CAFE
COM:PORT
CHAT JOCKEYS
EVENTS

The Air Commodore Jasjit Singh Chat

B N Barua (Wed Oct 1 1997 19:53 IST)
Sir, do you think there is a dichotomy within the Pakistani establishment? With the politicians taking a dovish line and the military-ISI combine wanting to take a provocative position?

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:1 IST)
Mr B N Barua: No I don't think there is a dichotomy, there is a substantial amount of consensus within Pakistan on a) Pakistan must possess nuclear weapons to deter India and to counter what has been called "irredressible conventional superiority" of India b) For Pakistan to play a major role in world politics c) To keep the Kashmir issue alive d) To bring in an external power from the US and or China in its favour to expand its leverages and so on.

Karl (Wed Oct 1 1997 19:52 IST)
Sir: What is the reason that we do not attack Pakistan?

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:3 IST)
Karl: There is no political goal or purpose in India attacking Pakistan. Unlike Germany or Korea which were divided by force. India accepted the establishment of Pakistan as a sovereign state. We can't accept the two nation theory as a valid ideology. But we accept Pakistan as a sovereign state.

Manpreet Harkishen (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:1 IST)
Sir what do you think is the reason that China has emerged as the NEW Superpower. What do we lack?

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:14 IST)
Manpreet Harkishen: China has not yet emerged as a superpower, but it is on the way. The reason starts with a broader reality. We are seeing the re-emergence of Asia as an economic and political powerhouse after its decline a couple of centuries ago. Japan, China and India have been emerging as the new power centres in Asia and in the world. I don't think we lack anything.

We have to remember the handicaps under which we started 50 years ago, at the end of 200 years British rule during which India had been de-industrialised (while the industrial revolution spread in west Europe and North America). India had no industry and was almost completely an agrarian economy. Four years before independence, we experienced one of the worst famines when more than 1% of the population died. We remained food deficient for the next twenty years till the green revolution gave us sufficiency.

I don't think there is any country in the world which has made such a tremendous progress in half a century when we can launch indigenous space vehicles, satellites and design fabricate and operate nuclear power reactors. In a few days one of the finest warships in the world, "the INS DELHI," which is designed and manufactured in India will be commissioned. The list is long, but the important point that there are some countries which made progress but at a tremendous price. 40 million people got massacred in Stalin's Russia. Thirty million to sixty million people were killed in Mao's cultural revolution in China. We have not build our progress on piles of skeletons.

sophine A (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:5 IST)
Good evening Mr Singh, I have often heard of India-Pakistan tension. As an outsider who does not know much about India or Pakistan, can you please tell me whether this ongoing tension of 50 years ever be solved? What is it that prevents it from happening?

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:29 IST)
Sophine: The tension is rooted in a fundamental, ideological conflict. We have tried to set up a modern state and society based on the concept of equality of the human being. Hence the central driving force of democracy, secularism and equal rights. Pakistan, on the other hand, has sought to establish itself on the ideology initially that the Muslims constitute a different nation and therefore need a different state. Over the years this has transformed into Islam as the basis of the state. This has created internal contradictions and externally an ongoing tension with India.

Secondly there has been a gross misunderstanding including the new generation in Pakistan of the Kashmir issue. Today Pakistanis believe that Kashmir is the unfinished agenda of the Partition (of 1947). The agenda of Partition was the division of the provinces of India ruled directly by the British into the territory of Pakistan and India on the basis of Muslim majority areas becoming Pakistan. But more than 50% of India was not ruled directly by the British. It was ruled through treaties with 564 rulers. The agenda of transfer of power which was rooted in the Indian independence act 1947 of the mother of all parliaments was that the royal paramountcy over these states will lapse on the day India attains independence. The rulers were advised to accede to India or Pakistan, therefore the decision was not on the basis of majority minority factor factor.

The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir state tried to stay independent, to that extent the it was a sovereign state from 15th of August 1947 till 26th of October 1947 when it acceded to India. But Pakistan had already invaded this sovereign state starting with an economic blockade followed by invasion with a physical force on 22nd October 1947 in spite of having signed a stand still agreement with the Kashmir government.

The UN resolution accepted by Pakistan and India in August 1948 clearly required Pakistan to withdraw its military forces from the state. This has not happened till date. Pakistan subsequently launched another war to grab Kashmir by force in 1965. In more recent times it has resorted to a proxy war in Kashmir since 31st July 1988. Thirdly, Pakistan's power structure has been dominated by elites with a very narrow decision-making base. They have perpetuated tension with India and hostility towards India as justification for their special role in the power structure.

Alex Hill (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:20 IST)
In your opinion, is China a greater threat to India than Pakistan?

Jaswant Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:20 IST)
In the next 20 years, who do you think will be a greater threat to India -- China or Pakistan? And why? What can we do to protect our frontiers from a Chinese attack?

