|
 |
Q&A WITH ZAIN VERJEE
India's Perspective on Conflict With Pakistan
Aired December 27, 2001 - 11:30:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE, INDIAN PRIME MINISTER: This time, the war should one that settles the issue of terrorism once and for all.
ZAIN VERJEE, HOST (voice-over): The rhetoric between India and Pakistan rises.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sure the Indians do know that we have the capacity to react or retaliate in all conceivable ways.
VERJEE: Both sides say they don't want war, but their actions are taking them dangerously close to just that. Missiles, troops, jets, all moving to the border. There are serious global concerns.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Combat has a way of getting out control. It's quite possible that if there is a conflict, if the artillery and rifle exchanges escalate into something more serious, that miscalculations or misunderstandings or accidents could happen.
VERJEE: On Q&A: drastic actions. We get the Indian perspective.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VERJEE (on camera): Welcome to Q&A. I'm Zain Verjee.
Within the last 24 hours, India has enforced diplomatic sanctions on Pakistan. For more information and a discussion of that, let's go to Brahma Chellaney, a professor with the Centre of Policy Research. He's a former International Security Council adviser as well.
Mr. Chellaney, why did India feel it was necessary to take these measures? And can you also describe exactly what measures they took?
BRAHMA CHELLANEY, PROFESSOR, CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH: Well, these measures are small field actions that India is taking against Pakistan to drive home a clear message to Pakistan that it needs to crack down on these terror groups that are part and parcel of its military establishment. And these measures are designed to avert war. These are a mere message to Pakistan that if nonmilitary measures do not work, India is ready to apply force.
VERJEE: But, for instance, things like saying, we refuse to talk to Pakistan, it's not practical. It's not possible; closing air space by January the 1st, all Pakistani airliners, downgrading the number of embassy staff in both countries. I mean, isn't this the time where diplomatic channels should be opened and not shut?
CHELLANEY: Zain, the diplomatic channels are open. The embassies of the two countries have not been shut. The Indian Embassy in Islamabad and the Pakistan Embassy in Delhi are open. All lines of communication are open. The lines of communication between the two militaries are open...
VERJEE: But, just one thing today, just one (UNINTELLIGIBLE) said that we're not going to talk if it's not, quote, "practical or possible." What does that tell you?
CHELLANEY: The foreign minister was referring to political dialogue. And, Zain, I think you have to bear in mind that what happened on December 13 was worse than what happened on September 11 because on December 13, India's most important institution, the parliament, was attacked. It was an attempt to wipe out the Indian political leadership and all of India's MPs, members of parliament. It was just luck that saved India's top political class. This was the equivalent of an attack on the U.S. Congress and the White House together. How would the U.S. have reacted to such an attack?
So the Indians are really trying to deal with this crisis at the moment with nonmilitary measures. They have adopted a graduated approach, step at a time, applying diplomatic, economic and political pressure, hoping the Pakistan military, which nurtures and directs these terror clubs, would sever its links with these clubs.
VERJEE: But rather than applying pressure to Pakistan at this point, why don't -- why doesn't India perhaps be more patient and give President Musharraf the breathing space to take some time and consider what needs to be done? Why enforce that pressure right now?
CHELLANEY: India has been extraordinarily patient. I don't think any country has been so patient, so stoically bearing with cross-border terrorism. It invited Musharraf to India in July for peace talks. But he came and hijacked the summit. He went back and did not rein in the terror groups. Rather, he encouraged further terror against India. There was a major attack on October 1 against the legislature of Indian Kashmir.
At that point, the Indian prime minister drew a line in the sand. He said, there will be no further Indian restraint if there was another major attack. That line in the sand was crossed very clearly and dramatically on December 13. And now the Indian public -- and you can see the opinion polls in this country, 80 percent and more Indians want India to take action, including military action against Pakistan.
So pressure is building on the government. This is a democracy, the world's largest. And you can't expect the government just to sit back and bear with Pakistani-sponsored terrorism.
VERJEE: On another note here, Brahma, there's a SAR (ph) meeting next week, a summit in Nepal. Do you think it's at all possible that Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf will meet? And do you get the sense that Prime Minister Vajpayee would be willing to meet?
CHELLANEY: The SAR meeting, we are told, is on. And Prime Minister Vajpayee is likely to go there. I'm sure that he will be seeing President Musharraf at the SAR summit, but the Indians have ruled out any kind of dialogue on the sidelines. And also, it has been conveyed very clearly that the national mood here does not allow Prime Minister Vajpayee to be seen publicly shaking hands with Musharraf or holding talks with him.
