 |
| Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri (Pix courtesy: Vijay Pandey) |
The former Pakistani foreign minister, who has since joined
Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, would not reveal whether he
was inspired in part by how he found in a relative hawk like Brajesh Mishra,
the late national security adviser to former prime minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee, a reliable and honest interlocutor. “My book sends a hard message to
Pakistan but delivered softly to India,” is all he would venture to say.
Kasuri, 73, recalls with great fondness and detail that the
two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours had come “very near” to an agreed
framework on the Kashmir issue when Manmohan Singh and Pervez Musharraf were in
power. Kasuri would know for he served as Pakistan’s foreign minister between
2002 and 2007; he was among a handful of persons on either side who have seen
the contours of the back-channel talks between India and Pakistan start and
evolve, only to be put in a deep freeze as, like most things in the
subcontinent, the political climate changed without notice.
“Sir Creek was a signature away,” he says at a luncheon
hosted by his dear friend Mani Shankar Aiyar in New Delhi, with a tinge of
sadness mixed with exasperation at the glacial pace at which this
roller-coaster of a peace process has meandered from the time both sides sat
down for meetings, including in third countries, in order to gain an
appreciation of each other’s bottom line. (Sir Creek is an estuary of about 100
km in the Rann of Kutch in Gujarat, which forms a maritime boundary with
Pakistan’s Sindh province.)
The paradox is unmistakable: India and Pakistan had come
very close to a resolution of the Kashmir issue at a time when their bilateral
ties were at their frostiest, following the 2001 attack on the Indian
Parliament and the 1999 Kargil conflict before that. Alluding to former US
secretary of state Henry Kissinger’s remark about “balanced dissatisfaction” as
a possible means to resolving the Ukraine crisis, Kasuri insists that the
personalities involved in the India-Pakistan back-channel talks could claim
with a degree of pride and satisfaction to have achieved “better than balanced
dissatisfaction” and arrived at a template that could easily be sold to various
stakeholders in both countries, including, but not limited to, the peoples and
legislatures. “Hundred percent (agreement) was never possible,” he says, adding
on a note of caution that a minuscule “religious right” in Pakistan might not
relent.
A strong votary of Congress parliamentarian Aiyar’s push for
an “uninterrupted and uninterruptible” dialogue between India and Pakistan,
Kasuri says it behoves of the prime ministers of both countries to renew
political and diplomatic contacts when they grace the 18th SAARC summit to be
hosted by Nepal on 26 November, which, incidentally, will mark the sixth
anniversary of the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks.
This year’s summit will be held after a three-year gap; the
last summit was hosted by Maldives in 2011. While some South Asian diplomats
cite this anomaly to question the efficacy of SAARC as a regional grouping,
some others believe that the eight-member bloc could be meeting too frequently
(annually, in the case of SAARC, where the member-states host it in the
alphabetical order) for its own good.
Sheel Kant Sharma, a former Indian diplomat and a former
secretary-general of SAARC, feels that the annual summits attended by the heads
of state or government leave their respective bureaucracies with little or no
time to act upon or follow up on the declaration adopted towards the end of a
summit.
Gowher Rizvi, the international affairs adviser to
Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, suspects the SAARC has been “designed
not to succeed” given how underfunded it is and how more attention could be
paid to strengthening its secretariat. Rizvi, who was recently in New Delhi,
said at an event organised by a privately-run think-tank that the SAARC
secretary-general’s post should be elevated to a ministerial rank in order to
allow greater access to the political leaderships of the member-states. Shyam
Saran, the chairman of the National Security Advisory Board and a former
foreign secretary, in turn, feels that India should take the lead to make SAARC
work.
The first SAARC summit was held in Dhaka in 1985. At the
time, it had Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka
as its members. Since then, it has grown to include Afghanistan as a full
member and many more countries and multilateral organisations as its observers.
* * * * * * *
INTERVIEW
‘Modi and Sharif must develop personal chemistry for peace
to succeed’
For someone who was privy to the delicate details of the
protracted India-Pakistan back-channel talks that straddled two governments in
India, that of former prime ministers Manmohan Singh and Atal Bihari Vajpayee,
Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri would rather hide than reveal and understandably so.
