Interviewer (Mr. Karan Thapar): Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate and the first television interview with the new Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao.
Foreign Secretary, let us start with Pakistan. Two fidayeen attacks in Kashmir within 24 hours; rocket attacks at Attari and Poonch; frequent firing across the international border; and all of this within the space of a week. How do you view these developments?
Foreign Secretary (Shrimati Nirupama Rao): With great concern, Karan. Terrorism, and the whole phenomenon of cross-border terrorism, as it affects us today has not diminished in any manner. All the events you have seen over the last few days basically point to the basic and undeniable fact that the infrastructure of terrorism which operates out of Pakistan and territory under Pakistan control has not been dismantled and it continues to be directed against the Indian people. It affects ordinary people. Terrorism affects people like you and me.
Interviewer: The recent terrorist attack at Lal Chowk in Srinagar was clearly masterminded by handlers in Pakistan. Do you have any idea who they are? Are they the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen as the press suggests? Or could they be the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba who are responsible for 26/11 in Mumbai?
Foreign Secretary: All I would like to say, Karan, is that whichever group they may belong to they are essentially part of the same species. These are terrorism-spewing, violence-generating people who have an agenda, an agenda of violence and mayhem to pursue.
Interviewer: And these are clearly, therefore, people operating out of Pakistan.
Foreign Secretary: Obviously.
Interviewer: Do you believe that they have some form of assistance or support from the Pakistani establishment or state?
Foreign Secretary: Let me put it this way. I think the experience over the last two decades would make it very clear to us that this has been an instrument of state policy which has been pursued by agencies within Pakistan.
Interviewer: And that is clearly the case in what happened in Kashmir the other day as well.
Foreign Secretary: We have very little or no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Interviewer: The telephone intercepts have the Pakistani handlers making it absolutely clear that they are seeking to revive violence and militancy in Kashmir. This happened days after President Zardari committed his own Government to fulfilling his father-in-law Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s pledge for a thousand-year war to liberate Kashmir. Are the two linked?
Foreign Secretary: Militancy and violence in Kashmir is a longstanding phenomenon. We have seen it happen over and over again for many many years now. And this has been accompanied by rhetoric, rhetoric directed against India, all forms and means of propaganda that comes across from the Pakistan side. So, rhetoric, militancy and violence, together they make a very combustible combination.
Interviewer: And President Zardari’s rhetoric is a facilitating or encouraging factor behind the sort of terrorism we have witnessed.
Foreign Secretary: Let me say that rhetoric hardly helps the situation. It poisons peoples’ minds.
Interviewer: And clearly President Zardari’s rhetoric has been unhelpful, has been poisonous.
Foreign Secretary: Rhetoric is always unhelpful in situations such as these.
Interviewer: Many analysts believe that as President Obama’s Af-Pak strategy starts to put pressure on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the West, they will seek to deflect attention by carrying out terrorist attacks on India in the East. Is that now starting to happen?
Foreign Secretary: The Af-Pak strategy announced by President Obama in December, the details of it that is, is directed against terrorism in our region. It seeks to eliminate the sources of terrorism in Afghanistan. It is also focussed on the sources of terrorism which operate out of areas contiguous to Afghanistan. Having said that, I would also say that the United States has been sensitised to our concerns about terrorism that operates from areas contiguous to our border with Pakistan, against our people. And I believe the US is sensitive to these concerns.
Interviewer: Absolutely. But let us leave the US sensitivity aside. We can come to that later. Do you also think that as US pressure on the Taliban and Al Qaeda increases they might be tempted to deflect attention by carrying out terrorist attacks on India in the East?
Foreign Secretary: Karan, I would respond to that by saying that eternal vigilance is the price that we have to pay in all these situations, and we have to be constantly alert to this possibility.
Interviewer: Let us broaden our discussion a little. Amidst persistent political turmoil and relentless terror, how worried are you about the internal political situation in Pakistan?
Foreign Secretary: Terrorism and violence within Pakistan, and you have seen a rise in levels of both terrorism and violence within Pakistan, clearly reverberate beyond Pakistan’s borders. We have said over and over again that we would like a secure, a stable, a peaceful Pakistan. Obviously violence and terrorism in Pakistan and manifestations of what you referred to as instability, concern all of us.
Interviewer: So, as Pakistan begins to appear to collapse under its internal problems, India becomes threatened as well.
Foreign Secretary: I am not going to make any prognosis on that. That is really not a part of my brief. But, as I said, obviously we are close neighbours of Pakistan.
Interviewer: And we are affected.
Foreign Secretary: We would naturally be concerned about instability or rise in levels of terrorism and increased violence within that country.
Interviewer: In November in Washington the Prime Minister said I quote, “I do not know who to deal with in Pakistan”. This was in the interview he gave CNN. Does this mean that you do not believe that President Zardari’s civilian Government are the right people to talk to?
