The Minister of External Affairs and Defence gets into a detailed defence of Indian policy at the summit and talks about the square brackets that came in the way.
Broadly, the critical observations or otherwise, thathave been made in the discussion fall into four broad categories. There wereobservations about the preparation, home work and such like matters. Also, therewere observations about the agenda, about the response of the media and how theGovernment responded to it and thereafter the assessment of the success or thefailure of the Summit.
Let it be very clearly understood that so far as Pakistan isconcerned the State of Jammu and Kashmir is not cause of this kind of approachor attitude that Pakistan continues to adopt. It is a consequence and it is theconsequence of a consistent and a deliberate policy posture by Pakistan ofcompulsive and perpetual hostility to India.
It is in that compulsive hostility arising from the seeds ofthe two nation theory that today or even earlier, all their actions in Jammu andKashmir are attempted to be justified. Jammu and Kashmir, is not the core issueas the President of Pakistan, General Musharraf Sahib is given to repeatedlypronounce.
Jammu and Kashmir and what it represents is at the core ofthe Indian nationhood because it represents rejection of two nation theory. Thedivision of this land on grounds of faith is not acceptable. India believes inand shall continue to believe in civic nationalism as against denominationalnationalism which Pakistan openly subscribes.
Jammu and Kashmir is not simply a State of the Indian Unionbut it is an example of the creed of secular India and, therefore, there issimply no question of this Government treating it in any other manner but thatis its centrality.
The kind of fundamentalism that Pakistan is structuringaround hostility to India in addition, of course, to deluding and mesmerizingits own citizens, is worrisome. This is a deluding miasma that is being createdby the leadership of Pakistan deliberately in its own citizens.
This is a path that is full of peril much more so forPakistan than for anybody else. This path will reduce Pakistan to a kind ofsocial and political anarchy. But it is not in our hands to address. They haveto address it themselves. It is these tendencies that we have always taken intoaccount and we have always born in mind. It was during Kargil that we first saidthat they must vacate their aggression.
We had said that the validity of the Line of Control must bere-affirmed and we had said, quite clearly, that cross border terrorism must berejected and stopped. That was the first time that we place cross borderterrorism squarely and firmly as an issue that must be addressed by Pakistan.
Therefore, when we speak of cross border terrorism, it ishere that we affirm and re-emphasise that cross border terrorism is notacceptable to us. Thereafter, the Government took it upon itself to create aninternational atmosphere about terrorism as not simply a challenge that India isfacing but as something that the entire international community ought to wake upto because this menace is threatening.
India has no ill-will for Pakistan. We do not covet even aninch of Pakistan's territory. It is a matter of fact that all of Pakistan'spolicy is Indo-centric, not so India. India has to deal with entireinternational community. India has the ability to meet the challenge that hasbeen posed to us through terrorism. For this we need nobody's assistance.
The Government of India did not and has not changed itsposition in regard to terrorism. So far as terrorism is concerned, no quarterwill be given to it, and Pakistan will have to continue to answer for everyaction of the terrorists that it continues to promote.
No doubt the hon. Members have appreciated that we addressedthe question of terrorism. The first step internally was to release the peoplebelonging to the All-Party Hurriyat Conference from confinement and let them goback to Jammu and Kashmir. That was followed by the announcement by the hon.Prime Minister on the eve of the holy month of Ramazan on 23rd November.
Weknew very well that each of these steps will be challenged and the process weendeavoured towards peace will be thwarted and defeated at all steps. For sixmonths, we let it continue. In all these six months, the international effortscontinued. From Pakistan's side, efforts were made to defeat these efforts.Consciously and deliberately we came to the conclusion.
We wished to talk. Butin the process of talking, and it is the impression of anybody that India agreedto talk because it was out of any weakness, India agreed to talk, it was out ofany fatigue, we agreed to talk, as has been suggested by somebody, because ofthe call- to my mind, it is completely an unsustainable call – that theJihadis have now pressurized on India that we are ready to have a talk.
Thesenotions are very absurd. Notwithstanding this kind of observation, let us givepeace one more try because the objective is peace. But we are not going todictate to Pakistan as to what they do with their internal arrangement. Indeed,we cannot dictate. You would wish that it were democratic.
It is Pakistan thathas to resolve the inner turmoil within its own society, the sectarian violence.It is Pakistan that has to realize that if it continues to promote the kind offundamentalism that it is promoting, it is unleashing a variety of medievalbenevolence that can only harm it. India will contend with it, it will confrontit. I know, as a fact that India will redeem.
We do not covet Pakistan's territory. We mean no ill will totheir people. We do want them to come to the path of peace. Now, I must addressthese four broad issues. about preparation, what were prepared and preceded withthe invitation, I have just explained. This is not a small preparation.
A great deal has been said that the talks were notaccompanied by any agenda. Repeatedly there were four proposals for the agenda.They are already in extant in India-Pakistan bilateral dialogue, the agenda thatShimla has bequenthed as a continuing process to both the countries. There wasalready, as a part of the continuing agenda, the Lahore Declaration betweenIndia and Pakistan.
Thirdly, the composite dialogue process that had set out andlisted the issues on which subjects India and Pakistan will deliberate, was afixed agenda. We had reiterated that agenda to Pakistan.
