“Kab nazar mein aayegi bedaagh sabze ki bahaar;
Khoon ke dhabbe dhulenge, kitni barsaaton ke baad.”
— Faiz Ahmed Faiz
(That we’ll see the turn of an untainted spring,
When shall it be;
How many rains will it take to wash the bloodstains,
When shall it be)
Yearning and despairing are at once the coils of the India-Pakistan relationship, inescapably twined. From the optimistic high of Ufa last year to the smoking carnage of Uri last week, ties have taken another, and many would reckon predictable, toss. Not long ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi dropped in, impromptu, on Lahore to lock counterpart Nawaz Sharif in a warm birthday embrace. Today, they stand distant, cold, affronted. Behind them stirs a bellicose clamour. Amid the renewal of bitterness and confrontation, Pakistan’s envoy to India, Abdul Basit, agreed to sit down for an exclusive interview at his High Commission offices in Delhi — his first extended interaction since ties began to nosedive. Excerpts:
Q: High Commissioner Basit, when and how did you learn of the attack on the Uri army camp, and what was your first reaction?
A: That was a Sunday, wasn't it? Yes it was, September 18. I was at home, I turned on the television about 10 in the morning and that's how I learnt. It was through the Indian media, frankly speaking. My immediate off-the-cuff reaction was of concern. I prayed. I prayed that our two countries would react to this maturely and would not let things get out of control.
Q: You well know how the Uri attack got played on both sides. India has squarely blamed Pakistan, there is also a lot of anger. Pakistan was quick to deny any role; India has not accepted that. It sees the Uri attack as a grave intrusion and violation. How do the two nations go forward from here?
A: Pakistan will remain positive and constructive. As our Prime Minister has said at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), Pakistan iterates its desire to have a normal, co-operative relationship with India and resolve all problems peacefully. That should be the spirit. We do have problems, but in Pakistan we believe they should be resolved only through peaceful means, there is no other way.
Q: But how does your plea for peaceful resolution square up with what's been happening? Mumbai happened, more recently Pathankot and now Uri? These are armed assaults on India from the Pakistani side.
A: First of all it is important not to draw premature conclusions. Your NIA investigations are still underway to determine what really happened in Uri. I would humbly suggest that it is not helpful to jump the gun. Having said that, we have seen how we co-operated after Pathankot. Things were moving in the right direction. If we could maintain that spirit I am confident we can prevent the situation from worsening. I am a diplomat and I would like diplomacy to win. I, for one, would not like to believe that bilateral diplomacy has exhausted itself.
Q: High Commissioner, what is your information or understanding of how the Uri assault happened?
A: We do not know, and it would not behove me to comment on that. Your own investigations are incomplete. I would not like to say anything on Uri. But one thing is for sure, and I want to tell your readers this: Pakistan has nothing to do with the Uri attack. We are committed to not allowing our territory to be used for violence anywhere in the world.
Q: But the Uri attackers did come from the Pakistani side.
A: We do not know, we do not know.
Q: The Indian government has said it can give you evidence - fingerprints, DNA samples, recovered weapons and GPS systems, etc. used by the attackers.
A: Yes, when I was called in by foreign secretary Jaishankar, he did say so. But I think all these things are premature.
Q: You spoke about the spirit of co-operation post-Pathankot. What contributed to its evaporation?
A: I think we were on the right track, I was very positive, but things changed on July 8 (the day Hizbul Mujahideen militant Burhan Wani was killed by security forces in south Kashmir). And that is when we lost the momentum. The challenge for diplomats on both sides now is to retrieve that momentum.
Q: You dedicated your Independence Day this year to Kashmir...
A: (Interrupting) That was what our Prime Minister did, yes, and that was the message I read out here.
Q: Sure. And then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif went on and famously glorified Burhan Wani a young leader of the Kashmiri intifada at the UNGA. Is that conducive to positive bilateral relations?
