The Hindu : Front Page : A stable, peaceful Pakistan is in India’s interest: Pranab

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Jan 13, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

A stable, peaceful Pakistan is in India’s interest: Pranab

‘Infiltration has never stopped completely. Sometimes the number has increased and sometimes the number has decreased’

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee

In an interview to Karan Thapar for the CNN-IBN television programme ‘Devil’s Advocate,’ External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee has spelt out the Government’s position regarding the state of affairs in Pakistan, relations with China, and developments in Sri Lanka. Here are edited excerpts from the major interview, the first of a two-part series to be aired on CNN-IBN and CNBC on Sunday night. (The second part, the contents of which are not dealt with here, is to be telecast on Monday night.):

How do you view the state of affairs in Pakistan?

There is a problem no doubt, but… I am quite confident of the resilience of the system and the people of Pakistan; I do hope that they will overcome this crisis. And, after all, we shall have to keep in mind that in different phases there have been different types of problems in the history of Pakistan. But somehow or other the people of Pakistan, [the] systems there… they have managed the situation. And let us hope so, because in our own interest we want a stable, peaceful, prosperous Pakistan, as it is an important neighbour of ours. And in our neighbourhood we would like to have peace, stability and development.

You don’t share the fear that Pakistan could be breaking up?

I am not coming to any such conclusion… Of course, the problem is that whenever there is [in]stability in the neighbourhood, it has its impact on the other countries sharing the neighbourhood… So, if there is instability in Pakistan naturally it will have [an] adverse impact on us and on other neighbours of Pakistan. But I am not coming to a definitive conclusion. And let us hope that Pakistan would be able to address the problems in the way they want to address and [that] stability will be brought back.

Have you put in place mechanisms to watch closely what’s happening?

There is a mechanism to share information and from time to time we share our perceptions — formally and informally with the Prime Minister and others who are concerned over it… We are watching, we are getting reports from our Mission and we are analysing the reports coming from different sources and trying to share our perceptions.

Does your Mission view General Musharraf as part of the problem or does it see him as part of the solution?

First of all, we are interested in peace, stability, and [the] development of Pakistan. And as I mentioned in response to another question, we ought to deal with whoever is in office in Pakistan. Therefore we do not make any value judgment…

Do you believe General Musharraf is stable at the moment? Is he in danger of being removed perhaps by the Army, perhaps overtaken by political developments?

Only future events will show what course of action the establishment in Pakistan, or the people of Pakistan, will take. But from history we have seen that developments have taken a particular turn at a particular point of time. But it is not always predictable… I am not saying that unpredictability is there. But an element of unpredictability is there. But I can’t say the situation will not turn around in a positive manner, and that’s why I started my observation by saying that I have tremendous faith in the resilience of the Pakistani people to manage their crisis.

It was reported that the government wanted to send you… to attend Benazir Bhutto’s funeral but that you were advised by the Pakistani government that it might be better for you not to come.

It is correct… It is not merely in respect to me, but it is in respect of all other countries. Our Mission also was in touch with the other Missions, various countries showed interest, but they were advised not to come. Because firstly… it was not a state funeral as such, and the arrangements were not made to that extent. Secondly, the law and order situation at the place where [the] burial took place was not conducive to receive the representatives of the foreign governments. Therefore, in that hour of difficulty, we did not want to embarrass the authority and we listened to their advice.

As you assess Benazir Bhutto, did you see her as a friend of India?

In fact, when she was in government earlier, when she was Prime Minister, I was Foreign Minister. Several times — not in Pakistan or in India but on the margins of various international events — I had interactions with her, and it appeared to me that she had a sincere desire to improve the relationship between India and Pakistan.

The Hindu on January 5 reported that as the turmoil in Pakistan gets worse, groups such as the Lashkar have begun to replenish their cadre and rebuild their operational capability. Are you worried you could see a sharp increase in infiltration as well as in jehadi activity targeted at India?

We shall have to wait till the snow melts and the paths are clear — particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. But infiltration has never stopped completely. Sometimes the number has increased and sometimes the number has decreased. Therefore our advice to the security forces has always been to be on alert, maintain your vigil. And we are also suggesting to the Pakistani authorities time and again that the commitment which you made, particularly in the Joint Statement issued by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Musharraf on January 6, 2004, that Pakistan territory will not be allowed to be used by terrorists against India, that commitment should be fulfilled, the infrastructure which has been developed should be dismantled.

India and China

The Prime Minister on Sunday goes to China: it’s a visit taking place after months of reports in the papers of alleged Chinese incursions across the Line of Actual Control and even into Bhutan. Are these reports of incursions both in number and in scale and scope accurate?

Sometimes incursions take place, we immediately take it up — there is a regular channel through which we exchange information. There is an institutional mechanism which was, as you know, [put in place] when we signed the Treaty of Peace and Tranquillity in 1993 and again in 1996. Thereafter, certain mechanisms have been established through which we address this type of problem.

Have the number and frequency of the incursions increased?

It is not unusual; it has suddenly not increased… There is nothing to be worried at this point of time and the mechanisms, which we have, are doing well… Every incursion is taken care of. It is being addressed through established mechanism and the same practice is continuing.

Privately, Generals in the Indian Army don’t deny that the difference in infrastructure between the two sides gives the Chinese troops a significant advantage over Indian troops. As someone who was Defence Minister just some 16 months ago, are they right to feel concerned?

The situation which is prevailing right now at the border along the LAC, there is no need to press any panic button. Peace and tranquillity are being retained there and various confidence-building measures which were taken up, for instance participation of the troops from both sides on different occasions including the National Day and various festivals...

On Sri Lanka

The Sri Lankan Government announced that with effect from January 15 it intends to abrogate the ceasefire agreement with the LTTE. Is this a mistake or is this — given the spate of LTTE attacks in recent weeks and months — both understandable and perhaps also inevitable?

We shall have to see what impact it has. Of late clashes between the Sri Lankan forces and the LTTE terrorists have increased. So far [as] the terrorism is concerned, our position, India’s position… is zero tolerance. Therefore any country which takes action against the terrorist, they are free to do so within their right, within their legal system.

You are not criticising Sri Lanka for abrogating the accord?

Because, we are not party to it. Please remember it we were never a party to it — attempts are made to drag us to be a party to it.

And you refused…

But we scrupulously avoided it…

That’s why you have no comment to make on it.…?

For obvious reasons, because we had to pay a very high price.

You have no comment on the abrogation?

What I have stated that so far [as] the fight against terrorists is concerned, that is one issue, but so far the solution and [the] problem of [the] ethnic minority including the Tamilians so that their legitimate aspirations are fulfilled within the system of Sri Lanka — that effort should not be lax and the effort should continue to arrive at a solution.

The Prime Minister has been invited to visit Sri Lanka to be the chief guest at the 60th anniversary celebrations, on February 4… Will he accept?

It has not yet been decided.

Are you hostage to Indian Tamil politics in deciding this issue?

No, that has nothing to do with it. For instance, there are certain things. Sri Lanka is going to host the SAARC summit this year — naturally we will be going there.

That’s a commitment…?

Of course, it is a SAARC commitment — if it takes place. But if they don’t hold the summit then how would I go?

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page