VERJEE: Brahma Chellaney, a professor with the Centre for Policy Research, thank you for speaking to us on Q&A.
Let's go now to Pakistan and to CNN's Islamabad's Bureau Chief, Ash- Har Quraishi .
Ash-Har, tit-for-tat response in Pakistan today?
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
ASH-HAR QURAISHI, ISLAMBAD BUREAU CHIEF: Absolutely, Zain. What we're hearing for the Pakistan government is that they regret this decision by India. They say they're disappointed, pointing to the fact that they think that there will be more tension as a result of what India is calling minimal diplomatic sanctions.
Now, their response is going to be absolutely the same. They're going to reduce the staff. They're going to ask that Delhi to reduce the staff of its embassy here in Islamabad, that those diplomats will be restricted to the city of Islamabad and that they will also end over-flight rights to India.
VERJEE: Ash-Har, from whom you've spoken to, do you get the sense that Pakistan is really committed to cracking down on these two military groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed?
QURAISHI: Well, analysts we've spoken to and government officials, as well, have pointed to the same thing over and over again. They say that if, in fact, India provides evidence to Pakistan, Pakistan has no choice. I mean, they've taken an active role in the U.S.-led coalition against terror. So they would have no choice but to act on the indications that India gives them.
VERJEE: What kind of dilemma does this put Pervez Musharraf in?
QURAISHI: Well, he's still, you know, dealing with the backlash that he's gotten from the religious radicals here in the country. You know, he did what most people consider a bold thing by turning on a once friend, the Taliban, to support this coalition. So at this point, he has to garner support. I mean, the masses here, most of them believe in this, what's called the freedom struggle in Kashmir. So he's walking a fine line here, with satisfying the U.S. coalition on terror as well as satisfying the people, here, who believe that Kashmir -- the freedom fighters in Kashmir are doing the right thing.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
VERJEE (on camera): Thanks, Ash-Har. Ash-Har Quraishi, our Islamabad's Bureau Chief speaking to us. Thank you.
India's diplomatic sanctions against Pakistan and the military buildup on both sides has raised major concerns for the international community, especially the Americans.
More on that with Q&A in just a moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Ever since there has been a talk of war, people are coming in in large numbers to buy gas.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Now there is going to be war. I want to buy rice and other essentials.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (through translator): The government of Pakistan and the people of Kashmir, we know how to fight India. We know it very well.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): For the last few months, things have escalated to a peak. India has brought their military to the border and it has equipped its army well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VERJEE: Welcome back.
Diplomatic sanctions, military escalation and a refusal to talk, hardly an environment that will de-escalate tensions between India and Pakistan.
Joining us now in New Delhi is Suresh Prabhu. He's a member of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's cabinet.
Mr. Prabhu, how close are India and Pakistan to war?
SURESH PRABHU, INDIAN CABINET MINISTER: Sorry?
VERJEE: How close are India and Pakistan...
PRABHU: What Pakistan has done -- you know, basically, in the last few days, India has been expecting some positive response from Pakistan in the light of attack that was made on the parliament building in which there was a serious conspiracy to eliminate the entire top leadership of the country and to dethrone the entire government in the country. And that attempt was foiled by security forces. And thereafter, we have been expecting some positive action from Pakistan to nab the terrorists, to disband the terrorist organization, to make sure that Pakistan soil is not used to launch attacks on India from time to time. But unfortunately, Pakistan has not reacted at all, not reacted positively at all.
VERJEE: Pakistan will perhaps come to that and say, well, hang on a minute. We have taken positive action. We've frozen the assets, they would say, of Lashkar-e-Taiba. They've detained the leader of Jaish-e- Mohammed, Maulana Masood Azhar. Can't you construe those as being positive steps, positive actions?
PRABHU: No, in fact, there is no actions at all and these have just been a whitewash. Pakistan has been doing this for the last several years now, and its their soil has been used to launch attacks on India for the last 35 years. India has been extremely patient.
And India has been expecting that, you know, there's no longer just the talk that is required. We must really walk the talk. We must ensure that there is a concrete action which is taken on the ground so that no such attacks could be launched on India in future. And there are no real reasons for doing this.
In fact, there have been evidence that India has really (UNINTELLIGIBLE) like this, despite such provocations for Pakistan. And now its patience of India which is really waning away and that now is the time that India feels that some concrete action from Pakistan is required and these are just cosmetic actions. It means nothing, actually.
VERJEE: You want Pakistan to take concrete action. But why is India refusing to hand over concrete evidence that Pakistan wants?