Alex Hill (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:16 IST)
Good evening sir, I once saw you on television in my hotel room in Delhi, India. I would appreciate if you could elaborate on the present India Pakistan equation? After the recent talks here in the US, do you think such talks can really help the two countries?

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:39 IST)
Alex Hill & Jaswant Singh : It will incorrect to perceive either China or Pakistan as a threat to India. They do, however, pose certain and different types of challenges. In my opinion the risk of war with either China or Pakistan in the next 10 years or so is low. However, China is the primary strategic challenge in the medium and long term perspective. There is a risk that as India's power grows the two could land in a situation of clash of interests. For the time being there is a window of opportunity which is being used to build a co-operative framework to avoid such a scenario. However, uncertainties will remain. For us therefore the central policy is that of "co-operate and insure".

Nicolas Bill (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:21 IST)
Mr Singh: Don't you think the India-Pakistan conflict will be resolved peacefully if a third party like the US intervenes?

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:31 IST)
Nicolas Bill : No. For a third party's role to be effective it must be impartial and perceived to be impartial.

Alex Hill (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:35 IST)
Sir, do you think this proxy war in Kashmir is solving the purpose of Pakistan more than a full scale war?

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:42 IST)
Alex Hill : No. Pakistan lost the proxy war way back in 1991. What we have witnessed since then is their efforts to expand it operationally and diplomatically. What we are seeing for the last three years or so is residual terrorism.

surya (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:39 IST)
Mr Singh: Since we know that Pakistan is trying to bleed us through a proxy war, why don't we retaliate -- for every army patrol ambushed we should shell their posts etc. Also, why not get better equipment for CI operations like bulletproof vests, mine-proof vehicles like the South African ones, radios which cannot be intercepted. Is there any change along these lines? Thanks.

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:50 IST)
Surya: Retaliation across the borders will not achieve our purposes nor is it in tune with the Indian way of dealing with these things. What we will achieve militarily through retaliation could well be lost politically. I completely agree that our security forces need to be better equipped. Many steps have been taken after the hard experiences of the last 15 years but much more needs to be done. However, we need to remember that given the spread of sophisticated weaponry ranging from shoulder fired surface to air missiles like the US Stinger to millions of Kalashnikovs, the chances are that the weapons and equipments of the militant and the terrorist will be superior to those of the security forces. This becomes even more important because the initiative in committing a violent act rests with the militant. This has been the experience worldwide in the last 30 years, whether in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Central America or Southern Africa.

Ann Spencer (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:48 IST)
Mr Singh, it is believed that the people of Kashmir would prefer to be a part of Pakistan. If it is so, how long can the Indian government dismiss the wish of the Kashmiris like this? Will this not lead to a further increase in the people's dissatisfaction with the government?

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:57 IST)
Ann Spencer : I don't think your conclusion is based on any empirical evidence or facts. The people of Kashmir have voted again and again over these 50 years to run their government in their state, endorsing it categorically that the state is an integral part of India. Even after the degree of alienation that had appeared in the late 1980s, the elections held last year clearly proved by the high turnout (which was substantively higher than the normal one in the elections in the US) and the firm statements of the elected leadership that Kashmir will continue to remain a part of India.

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 21:1 IST)
Ann Spencer: As regards people of Kashmir wanting to be part of Pakistan the reality is that the people of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK) are extremely alienated and have resisted Pakistanis attempts to integrate the occupied territories into Pakistan. The case in fact was taken all the way to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Northern Areas which Pakistan had tried to detach from Kashmir have been up in revolt frequently in recent times against direct rule by Islamabad.

rang (Wed Oct 1 1997 20:59 IST)
Sir, Why does India never study threat perceptions and plan its defence requirements. Its policy makers (the bureaucrats who know nothing about defence) always think about the relationships with other countries, the reaction of other countries and then do the requirements. Is this not very silly?

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 21:10 IST)
Rang: No, the threat perceptions are always taken into account, regularly reviewed and updated and defence plans are revised accordingly. The problem why some of the policy measures appear to be reactive or even ad hoc is because of the variables. Firstly, we have little control over the security environment. For e g when the US decided to give sophisticated weapons like the F-16s to Pakistan in 1981, it upset our long term plans. Secondly, we do not have adequate control over the resources. For e g access to military technology and weapons remains uncertain and subject to many controls and vagaries of other powers. Thirdly, we are also not fully in a position to forecast our economic situation and therefore the funding available over the future years remains uncertain. For e g poor monsoon could seriously effect the economy and hence the money available for defence.

Sandesa (Wed Oct 1 1997 21:1 IST)
Rang >> What more do ye expect with Mr. Mulayam Singh as the defence minister ? I prefer Veerappan

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 21:3 IST)
Sandesa : I suggest u vote for Veerappan in the next elections !!!

Mr Jasjit Singh (Wed Oct 1 1997 21:11 IST)
Thank you and good bye .