ZAKARIA: How was your recent trip to the United States? ADVANI: The 11th of September has been a turning point [in Indo-U.S. relations]. But Indian citizens are baffled at the manner in which you are trying to woo Pakistan and make it the principal partner in the [antiterror] coalition. I can see that from your angle, it’s the natural thing [to do] –geography dictates it, strategy dictates it and the natural desire to see that [the war] does not become a Christian-West-vs.-the-Islamic-bloc issue dictates it. But you must understand that the Indian people don’t like it.
Did you sense in Washington that America wants an independent Kashmir? I have not sensed that. What I could sense was that they wanted to see an end to terrorism. America doesn’t want Pakistan using terrorism as an instrument to get what it wants in Jammu and Kashmir.
Will the U.S. pressure Musharraf further? I think they feel that if they were to turn the screws tighter, maybe their best bet, Musharraf, may not be there [anymore]. Nobody expressed that to me, but that is the feeling I got. I didn’t agree with it.
Why didn’t you agree with it? I felt that Pakistan and Pakistan’s leadership do not have a very wide [range of] choices. They are so dependent on Washington that if Washington really wants something done, they cannot say no.
What are you looking for from Musharraf? We cannot judge whether he has stopped training terrorists, whether he has stopped arming terrorists, whether he has stopped financing terrorists. But we can certainly see whether he has decided to hand over the terrorists to whom he has given asylum. We can certainly see whether infiltration [of insurgents into Kashmir] has stopped or not. That would be perceived, of course, over a period of time, not immediately. But these two things are the litmus test by which we will judge whether he has abandoned the use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy.
Do you think he can hand over Dawood Ibrahim [the alleged gangster accused of masterminding a series of bombings in Bombay in 1993 that killed more than 250 people, who India says lives in Karachi]? I told Musharraf in July 2001 that he would change the political climate in India if he did that. I said, “As a person who has worked all his life in politics, I can feel the pulse of the people. You cannot imagine the effect it would have on the people of India if tomorrow you were to announce that yes, I am handing over Dawood Ibrahim, you [can] have him for trial.” [Indians] would say, well, here is a Pakistani leader with a difference; we can trust him.
Do you think if he gave him to the Americans for trial it would work? I have no objection. But I do not think he would agree to that. His response to me was, “Mr. Advani, I may tell you that Dawood Ibrahim is not in Pakistan.” And [at] the moment he said that, there were five or six Pakistani officials sitting there. Subsequently, a senior official from the [Pakistani] High Commission told me, “Musharraf was very upset that you made him speak a blatant untruth in the presence of all of his officers.”
Do you think that in Kashmir, you could imagine a situation down the road where the Line of Control becomes the border, Kashmir has autonomy and this whole issue subsides? I believe that when the Simla Agreement was carved out between Mr. [Zulfikar Ali] Bhutto and Mrs. [Indira] Gandhi [in 1972, after the last war between the two countries], that was the undeclared agreement. That is what I understand.
Would you support it? I would think that, if I were to say I support it, it would mean I am going contrary to… a unanimous resolution of the Parliament [that Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is still part of India].
But leadership means bringing up issues on which you want to change policy. Yes. That’s why my colleague [Kashmir Chief Minister] Farooq Abdullah has been publicly saying it, again and again. But if you are to discuss with an adversary a contentious issue, you cannot start with a position which may be the agreed solution.
One last question. Are you optimistic in the short term, looking at Musharraf? I am optimistic. I am optimistic that the steps that India has taken after Dec. 13, combined with international opinion on terrorism, combined with the influence Washington wields on Islamabad after what has happened in Afghanistan–these factors together will lead to a better solution.
ZAKARIA: What did you think of the Musharraf speech? SINGH: It was for domestic consumption. In terms of its impact on India-Pakistan relations, there’s not much. Pakistan has to come to a decision about what kind of long-term relationship it wants with India. India wants a stable, prosperous Pakistan and a Pakistan that is at peace with itself. But if it continues to pursue a path of compulsive and perpetual hostility as part of its national identity, then no matter what reforms it introduces for itself, then, in Indo-Pak terms, what is it to me?
Do you think the Indian government has room to negotiate on Kashmir? Yes. We have said we will talk about all issues, including the issue of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. [Chinese Prime Minister] Zhu Rongji has just been here. We have an unsettled border problem [with China] which is a matter of concern for both countries. We have pursued [a policy] in which we have said, “Yes, we recognize each other’s concerns. Let these concerns not define the relationship. Let’s place these concerns on the table, address these concerns and move forward.”
Could that be the model for resolving the longstanding dispute with Pakistan? I would happily work on that. For example, with China for the first time ever we have gone to the extent of exchanging maps, comparing the maps and then on a single map defining the areas where our differences are. We are identifying the differences. And yet in all other areas we are moving ahead. Our trade is moving ahead. We have begun a security dialogue with China. We had the first visit by a Chinese premier in 11 years. So this is a model.
If tensions with Pakistan ease, then the question becomes, what will India’s policy toward the demands of Kashmiris be? Of course, were that situation to arise, I have no doubt in my mind that we would engage with the entire political community of Kashmir. But it must be recognized that Jammu and Kashmir is not a territorial issue. It is an issue about fundamentals. Why does Pakistan not talk about the 38,000 square kilometers in Ladakh which is under dispute with the People’s Republic of China? They are only talking about the valley of Srinagar, 74 miles by 26 miles. Why? Because more citizens of India there subscribe to Islam than to other faiths. I can cite five other districts [in India] which have more than 80 percent Muslim citizens. What am I to do with those districts, the people who subscribe to Islam? Put them on railway wagons and transport them to Pakistan? You can’t revisit the division of the country.
Is there some encouragement that India can give to Musharraf, in deeds rather than in words? Western media and commentators don’t understand that India’s support is tantamount to a kiss of death. That is the kind of atmosphere that has been built over the years. Yet you say India must support Musharraf. How? Every time there is a new dictator in Pakistan we have been told, “You must work with him. He is the best alternative.” Now all of you are saying Musharraf is the best alternative and India should now do something. We have welcomed [his] statements. What [else] is it that you want?
Doesn’t he require political support? In this case what you are saying is that he should be able to go back to his public and say, “I might have sold out in [the] case of Afghanistan and the Taliban, but I did not sell out here.” What you are actually suggesting is that India should pay the price for the Taliban [decision].
Is it possible that the United States can play a useful role in resolving the conflict? Though Sattar sahib [Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar] would like to deny it, India and Pakistan speak the same language. We don’t need interpreters, facilitators who will come and interpret our language. Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are born of the same womb. It’s not just that we understand each other’s language. Our intestines are intertwined. That is the reality.