Foreign Secretary: We deal with the Government of Pakistan. Obviously we have a diplomatic relationship with Pakistan. We are in touch with representatives of the Pakistan Government. For whatever reason, over and over again we are in contact. There are issues, humanitarian issues that exist between the two countries. So, that relationship continues to be transacted. The levels of dialogue obviously are much diminished after the Mumbai attacks.
Interviewer: Before I come to the question of dialogue and the level of dialogue, how stable do you think President Zardari is?
Foreign Secretary: Again, I do not want to pronounce a judgment on the stability or otherwise of the leadership in Pakistan. We, as I said, would advocate and have advocated always the need for a stable, secure, a peaceful Pakistan because that helps the Pakistan people, it helps relations with India, it helps the neighbourhood.
Interviewer: The press, both in the West and in India, are beginning to speculate about possibility of another military takeover in Pakistan. Does the Government of India believe that that now looks more likely than it did, say, earlier on?
Foreign Secretary: Let me say that we consistently and closely monitor developments in Pakistan. It is our neighbour. It is a country that is next door to us. And as I said, events, developments in Pakistan are of relevance to the entire region. And obviously the growth of civil society, the strengthening of democratic institutions in Pakistan is good for our future.
Interviewer: So, clearly India would not favour a military takeover. You would not welcome one.
Foreign Secretary: Really, to speak out on Pakistan’s internal affairs I think would not be advisable.
Interviewer: On the other hand, the Pakistan High Commissioner in Delhi has said that it is unfortunate there is no dialogue between Delhi and Islamabad. Given that India at Sharm el-Sheikh committed itself to action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process, and secondly that dialogue is the only way forward, is there a possibility that in this New Year 2010 we could see the resumption of dialogue?
Foreign Secretary: Dialogue between India and Pakistan is obviously the way forward for normalisation of relations and to resolve outstanding issues between the two countries. We in India have never turned our back on dialogue with Pakistan. But let me also add that terrorism is a standalone phenomenon, and terrorism affects the climate of dialogue. It affects the progress of this dialogue. And when Pakistan refers to the need to resume Composite Dialogue, we say you have to create the right atmosphere for that dialogue to move forward.
Interviewer: Can I put this to you? How much credit do you give Islamabad for the fact that there has been no major terrorist attack or strike since 26/11?
Foreign Secretary: I think it is too early to give credit or otherwise to Pakistan for what has or has not happened. Terrorism directed against India continues from territory under Pakistan control and from Pakistan. Look at what has been happening in Srinagar over the last few weeks. Look at the incidents of infiltration that have gone up despite the fact that this is cold weather. In winter traditionally we have not had so many incidents of infiltration, but those continue. They clearly point to the continuation of efforts directed against our territory, directed in order to foment violence in Kashmir and terrorist incidents.
Interviewer: So, clearly Pakistan needs to do more before India is convinced that it is effectively responding to the terror India faces which emanates out of Pakistani soil.
Foreign Secretary: Karan, let me say Pakistan can do more.
Interviewer: And you are waiting for that before any talks resume.
Foreign Secretary: We wait and we hope Pakistan can do more.
Interviewer: What about the opinion expressed by some analysts that if India were to resume the dialogue process, it might strengthen Islamabad’s hand in delivering on terror?
Foreign Secretary: I know the school of thought and it I think has gained some currency in Pakistan in recent months. But let us look at it this way. Terrorism is not a tap you turn on and off because of the absence of or prevalence of dialogue. Dialogue does not flow from the barrel of the gun, Karan.
Interviewer: There is another problem which seems to be also occurring which is that the Indian Government’s refusal to talk seems to have hardened attitudes in Pakistan. The popular mood has turned to resentment. Some even say there is a simmering anger towards India. Does that worry you?
Foreign Secretary: It is a matter of concern that the people of Pakistan are being fed with slanted and biased accounts of what India’s attitude may be. India’s attitude is for dialogue and to promote a peaceful resolution of problems with Pakistan. But, Karan, for all of us who have grown up against the background of what has happened in this relationship, I think there is a sense of déjà vu. And I feel a sense of sadness also that people, ordinary people in Pakistan, are being misled by propaganda of this sort.
Interviewer: So, your position remains that we want further proof of Pakistan’s action on terror before the dialogue process resumes.
Foreign Secretary: As I said, Pakistan can do much more to deliver on this subject.
Interviewer: And must do much more.
Foreign Secretary: And must do much more.
Interviewer: Foreign Secretary, just take a break there. I want to come back and talk to you about Australia and briefly about the United States of America. That is in a moment’s time. See you after the break.
(Break)
Interviewer: Welcome back to Devil’s Advocate and an interview with the new Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao.
Foreign Secretary, let us start this part with the increasing spate of attacks on Indians in Australia. Are you satisfied with the response of the Australian Government?
