NEW DELHI, 4 January 2004 — Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee believes he can do business with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
In an interview with Arab News and Pakistan Television shortly before leaving for the SAARC summit in Islamabad, Vajpayee said: “I think that with Musharraf we can have a dialogue. That dialogue will take us to some results.”
The South Asian summit is seen as a historic opportunity for the rivals to build on recent peace moves.
“It is in the interest of both countries and in the interest of the region that there is friendship between our countries,” Vajpayee said.
The comments came after Musharraf said Islamabad could give up its long-standing demand for a plebiscite in Kashmir.
Vajpayee said progress over Kashmir had stalled because both India and Pakistan merely repeated their positions instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue.
“My claim is that Jammu and Kashmir is a part of India, that is true. But we are willing to talk openly about Kashmir. I feel we have not had solid dialogue. Pakistan has been repeating its position, we have been repeating our position.”
Consistent dialogue would “take time,” he added.
The prime minister said the upcoming federal elections in India would not be won on an anti-Pakistan platform. “We will not make that into an election issue,” he said. “The issue will be who wants friendship with Pakistan.”
Vajpayee’s party, the hard-line Hindu BJP, is widely seen as having ridden to power on communal and anti-Muslim sentiments, including in the state of Gujarat, where 2,500 Muslims were killed in communal riots in 2002. But Vajpayee denied his party exploited the issue. “The Muslim massacre in Gujarat took place, which was very tragic. Before that there was burning of Hindus. That was wrong, but that was not part of the election campaign.”
He said friendship with Pakistan “should be of a kind that has a solid foundation, and should be correct in terms of principles.”
Vajpayee hinted there had been a significant change in Indo-Pakistani relations since a summit in Lahore in 1999 turned sour. “The first meeting I had with him in Lahore... then it was a different system. Since then we have consistently talked to each other,” he said.
Vajpayee also insisted his country’s relations with the United States were based “on the principle of equality.”
He reacted irritably when Arab News cited analysts who suggested India wanted to be a “junior partner” of Washington in the region, similar to Israel in the Middle East. Vajpayee did not accept the suggestion of India being junior in its relationship with the United States. “I think no one says this. About Pakistan this was said earlier,” he shot back.
Interview with India’s Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee
In a rare interview shortly before leaving for the historic SAARC summit in Islamabad, India’s Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee told Nasim Zehra that the future belongs to peace with his country’s nuclear rival Pakistan.
“Gradually I hope the shadows will go away,” he said, sending a strong signal ahead of the summit which many see as a historic opportunity for the neighbors to build on recent peace moves. The wide-ranging interview also touched on India’s troubled internal situation and on its relationship with the United States. Below is the edited text.
Arab News: President Musharraf describes you as a man of peace. How would you describe him?
Atal Behari Vajpayee: I came to Pakistan in 1979 as foreign minister. I then decided to open an Indian consulate in Karachi. Since then I have been trying to improve Pak-Indian relations.
In between a lot of water has flowed under the bridge, yet the question of friendship between the two countries remains. It is in the interest of both countries and in the interest of the region that there is friendship between our countries. If Musharraf describes me as a man of peace, it is not wrong. I have been working for peace and I will in the future.
Q: Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said he had not seen a Pakistani leader more flexible than Musharraf on (the disputed territory of) Kashmir. In Pakistan too people say Musharraf is flexible, some say too flexible. In Pakistan, Alma Ata, New York and Agra he talked of a solution acceptable to Kashmiris, India and Pakistan, and that UN resolutions are important but the solution can be seen from different angles. Again, how do you see him?
A: I think that with Musharraf we can have a dialogue. That dialogue will take us to some results, that too I am sure about. The first meeting I had with him in Lahore... then it was a different system. Since then we have consistently talked to each other. He is Pakistan’s head and will participate in our peace efforts. We hope our efforts toward peace will be successful.
Q: You are also flexible on Kashmir. In 2001 you said we will go off the beaten track on Kashmir, one that will strengthen the peace structure of South Asia. So if there is flexibility on both sides, why is it that we do not move forward on Kashmir?
A: We need time to move forward. There has to be consistent dialogue. We have never avoided talking on Jammu and Kashmir. My claim is that Jammu and Kashmir is a part of India, that is true. But we are willing to talk openly about Kashmir. I feel we have not had solid dialogue. Pakistan has been repeating its position, we have been repeating our position. The world has been saying, move on together and resolve the issue. This will take time.
Q: When you went to China you brought about sweeping changes in India’s 44-year-old policy on Tibet. In Pakistan we expect that you will bring about such sweeping changes in Indo-Pakistani relations as well.
A: We also want change. How far that will be fulfilled we will see.
Q: People feel that in the 2004 election campaign a part of your (Bharatiya Janata) Party will go for Pakistan-bashing — because you won in Gujarat, where 2,500 Muslims were killed (in communal riots), on an anti-Pakistan and anti-Musharraf campaign. What do you as a leader who will take the BJP into the 2004 elections say in this regard?
A: The Muslim massacre in Gujarat took place, which was very tragic. Before that there was burning of Hindus. That was wrong, but that was not part of the election campaign.
In the subsequent assembly elections, no one spoke of relations with Pakistan.
No one made provocative statements. We will not make that into an election issue. The issue will be who wants friendship with Pakistan. Yes, true friendship should be of a kind that has a solid foundation, and also in terms of principles it should be correct.
We hope that when dialogue begins then different issues will come up... then issues will be clarified. Gradually I hope that the shadows will go away and the reality of the relationship will emerge.
Q: Indian analysts say that to end the emerging communalism in India, friendship with Pakistan is crucial. Are these people right that an anti-communalism strategy requires friendship with Pakistan?
A: Pakistan is a neighbor; for friendship with it we need no strategy. We have to live together, whether we stay together fighting or as friends. So I think people are gradually beginning to understand this fact.
Q: Some strategists say that India now wants to be a junior partner of the US in the region the way Israel is (in the Middle East). Will such a relationship promote India’s interests and the interests of South Asia?
A: With the US we are friends; we have a partnership too, but it is on the principle of equality. What we do not like about the US, we oppose openly: we tell them we do not like this about you. I don’t think there is any question of being a junior partner at all. I think no one says this. About Pakistan this was said earlier.
