'We'll Not Be Dragged To The Table'

It still took a long time coming...
I spoke of a new reality and this is now being realised by the international community - that India is an important country.

Isn’t this proximity by default? Because there is no democracy in Pakistan, the US is warm towards India?
Even if there was democracy in Pakistan, there is a new equation between India and the US. Its relations with India will be based on their assessment of the importance of India.

But wasn’t the euphoria all about the fact that Clinton engaged in some Pakistan-bashing?
That was not our euphoria, that was the media.

Did he make a specific request to Vajpayee to resume dialogue?
He said that in public as well. The PM made it clear India’s not been wanting in dialogue with Pakistan. But Pakistan can’t expect, or shouldn’t expect, that India will be dragged to the table through terrorism. And for any meaningful dialogue, cross-border terrorism has to end.

Is there a time-frame? For instance, if there are no incidents for one month, would you say cross-border terrorism has ceased and agree to a dialogue?
No time-frame but when this cross-border terrorism stops, we will know.

And if dialogue does resume, at what level will it be at?
Well, there was an agreement in Lahore on the dialogue process and that will be implemented as soon as the cross-border terrorism stops.

There is an editorial in the Pakistani paper Dawn saying Clinton came across as a well-wisher of the people of Pakistan.
Well, he said that he wishes the people of Pakistan well and that they should follow a certain course of action - not the people, but the establishment.

But Clinton’s respect-the-LoC stand is not new. He said so to Nawaz Sharif last July. So why’re we getting excited?
(Laughs) I’m not getting excited, you are. But it’s like this. The new message he gave Pakistan was that you can’t change borders with blood and if you follow this course of action, you’ll be isolated.

Is India going to withdraw Pakistan’s mfn status? Has there been pressure from the hardliners to this effect?
There’s no pressure from any side. We’ll take the decision when we have to, based on our own interests. But nothing at the moment.

Did we get a commitment on US support for a seat on the UN Security Council? Did we ask for such a commitment?
The question was raised, but there was no commitment.

Did Clinton indicate he’d altered his view of South Asia being the world’s most dangerous place?
What he was talking about was the imminence of conflict between India and Pakistan. Both the PM here and Gen Musharraf there have said that there is no danger of a war.

During their one-on-one talk, did the PM give Clinton any proof of Pakistan sponsoring terrorism here?
Oh, the US does not need any proof from us. They are fully aware of what is going on.

What were the issues raised?
Long-term relationship between India and the US, non-proliferation issues, the situation in South Asia.

Anything specific regarding Indo-China and Indo-Pak relations?
India’s relations with China weren’t discussed. There was a considerable amount of discussion on Pakistan. But not so much on Kashmir. On Indo-Pak relations and the situation in Pakistan. They talked about dialogue and what our view on dialogue was.

Can you sum up the visit vis-a-vis Indo-Pak relations?
I don’t look at the visit from the India-Pakistan point of view. I look at it from the view of (Indo-US) long-term relations and cooperation in various fields. The point I am trying to make is that as the importance of Indo-American relations grows, it’s bound to have an effect on other situations as well.

It could have an adverse effect as well. It could push Pakistan more against the wall...
As it is, Pakistan is doing everything it can itself to be pushed to the wall. We don’t have to do anything. Look at this massacre of Sikhs in Anantnag. How stupid can one get?

But won’t the hard line taken by the US lead to an escalation of violence?
We are quite capable of dealing with the escalation.