ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/ Ashraf Jehangir Qazi

'It is not for India and Pakistan to divide Kashmir among themselves'

The Pakistan high commission building at Chanakyapuri, the diplomatic enclave in New Delhi, is easily recognised by its structure: a huge blue dome, surrounded by four small blue domes, in the Indo-Sarcenian style, rising out from the cluster of green trees. Indian security personnel guard the huge complex from outside while along a side avenue, visa seekers patiently await their turn in the cool shade of trees. The officials inside the embassy speak in Hindustani, making the environment sound quite like another Indian government office instead of a foreign embassy. Pakistani soft-spoken High Commissioner Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, typifies the diplomat as he shares his country's perceptions on Indo-Pakistani ties on the eve of foreign-secretary talks in Islamabad. Excerpts from an exclusive interview with Rediff On The NeT's Amberish K Diwanji

To start, can you tell us something about yourself and your posting in India?

I have been in India from March 1997, a year and a half. It is a great honour and privilege to be my country's high commissioner to India, because for any Pakistani diplomat, this is quite easily the most important foreign assignment. India is our great neighbour, and our relation with India determines the quality of our security environment and the environment within which we seek to transform our economy and our society. Of course, since both our countries gained Independence 50 years ago, we have had less than normal relations, but that is what make the assignment more challenging and more important.

As for myself, I am a regular member of the Pakistani Foreign Service, having joined it in 1965. I am from the province of Balochistan, but I did my MA in economics from Lahore. Prior to coming over to India, I was in China, and before that I was in the Soviet Union/Russia, where I was when the Soviet Union fell and Russia and a whole lot of new countries comprising the CIS were born.

I have two daughters, the younger of whom is with me in Delhi. My family and I really enjoy being in Delhi. We have travelled around India, we make friends on a daily basis, the people and society are extremely friendly and warm, and the quality of our stay personally is very good. What I am saying is true of every Pakistani who visits India, and I am sure of every Indian who visits Pakistan.

With so much goodwill, as you put it, what do you see as the challenge?

The great challenge is to transform this reservoir of personal goodwill into policy, into specific measures that can break the impasse that has bedevilled relations for the past half century. The need is not just for governments but for all of us, to take decisions that we probably avoided for the past 50 years. Most certainly the hope must be that with the coming of a new century and a new generation, old problems that can't be wished away can be seen in a new perspective.

If that happens, then maybe we will see the centre of economic gravity moving towards South Asia, in the first decade of the next century.

Every now and then one reads about India and Pakistan expelling a diplomat or the other, though both nations insist that relations are cordial? Why does this keep happening?

These things do happen between countries from time to time; especially between countries like India and Pakistan where relations have been less than normal, these things do take place sometimes. They do not happen as frequently as imagined, and we try and not give publicity to these events so as not to adversely affect the relationship and our efforts to improve relations. But the media is very powerful these days and has its contacts from where it gets its story. The media does tend to play it up as the media has its own dynamic. These events are not minor, but they are also not as significant as the headlines sometimes suggest.

Recently, the Pakistani government claimed it was speaking on behalf of the Kashmiris? Can you explain this stance?

What we mean, as always, is that any settlement of the Kashmir problem must be done in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We regard the state of Kashmir to be disputed territory, which must be resolved with reference to the United Nations resolution, which were passed and accepted by both India and Pakistan. Those resolutions state that there should be reference to the people of Kashmir. Pakistan's discussions with India are always based on this fundamental aspect, and in that sense, we speak on behalf of the Kashmiris' right to self-determination, as is mandated by the still valid UN resolution.

In this context, it is a principle of international law that resolutions of this nature, which are adopted by the UN Security Council, remain valid until they are implemented and the same reported to the Security Council, or they are superseded by another resolution which in its preamble expressly supersedes the previous resolution.

Till then, no matter how long it takes, no resolution can be regarded as having become obsolete with the passage of time because that would provide one party or the other to merely wait till such time as the resolution is considered obsolete. So in our view, the UN resolution on Kashmir is still valid, and it is in that sense that we say we are representing the Kashmiri people.

Is one solution towards resolving the Kashmir problem converting the Line of Control into an international border? There does not seem to be any other way. India will never give up its territory.

Actually speaking, the division of Kashmir, symbolised by the Line of Control, is the essence of the problems between India and Pakistan. The state of Jammu and Kashmir is indivisible. It is not for India and Pakistan to divide Kashmir among themselves to make a settlement. We have mutually agreed upon UN resolutions, all of which are valid. And so we can't really convert the problem, that is the LoC which divides Kashmir, into the solution. We have to find a solution, no matter how difficult it is.

Are you placing much hope on the forthcoming talks? Especially now that J&K will too be discussed.

It is our hope that both of us -- India and Pakistan -- will now be able to bring a larger perspective to the talks, in which we won't be as rigid as your statement suggests. We have, after a year's discussion, decided to resume talks, after agreeing to the modalities. We are now going to enter into the substantive phase of the talks. We have also created an agenda of eight issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, and we hope to make substantive progress on each one of these issues.

We have also agreed that the dialogue as a whole must move forward in an integrated manner, such that you cannot have no progress on one aspect and expect to move towards normal relations in the other, because that would not be feasible. So we have to move forward even if the pace varies from subject to subject.

In our view, Jammu and Kashmir is the core issue. It is the one issue that has stood in the way of a breakthrough regarding normalisation of relations between the two of us. All other issues are either in some way an outcome of the Kashmir dispute, or are related to it in some way, or are marginal to Indo-Pak relations.

