked into and whichare really a matter of concern. The point which we shall have to keep in mindis, perhaps, this is for the first time in a terrorist attack a large number offoreigners belonging to 13 countries were the target. Sir, 26 foreigners losttheir lives, about 30 injured and all of them belong to 13 different countries.I deeply mourn the loss of their lives. And, of course, the loss of life ofevery individual who became the victim of this kind of senseless violence is amatter of deep concern. This angle is really worrying us. The hon. Home Ministerhas, in his elaborate statement, pointed out and recognized that there werecertain omissions and certain gaps. He was candid enough to admit it. And thereis no hesitation to admit it. On his first visit to Mumbai after assuming theoffice, he tendered his apology and rightly so.

Sir, all the evidences available, unfortunately, point that the epicentre ofthis terrorist activity is in our neighbouring country. I do not blame theGovernment of Pakistan or the people of Pakistan. But, at the same time, Icannot ignore the fact that the elements who perpetrated this attack and eventhe controller of this entire operation were located in Pakistan. That is theevidence which is available, and this has been shared not only by a couple ofcountries but a large number of other countries shared this perception.

Sir, Mr. Yechury, while speaking, mentioned about mobilisation ofinternational opinion. One feature which I have noticed after this attack is theoverwhelming support, sympathy and expression of solidarity that we havereceived from the international community. Sir, more than 16 Heads of the Statesand Governments talked with the hon. Prime Minister. Almost every Head of theState and Government sent messages. A very large number of Foreign Ministers,almost everyday, since 27th November, are talking to me over telephoneexpressing their solidarity with us, extending their support if we need in thishour of difficulty. Therefore, this is the situation which has been prevailingright now. So, there is no lack of mobilisation of international support,because the message which we have conveyed and we have conveyed veryclearly.....

We have conveyed very clearly in my conversations as well as in theconversation with the Prime Minister that this is not an India-Pakistan issue,this is a part of the global terrorism. The terrorist activities are spreadingcutting across the territorial borders. Terrorists are no respecters of anygeographical territory; it is an international phenomenon. Therefore, it has tobe looked into from that perspective. And, the international community will haveto fight against this terror.

[Intervention by Shri Janeshwar Mishra to ask why the neighbouringcountries like China, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh... none of them can becounted as India's friends...]

Janeshwarji, I have just started. I have completed only a few sentences.Please wait and have some patience. When I talk of the international opinion, itincludes the international opinion coming from our neighbourhood also. TheForeign Ministers, the Heads of States, the Heads of Governments of everycountry, which you have referred to, have talked to us. I myself had discussionswith the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, with the Foreign Minister of Nepal, withthe Foreign Minister of Pakistan also, and with each and every one. Therefore,please have some patience. And, I do not subscribe to the view that all ourneighbouring countries are not friends of India. Each and every one of them is aclose friend of India. If somebody believes that all of them are subscribing toterrorism, he may have that belief but I do not subscribe to the belief thatevery neighbouring country is indulging in terrorist activities against India.It is not that. Therefore, we shall have to keep in mind that when we areexpressing our views on the floor of this House, we shall have to be a littlecareful. Mr. Chairman, 

Sir, this debate is being watched by the entire international community,including our neighbours, to see how, after this incident, the Members ofParliament, representing all cross-sections, are responding to a situation thatis considered an attack on India's sovereignty. So, everybody is watching howIndia is going to respond to it; how the leaderships of the politicalestablishments, represented in both the Houses, are going to react to it.Keeping that in view, I would most respectfully, as one of your ex-colleaguesand -- if I claim, I may not be wrong -- perhaps, the longest serving Member ofthis House, like to submit that we shall have to keep that in the back of ourmind while making our observations.

 'Yes', we may have different views and different perceptions. On morethan one occasion and more often than not, they will manifest themselves. Afterall, what is democracy? Democracy is the co-existence of dissensions. Withoutdissensions, there cannot be proper democracy. There will be divergence. Therewill be dissensions. But, there will be also occasions when the two Houses,political parties and political establishments will stand united and talkcollectively. This is a menace on which we shall have to fight collectively.'Yes', we can find fault. There is no harm in discussing and analysing it. Butat the end of it, this menace has to be fought. There is no denying this fact. 

I was talking of the international dimension of the problem. It requireddetailed planning. I was not aware of it, and, I don't know how many hon.colleagues sitting here were aware that Nariman House; a particular place knownas Nariman House was the hub of Jewish activities. Somebody coming from outsidehad detailed information. Why was it fixed as a target? It is not that just someterrorists are coming and throwing grenades or suicide bombers are coming andjust activating the explosives, killing their targets. The entire nature, as thehon. Home Minister has elaborately explained in his statement, was totallydifferent. Its enormity, its ferocity, its dimension, the strength of itsoperations speaks of how much time, how much energy, how much training, how muchplanning was necessary for this.

