Rethinking Islam with Sultan Shahin

Interview

15 Feb 2011, NewAgeIslam.Com

‘Talks may help nip Pakistani extremism’: K. Shankar Bajpai
	Time is change in itself. We should not lose sight of the rise of fundamentalism in Pakistan. The assassination of Salman Taseer has been applauded by the lawyers who are seen as a liberal-minded section of Pakistan. If that is so, then the liberal elements in Pakistan need India’s encouragement if there is to be hope for Pakistan to become a modern-minded, democratic country. I have doubts about that myself but there is no harm in talking. We are trying it out because things happening in Pakistan cause problems to India. If India can have a catalytic effect to encourage Pakistan to draw back from extremism, we should try it. We need to adapt to change, but along with change in Pakistan’s attitude it’s the changes within Pakistan that should concern us. -- K. Shankar Bajpai

‘Talks may help nip Pakistani extremism’: K. Shankar Bajpai

K. Shankar Bajpai February 15th, 2011 K. Shankar Bajpai, a former Indian ambassador to Pakistan, China and the US has been chairman of the National Security Advisory Board. In an interview to Ramesh Ramachandran he says that there is no harm in trying to talk to Pakistan “but we may have to face a stalemate”. Q. How do you view India’s decision to resume peace talks with Pakistan? A. The Government of India is quite right in saying that dialogue is the only way forward with Pakistan if one wants solutions. The only worrying question is, does the other side want solutions. Since its inception, Pakistan’s policy has been determined by people who saw no benefit to themselves in pursuing good relations with India. I don’t see any force at work in Pakistan today which wants to change that policy. Therefore, it is very clear that if talks is the way forward then the onus is on Pakistan to carry it forward. Let’s see if they mean it. I have my doubts, but let’s see. At the same time, by saying no to talks for the last few years India has neither been able to force Pakistan to change its policy nor make amends for the terrorist attacks against India. So our policy of no talks was leading nowhere. It is an open question, but there is no harm in trying to talk to Pakistan. But we may have to face a stalemate. In short, seeking solutions is the right objective for India though we have to also adjust to situations on the ground, i.e. objective and activity may not always be in tune. Q. What has changed between the Mumbai terror attacks in November 2008 — when we suspended the “composite dialogue” with Pakistan — and now to warrant resumption of talks? A. Time is change in itself. We should not lose sight of the rise of fundamentalism in Pakistan. The assassination of Salman Taseer has been applauded by the lawyers who are seen as a liberal-minded section of Pakistan. If that is so, then the liberal elements in Pakistan need India’s encouragement if there is to be hope for Pakistan to become a modern-minded, democratic country. I have doubts about that myself but there is no harm in talking. We are trying it out because things happening in Pakistan cause problems to India. If India can have a catalytic effect to encourage Pakistan to draw back from extremism, we should try it. We need to adapt to change, but along with change in Pakistan’s attitude it’s the changes within Pakistan that should concern us. Q. India says the proposed talks should not be called “composite dialogue” — but how are these talks any different when its structure resembles that of the composite dialogue? A. Labels don’t mean anything. Although the media likes them, the point is what are the issues to be discussed and in what format; whether “X” number of issues are discussed simultaneously or separately; or “X” is changed to “Y”, are matters of diplomatic convenience and suitability rather than of high policy. Q. Do you see international pressure on India to resume talks with Pakistan? A. What else can the international community say other than to make up with Pakistan? Nobody can twist our arm if we are strong enough. We have to deal with our problems by first putting our house in order. Also, the political spectrum within India should not indulge in cheap politics on issues of national importance. Q. Does India have leverages over Pakistan to impose costs on it if it does not give satisfactory answers on the issue of terrorism? A. When we talk of leverages we must understand that India is four times the size and power of Pakistan. Our problem is that the instruments of state action have become rusted and inefficient; therefore, we need to become an efficient state. Leverage depends on your ability to use your power. Q. How would you respond to the talk of various scenarios, such as a two-front war with China and Pakistan? A. Every analyst would want the government and people of India to be constantly aware of the fact that we have two neighbours with whom we have unsettled problems and they have the power and possible reasons for conflict with India. Therefore, it is perfectly natural to have contingency plans. That does not mean conflict will erupt but it has to be considered a possibility and prepared for. If we are really strong it would not be a worry. Q. How do you view reports that Pakistan is expanding its nuclear weapons programme? A. We must organise ourselves. We must not take 20 years to decide which arms to purchase! Q. Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, a former Pakistan foreign minister, says the Pakistan Army was on board the backchannel talks with India, but Pakistan Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has said that the military will remain India-centric until outstanding issues are resolved. What do you make of this? A. It is so obvious this is the (Pakistan) Army’s view they need not say it. Unfortunately, they are not open to reason. As I said before, things change but Pakistan refuses to recognise the change. India has in the past few decades shown it has no desire to attack or undermine Pakistan but elements in Pakistan seem determined to undermine India. Q. Do you subscribe to Mr Kasuri’s view that both sides had come very close to a resolution of some of the issues? A. On the basis of available information, indications are that the backchannel talks made enormous progress on arriving at a basis for a new relationship. But the situation changed within Pakistan and then people there were not interested. Source: Asian Age URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamInterview_1.aspx?ArticleID=4123