September 14, 2003

‘Foreign Office tit-for-tats are the biggest hurdle in the way of composite talks. If the dialogue table is set on the Wagah border, the technique of sabotaging dialogue will itself be sabotaged,’ believes Mani Shankar Aiyar

WHEN Mani Shankar Aiyar came to Pakistan recently, there was a bit of deja vu about it. Now a Congress politician and a columnist, he is a former consul-general posted at the Indian Consulate in Karachi. It came as no surprise, then, that among all the Indians who recently visited Pakistan, Aiyar was probably the most popular soul, with friends in all circles.

But Aiyar has another link to the land that is now Pakistan; he was born in Lahore at Lakshmi Mansion in 1941, his father being an income tax lawyer who had come to Lahore in 1921.

Since being a refugee he had no roots, Aiyar could not do politics and joined the foreign service instead. He had served as Rajiv Gandhi’s press secretary and it was Rajiv who co-opted him into politics.

Aiyar has a South Indian background and holds established secular credentials. Currently, a member of the Indian parliament’s upper house Rajya Sabha, Aiyar is a great orator and exceptionally well articulated parliamentarian which was on ample display during a recent interview with Dawn Magazine in which he spoke about the various issues that remain controversial between Pakistan and India. The following are excerpts:

Q. How can talks between Pakistan and India be successful?

A. Pakistan and India, for successful dialogues, should follow the model of Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger. They engaged in a dialogue in 1968 to facilitate the ceasefire agreement that led to the withdrawal of the last American troops from South Vietnam. There should be only one interlocutor from both sides — just like there was one from the US (Kissinger) and one from Vietnam (Duc Tho).

Talks between the two countries can only be successful if they are not held in any third country. The negotiation table should be set on the borders. It is a well recognized fact that talks between India and Pakistan are sabotaged by the Foreign Offices of both the countries. Inconvenience to receive is the pet mechanism of the Foreign Offices that they employ to sabotage the talks. One country’s Foreign Office would resort to an excuse such as rains or flood. The other country’s Foreign Office might use law and order situation as a similar ploy. So, if the dialogue table is set on the borders, the technique of sabotaging the diplomatic dialogue will be sabotaged!

Q. Do you think a rapprochement is possible between the two countries?

A. Congress has always supported holding of talks with Pakistan. Leaders of the two countries should not repeat the mistakes of the past. I would insist that talks should not only be uninterrupted, but also remain uninterruptible. The parleys should continue at all levels despite repeated failures and setbacks. We should not bank on the summit level talks and take short steps, but taking small initiatives. My advice to the Indian government is, if there were no partition, Pakistanis would have been Indian citizens. If we can’t talk to them, then who the hell we should be talking to?

Q. What is the greatest achievement of Indian foreign policy?

A. The greatest achievement of Indian foreign policy is to take Kashmir out of fruitless multi-dimensions and convert it into a bilateral issue. We failed to structure for the last 30 years uninterrupted dialogue to bring about a final settlement of all outstanding questions, including the issue related to Jammu and Kashmir.

Q. What is the biggest challenge to India?

A. The real challenge is from fascist mindset and communal forces. If they win, not only secularism but democracy too will be destroyed. There is a certain amount of military support or moral backing that communal forces are receiving or taking for granted from a party, which had long been regarded as their specific political front. This gives an impression of a rising wave of communalism. But, the BJP itself is discovering that extremism is a political disability and not a political asset.

Q. Whom would you prefer to blame for the on-going tension between Pakistan and India?

A. Both the countries have to be blamed. Pakistan betrayed India during Zia’s regime though Indra trusted him. So, eleven years were just wasted. No fruitful development took place during those years. Benazir and Rajiv had settled the Siachen issue, but the military did not allow Benazir to honour her commitment. She communicated it to Rajiv.

The point is, we want to settle the matters and you have been interfering in our affairs — in Punjab, in Kashmir. I would advise you to stop interfering in other people’s business when your own house is in a mess. I assure you that India has no intention of disintegrating Pakistan. When I was consul-general in Karachi, several of your Sindhudesh’s proponents visited me and ask for India’s help for Pakistan’s disintegration. We never gave them any importance and simply ignored them. You now see that we have much better relations with Pashtuns in Afghanistan than you have. We can create more troubles for you.

Q. Isn’t the Indian army practising oppression in Kashmir?

A. Frankly, it is a stupid perception. I remember when we asked Pakistan to stop insurgency in Punjab, it pretended that the insurgency was the voice of the Pakistanis! Why would Indian army oppress Kashmiris? There are only three million Muslims in Kashmir, whereas there are 150 million Muslims in India.

The army is in Kashmir to protect the people from the invasion of Pakistan. Soldiers in Kashmir are located entirely on the frontier opposite to Pakistan. Kashmiris are civilian people. Pakistan has been threatening them with death if they voted in the election. Through their vote, the Kashmiris were able to overthrow the old regime.

