"Court Martial"

Karan Thapar: Mr. Sibal, if I could take the firstquestion, after the attack on a church in Islamabad, the two attacks in Karachi, and of course the most recentone in …, can you accept that General Musharraf does not have complete control over the Jehadi groups and,perhaps, he is not lying when he says, "I have done all I can to stop cross-border infiltration intoIndia"?

Kanwal Sibal: There is a great difference between the terrorist attacks that are occurring in Pakistanand those that are occurring in Jammu and Kashmir. The attacks in Pakistan are obviously by those groups whoare very dissatisfied with the cooperation that General Musharraf is giving to the Americans to combat againstthe Taliban and the Al Qaeda. But the attacks in Jammu and Kashmir are not directed against the cooperationthat General Musharraf is extending to India.  So, there is a radical difference between the twosituations.  

The attacks in Jammu and Kashmir are very closely connected with the Pakistan establishment. Everybody knows that.  They are being directed from across the border.  The Jehadi groups operatingin Jammu and Kashmir are financed, trained, and infiltrated across the Line of Control by Pakistan. So, we donot accept this logic that since there are terrorist attacks occurring in Pakistan, therefore GeneralMusharraf and the Government of India face similar dangers from terrorist groups which are targeting bothcountries.  No.  The nature of the two instances of terrorism is altogether different.

C. Rajamohan: Mr. Foreign Secretary, stepping back a little and looking back at what India has done inthe last six months, the military mobilization after the attack on the Parliament on December 13 and theso-called coercive diplomacy, I think it has brought a lot of interesting dividends.  But what we haveseen in the last few weeks is that India is beginning to lose the upper hand or the control over the events.You end up now saying ‘negative, negative, negative’ to any suggestion that is coming from across. So, it has become a strategy of ‘do nothing’. Don’t you think we need to inject some dynamism into thecurrent position of saying ‘no talks, no engagement, till everything comes to an end’?

Kanwal Sibal: No, it is not that at all.  All that we are saying is that Pakistan must honour itsown commitments, the public declarations made by General Musharraf in his various speeches, the messages that were communicated to us formally through the Americansabout the commitments he took to end infiltration permanently.  All we are saying is that he mustimplement those. Once he implements those, we are willing to resume contacts and dialogue.  We have speltout what is it that we expect.  

First of all, he must end infiltration permanently as he has been saying. But I must, of course, underline that you cannot equate infiltration with terrorism.  There is no linearequation between the two.   In fact, you can permanently end infiltration and you can still have a lot ofterrorism around.  Infiltration is simply one aspect, one means of conducting terrorist acts. So, what isimportant for ending infiltration permanently is to take control, in the sense, must prevent those who havealready been infiltrated into Jammu and Kashmir so that they do not engage in violence, and also startdismantling permanently the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan, which will include training camps, whichwill include communication networks, which will include funding and which would also include taking actionagainst all the institutions which are the spawning grounds of all these Jehadis.

C. Rajamohan: He is saying that he had done what he could and we say he has not done enough.  Whycan’t we have technical talks, talks at the level of military to sit down and say ‘look how do youactually make sure what he is saying is …

Kanwal Sibal: He is saying that there is nothing happening on the Line of Control.  Why is he sayingthat?  Because, others are saying, including the Americans, that this is not quite true.  Even whenColin Powell was in Islamabad recently, he did not quite buy the assertion that was made that nothing ishappening on the Line of Control. Incidentally, if he says nothing is happening on the Line of Control, he isfully in control of what is happening there.  We cannot have it both ways that I can guarantee you nothing is happening and at the same time if something is happening, it is outside my control.  So,there is a certain lack of consistency in this position that he is taking.

Kanti Bajpai: Mr. Foreign Secretary, to just shift the needle a little bit, given that India and Pakistanare not talking, it seems that we are increasingly relying on the United States and others to intercede with Pakistan as it were.  How much realistically can we expect theUnited States and others to put pressure on Pakistan for us, given that they need Pakistan in the war on terrorism?

Kanwal Sibal: I think we have already made considerable gains insofar as the United States is concernedas also the international community in general.  Until a few months ago, none of these countries waswilling to recognize that what was happening in Jammu and Kashmir was terrorism.  They would not use theword terrorism.  In fact they would describe it as militant violence or some other phrase of that nature. Now they have begun to talk publicly about terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.  Until more recently, theywere not willing to directly connect this terrorism to Pakistan.  Now, if you see the national statementsof these countries as well as the statements made by important international organizations like the G-8, or EU,or ASEAN, or for that matter even the recent declaration that was issued at Brunei, all of them specificallyask Pakistan to end permanently infiltration across the Line of Control. So, this is a very big gain that wehave made in terms of international pressure on Pakistan to cease all support to terrorism. 