PRABHU: Well, you know, such issues that concrete evidence is available -- Indian parliament was attacked, but Pakistan's response was that this is the handiwork of Indian security agencies. When Pakistan is trying to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the reality that Indian parliament was attacked, saying there was a plot to...
VERJEE: But you can't just say that and point a finger without showing proof. You need hard proof. You can't just point the finger.
PRABHU: But there is more than evidence. There is more than concrete evidence available. When you are seeing that this attackers and their conspirators and their arbiters have admitted that these attacks were launched by the organizations who are based in Pakistan. And Pakistan has admitted that these people are living in Pakistan and they've been directing action.
If Pakistan feels that they are not an organization, then why Pakistan has taken action against these organizations? So, obviously, Pakistan itself is convinced that these are organizations who have been running (ph) into this. If there was no evidence required, then why did Pakistan decide to ban these organizations? And this organization that played a role in this -- attacking parliament. That is proof. If these organizations, they've been backed by Pakistan, if Pakistan feels that these organizations had nothing to do with this, why these organizations -- when they were in prison? Why has the U.S. decided to ban these organizations and put them on the high terrorist list? And when there is a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) campaign which is going on in -- all the countries they joined, the world opinion is feeling that all the forms of terrorism must be eliminated and Pakistan is a beneficiary of this campaign by getting money, why is not Pakistan taking demonstrative action to prove that when it comes to international terrorism, India cannot be the country which can always be subjected to terrorism when other countries just talk about it.
VERJEE: All right. If I just may, the sanctions that India is imposing on Pakistan, the military buildup, some really saying, sir, that this is just a tactical ploy by Prime Minister Vajpayee, by the Indian government to get support from a voting -- a constituency in Uto Podesh (ph). State elections are coming up next month and you need the votes and this is just one way of getting them.
PRABHU: You know, this is all ridiculous propaganda. The government of India is interested in India's security, sovreignity and internal security of the people. And they're not interested in just this. Elections come, elections go. India is the only country which regularly holds election, not only for the parliament, but for the regular assemblies. Different parties have come to power and we accepted it with all the dignity and honor that is required to go with it.
So this is not that somebody should really try to gather (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in those countries who have never practiced (ph) democracy, a real democracy. In India, there is a grassroot democracy which is functioning for the last 55 years. And this democracy has produced different leaders, different parties. And (UNINTELLIGIBLE) different parties and those parties now are in opposition. The entire Indian parliament has -- it is all unanimously that we must fight terrorism. So that has nothing to do with the elections that are taking place in one small state of the country. And these elections come and go.
And we are seeing that...
VERJEE: But they are very important elections for Prime Minister Vajpayee.
(CROSSTALK)
PRABHU: Yes, but Prime Minister Vajpayee and for all Indians what's more important than these elections are the sovreignity the country and the security of the people of India. We don't want any single innocent person to be killed by such terror organizations who are operation from the soil of Pakistan. We don't want that to happen.
VERJEE: But it's clear that the actions that India has taken today, the tit-for-tat reaction by Pakistan to have the sanctions that India is imposing is just going to ratchet up the tensions here. Why is India refusing and, quote, saying it's not possible or practical to have talks or to dialogue with Pakistan at this point? Wouldn't that be a way to salvage the situation?
PRABHU: You know, when do we have a dialogue? You need a dialogue to understand each other. You need a dialogue to put across your viewpoint. This is not something which, now, Pakistan doesn't already (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and it is not that Pakistan's language of this type of terrorism is sponsored by -- is not going to India.
So what is important now? What is important now is not a dialogue but action. You need dialogue to understand each other. But since we understood each other's positions, we know exactly why other party is doing this. If other party really wants to continue with this and want to keep on doing something and keep on sponsoring such an abetting and making terrorist attacks from different parts -- in different parts of the country, what exactly the dialogue is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). What is important if you want to dialogue, then you must first create a conducive atmosphere. Plus, make sure that all terrorist organizations are totally disbanded, hand over all the terrorists to India so that they can be tried in India. India's legal system will take care of their crimes. But this is something which is not done. And we are just trying to hoodwink the people by saying that we would like to continue dialogue. Dialogue for what? Is it the dialogue that is going to bring back lives of the people who died in this past year...
(CROSSTALK)
VERJEE: So you are saying that, at this point, you are not going to talk or hold a dialogue. Does that mean we can effectively rule out that Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf will meet and talk on the sidelines at the SAR (ph) summit in Nepal next week?