Q. Is there a solution in sight?

A. Yes, why not? It was the magnanimity of Indra Gandhi that she signed the Shimla Accord. Had it been followed, the issue would have been amicably resolved. But Zulfikar Ali Bhutto betrayed Indra. He had agreed to convert the present Line of Control as the permanent border, but he did not do that. This is the best solution.

Q. And how about the plebiscite?

A. A plebiscite is out of the equation. The proposal of plebiscite had come from India, not Pakistan. The United Nations endorsed that proposal. India accepted three points of its resolution: a) a complete withdrawal of all Pakistani forces in Kashmir and Jammu; b) after withdrawal, Indian troops will be reduced substantially; c) then plebiscite. Pakistan did not withdraw its forces because it feared losing the plebiscite. Pakistan prevented the plebiscite. Thus we had Article 370 in our Constitution.

Q. What is your viewpoint on the demolition of the Babri Mosque?

A. The BJP made it an issue. (Lal Krishna) Advani himself had admitted that December 6 was the worst day in his life. I feel that the world should accept that on the demolition of the Babri Mosque, Hindus’ eyes were filled with tears. Leave aside secularists like me, half of the BJP people say that this episode should not have taken place. They now say that it was a disputed structure, not a mosque.

Q. Is Sonia Gandhi’s Italian origin a help or hindrance to your party’s political career?

A. The former Italian nationality of Congress chief Sonia Gandhi have not had any negative impact on the popularity of our party. Congress has government in 16 states in India today as compared to three in the past despite the five-year propaganda of ‘foreign-connection’ against the party. It is the BJP which is left with only three governments, in Jharkand, Goa and Gujarat. The fundamentalist party lost in Himachal Pradesh only two months after the Gujarat polls in which the BJP used communal card with unprecedented success.

Q. How do you look at Atal Behari Vajpayee’s “hand” of friendship?

A. He really means it. The move is based on sincerity. He is serious in having good relations with Pakistan. However, a lot of work needs to be done before we could convert the seriousness of intent into a serious dialogue. I applaud him for abandoning the path of rushed summits. I think this is the right way to go about it.

Q. Isn’t it a political move because of the coming elections?

A. Isn’t it a wonderful thought that if the elections are coming up, the prime minister thinks that having good relations with Pakistan is a sound political move?

Q. Looking back, why did your family not prefer to stay in Pakistan after Partition?

A. My father had been living in Lahore since 1921. He was a successful income tax lawyer. His clients spread from Peshawar to Karachi. He did not want to go to India after Partition. Our vegetable-vendor always told my father that he should stay in Pakistan because the ‘craze of Partition’ will be over within days. But soon after Partition, the same vendor took out his knife and tried to kill my father. Had he not done so, we would have still been living in Pakistan.

Q. How did you join the Foreign Service?

A. That was 1962. I attended the Foreign Service examination in a very tumultuous atmosphere. The country was experiencing tremendous political turmoil. I passed the examination securing the seventh position — around 200,000 candidates had attended it. But I was rejected by all the services because the British intelligence had reported that I was a very dangerous communist. It was due to Pandit Nehru’s interference that I was able to join the Foreign Service. The then Union Minister, Karim Chagla, had come to the Indian High Commission in London where I delivered a speech that impressed him so much that he wrote to Nehru, urging him to do consider my case sympathetically. Nehru then overruled the intelligence reports and, thus, I was accepted by the Foreign Service.

Q. Did any Pakistani diplomat impress you during your career?

A.Yes. My first posting was in Belgium. At that time, we were fighting the 1965 war with Pakistan. We were locked in a propaganda war against each other. Those were the days when I met Ahmed Kamal, the Pakistani First Secretary. I was touched by his professionalism, courteous manners and his ability to maintain good friendly ties with us. He was my great mentor in foreign service. I have the highest regard for him.

I was also impressed by Munir Akram. He is a great diplomat too. He has tremendous services for strengthening Pakistan-Bangladesh relations. When everybody had left Bangladesh, he was still there working for improved Pak-Bangladesh ties.

Q. What was your perception about Pakistan in your formative years?

A. It was very hostile because I grew up during the days of tension. I still remember my first sentence that I read about Pakistan. “Indonesia with its 100 million people is obsessed with its bigness, and Pakistan with its 100 million people is obsessed with its smallness.” This was the central dilemma in Indian foreign policy, too.

Q. How do you rate your recent visit to Pakistan?

A. The human face of our counterparts, their immense generosity and unstinting hospitality have left a profound impression on all of us. I think it would be fair to say that everyone will return with the conviction that a settlement with Pakistan is feasible, indeed, imperative. We are not visceral enemies divided by an unbridgeable rift, but neighbours with differences, serious yet amenable to resolution.

The Pakistan media made a major contribution to the atmosphere. The Indians were in great demand for interviews and sound bytes. There was no attempt to censor what we had to say and for many Pakistanis it was the first-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see Indian and Pakistani opinion-makers sparring on the same platform. There were no fisticuffs, no disruption. Reasoned arguments were met with equally reasoned responses.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)