Now the fact is that we would like this pressure to produce results within a short time frame whereas it ispossible that other countries that are putting pressure on Pakistan do not want to exert so much pressure onthem for fear that they may destabilize Pakistan, or they may destabilize the Pakistan Government, and as theysay to us privately, certainly but I do not think they said it publicly, to have another failed State on theirhands after Afghanistan.   So, in that sense, yes, we would like the results to be produced in a shortertime frame, whereas the strategy that they are pursuing may not guarantee us that result.  So, it is aquestion of patience.  I think this is a very longstanding problem.  We have lived with it for somany years.  Even the aspect of terrorism we have lived with for ten years in Jammu and Kashmir. So, even if there is some delay in achieving the results that we are set out to achieve, we are heading in theright direction.

Kanti Bajpai: A quick supplementary.  Is there something the Government of India is saying to theUnited States and others on what we want done now?  There are two or three suggestions we have made tothem in respect of which they should proceed.

Kanwal Sibal: At the risk of repeating, I would say what we have told them is what I have mentioned justnow that (a) General Musharraf must implement in full the engagements that he has taken vis-à-vis theinternational community, and in particular what has been conveyed to us by the Americans through Mr. Armitage. We have been told by the Americans that the commitments that were made to them were to President Bush, toColin Powell himself, to Armitage, and they expect their friends to honour their commitments.  

That isone aspect of it. But for us that is not the end of the story because as I said, infiltration is not to beequated with terrorism.  Therefore, something has to be done about those who have already infiltrated. We put their figure at about 3,000.  We are also concerned about the communication links between thosewho have been infiltrated and their handlers and supporters across the Line of Control. 

For a short while wefound that the communication links had tended to get somewhat less active.  But lately they are as activeas they were before.  We have also, on the basis of good information, come to understand that someinstructions have been given to these infiltrators to lie low for some time. Across the Line of Control in terms of people who are atstaging posts, or at points where they are being infiltrated into Jammu and Kashmir, there had been some movement and relocation of personnel.  But there we alsounderstand that in some cases the message has gone, ‘Withdraw, but leave enough material and resourcesbehind that within one week if you are asked to reactivate your networks, you can do so’.  

And thenthere is the question of funding and other things.  So, these are the things they must do.  In otherwords, there must be visible, decisive, credible action by Pakistan to dismantle the apparatus, theinfrastructure of terrorism.  That is what is required.

Karan Thapar: Mr. Foreign Secretary, you are leading us to extensive evidence of what sounds like theduplicity of Pakistan.  They are saying one thing and do another. Now, have you made that evidenceavailable to your western interlocutors?  If you have, how then do you react to the fact that they seemto still believe that the General is doing all that he can?  Therefore, their position and your’s seemto disregard the evidence …

Kanwal Sibal: No, it is not that.  As I said, the General is cooperating with the Americans withregard to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  I do not think that can be denied, although one can question whether that this cooperation is 100 per cent, or 80 per cent, or 70 percent, or 50 per cent.  I would not like to second guess the Americans.  But let us look at the facts on the ground.  If the cooperation were 100 per cent, howcome they have not ught any leader of Taliban?  

How come they have not virtually caught any leader of Al Qaeda?  How come, and this is now being reported daily in the Americanpress, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are virtually in every city and the town of Pakistan.  Is it possible to imagine that all these people who are being tracked, who are beingpursued, who are being followed by the Americans and the ISI and the Pakistan Government are supposedly cooperating fully with the American Government in this regard and stillthey are all over Pakistan.

Karan Thapar:   Are you suggesting that the Americans have been gullible?

Kanwal Sibal: No.  What I meant is that the cooperation that they are getting from Pakistan on thebasis of evidence on the ground may or may not be 100 per cent.  But it is possible that the Americansfeel that the problem is very complex, it is very difficult, and therefore, they want to show us the way ofpatience and understanding.  But that is a separate issue altogether.  But, insofar as cooperationwith the Government of India is concerned, that Pakistan is not extending.  

