Devil's Advocate interview: Yashwant Sinha

Former Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha feels UPA ministers are “speaking in different voices” on ties with Pakistan after the Mumbai terrorist attacks and seem to have lost their “grip.” Sinha also feels that the steps taken by Pakistan are not enough. "I think what Pakistan has done is most inadequate if not eyewash," he said.

How does the BJP assess the government’s handling of relations with Pakistan in the wake of the terrorist attack on Mumbai. That’s the big issue I shall explore today with the former Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha.

Karan Thapar: Let me start with a simple question. Has the government been wise in handling Pakistan after the terrorist strike or in your impression has it been weak?

Yashwant Sinha: Not judging between strength and weakness, but somewhere the grip seems to have loosened over the last few days.

Karan Thapar: In other words, the government began reasonably well but at this moment it has lost its grip on the situation?

Yashwant Sinha: Yes, because even our government is speaking different voices. We heard the External affairs minister say one thing, the Defence Minister say another thing on the same day. I think it would be better if there was greater unity and cohesion within the spokespersons of the government.

Karan Thapar:In other words, you suspect that there isn’t a single-minded approach in the government?

Yashwant Sinha: I think they should discussed it more amongst themselves and come to a very clear conclusion as to what needs to be done and everyone should say the same thing.

Karan Thapar:So, would you go one step further and say that there is confusion in the thinking of the government?

Yashwant Sinha: I don’t know. But from what I have said it appears that somebody is not ruling out in any possibility, any option. Somebody is rule out any options and that does show that there is lack of cohesion in the thinking.

Karan Thapar:Does this worry you?

Yashwant Sinha: It worries me because we are dealing with a very difficult situation

Karan Thapar:The government has of course chosen to put pressure on Pakistan through the international community and primarily through the Unites States and the United Kingdom given that India can’t make Pakistan act on its own. Do you believe that this is the best strategic approach?

Yashwant Sinha: I would differ slightly. It is alright to rope in the UN and the UK, but I would have preferred the government to send out emissaries to all important capitals of the world. I mean why should we ignore Paris? Why should we ignore Berlin?. We should have sent a politically high-level emissaries to all these capitals with incontrovertible evidence of the involvement of Pakistan in the Mumbai attack and even take on them aboard on our side

Karan Thapar:When you are saying at the political level, you are saying ministers of the government should have gone, not bureaucrats or civil servants?

Yashwant Sinha: Yes, I mean not only ministers of the government, but if the government thought is fit, they could involve representatives of other political parties also because this is not a government issue, this is not a political party issue. This is a national issue.

Karan Thapar:So, for instance, if you or Mr Advani had been asked by the Prime Minister to go to certain capitals to brief the government there, you would have been willing to go?

Yashwant Sinha: I think you would have taken upon the national duty certainly.

Karan Thapar:And in not doing this the government has A, failed to bring all political parties together on the same platform, and B, it has failed to make its voice and its evidence as it possesses it, seen and heard in all the capitals where it should have been seen and heard?

Yashwant Sinha: Yes, it should be seen and heard by the international community and not merely by a few countries.

Karan Thapar:In the mean time, Pakistan has taken a few steps which the state department has described as positive, which Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has called “great steps.” How do you in the BJP view these things?

PAGE_BREAK

Yashwant Sinha: Pakistan has taken some steps, I would say that at the initiative of the government of India. The security council has passed a resolution banning Jamaat-Ud-Dawa, but clearly Pakistan is not doing enough. And I don’t know on what basis the Americans are saying that they have taken “great steps.” I think what Pakistan has done is most inadequate, if not an eyewash.

Karan Thapar:If you had been foreign minister, would you have limited yourself by simply pointing the finger of accusation at ‘elements’ in Pakistan which is the phrase that Pranab Mukherjee keeps using, or would you have included the ISI more directly?

