We have to generate a momentum, says Sattar

By B. Muralidhar Reddy

ISLAMABAD, DEC. 7. The Pakistan Foreign Minister, Mr. Abdul Sattar, is a veteran diplomat known for his measured words and cool character. The Hindu had approached his office for an interview on November 28. Initially, it was intimated that as the Minister was very busy, he could only answer written questions. But the Minister was gracious enough to spare 30 minutes. He told The Hindu, ``When I looked at the questionnaire, I realised that most of them have been overtaken by events. So I decided to meet you in person.''

Excerpts from the interview:

The Hindu: What is your reaction to the Indian statement on Wednesday ruling out tripartite talks on Kashmir?

Abdul Sattar: We have seen two reactions from India. The first was the reaction of the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, and the second was the response of the Ministry of External Affairs. We hope that the Prime Minister's accent on the positive will determine the course of events.

In the past too, the Prime Minister has brought his own moderate and forward-looking approach to bear upon Indo- Pakistan relations. We hope the same can be expected now. What we have urged, in essence, is that suspension of military operations during the month of Ramzan is a good decision by the Indian Government. It is a decision that needs to be built upon. We have made proposals that could not only extend the suspension of military operations but also bring to a permanent end the use of force. Our proposals would launch India and Pakistan on a course of permanent settlement of the Kashmir issue - the root cause of all tension - in conformity with the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

The formulation made by Pakistan is not acceptable to India. India wants Pakistan to end what India terms cross-border terrorism and infiltration from the other side of the border. How does Pakistan look at these charges?

In the month of July, after the Hizb-ul- Mujahideen announced a unilateral ceasefire, there was a statement by a Minister in the Indian Government to the effect that Hizb had indigenous Kashmiris. The Hizb is acknowledged to be the main group of freedom-fighters.

We find the latest statement by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in contradiction with the July statement. What one can recommend to an objective observer is a look at the graveyards in Kashmir. There are scores of them. These graveyards with tombstones contain the names of those (along with the names of their fathers) who have perished in the last 11 years. These are all indigenous Kashmiris.

Therefore, the emphasis on movement across the LoC appears to us diversionary. Secondly, India makes the allegations but does not appear to want to subject them to investigation and impartial determination. From our side we have offered activation of the United Nations Military Observers Group. They can monitor the LoC and report any violation of the line that are alleged to occur. Let there be a mechanism for an impartial probe into the allegations.

So we believe that the allegations levelled by India against Pakistan seem to be an evasive tactic designed to prevent forward movement towards a settlement of the issues. According to reports of those engaged in the Kashmir struggle, 75,000 people have perished in the last 11 years. Reports quoting Indian officials say 30,000 people have died. Whichever way you look at it, it is a horrible evidence of violence.

We believe people of goodwill all over the world do not approve of killings of other human beings because they seek the realisation of their fundamental rights and implementation of pledges that have been made by India, Pakistan and the United Nations Security Council. The people of Kashmir should be given an opportunity to decide their fate.

You have called the ceasefire decision by India a good initiative and would like the process to be built on it. But the reaction of militant organisations is not encouraging. They have called it a ``farce'' and vowed to continue their operations. What is Pakistan's reaction to the viewpoint of jehadi organisations? Would Pakistan make an appeal to these organisations to give the Indian initiative a chance?

The best way of moving away from militancy is opening up the peace process. Those who have read the history of last 11 years will recall that the freedom movement in Kashmir started totally as a peaceful struggle. Because the Indian Government sent police, para-military and military forces the peaceful protest opportunities were foreclosed. People yearning for freedom went underground. Therefore a conversion took place from the peace to the militant channel. We believe that once the peace channel is reopened, the emphasis on military channel would automatically decline.

