Click to play videoNew Delhi: CNN-IBN's Karan Thapar talked to the former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) foreign minister Yashwant Sinha on the Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari's reassuring words to cooperate with India in the fight against terrorism.
Karan Thapar:Mr Sinha do you trust Asif Zardari or do you think he is being glibbed with words?
Yashwant Sinha: I think he being glibbed with words.
Karan Thapar: But he did go out of his way to show Indian government that he would cooperate in any inquiry or investigation whatsoever without hesitation.
Yashwant Sinha: Yes, but look at what the foreign minister said immediately thereafter. The foreign minister has given a complete clean chit to Pakistan. He has said his hands are clean. He has said that they have nothing to be ashamed of.
Karan Thapar: Except that Zardari was not saying that Pakistan was guilty, he was simply saying that he would cooperate with any investigation. So when the foreign minister says that Pakistan's hands are clean, it's really not a contradiction in the two position.
Yashwant Sinha: No, there is clearly a contradiction because if Pakistan is not involved what is the investigation all about? If only Indians are responsible for this terrorist attack, why involve Pakistan then? I am sure when the prime minister of India has spoken to Mr Zardari and spoke to the prime minister of Pakistan, he must have conveyed something and that is why they agreed to send the ISI chief.
Karan Thapar: Even if there is an apparent contradiction between the president and the foreign minister, certainly the president is farer away the more important one. In fact, Mr Qureshi is a creature of Mr Zardari. He does not exist without Asif Zardari.
Yashwant Sinha: Well you are proving my point then. He does not exist without Mr Zardari.
Karan Thapar: So if Mr Qureshi has made a mistake should we attribute that to Zardari?
Yashwant Sinha: Therefore, what he is saying is what Zardari wants him to say. He is his master's voice.
Karan Thapar: So there is double speak coming from Pakistan?
Yashwant Sinha:There is a Jekyll and Hyde act in this.
Karan Thapar: Zardari has also gone on to say that Pakistan would be prepared to eliminate any camps when they find out that they exist. They are simply just looking for evidence. Is that in your eyes reassuring or is it that a repetition of something they said many times but never acted on?
Yashwant Sinha: I would say it is ridiculous for Mr Zardari who has been in office for such a long time and has watched Pakistani politics and the epicentre of terrorism that Pakistan is to say "if there are camps." Of course, there are camps. And from time to time, government of India has handed over evidence to the Pakistanis to say where the camps are, exact locations, how many people, who are training them and why only in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) , it is in Lahore.
Karan Thapar: So you are saying that even though that answer sounded reasssuring, it was premised on denial "if there are camps" and that 'if'suggests that he is not accepting the reality of camps?
Yashwant Sinha: Absolutely. That is why it is very difficult to believe what he is saying.
Karan Thapar: Lets talk about the specific terror attack in Mumbai. Is it your belief that Pakistan itself as a country is involved or is it rogue elements that exist within Pakistan?
Yashwant Sinha: Look, this is an arguement which has always been flung in our face to suggest that Pakistan government is not involved. There is a distinction between rogue elements and the Pakistani establishment. The roguest element is Pakistan is the ISI. Nothing happens in Pakistan in the terror front without the blessings of ISI.
Karan Thapar:So even if it is the rogue elements within the ISI or Jehadis, you believe that they have the full saction of the Pakistan government. If not a greater degree of involvement from the government?
Yashwant Sinha: They would be horribly incompetent if they did not have this information. And then what does a government mean? Does the government mean Mr Zardari? Does it mean General Kiani, does it mean ISI chief, what does it mean? At some level they have not kept him (Zardari) informed. But that does not absolve the government of Pakistan.
Karan Thapar: So you are saying that as you see Pakistan, you see it as a geographical entity but not a conventional state. There are multiple authorities. You are not sure who actually has control, who actually has power and therefore the rogue elements well may be quasi officials, they may be guasi rogue but they have this blurred identity and they blend into the government.
Yashwant Sinha: This is more than documented. If you look at their nuclear weapons programme. Did Benazir Bhutto know about the nuclear programme that was going on under A Q Khan? No, she had to go to the Americans to find out.
Karan Thapar: So there is a lot that the president of Pakistan does not know about his system does not tell him. So Asif Zardari sounds reassuring, the question you ask yourself is can he deliver?
Yashwant Sinha: He can't deliver it.
Karan Thapar: He won't be allowed to or he doesn't have the power?
Yashwant Sinha: No he doesn't have the power. Ultimately, he could not send the ISI chief because General Kiani intervened. Similarly, it will be determined by General Kiani.
Karan Thapar: So Zardari's pleasant-sounding words are actually hollow and meaningless to you.
Yashwant Sinha: I would not trust these words. Diplomacy is much more than sweet talk.
Karan Thapar: Pleasure talking to you.
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.