Yashwant Sinha: I would certainly have included the ISI because we have talked about it before and I have told in one of your programmes that the ISI in Pakistan is the rogues element in Pakistan and we have evidence to suggest that the terrorists are mixed up with the ISI or vice versa.

Karan Thapar:So, in not pointing a finger at the ISI and in a sense therefore by implication excluding the ISI from responsibility, you think the government has made a mistake?

Yashwant Sinha: I think the government should have made a more comprehensive approach. The government should have certainly included the Pakistani establishment also in this and certainly the ISI.

Karan Thapar:In fact, the government in Parliament has actually gone so far as to say that it has no problem with the Pakistan government which clearly suggests that they are exonerating Asif Zardari and his government, would you if you had been Foreign Minister made that exclusion?

Yashwant Sinha: If ISI is involved who do we exonerate the government of Pakistan including the president of Pakistan?

Karan Thapar:So, in fact in on both counts, the government has made a mistake. Both by not specifically accusing the ISI and in attempting to exonerate Asif Zardari?

Yashwant Sinha: I would say that on both counts, we have a different point of view, perhaps a more valid point of view.

Karan Thapar:You have also said that the government made a mistake in ruling out the military option, but you really think they had an option?

Yashwant Sinha: I have repeatedly said that we should keep all our options open. And that should include the military option. We should not rule out the military option. However, we should time to the international community to put as much pressure as the international community wishes to put on Pakistan but not for an indefinite period of time. We must set a time limit.

Karan Thapar:When you use the phrase ‘military option’ are you talking about surgical air strikes or are you talking about a possibility of a full-fledged war?

Yashwant Sinha: I would rather leave it undefined at this point of time. But I would say that the terrorist attacks are a declaration of war against India and we should fight this war against terror. They are like any other war.

Karan Thapar:Let’s come to the other steps that if you had been Foreign Minister you would have taken up. For instance, the government, some would say belatedly, has put the composite dialogue on hold, would have called if off all together?

Yashwant Sinha: I would have certainly called it off altogether. If we are telling the world and the international community that Pakistan is involved in the Mumbai terrorist attacks and we all agree that it was one of the most heinous terrorist attacks anywhere in the world, then why should we deal with that country?

Karan Thapar:In fact, pressure the pause button is not sufficient, stop should have been pressed?

Yashwant Sinha:Absolutely.

Karan Thapar:Would you if you had been Foreign Minister suspended trade between the two countries?

Yashwant Sinha:I would have taken a number of steps which might have included trade. But I would have definitely through these steps sent a very clear message to Pakistan that it can’t be business as usual if they allow terrorism against India.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar:What might these steps would have been. Would you stop air flights, would you stop cultural contact?

Yashwant Sinha: There is a sequence which one could have followed. There are a number of steps ultimately leading to if Pakistan does not respond to breaking of diplomatic relations but they should have been calibrated to build pressure on Pakistan and on the international community to deliver.

Karan Thapar:So by this stage, if you had been Foreign Minister, you might have thought of stopping air flights?

Yashwant Sinha: I would have certainly taken three of four steps by this time in a calibrated fashion and if Pakistan, as I said, did not respond, then I would have taken further steps.

Karan Thapar:Stopping air flights, stopping cultural contacts?

Yashwant Sinha: These steps certainly should have been under consideration.

Karan Thapar:By not taking these steps, would you say that the government has failed to put pressure on Pakistan both directly and also by the international community. Now the pressure on the international community to help out is less and therefore the pressure on Pakistan is less?

Yashwant Sinha: Yes, that is absolutely right.

Karan Thapar: So, India is paying the price, you would say, of the government’s failure to take these steps?

Yashwant Sinha: The government has certainly led the pressure off. The government has become softer than it started off as and that is unfortunate.

Karan Thapar:Let’s come to the government’s demarche to Pakistan. The government has made a distinction between Indian citizens who had once extradited and Pakistani citizens who it says Pakistan must take action itself in the ambit of Pakistan’s own law. Is the government right to make this distinction or is it unwise?