Foreign Secretary: We have been in close touch with the Australian Government since these attacks began. And unfortunately there has been a spate of these attacks, violence directed against innocent and hapless, young Indians who have been the target of such violence. But the Australian Government has been sensitised to our concerns and we have impressed upon them that they need to do more to address the cause of this violence and to bring the perpetrators to book because you need to restore the climate of confidence and security among Indians living in Australia.
Interviewer: So, when you say you have impressed upon them the need to do more, that clearly suggests that they were not doing enough.
Foreign Secretary: I would say that the Australian Government has engaged with us closely in the wake of the attacks and there has been a continuing dialogue and communication. As you know, we have a good relationship with Australia. From the Australian side it is often defined as excellent, and we have shared that assessment. But we must not let these events cast a shadow on the relationship.
Interviewer: Let me quote to you the Indian Minister for Overseas Affairs Vayalar Ravi speaking on the 9th of this month. He says, “Why can’t they arrest them and put them behind bars and prosecute them? It is very unfortunate that things are not moving as they promised. It is very disturbing for all of us in the Government”. Clearly, Mr. Ravi feels that the Australians are not doing enough.
Foreign Secretary: I think there is legitimate concern and the Minister of Overseas Indian Affairs has expressed that legitimate sense of concern that we feel.
Interviewer: The MEA shares that concern?
Foreign Secretary: Obviously we share the concern in regard to a situation where our citizens are being attacked.
Interviewer: The Indian press are particularly concerned that the Australian Government is reluctant to accept that racism could be a substantive motive or cause behind these attacks. What is your assessment? What is the Government’s view? Is racism a factor?
Foreign Secretary: Let us look at the situation. You have had one community targeted. You have had persons belonging to one community targeted. And these attacks have kept occurring. There has been a certain pattern of these attacks. What the Australians tell us is that you could attribute this to urban violence, opportunistic violence, but that racism could also be an element in this. So, let us see. The investigations are going on. But we are concerned that it is just this one community that has been targeted.
Interviewer: Twice or thrice you have said that there is just one community that has been targeted and the attacks keep happening. Yet, your Ministry has advised the Indian press to exercise restraint. Do you believe that their coverage has been exaggerated or unbalanced?
Foreign Secretary: Let me say that the media feels the pulse of the people definitely and the people of India are concerned about the attacks that have happened in Australia. Having said that, I would also like to add that you have to place every reaction you make in the larger context. And there is a very large number of Indians who live in Australia, who have made Australia their home over the decades. And you must ensure that while you must report without fear or favour, your responses, your assessments have to be calibrated and measured to the extent possible.
Interviewer: In other words, the press should keep things in context.
Foreign Secretary: In context, yes.
Interviewer: Let us turn briefly to the United States of America. You mentioned America in Part-I. I want to pick up on something that you spoke about. As the Obama Administration’s Af-Pak strategy begins to work, now it is clear to everyone that its success is critically dependent upon the cooperation President Obama gets from Pakistan. Does that mean that there could be a time when President Obama becomes sensitive to Pakistan’s view that the terror India faces is linked to Kashmir? Does that possibility worry you?
Foreign Secretary: I am not worried about that because the United States is fully sensitised to our concerns on these issues. They consulted us closely in the run up to the Af-Pak strategy’s formulation and we continue to remain in close touch with our American interlocutors on this. America is well aware of India’s approach to these issues, our concerns about terrorism emanating from Pakistan, our desire to see a secure and stable Afghanistan; and that will involve tackling the sources of terrorism in our region. And America understands that Pakistan continues to provide safe haven to a number of terrorists operating in our region.
Interviewer: I suppose the key issue here is the following. Is President Obama looking to play a more assertive role in sorting out Kashmir and India would be willing to accept it?
Foreign Secretary: Karan, President Obama and the American Administration have told us over and over again that they have no desire to play a mediatory role on issues concerning India and Pakistan.
Interviewer: Even though he says different things in the letters he sends to President Zardari in November, just before his December Af-Pak speech; even though in his original Af-Pak speech of March he spoke about constructive diplomacy? Despite those contradictory statements or commitments, you still believe that he does not want to play a role?
Foreign Secretary: I do not believe there is contradiction here. The relationship between India and the United States is a strategic, global partnership. There is confidence, there is trust in this communication that India and the United States have. And the United States is well aware of our position on this.
Interviewer: My last question to you. Is there a danger that India and Pakistan could be re-hyphenated either because of the way the Obama Administration views South Asia or because of the way events are playing out?
Foreign Secretary: Karan, the logic of the relationship and the logic of the times defies your assessment. There is no question of this relationship being re-hyphenated, as you say. Our relationship with the United States is a mature relationship. It is one of the defining partnerships of the times as President Obama said so eloquently during our Prime Minister’s visit.
Interviewer: Foreign Secretary, a pleasure talking to you.
Foreign Secretary: Thank you so much.
(Concluded)