A: I think we need to remember that our problems did not begin with the Mumbai attack, or the Pathankot attack or the Uri attack. We have fought three wars, we had a military conflict over Kargil. Our problems precede 2008. India and Pakistan both agree that there is a long-pending issue called Jammu and Kashmir that needs to be resolved. You take the UN Security Council resolutions or even the Simla Accord, we are agreed on resolving this problem through dialogue. I think it is important to understand what keeps bedevilling our relationship and what keeps bringing mistrust between us. We feel it is imperative not to shy away from addressing the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. We are not for a moment saying other issues are not important. Terrorism is also an important challenge for both of us to address, and the scourge of terrorism can be met more effectively if we were to co-operate rather than blame each other all the time. You know how Pakistan has suffered the terror menace, we have lost more than 70,000 people and nearly 6,000 of our soldiers in the fight against terror. You must understand that. Also, diplomacy cannot be conducted through verbosity. Diplomacy has to be conducted on the basis of sovereign equality and mutual respect and understanding. Living in Delhi and meeting people from all walks of life, I do find a desire for understanding and peace here, too. I hear voices here that urge us to come together rather than become hostages to rhetoric.
Q: It is interesting you use the phrase "sovereign equality". India would say how can you employ that term when you constantly challenge her sovereignty over Kashmir.
A: Look, we are not challenging anything here. Your country too recognises this as a dispute. I would strongly recommend that you go back to the Simla Accord and the framework of the composite dialogue from 1999 to 2004. It is all there. As recently as last year, the two countries agreed to have a comprehensive bilateral dialogue, including on Jammu and Kashmir. It is the major issue which needs to be resolved. How that resolution comes about is a matter of negotiations. We cannot brush Kashmir under the carpet. What is happening in Kashmir, in Srinagar and surrounding areas, tells us how serious the problem is. Even your own political parties recognise that it is a political issue and needs to be dealt with politically. Pakistan is not asking for something that is unrealistic or unfair. Kashmir is the central problem between us. I am not saying other issues are not important, they are, but Kashmir we have to settle.
Q: It has been more than 70 years, High Commissioner, and a very bitter 70 years. Where do you see a solution?
A: Yes, it has been a long time but we have achieved a few things here and there.
Q: As in what?
A: Various confidence-building measures, and they are working. We have come a long way. The 1974 protocol, for instance, which allows our religious pilgrims to visit each other's countries, enhanced people-to-people contact, that is very important. We have arrived somewhere, and having arrived there, we should avoid entering a cul-de-sac. Once we get into a blind alley, it will be very tough getting out.
Q: Do you think we are already there, in a cul-de-sac? Do you think we are close to war?
A: I don't think so.
Q: Well, there are very agitated and anxious voices on both sides. You have been scrambling your fighter jets over Islamabad, you are holding exercises in PoK. There are shrill calls to avenge Uri on the Indian side, in fact the government has said the Uri attack will meet a response...
A: I know, I know, all of that is happening. But I am not worried we are about to go to war. I strongly believe Pakistan and India do not gain anything from creating hype. War is not a solution, war creates more problems. I would strongly urge that the problems we have should be solved through peaceful means. We can perhaps afford not to talk to each other for some time, but addressing our many bilateral, regional and global challenges can only happen through dialogue. I am not ready to give up on that. We should not allow war hysteria to dominate our narrative.
Q: There are some reports, unconfirmed and uncommented upon, that Uri has been avenged by Indian forces, that there has been a covert cross-border strike on some camps on your side. What's your information?
A: I am not aware of any such thing. I do not believe any such thing happened. Let me say here that Pakistan is capable of defending itself, but I wouldn't like to think things will escalate to that pass. I keep saying I am a diplomat and believe diplomatic solutions are achievable.
Q: High Commissioner, there has long been a sense, held especially strongly in New Delhi, that you're never sure who to negotiate with in Pakistan. That diplomats don't matter when it comes to the crunch, even elected governments don't. That you are always looking over your shoulders and asking "Army kya kahegi", "ISI kya kahegi "...
A: (Smiles) No, this is an exaggerated concern. We have an elected government and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is in the driving seat. We have seen during the last two years that the two prime ministers have been meeting each other, the NSAs have met, the foreign secretaries have met, and things have been moving. All this has happened under an elected government.
