Interview of Foreign Secretary by Mr. Karan Thapar

08/08/2010

Interviewer (Mr. Karan Thapar): Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. After WikiLeaks and David Headley, where do India-Pakistan relations stand? That is one of the subjects I shall discuss today in this exclusive interview with the Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao.

Foreign Secretary, let us start with Pakistan. Now that we have proof from WikiLeaks and Headley that the Pakistani state is directly and irrefutably involved in instigating and funding terror against India, what is the justification for continuing dialogue with that country?

Foreign Secretary (Shrimati Nirupama Rao): I think the justification for dialogue is by no means diminished despite these revelations. I believe that dialogue is the most effective means to tackle outstanding issues with Pakistan, and the abandonment of dialogue or the interruption of dialogue, by no means serves the interests that we seek to pursue in getting Pakistan to stop its pursuit of terrorism against India. In other words, dialogue is the most intelligent means of addressing points of contention.

Interviewer: But if any dialogue is to be meaningful, surely you would agree that it has to be predicated on the fact that Pakistan accepts what it has been doing and, more importantly, promises not to do it again. That is missing in this case.

Foreign Secretary: Pakistan has from time to time made this commitment to us that it will not permit the pursuit and the encouragement of terrorism by groups on its soil or territory under its control. I think over the last few occasions that we have had the opportunity to raise these issues with Pakistan, it has been made very clear to them and very emphatically to them that the atmosphere for the pursuit of this dialogue will never be really conducive until and unless they stop the pursuit of terrorism against India. So, dialogue has served the purpose of putting across our deepest concerns to Pakistan.

Interviewer: But dialogue has not got you a cessation of terrorist activity from Pakistan. Dialogue has not even got Pakistan to accept that their state, in the shape and form of the ISI, is directly involved. Without that acceptance, aren’t you in a sense knocking on a closed door?

Foreign Secretary: To some degree there is an acknowledgement by Pakistan that the pursuit of terrorism directed against India is going to be negative; it is going to have a negative impact on the relationship. To that extent I think there is some degree of acknowledgement. Now let us take the Mumbai trials. We have had Pakistan acknowledge that the masterminds and the handlers of this attack came from Pakistan. And we have engaged with Pakistan over the last one year in the exchange of evidence and information relating to the Mumbai terror attacks. So, obviously the channels of communication that have remained open with Pakistan have served that purpose.

Interviewer: Except that, has Pakistan come close to acknowledging that members of the state and the establishment, the ISI in particular as both David Headley has confirmed and WikiLeaks have confirmed, have been directly involved in instigating terror against India? Has that critical acceptance come?

Foreign Secretary: We are still away from that critical acceptance, I would acknowledge that. But the fact is, now look at the international community, look at the international response to the role of agencies connected with the Pakistan state in the pursuit and encouragement of terrorism directed against India, directed against Afghanistan. Today we are no longer like Cassandras talking about terrorism emanating from Pakistan. There is a widespread groundswell of belief and conviction in the stand that we have taken and the acknowledgement by the international community that we are taking the right position.

Interviewer: And David Cameron’s statement in a sense underlines that.

Foreign Secretary: Absolutely.

Interviewer: I will come to that in a moment’s time. Let me bring up first a second major revelation that has been exposed by WikiLeaks, the fact that the Pakistani ISI has been involved in instigating terror against India in Afghanistan when General Kayani was head of the ISI. Today the same General Kayani is the Army Chief of Pakistan and he is going to continue in that post till at least 2013. How do you view General Kayani?

Foreign Secretary: I am not going to comment on personalities, and I am not here to give you a kind of assessment of how we see General Kayani. But let me say that the role of official agencies from Pakistan in promoting terrorism against India is something we have been speaking of and drawing attention to for a long time now. It is not just that the WikiLeaks have come up with that revelation. It has been known to us for a long time. And we have said all along that the acts of premeditated violence against our nationals in Afghanistan are completely unacceptable to us.

Interviewer: What about this? Many people in Pakistan and in India believe that General Kayani is inimical to this country. He has himself gone on record to say that under him the Pakistan Army will be India-centric. Does the Indian Foreign Office share that assessment?

Foreign Secretary: We have sixty years of a troubled relationship with Pakistan. And I think we understand and we know that country better perhaps than any other country in the world. So, we see through the glass darkly no doubt about the state of Pakistan and the conditions in which this relationship is operating at the moment. So, to that extent we understand the role of Pakistani state agencies in promoting terrorism against India.

Interviewer: So, there is nothing about General Kayani that you do not understand; it is just that you may not want to say it publicly.

Foreign Secretary: I think we understand the nature of these institutions and the personalities behind them very clearly.

Interviewer: On the other hand he is also far and away the most important person in Pakistan. Is there a need for India to try and establish some direct line of contact with him?

Foreign Secretary: I have been asked that question on a number of occasions. My answer to that is that we have dealt and we continue to deal with and we will continue to deal with the civilian democratic government in Pakistan, the elected representatives of the people there, and the civilian officials concerned. That is the interface that we have adopted.

Interviewer: But you won’t side by side seek to open some line of contact to the military leadership or Kayani in particular?

