K Shankar Bajpai
a former Indian ambassador to Pakistan, China and the US; and a former chairman of the National Security Advisory Board
* 'A problem is that the instruments of State action in India have become rusted and inefficient'
New Delhi
11 February 2011
K Shankar Bajpai, a former Indian ambassador to Pakistan, China and the US and a
former chairman of the National Security Advisory Board, says liberal elements in
Pakistan need encouragement of India if there is to be hope for Pakistan to become a
modern-minded, democratic country. "If India can have a catalytic effect to encourage
Pakistan to draw back from extremism, we should try it [dialogue]," Mr Bajpai says in an
interview to Ramesh Ramachandran. He cautions that the onus of the success of the
talks lies on Pakistan. Excerpts:
How do you view India's decision to resume peace talks with Pakistan?
The Government of India is quite right in saying that dialogue is the only way forward
with Pakistan if one wants solutions. The only worrying question is does the other side
wants solutions. Since its inception, Pakistan's policy has been determined by people
who saw no benefits to themselves in pursuing good relations with India. I don't see any
force at work in Pakistan today which wants to change that policy. Therefore it is very
clear that if talks is the way forward then the onus is on Pakistan to carry it forward. Let's
see if they mean it. I have my own doubts but let's see. At the same time, by saying no
to talks for the last few years India has neither been able to force Pakistan to change its
policy nor make amends for the terrorist attacks against India. So our policy of no talks
was leading no where. It is an open question, but there is no harm in trying to talk to
Pakistan, but we may have to face a stalemate. In short, seeking solutions is the right
objective for India though we have to also adjust to situations on the ground i.e.
objective and activity may not always be in tune.
What has changed between November 2008 and now to warrant a resumption of the
talks?
Time is change in itself. We should not lose sight of the rise of fundamentalism in
Pakistan. The assassination of Salman Taseer has been applauded by the lawyers who
are seen as a liberal-minded section of Pakistan. If that is so, then the liberal elements
in Pakistan need encouragement of India if there is to be hope for Pakistan to become a
modern-minded, democratic country. I have doubts about that myself but there is no
harm in talking. Let us see if we can get anywhere. Time brings its own change. We are
trying it out because things happening in Pakistan cause problems to India. If India can
have a catalytic effect to encourage Pakistan to draw back from extremism, we should try
it. We need to adapt to change but along with change in Pakistan's attitude it is the
changes within Pakistan that should concern us.
India says the proposed talks should not be called composite dialogue but how is it any
different when its structure resembles that of the composite dialogue?
Labels don't mean anything. Although the media likes them, the point is what are the
issues to be discussed and in what format; whether X number of issues are discussed
simultaneously or separately; or X is changed to Y, are matters of diplomatic
convenience and suitability rather than of high policy. Both sides know what X and Y
issues are, and can approach them in different ways at different times; it hardly matters.
Does it not mean a reversion to the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement, which said that
"action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these
should not be bracketed"?
India has always said that all issues will be discussed, but Kashmir should not be the
overriding condition. We have never said that we will not talk about all issues.
Is there a climate for the talks today because issues such as price-rise and corruption
seem to occupy the government's attention?
Climate does vary but if Pakistan is now interested in talks of the kind we are ready for, I
suppose the climate can be said to be favourable enough to try it. However, we are a
huge country with huge preoccupations so all these other issues naturally need our
attention.
Do you see international pressure on India to resume the talks with Pakistan?
What else can the international community say other than to make up with Pakistan?
Nobody can twist our arms if we are strong enough to ignore what is called pressure. We
have to deal with our problems by first putting our house in order. Also, the political
spectrum within India should not indulge in cheap politics on issues of national
importance or allow damage to our national interests.
Does India have leverages over Pakistan to impose costs on it if it does not give
satisfaction on the issue of terrorism?
When we talk of leverages we must understand that India is four times the size and
power of Pakistan. Our problem is that the instruments of State action have become
rusted and inefficient; therefore, we need to become an efficient State. Leverage depends
on your ability to use your power.
How would you respond to the talk of various scenarios such as a two-front war with
China and Pakistan?
Every analyst would want the government and people of India to be constantly aware of
the fact that we have two neighbours with whom we have unsettled problems and they
have the power and possible reasons for conflict with India. Therefore, it is perfectly
natural to have contingency plans. That does not mean conflict will erupt but it has to be
considered a possibility and prepared for. If we are really strong it would not be a worry.
We need to show we are capable of dealing with such challenges.
How do you view reports that Pakistan is expanding its nuclear weapons programme?
We must organise ourselves. We must not take 20 years to decide which arms to
purchase !
Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, a former Pakistan foreign minister, says that the Pakistan
army was on board the backchannel talks with India, but Pakistan army chief Gen Ashfaq
Parvez Kayani has said that the military will remain India-centric until outstanding
issues are resolved. Your view.
It is so obvious this is the army's view they need not say it. Unfortunately they are not
open to reason. As I said before, things change but Pakistan refuses to recognise the
change. India has in the past few decades shown it has no desire to attack or undermine
Pakistan but elements in Pakistan seem determined to undermine India.
Do you subscribe to Mr Kasuri's view that both sides had come very close to a
resolution of some of the issues?
On the basis of available information, indications are that the backchannel talks made
enormous progress on arriving at a basis for a new relationship. But the situation
changed within Pakistan and then people there were not interested.
Looking back at your long career in which you served in Pakistan on two occasions, from
1962 to 1965 and later as ambassador (Pakistan was not a member of the
Commonwealth then) between 1976 and 1980, what are some of the pitfalls of negotiating
with Pakistan?
The biggest problem in negotiating with Pakistan is that our own political parties find it
very difficult to conduct negotiations confidentially and not make everything known to the
public. Agreements must be open but they cannot be openly arrived at.
No comments:
Post a Comment