New Delhi: National Security Adviser (NSA) M K Narayanan has hinted that the Government of India is open for talks on converting the Line of Control (LoC) into permanent border as a possible solution to the Kashmir problem.
Speaking on a subject that has long been a taboo, he however admitted that it won't be a very easy proposation. When asked if India is prepared to look at the LoC as an international border, he said, "Certainly, it may not be easy."
"The point is that if you have to reach an agreement, then there has to be give and take. If people talk about the LoC, then you take the actual ground position for the last 35-40 years," Narayanan says.
Narayanan accused Pakistan of breeding a new form of jehadi terror aimed at fanning communal tensions within India. He pointed to the Varanasi and Bangalore attacks as examples of their broad design.
Pointing out that Indians were also being a part of the jehadi movement, he said, "There is a very distinct attempt to alter the mix, if I may say so. We do find, here and there, individuals who are Indians who are getting involved in these offences."
"Almost all of them are sort of inveigled into going across. Sometimes it is Bangkok that is the port from which they go and sometimes it is West Asia. By and large, they are Pakistani connections," the National Security Adviser added.
According to Narayanan, L K Advani's name features prominently on the terror hit list, along with his colleagues in the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS).
On the Kashmir problem, Narayanan said Pakistan did not seem serious about finding a solution and that New Delhi was confused about the suggestions coming in from Islamabad. "Pakistani suggestions will not lead us forward," he said.
Next page: The complete transcript of the interview
PAGE_BREAK
Surya Gangadharan Some of the reports we are reading about the new jehadi strategy for India, fairly long term and focused and trying to build up elements in India that could be used for strikes so that the evidence of the Pakistani hand or even the Bangladeshi hand is minimised or reduced. What are we doing to tackle this?
M K Narayanan I think this is worrying. The fact is that not a single Indian Muslim was involved in say the conflicts in Afghanistan or was part of the al-Qaeda. And even in this country most of the jehadi elements who were involved in the offences were usually mercenaries who came from over 35 countries.
There is now a very distinct attempt to alter the mix. We do find here and there individuals who are Indian getting involved in these offences. Almost all of them are inveigle to going across. Sometimes they go from Bangkok, sometimes they go from West Asia, but there is always a Pakistani connection.
And if I am not letting out a secret, I think on an average there is enough information of their targeting religious places, very sensitive economic and political places, and one is always concerned that one of these incidents could lead to a major escalation or communal violence.
That is the main worry. There are deliberate attempts to strike at religious places. Atleast there are three or four credible threats of this kind. We are able to round some of them quite often before they do, it but here and there one may get through like what happened in the Sankatmochan temple. It is a new shape, which has been given to the whole things. It is not based on territory or ideology. It is just an attempt to create a major divide between the majority and minority communities.
Surya Gangadharan One aspect keeps coming out that our entire strategy towards terrorism seems to be rather tactical in short term while our advisories are thinking in long term over decades. We seem to be reacting all the time only thinking in terms of 2- 3 months in hand. Is there any way we can define what is the kind of enemy we have. What their intensions are? How we should plan to meet the threats say 5 years from now or 10 years from now?
M K Narayanan I think when you are defending you don’t have the option, but when you are planning a war certainly you have the advantage. You need advance information, advance intelligence to deal with it. As far as that is concerned, things are reasonably in hand.
PAGE_BREAK
But about the anticipation of when the next decadal threat is going to come up, I think major studies are being done. There is always a time lag between the first strike and before you are able to react. But if you can reduce that time period to some extension, that will be great help. I calculated once, and if you take a single period say three months or so there are atleast 143 major militancy taking place.
I think that is phenomenal when you compare any other country in the world. We do this and we still carry on this business. But we have problem and nearly more than 50 to 60 per cent of them are originated from outside of the countries or borders. So that aggravates the situation.
Surya Gangadharan Salahuddin was recently arrested by Musharraf for demonstrating some rallies. There was some talk that Musharraf is keen on opening a dialogue with us through channels. What is the assessment here?
M K Narayanan There are channels which we accept as being legitimate. There are some good channels and there are some to mislead us. I think the established channels do get a message and we certainly look forward.
We are in a mood to talk to anyone who is willing to talk to us. That is possible but we have received no clear evidence that Salahuddin wants. If he wants to talk to us on just because he wants to talk to, it is a different matter. But clearly from the Indian stand point, anybody wanting to talk to us it does not mean there must be some kind of giving on the other side in which case we are willing to listen to what he has to say and see whether something can be done. That has not been forth coming so far. We will wait and see something more concrete arises.
Surya Gangadharan Where is the talks with Pakistan on Kashmir going. There are CBMs, and Pakistan is getting tired of CBMs and they want to see something more and President Mush keeps coming out with various innovative ideas and now these are implementable.
M K Narayanan I contest the word innovative. He comes up with ideas. Each day he produces a new idea. If you really wish to follow up the ideas then we have a back channel.
PAGE_BREAK
The idea was that the back channel experiment with ideas but the moment you say something in the back channel, it is in the public very next day. Now unfortunately President had put forward ideas, and I don’t know, none of us here heard about it, but even presuming that there was an idea of this kind, it is obvious something would be discussed.
If every idea which is mentioned in the back channel and seen as acceptance by the other side then there is no purpose in this. I must confess that we in India very confuses to what exactly is being attempted.
