June 19, 2003	Thursday	Rabi-us-Sani 18, 1424

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

NEW DELHI, June 18: The Indian prime minister’s statement on Tuesday warning Pakistan against trying another Kargil and saying President General Pervez Musharraf was preparing for a fourth defeat appears to stem from a clear and, according to one Indian newspaper, possibly deliberate misinterpretation of comments by Gen Musharraf in an interview with an Indian TV channel.

“Musharraf has reminded us of Kargil but he should remember Pakistan was defeated thrice in wars and is now preparing for a fourth defeat,” Mr Vajpayee told a public meeting in the tribal district of Mandla in Madhya Pradesh.

But did President Musharraf actually say what he has been accused of saying on Kargil, something which he has himself denied?

Several Indian commentators have said the remarks have been quoted out of context. In a prominent report, The Asian Age on Tuesday carried excerpts of the interview to assert how it was misinterpreted.

General Musharraf “has justified Kargil but has not supported another Kargil at any stage of the lengthy conversation,” the paper said. “In fact, the interview is fairly commonplace with the general stating that Kargil was not a mistake, as he has done several times in the past, but refusing to commit himself to another Kargil in the future.”

Senior analysts agree that the interview is being overloaded with meanings it did not express.

The perception that he actively supported another Kargil influenced an angry official response from the Indian foreign ministry. “It appears to have been created by distortions that have crept into the written transcript of the interview, the phraseology of an NDTV press release, and the spin given to the interview by vested interests in the establishment,” The Asian Age said.

It said the Indian foreign office added to the confusion with a strong reaction that led a leading newspaper to give the headline “India: Pervez’s Kargil remarks can scuttle talks.”

There were two versions of the interview, analysts said. One was the written version, that has now also appeared in Delhi newspapers based on an NDTV transcript, and helps to endorse the perception that the Pakistan president has supported another Kargil.

The relevant transcript version says:

Q: A lot of people here believe that Kargil was a mistake?

A: There are differing views but I am not one of those. I am a strong believer that before Kargil, whatever happened there, Kashmir I think was a dead issue.

Q: So you could have another Kargil?

A: Depends on how we proceed on the peace track, on how things develop. One can’t say.

Q: You are not ruling it out?

A: Nobody can say yes, we will have another Kargil but certainly we need to resolve disputes.

Q: Through violence?

A: No we should resolve them peacefully. It’s only when peace fails, violence occurs in any form.

The other is the televised interview where the relevant portion goes like this:

Q: A lot of people here believe that Kargil was a mistake? (Actually, interviewer Prannoy Roy’s questions are far lengthier and have been condensed substantially)

A: There are differing views, but I am not one of those. I am a strong believer that before Kargil, whatever happened there, Kashmir I think was a dead issue...er...I think we...

Q: So you could have another Kargil?

A: ...er...how we proceed on the peace track...er...and how things develop. One can’t say...er...

Q: (Prannoy clearly interrupts, his question is almost inaudible to us) ...you are not ruling it out?

A: ...a sensible answer cannot...nobody can say yes, we will have another Kargil, but certainly we need to resolve disputes.

Q: Through violence?

A: No, we should resolve them peacefully. It’s only when peace fails, violence occurs in any form.

The differences between the two versions are obvious. One stream of thought, interspersed by questions, is broken into different answers with the words “depends on” being added at the crucial point where instead of a confused search for words as it clearly is, the answer to “so you could have another Kargil” becomes a categorical “depends on how we proceed on the peace track.”

This is not what President Musharraf said and is very different to his “...er...how we proceed on the peace track...er...” on tape. The categorical “one can’t say” with a full stop at the end has a very different interpretation from Gen Musharraf’s hesitant, open-ended “...one can’t say...er...”.

On Wednesday, The Hindustan Times joined the issue, raising questions about the veracity of the text version.

The summary of the text version put out by the news channel says: “Asked if he ruled out another Kargil, Musharraf said, ‘No. Let me tell you that before Kargil, Kashmir was a dead issue. To avoid Kargils, we need to resolve disputes and much depends on how we proceed on the peace track’.”

The Hindustan Times quoted analysts as saying this represents a combination of three different statements during the course of the interview. Most strikingly, General Musharraf’s “No” was actually a response to the question “was Kargil a mistake?” and not “if he ruled out another Kargil.”