KARACHI: Foreign Secretary S.K. Dehlavi said yesterday Pakistan was prepared to discuss “everything with Afghanistan — trade, transit facilities and assistance — but not the so-called Pukhtoonistan problem, which, he said, was a “stunt”. He was talking yesterday to American editors and publishers who are on a brief visit to Karachi.

Questioned on the government’s attitude towards SEATO and CENTO, he said: “We are prepared to stand by our commitments.”

Mr Dehlavi said the type of neutrality which India was following was not understood in this country. It was like “running with the hare and hunting with the hounds”.

He described Dag Hammarskjöld’s death as an “irreparable loss”, but declined to speculate on the question of a successor to the late UN secretary-general.

One of the journalists sought Mr Dehlavi’s views on neutral and non-aligned nations. Amid laughter Mr Dehlavi remarked that every day he was becoming “more and more confused” on the definition of neutralism.

Mr Dehlavi referred to the type of neutralism that India claimed to follow. He said India claimed to be an opponent of all pacts and alliances, but when it suits Indians to be friendly with Russia they go to Kremlin. “At other times when they need money, they go to the White House.”

Mr Dehlavi said that Pakistan had great goodwill for India, but did not understand its policy of neutrality. He pointed out that India claimed to be pacifist, non-interfering and neutral, but busied itself with Tibet and other Himalayan states. When China saw India playing as the busybody in that area, “it walked into Tibet”.

Clarifying the government policy, Mr Dehlavi said that Pakistan followed a policy on non-interference, but not of neutralism. As an illustration, he pointed out that Pakistan was deeply interested in the wellbeing of the Arab and Muslim states, but if there was a squabble between two Arab states “we do not get mixed up”.

One of the visiting journalists asked Mr Dehlavi whether he thought the trouble on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border was a “little squabble” or had some bigger significance. Mr Dehlavi said the situation was so serious that diplomatic relations had been ruptured.—Agencies