The point which I am trying to drive at is, the needle of suspicion is onPakistan. Therefore, I sent my demarche to the Pakistani authorities. I spoke tothe Foreign Minister. He was very much here. He was my honoured guest. I invitedhim to discuss how to improve Indo-Pak relationship, not only at theGovernmental level but at people-to-people level. On 27th of last month both ofus addressed a seminar at Chandigarh where participants, apart from theGovernment officials, included a cross-section of people representing thegeneral public. He came for that and it was also a part of his unfinishedbilateral visit because when he came in response to my visit in May 2008, he hadto rush back and cut short his visit because of the bereavement in his family.So, he wanted to fulfil these two objectives. In between, these things happened.When it happened, on 28th I talked to him. I spoke to him over phone. ShriJaneshwar Mishraji was a senior Minister in the Government, surely, he knows andmany of you know that we do not make these types of conversations casually.These conversations are recorded and they are called Speaking Notes indiplomatic language. I extended that diplomatic Speaking Note; every word of itwas recorded and it was from the written text. 

I suggested three things to him. I suggested that we would expect Pakistan toact; to act to fulfil its own commitments, not once, but twice. Commitments weremade by the highest authorities in the Governments. On 6th January, 2004, in ajoint statement issued by the then Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee andthe then President, Shri Parvez Musharaff, the President committed that theterritory of Pakistan would not be allowed to be used by terrorists.

This was reiterated on 24th September, 2008, in a joint statement issued bythe President Shri Asif Ali Zardari and the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh-- the same assurance -- that territory of Pakistan would not be allowed to beused by terrorists. What I said in the demarche fulfils this commitment. Thebanned organisation, which is operating in other name, Lashkar-e-Taiba, has beendeclared as a banned organisation, but Jamat-ud-Dawah is the change of name, or,the change of sign -board. Persons are the same, leaders are the same andobjectives are the same. Please take action against it. Please take actionagainst those persons who have taken shelter in your country, who have violatedIndian laws. Kindly hand over them to us. And, not merely words, please act. 

It is no consolation. Not only to Pakistan but also to every interlocutorwith whom I have had conversation, I have pointed out Indian people's sense ofoutrage and their feeling of anger. Please recognise that. And, it requires thatwords must be followed by action. Merely flat denial is not going to help. Ithas to be acted upon. And you fulfil your own commitments. What you have askedus, we have given the names, not of one or two persons but of 46 persons.Meetings at the level of the Home Secretaries of India and Pakistan, at thelevel of the Foreign Secretaries have been held and four meetings of the jointanti-terror mechanism have also been held. This mechanism was established inNovember 2006. March 2007 onwards, in every meeting --four meetings have takenplace -- we get these names but the response which we get is a flat denial. 

That is why we had to point out and we pointed out that unless these issuesare addressed, the business, as usual, cannot go on. This aspect has to be keptin view. Somebody might have come out with a thesis that it is not possible todefeat this country through open war; therefore, inflict thousand scars. Letthem die bleeding. Somebody may have this fancy idea but our brilliant classpeople are not going to die bleeding. India is emerging and India will emerge.India has emerged as an emerging economic power, more than a trillian dollars.Despite the worldwide melt down, in most of the ratings of our economic growth,the minimum growth which has been projected by the World Bank is more than sixper cent, even in today's newspapers, it is 7.5 - 8 per cent. I know it willhave its impact. But that is a different story. The Finance Minister will bedealing with it at the appropriate time. 

The short point which I am trying to drive at is that if you want to causeharm to the others, if you create a Frankenstein [he meant Frankenstein'smonster--ed], ultimately it is the lesson of history and civilisation,Frankenstein [he means the monster] destroys the creators of it. Umpteenexamples could be cited. Therefore, I do appreciate the complexity of theinternal arrangement of Pakistan. But I cannot help it. I cannot interfere init. I cannot make any comment on it. It is for them to address that issue. Thatis the rule of law; that is the rule of international usage and customs. 

We ought to deal only with the incumbent Government. Now, whether theincumbent Government is in a position to deliver or not is not my look-out. Icannot look into it. With whom shall I have to interact? I have to interact withForeign Minister, with President, with Prime Minister, with the establishedGovernment, not with somebody, the real power behind the scene. There may bepractical politics. But that is not the domain of the diplomacy, and, in theinternational arena, I shall have to deal with them. Therefore, I shall have totell to the Foreign Minister. 