Given the sensitivities, neither country would want the painstaking effort that
went into the talks to become a casualty of negative public perceptions without
first preparing the ground for a grand reconciliation. However, the former
Pakistani foreign minister wants the broad contours of the talks to be put on
record and debated in the interest of a lasting peace on the Indian
subcontinent. “I hope the current BJP government will give some thought to why
Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee had concluded that talks should be the way forward,” he
tells Ramesh Ramachandran in an exclusive interview.
Edited excerpts from the interview:
Your visit to India comes before a likely meeting between
the leaders of India and Pakistan on the margins of the SAARC summit in
Kathmandu. Also the anniversary of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks is coming up. Given
that backdrop, how do you see the bilateral discourse or engagement evolving?
As somebody who has dealt with these issues for a very long
time, I hope and pray that the two prime ministers meet and this despite the
fact that I do not belong to Mr Nawaz Sharif’s party. I talk as a Pakistani. It
is in our interest that the talks take place and I think Mr Vajpayee, the wise
man of BJP, had gone through a lot of political journey before he reached the
conclusion that he did. Nobody could be a better patriot than Mr Vajpayee.
Nobody could doubt his wisdom. Nobody could doubt his loyalty to the BJP. So,
he must have gone through a lot of experience, a lot of thought process, for
him to reach the conclusion that he did. And that’s why he started the process
and that’s why history will always accord that to him. We are lucky that Dr
Manmohan Singh’s government followed it through. Previously, by the way, we
were not certain that it would happen. So, when the BJP lost, we were very
uncertain about the fate of the process that was begun by him would be. So, all
I will say is that I hope the current BJP government will perhaps give some
thought to why Mr Vajpayee had reached the conclusion that he did. Secondly, we
have tried everything… war… near wars… nuclearisation; everything has been
tried. I mean are we going to live like this? I think if you talk to a sane
Indian privately, he is very angry with what Pakistan is perceived to have
done. But when he is in a cooler moment, he says, after all, as Vajpayee
rightly said, you can’t change your neighbours and we can’t change ours. There
were people, by the way, not just in India, who said that they did not want to
have anything to do with Pakistan; a lot of people in Pakistan said they did
not want to have anything to do with India; that Pakistan is in the Muslim
world… they were thrilled when the Americans came forward with the idea of an
extended Middle East and included Pakistan in it. Now they can continue to extend
the Middle East as much as they want but geography will not change. So, any
Pakistani in his right mind will understand that he can be a part of the Muslim
world or whatever he wants to be… he can be part of the Ummah but he can’t
escape geography. And I go further as a positivist. I believe it is good for
Pakistan. And I’m sure that there are a lot of good Indians who think it is
good for India; that India, despite being a much bigger country than Pakistan,
can achieve its potential truly when there is peace in the neighbourhood. And
this is something that the Indians have said… Indian leaders are saying… I am
not putting words in their mouth… they said it themselves. So, I think, keeping
that in mind, let’s hope that the two prime ministers meet.
The India-Pakistan talks have a start-stop pattern to them.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation to Nawaz Sharif for his swearing-in
ceremony was followed by the cancellation of foreign secretary-level talks and,
more recently, ceasefire violations across the Line of Control and the
international border in Jammu and Kashmir. Is the atmosphere any more conducive
for talks?