Q: But every time something positive happens, something intervenes...
A: Not really. If you are referring to the Pathankot attack or even Uri, I would say that both of us have agreed that the mechanisms we have put in place should have the capacity to absorb these shocks.
If we are back to square one after every unfortunate incident, then these mechanisms are not serving their purpose. The idea of having diplomatic engagement is to not allow those forces which want the two of us to resolve problems and usher in a new era of co-operation. We have to transcend this process of one step forward, two steps back. But it requires two to tango.
Q: India will say aap to langdi maar dete hain har baar, you trip us whenever we begin to tango...
A: No, no. Polemics are fine, but when we talk it cannot be a one-sided affair. One should not be totally dismissive about the potential of our diplomatic engagement.
Q: And yet, we are at a pass when the Indian government has come to call you the "Ivy League of Terrorism". How, as Pakistan's emissary to India, do you react to that?
A: As I said, inter-state relations are not about verbosity. We can also come up with such catchy phrases, but that doesn't serve any purpose. This unnecessary hype will take us nowhere. We need to be positive.
Q: On that note, tell me why is Pakistan unable to stop infiltration from its territory into India?
A: That is a very unfortunate allegation that I often come across. By your own assessments and reports, infiltration has come down to almost nil over the last two years. And you would appreciate that most of the LoC is fenced and heavily manned by security personnel, people say parinda bhi par nahin maar sakta, even birds can't cross over. I think we need to get out of pointing fingers. If there is a problem, we can always discuss it, but discussing everything through the media is not healthy diplomacy.
Q: Did foreign secretary Jaishankar bring up infiltration when you met?
A: Yes, he did. I iterated our commitment that we will not allow our territory to be used for violence against anyone. There is no question of Pakistan allowing infiltration to take place from its soil. We don't draw pleasure from violence anywhere, we are suffering it like no other country has.
Q: And yet people like Hafiz Sayeed and Salahuddin are able to use Pakistan to raise belligerent threats and intentions against India. Isn't that a violation of the bilateral spirit, such as you speak of?
A: I do see your point, but such voices you'll find in India too, unfortunately. Our policy is not driven by their fiery speeches, and neither is yours, I would like to believe. I wouldn't be too concerned about those voices. People will say all kinds of things, what's important is what governments are thinking and doing. I believe we are committed to the bilateral desire for peace.
Q: Very little has moved on the Mumbai terror attack probe on your side, and that remains a sore point. What's the progress on that, if any?
A: We are hopeful of movement and some sort of conclusion. Our foreign secretary had written to his counterpart last September with certain requests on witnesses and items related to the case. The Indian foreign secretary has responded this month, on September 6, suggesting ways to go about it. We are considering it and the legal aspects of those suggestions, and we shall respond. We remain hopeful something will come out.
Q: You started your India tenure shortly before the Narendra Modi government took over. Your Prime Minister came to Delhi for the new government's inauguration. In the intervening time, we've come to a stage where you are celebrating Burhan Wani and New Delhi has ratcheted up Balochistan. What has gone wrong?
A: I do think we started well. The first bump on the road was when your government took exception to our interaction with Hurriyat leaders and your foreign secretary didn't go to Pakistan as a result. Then it took us some time to recover. When our prime ministers met in Ufa, we had a joint statement, and then NSAs met in Bangkok. Thereafter, Sushma Swaraj sahiba came to Pakistan for the Heart of Asia conference, and then your Prime Minister made a short stopover in Lahore. Things were moving. Then Pathankot happened. But despite all problems, we were moving. The way we co-operated over Pathankot was unprecedented, it gave us a ray of hope. But then July 8 came and you know what happened in Kashmir.
Q: What is so special about Burhan Wani, he was a Hizbul militant who had taken to arms...