Reports in the Indian media suggest that the level of violence has already gone down during the last 10 days evidently because of the peace initiatives taken by the Government of India and Pakistan. There is an atmosphere of hope fostered by the announcement from New Delhi and Islamabad. Efforts of both the Governments should be to sustain the atmosphere and to build on what has been realised in the past 10 days. We have to generate a momentum. That is why our December 2 statement suggesting way and means of peace prospects.

We have requested the Indian Government to allow the leaders of the APHC to travel to Islamabad and enter into a dialogue with India in preparation of the ground for resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan. It is not necessary for the Indian Government to follow any particular sequence. We want India to sustain the peace process.

Implicit in the present stance of India that it can extend the ceasefire beyond Ramzan period is the threat to revive violence. If suspension of violence is a good thing, it should be prolonged and made permanent.

But you have not answered my question. Would Pakistan assert its position as a country that has been extending moral and diplomatic support to the ``struggle in Kashmir'' and appeal to the militant outfits to respond positively to the latest initiatives?

The statement made by Pakistan makes it clear that we want the ceasefire on the Line of Control to be stabilised and strengthened. This is an indication of what Pakistan would like to see. Pakistan alone cannot achieve the objective and this is what I tried to explain. There has to be hope in Kashmir. Those engaged in the fight for freedom in Kashmir should believe that their aim could be realised through peaceful means. And this requires the cooperation of the Indian Government.

I am not in a position to say that Pakistan alone could bring about conversion or transition from militancy to peaceful means. It requires the cooperation of the Indian Government.

Recently, in one your interviews, you have referred to the relevance of the Washington Declaration between the U.S. President, Mr. Bill Clinton, and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, at the time of the Kargil conflict. Could you throw some light on the subject?

The issue was mentioned in the Indian External Affairs Ministry statement. An unnecessary issue is being raised whether Pakistan is committed to a particular agreement of the past. To set the controversy at rest, let me say that Pakistan is willing to abide by each and every agreement to which we are a party. Agreements are sacred.

We do not know why repeated questions are being raised on whether Pakistan is committed to the Lahore Declaration, Washington Declaration and the Shimla Agreement. These are not the only agreements Pakistan has made. Commitments arise out of agreements. I would refer to United Nations Security Council resolutions of 1948/49. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan negotiated these agreements with great care. These resolutions were accepted by the Indian and Pakistani Governments. There is a history of agreements between India and Pakistan in every decade after 1947.

If we want agreements to be sacred, all agreements will have to be considered sacred. We are clear that Pakistan remains committed to whatever agreements we have signed since 1948/49 till July 4, 1999 (Washington Declaration).

Has there been any contact between India and Pakistan in the last few days since the November 19 initiative from India and December 2 response by Pakistan? Can one construe the action of the Pakistan Foreign Secretary to formally invite the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan, Mr. Vijay Nambiar, to his office and read out the contents of the press note as Pakistan formally approaching India for talks?

I have no idea if the Pakistan High Commissioner in India was called by the Foreign Office. I also have no idea about our Foreign Secretary inviting the Indian High Commissioner on December 2. Unfortunately, thanks to the stubbornness of the Indian Government, particularly for the last one year, the talents and competence of Indian diplomats are not being utilised. As a professional who has served in India as an Ambassador for six years I regret that the High Commissioners in both the countries do not get an opportunity to play their due role.

Against the backdrop of your comments and the positions on both sides in the last three weeks, what is the basis of Pakistan's optimism for progress of the peace initiative?

One has to be optimistic in diplomacy. My disappointment with the Indian statement is that it does not engage in exploration of any openings. It simply shuts the door on the ideas and openings we sought to inject in the December 2 statement.

The Indian statement is foreclosing even exploration possibilities. We should wait for greater reflection in New Delhi. If they do not like the ideas we have offered, they should suggest ideas and generate hope of forward movement. Continuing the stalemate is very easy. The real test of human ingenuity is in terms of discovering ideas that lead to a forward movement in the given situation. We are disappointed, but not despondent in view of the great respect for Indian ingenuity.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Next     : Special session of Florida legislature today