PRABHU: Well, this all now the issues -- the ball is in the court of Pakistan. Pakistan must prove decisively, concrete actions are required. Pakistan is interested to have peace...
(CROSSTALK)
VERJEE: Is there going to be a meeting at SAR or not? That's my question. At SAR, in Nepal, will they meet or not?
PRABHU: What's important is that this meeting will take place in an order of time. Mr. Vajpayee will decide what's more important is, if Pakistan is interested to have a dialogue with India. Before all these issues are really resolved by dialogue, must -- concrete action must be initiated on ground (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the rest of the world that Pakistan really means what it is talking about. Otherwise, talking things -- I mean, I invited President Musharraf to visit India and that really didn't do anything for symbolism because the intentions are really have to be very clear. India has always believed in real, enduring peace, not only in region, but in the rest of the world. And India has been so patient, has accepted so many attacks on India and still kept quiet. But now, there is a patience of India, also is something which cannot be expected to last for indefinite period.
VERJEE: Suresh Prabhu, thanks for speaking to us on Q&A. Good to have you with us.
Let's go to London, now, and to Alexander Evans with the Center for Defense Studies at Kings College. Alexander, what do you make of the latest developments of diplomatic sanctions, or reaction by Pakistan? What do you think?
ALEXANDER EVANS, KINGS COLLEGE: Well, I think it's very worrying. Both countries are plunging into a crisis-like situation. India, potentially, seems to be painting itself into a corner in which it is going to be very difficult to extract itself without significant Pakistani concessions. General Musharraf has already made some significant concessions against certain Kashmir militant groups. It's unclear whether he can readily make more concessions, but certainly enough concessions to please Indian Cabinet Ministers like the member we just heard.
VERJEE: One of the center points of the arguments, here, appears to be the issue of evidence that Pakistan was responsible for the December 13 attack in New Delhi. Do you think that India has a point by saying we don't need to hand over that evidence because this is evidence enough for what happened. And when we interrogate the people, they pretty much confessed and admitted it.
Do you think it's enough for them to say that and everyone says, OK?
EVANS: Well, it's one thing to establish lateral connections between militants fighting in Kashmir and, indeed, militants connected within the Parliament attack and Pakistani government forces. Many militants, for example, have training camps run by the ISI. It's another thing to turn a lateral connection, established by, for example, interrogation transcripts into an actual piece of evidence that confirms a Pakistani government hand in the India Parliament attack.
And certainly, we have seen no data yet, but it's that firm connection, a firm enough connection, perhaps, to justify Indian actions like the actions we've seeing over the past couple of days.
VERJEE: How tenuous, then, do you think Pervez Musharraf's position is right now with pressures coming from the United States, from India to act so -- satisfy his own constituency?
EVANS: Well, ironically, India, by pushing Musharraf as far as it possibly can, makes his own position in Pakistan far weaker. He's already taken far more steps than most independent analysts would assume, vis-a-vis the Kashmir militant groups. He's taken firm steps against Lashkar-e- Taiba. He's taken firm steps against Jaish-e-Mohammed. But for sure, we don't know yet how those steps will translate into practice over the days and weeks to come.
But the point is this, we do need days and weeks before we can see what effect Pakistani Musharraf will have. India wants change in a matter of hours, or days. And this kind of crisis situation will call for rapid response from Pakistan are not conducive to effective diplomacy, or effective confidence building between India and Pakistan.
VERJEE: And about the United States, U.S. is in a precarious situation. The United States needs Pakistan in fighting its war on terror and, at the same time, it's siding with India and telling Pakistan, back down on these militant groups. What do you make of that strange situation?
EVANS: Well, certainly, the United States has a difficult role to play, a balancing role if you like in South Asia. It certainly wants to ratchet down the tension and America has done, so far, what it can. It's certainly been talking very actively to both sides.
It also needs Pakistan on its side. And it also recognizes that the Indian case being made, that we have been the victims of terrorism, but we need, like the United States, have the right to response in kind. It's a very difficult case for the United States to answer.
So immediately after the Afghan war, it really is a very difficult situation. But we face a danger if we're just focusing on India and Pakistan. For sure, those two countries need to talk and cool down. But what happens if there's another militant attack? What happens if there's another, beyond the control of the Islamabad Delhi that could turn this crisis into even greater crisis?
VERJEE: Alexander Evans with the Center for Defense Studies at Kings College speaking to us from London, thanks for being with us on Q&A.
I'll be back with another edition of Q&A in just a few hours at 20:30 GMT. For now, the news continues, here, at CNN.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
|
|
|
|