So if we are now seeking normal relations, we must seek to bring about substantive progress on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Because if we fail to do that, as we have failed in the past 50 years, then we will not succeed in bringing about a change in the ambience of our relations, and progress in the other issues will add up to sporadic movement forward, liable to peter out or reversible.

What are your views on Kashmir?

In the context of discussing Kashmir, I believe that both India and Pakistan should not be rigid on this issue. In this regard -- and I want to stress this point -- our problem in discussing J&K has been the Indian approach towards discussing the issue. Towards the world, India states that J&K is a bilateral issue based on the Simla Agreement, that should be resolved between India and Pakistan and there is no need for the rest of the world.

But when we meet India to discuss J&K, then India's position becomes that J&K is an integral part of India, that it is an internal matter for India and there is nothing to discuss with Pakistan. The only thing to discuss with Islamabad is when Pakistani troops are going to pull out of Pakistan's alleged occupation of a part of Kashmir, and Pakistan's alleged involvement in border infiltration of terrorists or militants as the Indian media refers to them.

Other than that, there is a reluctance to discuss the issue which then becomes a huge impediment how to make progress on the talks, how to then bring about positive feedback so that we can also move ahead in the other areas. This is an issue in which not just the Indian government, but the Indian media, the elite and those committed to better relations with Pakistan do need to address themselves.

Otherwise, we will be condemned to repeat the sterile dialogue that we have been having for the past 50 years. And that would be a great pity, especially in light of both our countries having gone nuclear and the opportunities that beckon with the dawning of the new century.

A Chinese leader once said 'Let us leave issues that we cannot resolve to a generation wiser than ours.' Since Kashmir is so intractable an issue, why not leave it for later and move in other areas, as has been suggested by the Indian government? Then, when our relations are better, we can discuss Kashmir.

I would like to point out that we are not looking for quick fix solutions to long-standing solutions. We have a wonderful relation with our Chinese neighbour and have a great regard for the wise sayings of their leaders, with which I am somewhat familiar having lived there for some time. We know Kashmir is a difficult problem, having defied a solution for over five decades and an immediate solution may not be available.

But Kashmir is a different problem than say a border dispute between say India and China. The border region is not densely populated or barely populated at all. There are no human rights situation which feed into the public opinion which affects the ambience of the political climate, within which then the overall relation can be addressed. Kashmir is of a different nature, it is a political, live problem.

There are people there, we both have different perceptions of the problems. Developments take place there, and we respond to reports to loss of life. Our public opinions do get inflamed by these reports, and therefore it is not feasible for any elected, responsible, government to put such a complicated, live, inflammable situation on the side or backburner. If you did that, reports would still come in and which would have an adverse impact on the political climate of both countries. This then would affect the environment of addressing other issues.

Therefore, what we must do is then address this problem, be seen by our respective peoples as addressing the issue even as we initially maintain our respective positions while trying to influence each other. But we enter into a sincere discussion, no matter how difficult. And then, when our people see us doing so, even if it is slow, it can provide positive feedback in such a way that progress in other areas becomes easier. Once that happens, it in turn will make talks on Kashmir also easier.

But if the perception is that nothing is happening on Kashmir, then forward movement on the other topics would be seen and interpreted by everyone else as a movement towards the acceptance of the status quo, which will not be acceptable to us. So we have to find a way of doing it. While we accept that there are different perceptions on the subject, but if the larger perspective is a shared goal of better relations, then this is the only way. There are no shortcuts to resolving this one problem that bedevils us.

What are the prospects of trade ties between the two countries?

Trade and economic relations are one of the items on the Indo-Pak agenda, and in early November, there will be a meeting between the ministries concerned. The scope for increased trade is obviously great: we are both neighbours, we have large markets, and we can trade and work on a number of projects such as supply of energy from Pakistan, or participate in transnational projects.

At the official level right now, we have a very small level of trade, but at the unofficial level, that is via smuggling or trade through third countries, it is estimated at over $ 1 billion. This is to the detriment of Pakistan, and hence needs to be redressed to benefit both of us. Given the right atmosphere, we could even go in for joint ventures.

But all these are large projects which would require a suitable climate, which once again brings us back to Kashmir, to resolving it for the benefit of both of us.

Can the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation help improve Indo-Pak relations?

Our perception on SAARC is that it provides a suitable platform for regional co-operation, and for doing some things that elude us in the bilateral framework. SAARC needs to realise its potential. And the summit before last, Male 1997, did establish a working group to come up with ideas for the second decade of SAARC. But again, for SAARC to flourish, we need an appropriate state. We can't expect the organisation to concern itself with only certain aspects and ignore outstanding issues. If we study the development of ASEAN, we realise it solved its difficulties in the early years in a non-zero sum game framework. We need the same in SAARC, wherein others members can help some of us overcome our difficulties.

I don't see anything wrong in fellow members help resolve outstanding disputes, and we have to do it. Otherwise, we are going to get left behind as other regions surge ahead. India needs to take the lead in helping SAARC realise its potential. Then colossal amount of FDI will come in, and our economies will benefit. We also won't make the same mistakes as some others made, as we have learnt from their experience.

But in the nuclear environment now in the subcontinent, we have no hope of attracting FDI today because of the perceived problems between some of the countries. And not doing so, even third countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka will suffer because of the image of South Asia, hence it is up to India and Pakistan to improve relations.

The problem right now is that both India and Pakistan have governments that are not yet comfortable. So how do we reconcile that with the move for hard decisions?

The Pakistan high commissioner's interview, continues

The Rediff Interviews