Let me put a counter question to those who put a question
like this. When the peace process was serious, was ever a gun fired in the
2003-04 period? Not a single bullet was fired. So, I mean, the two things are
linked. I agree entirely with Mani Shankar Aiyar when he talks about
uninterrupted and uninterruptible dialogue… that’s, in fact, the reason why I
support (a dialogue) because that is the nature of our relationship. And, of
course, the famous Vietnamese bombing… the meeting in a Paris hotel between the
Vietnamese negotiator and Henry Kissinger was not interrupted in spite of the
bombing that was inflicted on the Vietnamese people, including phosphorous
bomb, and you have seen the horrid photograph of the child burning… it is
etched in my memory. So, when you talk of the state of the Pakistan-India
relationship, it cannot be worse than that because no Pakistani or Indian
government has in any war tried to burn people alive. I mean, to my knowledge,
we have never used phosphorus. Both (India and Pakistan) have fought against
each other and treated each other’s prisoners humanely. So, let’s look at the
way we are different from a lot of other countries, luckily. Let’s build on it
and my own feeling is that this is a temporary setback. I think Prime Minister
Modi’s basic purpose is to develop India. This is what his winning slogan was
and the people of India bought into it. He will have to deliver on it if he has
to win the next election. In fact, in order to keep their aspirations,
expectations and hopes alive, that they are not dashed, he will have to deliver
and I don’t want to say anything more than what I am going to say to you. For
that to be achieved to its full potential, there has to be peace in the
neighbourhood. I have not seen any country develop, unless you are the United
States of America, and have the capacity to literally do whatever you want to
do with any other country and get away with it, but even they have paid a
price. America has not got away with it. It has paid a major price for what it
did to Iran and Afghanistan. Today, China has either overtaken or will overtake
the American economy. Why? Because of these very distractions. So, it remains
true that you need peace around if you want to develop.
There was a lot of talk about a ‘Four-Point Formula’ when
Manmohan Singh and Gen Pervez Musharraf were in power. It envisioned cross-LoC
movement of people, phased withdrawal of armed forces, a new model of
governance and a joint mechanism for carrying the process forward. In your
estimation, is that a template that governments in India and Pakistan can and
must work upon?
You see, there are a lot of thoughts that I am going to say
in my book. Why did we arrive at that (formula)? It’s easy to write in four
lines about a four-point formula but there was a good reason: The Kashmiris
didn’t wish to be divided. So, we wanted a joint mechanism where Kashmir won’t
be divided. For the first time, it gave some experience to the Pakistani and
the Indian leadership to interact with each other in a conducive and a
productive manner, instead of trying one-upmanship in the United Nations fora. I know, I used to be thrilled when I used to be leading the
Pakistani delegation because I saw young Pakistani foreign service officers
work extra hard to get one paragraph brought into a NAM (Non-Aligned Movement)
statement, about which I mention in my book. After keeping awake the whole
night, they would tell me, ‘We have won a great victory, Sir.’ I’m sure the
Indians were trying their best to ensure that the paragraph should not be
included… (which talked about) a distinction between ‘terrorism’ and ‘war of
independence’. What difference did it make? I used to then ask our young boys
about the effort that they had made because ground reality does not change. You
have to deal with India; it is your neighbour, a much bigger neighbour. What
were we aiming at? A just peace. By the way, in the absence of a just peace, as
I remarked to other people, even if one side wins, nothing can happen. The
other won’t accept it; it will wait for a better day. That’s what happened to
Germany and the result was Adolf Hitler. So, therefore, I think what we
started, and I have staunchly believe and I have never changed my mind on that
just as Mani Shankar Aiyar doesn’t change his mind, what’s more important for
the current government is the journey — intellectual and mental journey — that
Mr Vajpayee went through.
Like it or not, a lot more depends on personalities than
systems or processes in the Indian subcontinent. Do you think personal
chemistry matters, too? How important is it or will be for a dialogue among
political leaders such as a Modi in India and a Sharif in Pakistan? Is there a
critical mass on both sides to take the peace process forward?
You will be surprised that I devote an entire chapter in my
book to personal relationships and Mani also figures in it. I strongly believe
in it. It matters but is it a Berlin Wall that you cannot overcome? Not at all.
My way of dealing with the Indians was first to accept that they are as human
as I am. Their instincts are the same as mine. I was able to convince them… at
least three foreign ministers of India I dealt with… that they could take me at
my word, that I would do my best. I was not a dictator of Pakistan, but they
knew if I made a commitment I will try my best. Human relationships matter, but
it doesn’t mean human relationships are always among people of similar
backgrounds. People who are entrusted vast responsibilities by their nations
are under extraordinary compulsions to actually break the Berlin Wall and try
and develop that empathy, because in the absence of that empathy I agree with
you it’s very difficult to do any constructive work. If perpetually you are
thinking the other fellow is out to do you in, then it won’t work. So I think
Prime Ministers Modi and Sharif or whoever comes to power in Pakistan, they
must develop that chemistry. But that is not going to happen overnight.