Foreign Secretary: I am not prepared to talk about that at the moment. But let me say that the interface as it exists is with the civilian government.

Interviewer: The hint you are giving is that there could be some attempt to broaden our contact with the Pakistani military, but it is not advisable to talk about it.

Foreign Secretary: I am not giving you any hints to that effect.

Interviewer: Let us widen our discussion. Given the nature of leaks that we have had both from WikiLeaks and from David Headley, is it still sensible for India to rely on America to curb Pakistan?

Foreign Secretary: I think the strategic partnership with the United States of America is of undoubted importance, there are no two opinions about that, and the cooperation that we have engaged in with the United States in a number of sectors including counterterrorism is being taken forward. But having said that, we are not dependent on any third country when it comes to transacting relations with Pakistan. We deal directly with Pakistan, and bilateral issues are taken up bilaterally with that country.

Interviewer: You mentioned the strategic relationship. Many people feel that in fact the Headley revelations and WikiLeaks show that the credibility of America as a strategic partner might be under some sort of question today. Has America kept India informed? Did they do everything they could to curb the terror? Or were they aware of things that they did not share and did not respond to?

Foreign Secretary: I think the manner in which we have been to take this dialogue forward with the United States, the kind of cooperation that we have engaged in in counterterrorism has been to mutual benefit. There is no doubt about that.

Interviewer: Let us then talk about the developing situation in Afghanistan. Many analysts believe that as the situation becomes increasingly adverse for America, the Obama Administration sees Pakistan as the key to the solution. Do you share the view that Obama’s increasing dependence on Islamabad will give Pakistan an influence and leverage to work out or at least determine the final outcome in Afghanistan?

Foreign Secretary: I do not believe you can paint those colours in a zero sum way as far as Afghanistan is concerned. Firstly, Afghanistan is a fiercely independent country. And the take away we have had from meetings with the Afghan leadership in the recent past is that they are zealous about guarding that independence and in ensuring that the progress that they have made in Afghanistan over the last nine years is not eroded in any manner.

Interviewer: Does this mean that they will check Pakistani influence themselves?

Foreign Secretary: I believe that the international community has to stay committed in Afghanistan for some more time. They are dealing with the war against terror there. That war has to be fought, it has to be won. So, I believe that there is a commitment here that the international community has to reinforce.

Interviewer: I will tell you why I asked this question. Karzai famously has referred to Pakistan as a conjoined twin. Pakistan protects, promotes the Afghan Taliban and is today involved in trying to facilitate talks between the Haqqani and the Hekmatyar groups and the Karzai government. How does the Indian Government view the possibility of Haqqani and Hekmatyar playing a role in a future Afghan Government?

Foreign Secretary: I think here again you are jumping to conclusions before things have happened. The red lines that were drawn at the London Conference on Afghanistan earlier this year are the red lines that the Afghan Government intends to adhere to and abide by. This has been said to us on a number of occasions. Now the fact is that you have groups within the Afghan Taliban that are obviously close to Pakistan, that promote terrorism, that espouse radical ideologies. And I do not believe, given the approach of the Afghan Government to adhering by those red lines that this reality or this possible conclusion that you referred to is really going to come about.

Interviewer: Except for the fact that the Afghan Government has itself been holding, albeit surreptitiously but not by any means secretly, talks with Haqqani group and Hekmatyar group representatives?

Foreign Secretary: I put it this way. I think that the situation in Afghanistan, given the operation of so many groups there, is complex. But let me say once again that this is a fiercely independent country that you are dealing with and a leadership that is fiercely independent, and is not going to, I believe compromise its basic interest in ensuring a strong, a stable and united Afghanistan, which is not going to be bedeviled by the threat of terrorism.

Interviewer: Now as you know, Foreign Secretary, Pakistan has long wanted what it called strategic depth in Afghanistan. Many people believe that America today, perhaps out of a certain sense of desperation, is coming close to accepting Pakistan’s primacy in Afghanistan. And if that happens, that would be granting strategic depth. If that strategic depth were granted, what would it mean for India? Help us understand what it would mean?

Foreign Secretary: First of all let me tell you that the so-called strategic depth that you referred to is not a theory espoused by anybody in the international community. There may be some analysts in Pakistan, some people in Pakistan.

Interviewer: General Kayani talks about it.

Foreign Secretary: They may talk about it but I am talking about the reality. You are talking about an independent country; you are talking about a leadership in Afghanistan that is committed to fight terrorism, that is committed to maintain its independence. And I think that leadership needs to be helped in that regard.

Interviewer: You don’t believe that this talk of conjoined twinship, which was Karzai’s phrase, and at that same time he only referred to India as a friend not a twin, suggests that there is in fact a movement taking place, one that perhaps India may be a little ware of? You don’t share that?

Foreign Secretary: I will be very alert obviously to what happens in Afghanistan. It is a neighbor; we have interests there; we have had interests there for a very long time that predate the present situation there. So, let me say that being friends as we are with Afghanistan - and this is a very deep friendship, it is a friendship that is cemented by bonds between people not just between governments - we are confident about our profile in Afghanistan and the fact that our interests will be well recognized by the international community. And this is increasingly evident in the dialogue that we have with our key partners.