Yashwant Sinha: If somebody has committed a crime in our country. He should be tried in our country.

Karan Thapar:Regardless of his citizenship?

Yashwant Sinha: Regardless. That is why we have laws of extradition. Even when we don’t have laws of extradition, we have systems which are in place in every country. How did we get Abu Salem for instance.? We didn’t have extradition treaty with Portugal, but we still managed to get both Abu Salem and Monica Bedi. So, we can made arrangements. We can put pressure to even get non-Indian citizens from any other country.

Karan Thapar:So, in fact, the distinction in the demarche is a mistake?

Yashwant Sinha: I would say that it was not necessary.

Karan Thapar:Who much time should the government give Pakistan before the government comes to a conclusion that Pakistan has failed to act effectively?

Yashwant Sinha: I think we already know that Pakistan has failed to act decisively and if anyone is expecting Pakistan to act decisively, I would say that he is being unwise.

Karan Thapar:So we are already out of time?

Yashwant Sinha: We are already out of time.

Karan Thapar:In which case, what should the government do?

Yashwant Sinha: The government should examine all options and see which one is most practical under the situation.

Karan Thapar:From what you are saying, is the time for further action is now, not a week or 10 days later, it is now?

Yashwant Sinha: It was immediately after the next day. It was on the 30th of November, it was the December 1 and time is running out.

Karan Thapar:When the government or whilst the government makes up its mind about what it will do, to what extent should it be concerned about ensuring the survival of Pakistan’s civilian democracy, or is that now no longer an issue of concern?

Yashwant Sinha: I don’t think it should be an issue of great concern in India. Our policy in all governments has been that we will deal with whoever is in authority in Pakistan. But establishment of democracy in Pakistan is not India’s national responsibility.

Karan Thapar:But the bottom line of what you are saying is that the time has come to act decisively now, we can’t afford to wait, particularly because Pakistan is not responding adequately?

Yashwant Sinha: Pakistan is in clear and flagrant violations of all its commitments. And therefore, to time to act is now. It was yesterday. Tomorrow might be too late.

What are the consequences and implications of America getting involved in trying to maintain the peace between India and Pakistan. Might we come to regret their involvement?

Karan Thapar:Let’s turn to President-elect Barack Obama’s thinking which seems to increasingly connect that the war on terror with a solution to the Kashmir problem. In at least 3 interviews, the most recent one which was just two weeks ago, he seems to suggest that a solution to Afghanistan, which he sees as the hub of terror ties in Pakistan moving its forces from the eastern border to the western border so that Pakistan can play a bigger role in fighting al Qaeda and Taliban and the way to get Pakistan to move its forces is for there to be a solution around Kashmir which suggests that India has to make concessions to Pakistan so that Pakistan can play a role, as Obama wants them, in the war on terror. How do you respond to this line of thinking?

PAGE_BREAK

Yashwant Sinha: I have seen these statements and I would say that I am concerned at the statements which President-elect Obama has made. For one thing, apart from the fact that it connects Jammu and Kashmir with terrorism with Pakistan unleashes against India, there is another very very important principal involved here and that is the this whole theory of the root causes of terrorism. My experience is that the international community has rejected the theory of the root causes of terrorism. Because if you start going into the root causes, there will be hundreds of root causes.

Karan Thapar:And Obama is bringing back to the front

Yashwant Sinha: Obama is bringing back the theory of root causes of terrorism which is certainly not a happy development for India. And India should therefore be very very careful.

Karan Thapar:Let me quote what Obama told Time magazine. He says, “He wants to try and resolve Kashmir in a serious way.” He says, “He calls it a critical task” and adds that he will “devote serious diplomatic resources to get a special envoy in there,” and then suggests that the special envoy could even be former US President Bill Clinton. How worrying would you say all of that could be?