And fourthly, despitePakistan continuously saying we do not want any agenda – the Ministry ofExternal affairs, the concerned Division, proposed an agenda point by point thatlet this be the agenda on which Pakistan and India when President visits, thetalks should take place. These agendas were all there.
The Pakistanestablishment until the last was not clear itself because the establishment hadnot been taken into full confidence by the President of Pakistan himself. Therewas no prepared text on Pakistan side. What was required at that dialoguebetween the two Heads of Govaernments was not an exposition on soldier qualitiesor soldierly directness.
It was to address the intricate complex issues thatinvolve not territory, not land because Jammu and Kashmir-let me repeat again-isnot a terrirtorial dispute. It involves the complex sentiments of the peoples.There were three or four broad issues : preparation, agenda and also the media.These thesis or this theory that the Jammu and Kashmir is in a kind of aterritorial dispute is not acceptable. There was no ambiguity about this. Butwe are ready to sit with them. We will sit with them.
The nature of the Agra Summit was a retreat. Retreat is ameeting where the visiting Head of State/Government and the receiving Head ofState/government meet in retreat quietly, away from Press, so that complex andintricate issues are then enabled to be addressed by them in the privacy, It wassuggested that for the sake of making this visit worthwhile, let us meetdirectly at Goa. With all due courtesies to a visiting Head of State, Delhi wasfixed.
We were not blind to what happened on the 14th., what was donewith regard to all Party Hurriyat Conference. They have no claim at all, norepresentational identity with Jammu and Kashmir. It is the APHC which is underpressure from Pakistan.
On 15th evening, before the Banquet by the Governor ofU.P. that Joint Statement was to be issued. The hon. Minister for Informationand Broadcasting went to Agra because the External Affairs Ministry requestedher to be there. The Prime Minister advised her that she should be there. Shedid, she told the Press what she was authorized to tell and she had theauthority of the Union Cabinet to do so.
To suggest otherwise at the behest ofPakistan that a member of the Union Cabinet had spoken out of turn is completelyout of turn. It is not acceptable to us.
It was decided that on the 15th wewould attempt to produce a Joint Document. The proposal came, "Why not aDeclaration?" It was suggested to the officials of the Pakistan team thatlet two officers sit together and start working on the document. It was afterthe banquet was over at 11 o'clock at night, Pakistan officials said that theywere then ready to sit with us. The officials worked till 4.30 a.m. in themorning jointly. The possible outline was prepared. In that outline Draft therewere, a number of square brackets.
The Prime Minister had said that even though it was aone-to-one, I had better go along because there were so many square brackets andthat I would be better able to explain those square brackets. In the draftingexercise that went on between my distinguished counterpart His Excellency theForeign Minister of Pakistan and I, just as I made penciled corrections, nodoubt he also made penciled corrections.
I recognize that Pakistan's policy isIndo-centric. I went to the Press on 11th of July. During the conference, I didnot consider it right on my part to engage in exactly what Pakistan was doing.We do not follow the examples set by Pakistan.
On the 17th of July, the hon.General Parvez Musharraf left around midnight of 16th, and I did not think itproper that I go to the Press because there was nothing so catastrophic that ithappened that I go to the Press at midnight. I chose to go on the morning of the17th and I did explicitly, clearly, re-enunciate India's position and exactlywhat had taken place.
Now, the fault that has been found is that while Pakistanwas doing all this, why did we not do likewise. India has to deal not simplywith Pakistan but with the entire international community. We are a democracy,we are a free country, we respect and we will take into account what ourvisiting guest does- if the visiting guest violates the established conventionsand norms of conduct of diplomatic behaviour, we, because of our openness andaccess to Press, will continue to permit him to do so because that, in a veryreal sense, is also India's strength.
India is not diminished in the least ofit, by what General Pervez Musharraf chooses to do here. We were not perfect inthe media management? It is my fault. As the Minister of External Affairs, it ismy responsibility. We analyse every event of this nature in the Ministry ofExternal Affairs and see what should have been done differently.
Through conductwe have demonstrated that the Government of India has not deviated from the pathof central purpose, path of national interest no matter what country, whichcountry. In this particular instance there is no question of any foreignpressure.
We said then and we can say now that it is a broadbased-relationship that should guide us. Yes, I corrected many pieces of paper.Kashmir has been put on top of the agenda. Even in the composite dialogueprocess, it is eighth of confidence building measures in Jammu and Kashmir. Itis an issue that we have never been shy of addressing with Pakistan. But it isnot an issue which, in our view, should or can or will hold India-Pakistanrelations as hostage.
About SAARC, I believe on the 9th or the 10th, the Foreign Secretaries aredue to meet and it is hoped that SAARC will continue. It is a suggestion herethat visits should take place at Islamabad. These visits will take place.
Onehon. Member has asked whether we conferred any kind of legitimacy on HisExcellency, the President of Pakistan. We do not confer legitimacy on the systemof governance of Pakistan. It is Pakistan’s sovereign decision.
We aresticking to the unilateral measures which we had announced on 4th, 6th and 9thJuly. We have not rescinded from them.