Interviewer: One last question before I take a break. How do you view the stepped up military relationship between America and Pakistan? And if you have concerns, have you shared them with Washington? And what response have you got?

Foreign Secretary: We have shared our concerns with Washington. We have said all along that Pakistan cannot be given a blank cheque in such matters; and any assistance that is extended to Pakistan ostensibly for counter-insurgency and counterterrorism operations could very well be used against India as the history of the last sixty years goes.

Interviewer: And what did the Washington say?

Foreign Secretary: Washington is very attentive to our concerns. We have continued our dialogue on this issue. We are engaged in a constant communication with the United States on these issues. And I believe that the United States is increasingly aware, and alert, and attentive to these concerns

Interviewer: Except that arming Pakistan continues as a policy.

Foreign Secretary: Well there is a situation now in Afghanistan and there is the involvement of the United States in that situation, and Pakistan is involved in that entire operation. So, there is a certain context now in which all this is placed. But nonetheless, our concerns about it have been articulated very clearly to the Americans.

Interviewer: Sounds that we have to grit our teeth a little about things we do not like.

Let us take a break at that point. I want to come back and talk to you about the other critical relationship that you handle – India and China. We will be back in a moment’s time. See you after the break.

(After the Break)

Interviewer: Welcome back to Devil’s Advocate and an exclusive interview with the Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao.

Foreign Secretary, let us come to China. On the one hand China is India’s single biggest trading partner and the two countries hope to hit the 60 billion dollar target this year. On the other hand, China supports Pakistan over Kashmir. It bends laws to sell nuclear plants to Islamabad whilst it questions India’s sovereignty over Arunachal Pradesh and seems to go out of its way to check our emergence as a leading power. How do you as Foreign Secretary view China?

Foreign Secretary: Let me tell you how I view the relationship. I think that is relevant to the question you have asked me. It is a complex relationship there is no doubt about it. But having said that and especially since we celebrate the 60th anniversary of our diplomatic relations this year, let me say the approach as we move forward is to ensure – and this is a point of view which is shared by the Chinese Government – mutual sensitivity to each other’s core concerns, as well as to seek broader convergence on many global issues. So, this is the trajectory along which the relationship is developing.

Interviewer: But are they really sensitive to India’s concerns, particularly Kashmir, particularly the arming of Pakistan, particularly the supply or proliferation of nuclear material to Pakistan? Are they sensitive?

Foreign Secretary: That is exactly the context I referred to when I spoke of the complexity in the relationship. And that is what dialogue, intelligently transacted dialogue, enable you to do when you seek more responsiveness from the other side about your concerns, this is exactly so that we are able to place these issues in context and to seek the other side’s focus on this issue and greater responsiveness and sensitivity to these issues.

Interviewer: The former National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra has gone on record to say that he fears Islamabad and Beijing may be joining forces. And if that happens, he thinks India will end up with hostile neighbours both in the North and the West. To what extent do you share that concern?

Foreign Secretary: I know that there is a lot of analyses on the various scenarios that could be applied to the India-China relationship. But here in officialdom we deal with realities. And let me tell you the reality of the situation is that the border between India and China has been peaceful for the last few decades and the effort from both sides is to ensure that the mechanisms that we have put in place for confidence-building and for the maintenance of peace and tranquility work well, and there is constant communication between the two sides.

Interviewer: So, are you saying that the fear or the …

Foreign Secretary: But let me add that this does not mean that we are not vigilant about or alert to situations where our security could be affected.

Interviewer: So, you are aware of the possibility of what in loose language I might call a ganging up between Islamabad and Beijing. You do not turn a blind eye to it.

Foreign Secretary: We take all these factors into account.

Interviewer: China today, in fact just ten days ago, became the world’s second largest economy. Does India have any apprehensions or concerns about China’s emergence as possibly the second most powerful country in the world?

Foreign Secretary: I think you and I belong to a generation that has been witness to the rise of China, the growth in its economic power, its power projection capabilities. We have been witness to all that. And at the same time the world is increasingly alert to the rise of India, the potential of India, the rapid economic growth of India, the potential in other words …

Interviewer: But the gap between the two is growing, it is not narrowing.

Foreign Secretary: I believe what that points to, Karan, is the fact that this relationship, the relationship between India and China, is going to be the big story of the 21st century.

Interviewer: A story that will be in India’s interest or a story which will make India wary and perhaps a little apprehensive?

Foreign Secretary: A story based on dialogue, as I said, which we intend to conduct intelligently and which we intend to conduct with confidence so that our concerns are protected always.

Interviewer: Is China dialoguing with India openly, or are they doing it behind screens?

Foreign Secretary: I think there is a multisectoral dialogue with China on the bilateral front and if you look at the global multilateral front, there are increasing areas of convergence. I referred to that. And so this is really, as I said, the trajectory along which we hope the dialogue develops.

Interviewer: Foreign Secretary, a pleasure talking to you.

Foreign Secretary: Thank you so much.

(Concluded)

New Delhi
August 8, 2010

Home