JASWANT SINGH
"They Must Move
the Bus Back to Lahore"The hastily forged Congress-NCP pact faces a tough test as the
Sena-BJP prepares to pounce at the first opportunity.
By V
Shankar Aiyar
In many ways, the events that preceded Jaswant Singh's
second term as India's foreign minister set his priorities. On the eve of his being sworn
in again, prime minister Nawaz Sharif was unceremoniously booted out of power by his chief
of army staff, Pervez Musharraf. Singh had always reiterated that it was in India's best
interests to have an "economically prosperous, socially at ease and politically
democratic Pakistan". But with Pakistan in the throes of political instability and
governed by a general whose army faced humiliation in Kargil, the onus was on Singh to
make the course corrections in India's approach to relations with its troubled neighbour.
The decision of the US Senate not to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) came
around the same time as the coup in Pakistan and forced India to rethink its own policy on
the nuclear issue. In the past year, Singh had had eight exhaustive rounds with Strobe
Talbott, the US deputy secretary of state, largely to "harmonise" Indo-US
understanding on the subject. They had also widened its scope to look at the spectrum of
Indo-US relations. Apart from carrying that process forward, Singh would be leading the
Government's charge to build a consensus on the CTBT among India's political parties.
While these are his immediate priorities he has to get his ministry to focus on India's
foreign economic policy to deal with such contentious issues as the WTO as well as
promoting trade relations with other countries. Soon after he assumed charge, Editor
Prabhu Chawla and Deputy Editor Raj Chengappa quizzed Singh for more than an hour on
reactions to recent international developments concerning India and his plans. Singh was
as usual erudite and eloquent about his world view but cautious in his comments on
sensitive issues. Like all good diplomats, he forces one to understand what he means
through the nuances of his replies. Excerpts:
What is your reaction to the change of government
in Pakistan?
Developments in Pakistan are a matter of concern for us. I am also disappointed
that the democratic path has now received a setback. Events themselves are the best
commentary of what is happening in Pakistan.
How will it impact on relations with India? The new
leader has offered to resume talks.
We are closely monitoring the situation. And we are closely examining the
statements emanating from Pakistan. We have made it explicit that our approach to Pakistan
is based on principles. The Lahore process which India initiated was sadly interrupted by
Pakistan's misadventure in Kargil. Now it is incumbent upon Pakistan to move the bus back
to Lahore. And I do not say this on any precondition. Only as an essential ingredient for
creation of a proper climate. We cannot have a meaningful dialogue and also a proclaimed
advocacy of cross-border terrorism and its incitement and abetment by the state itself.
But it may be easier to deal with a military
dictator.
The implicit statement is that it is more difficult to deal with a democracy. You
can scarcely expect me to assent to such a proposition.
How soon can we expect the resumption of talks?
I don't understand your impatience. Please understand that resumption of the
dialogue process is a mechanism, not an end in itself. You cannot fit the mechanism unless
you are aware of what machinery you are fitting into it.
Does the recent US Senate decision not to ratify
the CTBT let India off the hook on the issue? Is the pressure off us?
The phraseology of your question is as if I was acting under pressure. Or suspended
on some kind of metaphorical hook. Let me disabuse of this to start with. I continue to
believe that India cannot be pressured to deviate from the path of preserving its national
interests. We were not governed in determination of policy in regard to the test ban
treaty by anything or any statement or any action that any country takes or does not take.
The US Senate vote does not mean any kind of difference in India's position. Our position
was based on our own principles not on handed out wisdom, leave alone directions from
anyone else.
Hasn't the test ban treaty been damaged seriously
by it?
Obviously, if a major country like the US is unable to ratify the treaty then it is
a setback. That does not mean we are going to resume tests. It would be a completely
juvenile way to treat the whole thing. But it does demonstrate what we have been saying
all along -- that it is an extremely complex piece of international negotiation.
What is your Government's stand on the CTBT now?
There must be a widespread national consensus about it.
For or against the treaty?
I am not saying we will do it in favour or against. All I am saying is that on
important issues such as test ban and disarmament we should not become politically
divisive.
So basically you are saying signing the treaty is
an open question.
It is an open question. It has been an open question all along. Otherwise where is
the question of consensus?
What is your Government inclined to do?
To build a consensus.
All this doesn't preclude India testing again?
We already have a voluntary moratorium against tests so why should the question
even arise?
Is the moratorium time-bound?
We made it clear that it was not bound by time or conditions.
Major nations tend to constantly equate India and
Pakistan. Even President Clinton is making it a point to visit both the countries.
I am weary and bored of this continuous, constant tendency whenever there's talk of
India to simultaneously talk of our neighbour. There is now much greater recognition of
what I said. But I do also want to account for convenience of long-distance travel.
But Beijing is as far.
True. But we too in our management of foreign policy have often tended to be
Pak-centric.
Where does your dialogue with Strobe Talbott stand
now?
I must reaffirm that the eight rounds of talks held with him have been possibly the
most intense, indepth, potentially productive dialogue that India and US had in the past
many decades. We must resume this at the earliest.
Have we been able to persuade the US to lift the
economic sanctions?
I was engaging in talks as a representative of India and not as a trader. There was
no talk of a quid pro quo. Besides finding it belittling to a great country like India,
the ineffectiveness of the sanction regime is now apparent to the US itself.
Certain sections have raised questions about the
Pope's forthcoming visit?
There is no opposition to the Pope's visit and we want to make sure it is a
glittering success. He is visiting India on the day we celebrate Ram's return after his
conquest over evil. If another great religion's leader visits us on Diwali what better way
to celebrate?
What are the principal challenges ahead for you?
There is firstly continuity in our management of India's international relations.
Along with this we must necessarily focus on our foreign economic policy.
Does this mean that economic issues will now
dominate our foreign policy?
I wouldn't use the word dominate. But the global reality compels us to recognise
that unless India's enormous potential of being an economic giant is realised, the
political strength of India's voice will not carry the same weight. The reality today is
to move towards a much more dynamic management of foreign economic policy. |
