The Rediff Interview/ J N Dixit
'Pakistan's nuclear tests are a result of Chinese assistance'
Do you think the US is acting as a big bully?
I don't think they are acting as a big bully. People are involving themselves in harsh value judgements. You see the US
has its own set of interests. Strategic. Political. Economical. It wants a certain world order where its influence
and power should not diminished. We should not give adjectives to the US without knowing the whole situation.
What they are doing is according to their interests and according to their capacity. We should take note of it. And after taking note of it we should come to terms with it. That is the task of international policy. The US is a policeman, China is a hegemony -- this is a wrong approach and very, very irrational from my long experience ofinternational politics.
Do you think US diplomacy has failed after Pakistan conducted its tests after being assured, cajoled and warned by the US?
I don't think it is a failure of US diplomacy. There are certain unstoppable impulses in international politics which
cannot be controlled even if you are the greatest power in the world. So I won't describe it as a failure of US
policy. I would describe it as a sort of miscalculation by the US. It could perpetuate a discriminatory regime of arms
control and disarmament without taking into account the consideration of other countries. Of course, they are now
imposing sanctions. They must also think about what they will achieve ultimately.
In the beginning, it will
affect politically. But what does America gain ultimately? The point is the Americans should know that they
will lose nice markets if they impose sanctions just as in the same way we lose in terms of development.
In the beginning the people in India and Pakistan will suffer. But as the sanctions continue, they will get used to it. We are not a high consumption society like the US or Western countries where people may go
haywire if they do not get their things done. In the developing countries people have a chalta hai attitude. We
will feel that we have come back to the original position of our life if sanctions are imposed.
The resonance of being
poor for thousands of years gives strength to our national psyche. What will be affected? Power sector, trade and
ports will be affected. It is true it will certainly be bad for us. But people will feel that we never had ports and
electricity. Sanctions will lose its purpose if they are implemented for long.
Mr Natwar Singh told Parliament about discussions held between the Chinese
government and a delegation you headed. Could you please elaborate?
He was referring to some negotiations I had with China between 1991 and 1994. On that basis, discussions with the
Chinese president and prime minister took place. I led the negotiations which finally led to the signing of an
agreement with China for peace and tranquility on the Line of Actual Control. The LoAC is the actual line from which
the troops of India and China pulled back after the 1962 war.
This agreement stipulated a number of things. The most
important thing is that we will not disturb this line. They will set up mechanisms for mutual consultation on the
border to avoid tension. Then we will move on to the substantive boundary question.
This is what Mr Natwar Singh quoted; it was an important strategic move to stabilise relations with China.
He also said the threat to China by Defence Minister George Fernandes has destroyed everything.
Fernandes's statement is not new. India was aware from Rajiv Gandhi's time. Despite that, we thought we should have a continuous dialogue and a practical relationship which will prevent these negative voices for reaching a confrontation. Instead of doing that Mr Fernandes has gone and said we have nothing to do
with that. And that is why Mr Natwar Singh said: 'You have thrown out all the good work done by J N Dixit.'
Do you think it was highly irresponsible of Mr Fernandes?
No, I won't like to use strong adjectives. I think it was unnecessary and avoidable. Yes, Mr Fernandes
unnecessarily provoked China. And thereby created a more difficult environment for us. Because of those
statements, China is more pro-Pakistan. In the last ten years, China was equidistant from India as well as Pakistan. But
by Mr Fernandes's statement, they have reverted that stance and have become once again pro-Pakistani. I am
sure Pakistan's nuclear tests are a result of Chinese assistance.
Should the foreign secretary have been informed before the tests took place?
It is not necessary. I mean the foreign ministry is the interpretative arm of the government. So, I will not criticise
the establishment on that account. The important thing is that the task of the foreign office has become very
difficult since the BJP is making various political statements. They should have a principal advisor and a central
voice.
Regarding China, why couldn't Mr Fernandes consult the foreign office before issuing such
statements? Before saying what he did, he should have checked out the implications. What is the need
for Pramod Mahajan to say Ulta chor kotwal ko datein after China issued a statement condemning India's
nuclear test? He should have asked the foreign office to issue a sincere response instead of making Hindi
proverbs. These are the things which make the task for the foreign office difficult.
Basically in the BJP except L K Advani and A B Vajpayee, nobody has the experience to deal with power. These two
have been Cabinet ministers. They have been in Parliament for long. But the rest of them are rather emotional
Opposition party workers. They behave in the same way even now when they are in government. It is not
correct.
Of course, Mr Yashwant Sinha, the finance minister and former IAS officer, has never made any
irresponsible statements. Then you have P R Kumarmangalam who was a minister before. He has the background.
But if you look at the Cabinet, barring these three or four, the rest of the gentlemen are very new to the experience.
They will take some time to adjust to this responsibility.
Do you think India has lost its chance of getting itself a permanent seat in the UN Security Council after these blasts?
I don't think it is much of a loss. What makes you think India would have got a permanent seat had they not gone for the blasts? The answer is no. Categorically no. I don't think they would ever have made you
a member of the Security Council because you didn't conduct the tests. What does
India gain by becoming a permanent member without getting a veto? Except one of our ambassadors dressing in
three piece suits and making speeches. In fact, since you have acquired this status, the world may think India to be
a permanent member. However in the immediate future we won't get a permanent membership because this would
mean rewarding the sinners.
After the blasts in South Asia, how do you see the new world order?
The world has become symmetrical. At least three developing countries -- if you include China -- have nuclear capabilities.
The Rediff Interviews
Tell us what you think of this interview
|
