A Question of Answers: No pressure on India to talk - Rasgotra

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee triggered off feverish speculation when he declared during his visit to Jammu and Kashmir last week that India wants to extend the hand of friendship to Pakistan, and is open to the idea of holding talks on all issues, including Jammu and Kashmir.

Of course, Vajpayee modified his statement to say that Pakistan's ending support for cross-border terrorism is a necessary condition. But the clarification has failed to scotch media speculation that the U.S. is now ready to focus attention on South Asia, and that Washington is pressurising India and Pakistan to resume dialogue.

One man who does not think much of all this is former foreign secretary Maharaj Kumar Rasgotra, who served during Indira Gandhi's second term, and who had drafted along with other foreign secretaries of South Asia the charter of the now dormant South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc).

In an interview with Gulf News, the silver-haired Rasgotra pronounced his commonsensical views on India-Pakistan relations. He says there is nothing radically new in Vajpayee's offer to talk. He is convinced that India-Pakistan talks will lead nowhere until Pakistan "ends its support for terror".

Excerpts from the interview:

Prime Minister Vajpayee's offer of talks with Pakistan has generated a lot of media reponse. What is your initial reaction to it?
My initial response is that there is nothing new in what Vajpayee has said. He has been saying this a number of times. The only difference this time is that he has made this statement in Jammu and Kashmir. But the media is reading too much into it. India-Pakistan talks will lead nowhere until Pakistan ends support for cross-border terrorism. India would be making a mistake if it were to talk before Pakistan controls terrorism. Because then the talks will have to be about terrorism. I do not think there should be any negotiations on terrorism as such.

Do you agree that there is American pressure on both countries to talk to each other?
Yes. The Americans want the India-Pakistan dialogue to be resumed. I would not interpret it as pressure. It can be termed "pressure" if India is weak and feels so. I do not think India is weak, and I do not think there is any pressure on India.

Do you feel that given the new reality of American dominance, India will have to pay much greater attention to what the Americans say?
India and the U.S. have certainly moved closer in recent times, especially since President Clinton's visit to India in March 2000. The U.S. is keen on establishing strategic relations with India. The Indians and Americans are talking to each other more closely, and they are also listening to each other.

Your views on Pakistan..
Pakistan claims to be a modern, democratic, progressive, Islamic state, and the world wants Pakistan to be that. But right now I find that Pakistan is neither modern, nor progressive, nor democratic, not even wholly Islamic...

What did you make of Minister of External Affairs Yashwant Sinha's recent statement about the case for a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan?
Sinha has an intelligent mind, and his statement should be seen in the context of the dialectic of India-Pakistan statements. What he meant was that if Pakistan continues to support terrorist organisations, then Pakistan is likely to face action. It was more in the nature of a warning. My personal view, however, is that it is better to be reserved on issues relating to security. If you mean to take action, then it is not proper to make a declaration about it. If you declare, and you do not follow it up with action, then you lose credibility. I do realise that foreign ministers are forced to engage in public diplomacy through media statements, forum diplomacy through speeches.

Do you think that there is any scope for the revival of Saarc?
I have been saying for the last three years that Saarc is dead, and it has offended many people.