|
Humhprey
Hawksley
|
|
|
|
INTERVIEW
"After
fifty years India and Pakistan have not grown up."
An
interview by INDIA TODAY Assistant
Editor Ashok Malik.
BBC
journalist Humhprey Hawksley's Dragon Fire (Macmillan),
being released in London this week, paints a nuclear war scenario between
India and Pakistan and China in 2007. Hawksley, who has spent a decade
of his career covering Asian conflict zones, earlier co-authored Dragon
Strike, on possible Sino-American tensions over Taiwan. Read exclusive
extracts from and a review-article on Dragon Fire in the INDIA TODAY print
edition (issue dated August 14, 2000). Meanwhile, here's a sneak preview
in the form of an interview of Hawksley by INDIA TODAY Assistant Editor
Ashok Malik.
INDIA
TODAY: In your introduction, you write "on several occasions my writing
was overtaken by events. What was fiction one day became historical fact
the next". Please give examples.
HAWKSLEY: I began writing in February 1999 and researching around
October 1998.
a) April 1999 -- the Kargil war broke out. One of my Pakistani contacts
on the book had described the scenario.
b) October 1999 -- the Pakistan coup. Another contact involved in my research
there is now a senior member of the military government.
c) January 2000 -- the escape of the 17th Karmapa Lama to India.
d) March 2000 -- Taiwan votes in the pro-independence DPP amid military
tension with China.
e) March 2000 -- President Bill Clinton's historic visit to India underlines
the US' support of democracy over military governments. When I began writing
the book, it was more unclear which camp the US would back. It still is,
but less so. These are the specific points. Underlying trends such as
China's territorial claims and Kashmir, of course, continue.
IT:
In the early pages (10-12 or so) your description of Lhasa and Drapchi
prison seems pretty exact. Is it so? Have you visited the city and prison?
HAWKSLEY: No. The Chinese authorities have consistently banned
my going to Tibet. The information came from detailed maps of the city
and prison given to me by contacts.
IT: On
page 227 you make a reference to "India's precarious existence" in the
context of the pre-nuclear attack tumult. Aren't you overstating the case?
HAWKSLEY: No. Your own magazine, which carries excellent coverage
and analysis of the region, has often run scenarios of the break up of
India. I remember a cover story of it as far back as 1986 when I was posted
to Sri Lanka, showing a map of an India disintegrating into communal and
religious areas. This fear has driven much of its foreign policy. Indira
Gandhi's administration gave support and training to Sri Lankan separatists
in order to balance Tamil separatist aspirations in India itself. One
of the central sticking points over Kashmir is that if India allowed independence,
it would fuel similar aspirations among other Muslim communities in India.
For much of the 1980s, development of the Punjab was crippled because
of the separatist war there. Clearly, there is an underlying fear of the
weakening or end of nationhood, a sense that India's very survival is
under threat -- which is what I mean by 'precarious'. You have, of course,
asked a key question, which is the subject to much debate. But I hope
this short answer is sufficient.
IT:
In and around page 266, you write extensively about the Chinese navy.
Is this based on factual information? Is all of it declassified?
HAWKSLEY: Yes. All of it was drawn from factual sources and corroborated.
Much of it is de-classified, but in conversations with experts lines become
blurred. I am referring to Western intelligence agencies. Almost all would
be classified in China and I am not sure about India.
IT: Your
book, as I see it, has two heroes: British Prime Minister Pincher and
Indian Prime Minister Dixit. Who's your favourite character in Dragon
Fire? When the deliciously hawkish Pincher says he doesn't want Britain
seen as an American "lapdog" (page 247) is he echoing your personal views?
HAWKSLEY: As I wrote in the prologue, the characters of the book
are as much the countries as the people who run them. In this respect,
I favour India, not because its individuals are any better, but because
its system of independent judiciary, elected government etc. is one of
the modern world. I do like Hari Dixit, because he is trying to look beyond
conflict to longterm development. This is why he refused to target directly
Chinese civilian centres -- an issue over which I had much debate with
my Indian military contacts. (Pakistani military dictator) Hamid Khan
also has an honourable goal, but he becomes unstuck. My other favourites
are the young US presidential adviser, Ennio Barber, who pours over maps
of Tibet and Bhutan while relating these far flung enclaves to his boss'
popularity ratings. The Chinese foreign minister, Jamie Song, is also
one I like, and cosmopolitan characters like him are beginning to emerge
in modern China. He also figured prominently in Dragon Strike.
I favour the British special relationship with the Americans. It won the
Cold War and the two World Wars. But jingoism (as Margaret Thatcher found
in the Falklands) wins votes and demands that occasionally we go it alone.
The Coco Island operations (in Dragon Strike) was an advanced version
of what Britain is doing in Sierra Leone.
IT: How
convinced are you that your book could turn out to be entirely prophetic?
HAWKSLEY: Elements of it have already come true. Tibet and Kashmir
simmer. Territorial disputes remain unresolved. Military modernisation,
particularly missiles, submarines and nuclear delivery, continues in both
India and China. No book, so detailed, will be entirely prophetic, but
I am far more worried now about Dragon Fire coming true, than its
predecessor Dragon Strike. The catalyst will be when the Tibetan
nationalists based in India begin a violent campaign against Beijing.
IT:
How long did it take to research the book?
HAWKSLEY: Research began in October 1998 and continued right through
to March 2000 during the editing of the manuscript.
IT:
Is your book intended as a warning to the US to get out of its inward
looking syndrome?
HAWKSLEY: This is a big question. But, no. If anything, it is a
frustration that after fifty years India and Pakistan have not grown up
enough to pull their heads out of the sand. I can think of no other two
nations, which have been on such a dangerous war footing with each other
for such a long time. On page 258, the president Hastings refers to the
Indo-Pak conflict as an issue about the past, not the future. If the book
has any message, it is an appeal to look ahead and not back. The desolate
and empty Wagah border is a symbol of history. I cannot see how any forward
looking citizen of either nation can stand there without being appalled
at the lack of achievement towards peace. The United States cannot change
psychologies of nations, nor should it be asked to. If it is asked, then
India would be denying its own vision and greatness and would be declaring
itself another Kosovo or Timor.
IT:
The names you've given your Indian characters are bound to evoke much
interest here. Hari Dixit is obviously Mani Dixit, who I gather is a friend
of yours. Anybody at INDIA TODAY can guess who Prabhu Purie is named for.
What's the key to some of the other names?
HAWKSLEY: Strangely, it didn't exactly work like that. It proved
surprisingly complex to put together so many names. Many of my original
names had to be changed after taking advice in order to correct the regional
and religious nuances. I did rely heavily on Mani Dixit's books, but his
name is also easy for Western readers to remember. As for Prabhu Purie,
I must leave you to speculate.
(Exclusive
extracts from Dragon Fire are available in the print edition of
INDIA TODAY, dated August 14, 2000)
|