Sometimes you (know some people)… Mani Shankar Aiyar and I knew each other but
it doesn’t mean that I knew every interlocutor of mine. I didn’t know Natwar
Singh or Pranab Mukherjee but I developed very good chemistry with them. They
knew they wanted to serve India’s cause, I wanted to serve Pakistan’s cause. We
have to first convince that our cause was not so completely in conflict. What
was the common factor? The 600 million people living below the poverty line
while the Chinese have lifted 600 million above the poverty line. The Chinese
were behind Pakistan and India in 1949; this is something that we should try
and emulate.
If I were to now talk about the domestic politics in
Pakistan, we see your party and its leader Imran Khan agitating and mobilising
public opinion against the Sharif government. Where do you think the domestic
political discourse in Pakistan lies vis-à-vis India?
Here’s the good news. Nobody can contradict me. And I put it
in my book. I have quoted him (Imran Khan), so when he comes to power, all
those speeches of him will be quoted back to him. I have said in the book the
areas where I disagree with Imran Khan but the area where I entirely agree with
him is on India. And there are many statements that I have quoted and hopefully
Imran means what he says and I have no doubt that he means what he says. I have
seen a lot of goodwill for him in India, by the way. Although some people may
not agree with his current politics, they have goodwill for him as a person. So, my own feeling is that Imran wants peace with India. He
wants a just peace, as I do. And then I did something clever. I actually
briefed him before he was going to Mirpur to deliver a speech. He went on
record that I have briefed him and he supports that. I’m interested in making
sure that it comes in my book. So, that means that the next government after
Nawaz Sharif’s will be our government.
So, am I correct in presuming that you remain an
incorrigible optimist about the India-Pakistan peace process?
As I said, I have no option; the other is a disaster I am
not prepared to confront. And for the Pakistan-India relationship with the
history that it has, you have to be an optimist. But it’s not that I am a
foolish optimist. I am an optimist based on what I saw at close hand. I could
see people regarded as hawks like Brajesh Mishra (the late national security
adviser) meeting me in Munich; we interacted as human beings. We have had hawks
on the Pakistani side. Hawk or whatever, everybody is human on the inside. The
point is to touch the right chord and everybody should know, Indians and
Pakistanis, that beyond a certain point the other side cannot be pushed. If you
realise that, no mountain is insurmountable.
So, the moment that came some few years ago is not entirely
lost. Peace is eminently possible and doable?
Whenever there are statesmen in power, hopefully soon; if
unfortunately not soon, whenever; they will have a blueprint before them. They
will know this is the bottom line for both the governments. Beyond that neither
government will relent. So, the good thing is that the work that has been done
is on record. There’s no poker anymore. You can’t pretend to ask for the moon
because the other side already knows what you have agreed and this is institutional
memory by the way. Regardless of posturing, it remains in institutional memory.
I can’t believe that Dr Manmohan Singh was not consulting the Indian Army and
somebody in the (Indian) foreign office must have been in his confidence.
In hindsight, do you think Manmohan Singh erred in not
seizing the moment and travelling to Pakistan in 2006?
It was just bad luck. You had elections in Uttar Pradesh and
some other states. I wish he had come (to Pakistan)… hindsight, they say, is
20/20. If I think Dr Manmohan knew what was going to happen in March 2007, he
would have strained extra hard despite the elections. So, I give him benefit of
the doubt. I didn’t know what was going to happen in March (the protests by
lawyers after Musharraf suspended the chief justice of Pakistan’s supreme
court), so why should Manmohan Singh have known? I thought we were there for
the next five years. That’s the next thing I have learnt in politics. Never
make that mistake. When for the first time my name was mentioned as foreign
minister, I accompanied Asghar Khan to Tehran and they thought he would be the
prime minister and I would be foreign minister… this was several decades ago.
And we were with the Shah of Iran and I say in the book how he was holding
forth on Mozambique to Angola but didn’t know a thing that was happening in
Tehran. And five months after we met, he was out. And he was at the height of
his power. With all the American might behind him, the Americans didn’t provide
him (Shah of Iran) with land for a grave. He had to go to Egypt to be buried.
So, things change dramatically.
No comments:
Post a Comment