Clearly the most difficult issue is Kashmir. Our Prime Minister has said that he is willing to discuss anything on Kashmir other than change of sovereignty. He has made a suggestion, which I think could have come only from our Prime Minister saying that ‘I want to be in a situation where the border has become irrelevant and the people of both side could have free movement and lot of things they could do together.’
I think one should really be pursuing that idea if you are looking for a solution. President Musharraf talks about joint management, quite clearly we are unable to manage even with single management. Joint management is something, which is not possible.
Joint management, joint sovereignty, I don’t think anybody can really look upon it. It looks very interesting, can come from a flam boy kind of gesture but where does it really lead us.
That is why the CBMs are being employed on which we get people from both side to understand their problems. But on those fundamentals like traffic across the country etc, all that is not considered as a way and you can’t only talk about joint management. I think joint management is out of picture at this moment.
If at all one needs to talk about these it would come at the end of the whole series of process. You can’t start of with that. It is something, which has to be evolved. I think what the Prime Minister has put forward is most acceptable way to go forward. I must confess that the suggestions, which are emanating from the other side, are something that will not lead us much forward.
Surya Gangadharan There have been reports earlier that India would be prepared to look at the Line of Control as an international border. Is it constitutionally feasible and easy?
PAGE_BREAK
M K Narayanan Certainly it may not be easy. Finally if you have to reach an agreement, there must be certain amount of give and take. When people talk in terms of Line of Control, it is said you take the position that what has been the actual ground position for the last 35-40 years.
That may be a starting point for an exercise. But I don’t think its ever been looked at by the other side at all, even the Line of Control. If it does exist, the idea of Prime Minister is that either side of Line of Control should have things as free as possible.
If you want to go by bus from Srinagar to Muzaffarabad, they need not carry passports and the visa regime is also easy. It is a fundamental concession, which has been made. The whole question finally comes about control. I think control is certainly an issue, which India is not yet ready for.
Surya Gangadharan Do you sense that Musharraf is getting tired with the entire pace of the dialogue. He want something more that he is given an idea what he is looking at.
M K Narayanan If Musharraf is getting tired then what we can do about it. This is not an issue. We have had border problem with China for a long time. There is no question of feeling tired; there is a question of resolving an issue. And it is generally felt that CBMs would help both the sides to try and reach a modus on other issues. If you are feeling tired then nothing can be done about it.
Surya Gangadharan Has the Indo-US nuclear deal capped our weapons capability in the sense that if we test then deal is effectively scrapped. That is what Nicholas Burns also said.
M K Narayanan Before the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement came into being, India had taken a conscious decision that it would declare sort of unilateral moratorium tests. That remains in force. i don’t think it has anything to do with the tests and if we wanted to test previously we would have done so. But we have agreed that we will not test.
Surya Gangadharan But the commitment was not a permanent thing,.
M K Narayanan Well it was a unilaterally declared moratorium. In some ways it is a strongest declaration of intend than anything else. I don’t think that has anything to do with the test.
Surya Gangadharan Does it means that since 1998, when we last tested, the scientific establishments feel that there is no need for further tests.
PAGE_BREAK
M K Narayanan I suppose, like other countries, sub-critical tests are permissible under the broad terms. If we do consider it necessary to have sub-critical test, I suppose we will do so. But I don’t think that is really barred. At present I don’t think we have any plan for any kind of tests.
Surya Gangadharan How does that match with our own deal with China. There is lot of psychological thing involved here. If the Chinese feel that our deterrent is not credible in that sense, then will we have the problem?
M K Narayanan The credibility is really with regard to the delivery mechanism rather than the quantum of missile material. We have reasonable adequate missile material for our needs. Three or four of us would know the exact numbers perhaps. We have reasonably good delivery mechanism.
That has nothing much to do with the credibility in terms of missile material available or which has been restricted as many people seem to think as a result of the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement. That by itself has not made any major dent in our capabilities.
Surya Gangadharan What is your own determination of the mood in the Congress. There are some reports that by May President Bush want to see this deal through.
M K Narayanan The US has done a great deal. They have really gone all out to convince the Congress about the importance of the deal, the necessity for the deal. The deal is actually strengthens the proliferation than increases the risk of non-proliferation.
It is going to be a fairly uphill task but the first reactions have been better than expected. Nicholas Burns spoke to the Foreign Secretary last evening and he said that it is a difficult task but ‘I think we are making good progress’. We are optimistic. It is good for both the countries. It is good for the world at large and I think despite the fact that there are large numbers of doubters all over; we have got a good deal.
Surya Gangadharan Is the May deadline too optimistic.
M K Narayanan Both sides are anxious about the May deadline primarily because the nuclear supplier’s group is meeting at the end of the May. They are important constituent of this whole process. It may be easier to get these things through the US Congress than perhaps to get this through a group of 45 countries, each of them may have their own agendas.
IF the US legislation is through then it is much easier for the US to go the nuclear supplier’s group and for us also to lobby there if necessary. So if that is through then we would start our discussions with the IAEA. That is why the May deadline is so crucial. If you don’t have the May deadline, then you need to go through the recess period and it gets postponed. As the Indian phrase goes ‘subhasya sigram’ the quicker the better and it is from both points of view.
Comments
0 comment