Yashwant Sinha: Leaving personalities like Bill Clinton apart, I would say that India’s long-held view has been that no third party mediation in the Jammu and Kashmir issue is acceptable to us, and that must remain our position. It is a bilateral issue. Pakistan accepted it at Shimla and that is where it remains. We should strongly discourage any attempt by anyone, including President-elect Obama to dabble into the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.

Karan Thapar:The reason why I bring this subject up is because it is quite possible that come May 2009, we are just five months away, the BJP have been in power, you might even the Foreign Minister again, in that event, would you make it crystal clear to the Obama government that a special envoy, whoever that special envoy might be, it not acceptable to India?

Yashwant Sinha: I am making it crystal clear today. I don’t have to wait until May 2009. I am making it crystal clear today that no mediation through any envoy will be acceptable to India.

Karan Thapar:You are making it crystal clear, but as far as I can tell, no such message has been sent in public by the present government to the Obama administration and although the Foreign Secretary sometime at the end of November traveled to America to meet with the transition team, exactly a week later, Obama seems to have repeated the same sentiment and the same thinking in his interview to the NBC. So do you think the government has not made its position adequately clear to Obama or do you think that Obama has simply ignored the government. Which do you think it might be?

Yashwant Sinha: Well, I don’t know. It is difficult to make a guess but I very fervently hope that the government has made it’s position clear to the President-elect. If he still holds the same view, then we should make it even more clear.

Karan Thapar:Sometimes government sources, speaking of course in private, indicate that all incoming American presidents have similar such views, but once they take over office, reality dawns on them and they change their thinking and therefore, in this instance the belief is that come the 20th of January, Obama gets inaugurated, a lot of what he had said in the past will be forgotten and he will acquire a new understanding. Is that a safe assumption for us in India to rely upon or is that actually fooling ourselves?

Yashwant Sinha: We must look at it in this way— Obama has not said it as a president of who is a candidate who is campaigning. But he is now talking as President-elect who is going to assume office in the next few weeks. And, that is what I would call as a matter of great concern. I think we should put all our diplomacy to work with the Obama team and the President-elect himself to make it absolutely clear to him.

Karan Thapar:And the time to do so is now before he becomes president, rather than afterwards.

Yashwant Sinha: And we should not hope against hope he will change when he takes the oath of office on 20th January.

Karan Thapar:The only thing we should rely upon is ourselves making it clear to him and doing it immediately?

Yashwant Sinha: Yes.

Karan Thapar:Are you worried that what happened in Mumbai and the increasing international fear that India and Pakistan might be moving towards a conflict, that these two combined could be re-inserting the hyphen between India and Pakistan?

Yashwant Sinha: We should do our best not to allow that hyphen to come back again, to be established between India and Pakistan. That hyphen was absolutely unnecessary in the past. It has become more meaningless now. It is like establishing a hyphen between the US and Afghanistan when US went into Afghanistan or US or Iraq. Would the international community accept that kind of hyphenation. So, why should there be hyphenation between India and Pakistan.

Karan Thapar:You are absolutely right when you asked why should there be hyphenation between India and Pakistan but are you worried, in fact, events and the international communities response might be inserting that hyphen even though it should not be there?.

Yashwant Sinha:Then we should use all our diplomatic skills to ensure that it doesn’t happen.

Karan Thapar:Is that, in a sense, we are caught in a trap? We need the international community to put pressure on Pakistan, but the more we use the international community, the more our own need of international community could be re-inserting the hyphen between us and Pakistan. It is a sort of catch-22 situation

Yashwant Sinha: It is a difficult situation no doubt. That is why we need to handle it very skillfully. It is like somebody coming and inquiring about your health, that is fine, but if he is not a doctor, he has no business to be involved in your life. Don’t allow him to be involved.

Karan Thapar:That’s probably very well put. Mr Sinha, pleasure talking to you on Devil’s Advocate.