Unfortunately, a canard was spread that I telephoned certain PakistanPresident. Later on, it was discovered that it was a hoax call. Mostrespectfully, I would like to submit, Sir, that only once in my life I had adiscussion, not telephony, but face-to-face, oral discussion, with Presidentwhen I visited Pakistan in May, 2008. I called on him because I knew his wifewhen she was the Prime Minister in the first half of the nineties. On severaloccasions I had interactions with her. I knew her for quite some time. In fact,I was dying to go and pay homage when she was killed but because of theprevailing situation in Pakistan, I could not go there. Therefore, when the newdemocratic Government came, perhaps, India was the first country to send itsForeign Minister to have interaction with the newly elected Government. 

You have noticed that during the entire period, I have never commented aword, uttered a word, about the internal situation of Pakistan because when Iwas confronted by the foreign journalists, my response was 'I have great beliefin the resilience of Pakistan's system, they will address their own problems.They will find a solution to that.' Therefore, when the democratic Governmentcame to power, was in place, I went there, started discussions, began the 5thround of composite dialogue, invited Foreign Ministers. But after that, Kabulhappened. On the 7th of July, there was an attack on the Embassy of Kabul. Asper international law, attack on Embassy is the attack on sovereignty, attack onthe country. In the height of war, as per Vienna Convention, Embassies andMissions ought to be honoured. Afgan investigations pointed out the involvementof some elements in Pakistan. When we drew the attention of the Pakistan's PrimeMinister and Foreign Minister to that, we got the response, 'we don't believethat evidence, we will investigate ourselves and we will let you know.' We arestill waiting to have the outcome of their own investigation in Kabul incident.

If, after Kabul, Bombay follows, can it be taken as business as usual? Theseought to be kept aside, these are to be erased? I told my interlocutors in theinternational community that these issues ought to be addressed. You persuadethem, you prevail upon them and you help them overcome their internal problem ifthere be any. I have no comment on it. I would not like to make any comment ontheir internal situation, internal mechanism and method of functioning. It isfor them to redress that. When there was the military government, we cooperatedwith them, but not at the diktats of somebody. That has been our practice.Whoever comes and gets recognised as the incumbent government, we recognisethem. We are not to decide whether there will be a democratic government,whether there will be a military government or whether there will be anoligarchical government. It is for the people of the country to decide, not me.We recognised them. And, in our Foreign Policy, I must emphatically point out,that we do not believe in export of ideology. We believe that we cannot alterour neighbours. Neighbours are going to stay there and we shall have to live inpeace with the neighbours. The question is whether we would live in peace or inperpetual tension. During the entire period that we have been in office, evenearlier, our efforts have been to live in peace. Therefore, there will be nolack of peace initiative. But, at the same time, these issues ought to beaddressed; these issues ought to be addressed adequately.

A point has been raised that we should move international institutions likethe United Nations Security Council. Yes, we have moved where it was foundnecessary that we should move. As per the Resolution of the UN Security Council,when a committee was set up, it was Al Qaida and Taliban. When we pointed outthat evidence is available that the outfit in Pakistan, Jamat-ud-Dawah, was anextension of Lashkar-e-Toiba under a different name, and asked them to takeaction against them, I am happy to inform the House, they have taken actionagainst them; it has been put in the banned list. I read the speech of therepresentative of Pakistan in the UN Security Council. He said that if the UNSecurity Council bans it, we shall ban it in Pakistan. We said, 'fine, you banit'. The demarche we suggested was -- don't do it at our request; do it on yourown, but please do it. You carry it under your own law but please make effortsto try it seriously. Don't repeat what you did after the attack on Parliament.The same persons were arrested; the same organisations were declared banned whenthe international pressure mounted. And we have seen what happened after that.

Somebody has been put under house arrest. What does it mean by house arrestin a criminal case? We understand if somebody is on bail given by the court orif somebody is in judicial custody or police custody. But they were openlymaking speeches and statements, indulging in anti-Indian activities. Therefore,we demanded dismantling of the infrastructure, training camps and logisticfacilities, which were being made available to these terrorist outfits.

We are not lacking in cooperation. On October 21st, we initiated the tradebetween our two countries. We opened the bus routes starting from Lahore, andtill today, there have been umpteen instances where we have extended our hand ofco-operation. But, if somebody takes the hand and tries to twist it and expectthat I will accept it without protest, I am afraid, that is too muchexpectation. It cannot take place. The time has come when words must be followedby action and that is the simple request which we are making. Surely, we wouldnot like to make Kashmir an international issue. We told our internationalinterlocutors that this is an issue as per Shimla Agreement, as per LahoreAgreement. It will have to be resolved bilaterally, however difficult, howeverstrenuous, however time consuming it may be. There is no scope of anythird-party intervention and we stick to that. Therefore, we would not like tointernationalise it. It is as simple as that. Whatever arrangements, gaps in thesecurity apparatus and other areas are there; I am not the competent person torespond. The Home Minister and the Prime Minister are the competent persons.They will respond and reply.