So, when the Americans says,or others say that General Musharraf is doing the best he can, I would like to interpret this, and I think theright way to interpret this would be, that insofar as they are concerned and their demands are concerned,General Musharraf is cooperating but we cannot say that with regard to our demand and our concerns.

C. Rajamohan: You have talked about the impressive support that India has gained in the last six monthsfrom the western world, from the various multi-lateral groupings and specifically the cooperation from theAnglo-American powers.  But, isn’t there a danger that we are beginning to lose the support by beingseen as an obstacle or as being negative?  What one does not see from the statements of the Government ofIndia is any sense of vision of where do you want to take the Indo-Pak relations, when do you want to talk theKashmir question.  It is all being, ‘We won’t talk till something something happens." Is there avision at all?

Kanwal Sibal: It is not that at all.  We have recently the visits of Jack Straw, of Colin Powell,before that of Armitage.  We have had Dominique de Villepin, the Foreign Minister of France.  I canguarantee you that in the talks they have had with us, they have very good understanding, very goodcomprehension of India’s concerns and demands.  There is a lot of clarity in thinking with regard towhat Pakistan must do.  

Clearly no one wants a military conflict.  So, if they do talk about aresumption of dialogue, they are not transcending, or they are not going out of the sequence that we have been advocatingwhich they have accepted,  which means end to infiltration, action against terrorism, dismantling camps,etc., de-escalation by India, and dialogue. This sequence is being accepted.  We have already taken somede-escalatory steps in terms of opening up the airspace, in terms of informally announcing the name of a HighCommissioner, and also in terms of the movement of our naval forces back to base.  These are major,significant military and political steps.   

Of course, on the other side the Pakistanis had said thatthese are self-serving steps and they are not important, and India must enter immediately into a dialogue with Pakistan, and that dialogue must be on Kashmir.  Iftomorrow we take other steps, it is possible that Pakistan will come back and say, ‘These are allself-serving steps." For example if we were to say that we will take some action with regard to Air Force,they will say, ‘Oh! You are doing this because you cannot remain mobilized on the border so long’.  If we say we will take action withregard to de-mobilisation of our forces on the international border, they will again say that that isself-serving also because how long can you keep your forces on the border.  He is saying that publiclythat the military is being degraded, etc., etc.

Another interesting aspect is, whereas we in the beginning were saying, and I think this answers yourquestion, that Pakistan must end terrorism before we can even think of dialogue. But we have now accepted thisstrategy. This is based on what others are saying that "Do not expect him to do everything in one go. He cannot do it.  Give him time.  Be patient."  

Alright! Now we are saying that you take asuccession of steps and from our side we will have a succession of de-escalatory steps leading to dialogue. In other words, we have accepted a fair strategy.  But now, the whole thing has been reversed whereGeneral Musharraf is saying, "I have done what I have to do. There is nothing more that I can do.  Nowyou have a dialogue with me and that dialogue must be on Kashmir."

Kanti Bajpai: Can I get you back to the US issue?  You seem to suggest that the relationship withthe US in respect of what must be achieved with Pakistan is not too bad.  How should we react then to aspate of US statements on India-Pakistan relations including some of the following, let me just read from thislittle text, that Pakistan is a good ally and not a terrorist state; that infiltration across the LoC has comedown; that India should resume a dialogue with Islamabad; that Kashmir has been internationalized; thatholding free and fair elections is vital; that prisoners in Kashmir should be set free; and that the US hashuman rights concerns about Kashmir.  There are people who, if they looked at this set of statements,would say something is not so good in the state of India-US relations.  Indeed they say there is almost atilt beginning to come about the other way.  I suppose this speaks a little bit of Raja’s point, are welosing some of the momentum we gained after May?

Kanwal Sibal: Frankly, I cannot for a moment imagine that the United States can tilt in favour ofPakistan on the issue of terrorism.  They can tilt in favour of Pakistan for other reasons, geo-political and others, but not on the issue of terrorism because that isAmerca’s and international community’s fundamental concern.  

They cannot at all overlook the factthat the epicenter of terrorism today, whether the Pakistan Government today is fully involved or not, is inPakistan.  It has shifted from Afghanistan.  They have a huge task yet to be achieved.  I just mentioned to you the kind ofchallenges that they are facing.  So, how can they at all lose sight of the fact that the great challenge that faces the United States and the international community today in Pakistan is thecombat of terrorism.  So, on this issue they cannot.