A: It is not about Burhan Wani. It is about Kashmir. This goes back to 1947. To fix everything now on Burhan Wani is of no help. It is about Kashmir and Kashmiris, the way they came out for his funeral and what has been happening thereafter. It is all spontaneous. I am sure the majority of Indians do see it in that way. What is happening there also tells us how important it is for us to deal with this problem. India can always interpret what's happening in terms of terrorism, Pakistan can always keep affirming its own position. You have your discourse, we have our narrative on Kashmir. But just that will take us nowhere, we have to talk about it.
Q: What is there to talk about between us on Kashmir? As you said, we have our discourse, you have your narrative. India says it should rightfully regain the part of Kashmir that is with you and you obviously disagree. Is there much to talk about?
A: But we have been talking about it, both sides agree there is a dispute and we need to resolve it. After all, in 2005 and 2007, we came up with several Kashmir-related CBMs. In his UNGA address last year, our Prime Minister had come up with far-reaching proposals in terms of demilitarising the whole state and formalising the 2003 ceasefire understanding along the LoC. To say that there is nothing to discuss on Kashmir isn't the right attitude. Kashmir is not about a territory. It is not a territorial dispute alone. There are, after all, 12 million people involved. Pakistan has no desire to be irredentist in our approach. What we are saying is that, as has been committed by India and Pakistan to the international community and to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, there should be a solution. The people of Jammu and Kashmir should be given a fair chance to determine their future. If the people of Jammu and Kashmir believe they are happier with India and their future is there, so be it, Pakistan would not have any problem. It is their right. But I think, as was committed, they should be given their right to self- determination.
Q: What mechanism are you talking about, a plebiscite?
A: It should be kept in view that no solution to Jammu and Kashmir can be sustained if it is not acceptable to the people, simple as that. At some stage, as we talk bilaterally, we will have to pay attention to what the people of Jammu and Kashmir think about their future. Hence, their engagement is critical.
Q: So you want a third party in the bilateral negotiations?
A: We do not call them a third party at all, we see them as the major stakeholders in this equation. We feel strongly about this. But as a first step, India and Pakistan should begin talking positively and constructively before we can take things forward.
Q: There is this element called Balochistan now foregrounded between India and Pakistan. Our Prime Minister has spoken strongly about the Baloch situation, the suppressing of Balochi human rights, one prominent Baloch exile has even applied for asylum, and India is examining his case...
A: Let me tell you, Balochistan is not represented by these few misguided elements. We may have some socio-economic issues in Balochistan, like in other parts of Pakistan, but I can tell you that the people of Balochistan are as patriotic and committed to Pakistan as I am or any other Pakistani is. We are not bothered about these few people. But what's important is that in our bilateral relations, we should not be doing things that unnecessarily complicate our relations. We need to address existing issues rather than be adding to our list. Balochistan may be a good way of diverting attention from other issues, but we have no worries on that count.
Q: How would you describe where we are now, India and Pakistan? How bad are things? How bad can they get?
A: We are in a tough phase. And we have challenges. But as a diplomat, I remain optimistic we will emerge from this. I would not give up. Diplomacy has to be given a chance, and I hope we will not allow the current phase to bring us to a pass which is not in our mutual interest. I would tend to think that as two countries, we can still manage our relations in a mature way. I am not thinking in war terms at all, to be frank. But obviously, we cannot be oblivious to our own security requirements. We will defend our country, that will be done. But as I said earlier, I am confident we will be able to arrest this phase and not allow it to the precipice.
Q: Thank you for speaking to us, High Commissioner Basit.
A: Thank you.
Mumbai and after
Major terror attacks that India has pinned on Pakistan
Mumbai, multiple spots
Nov 26-29, 2008
10 terrorists sneak in from Pakistan
via the sea route. Target the Taj and Oberoi hotels, the busy Shivaji train terminus, a Jewish Chabad House, among others in 12 co-ordinated attacks that last four days
166 dead, over 300 injured
Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) behind it. Ajmal Kasab is the lone terrorist captured alive and later tried and hanged
Then Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari claims ‘non-state actors’ are responsible
Army outpost near LoC, Krishna Ghati sector, Jammu & Kashmir
January 8, 2013
Pakistani soldiers sneak into Indian territory.
Kill 2 Indian soldiers; both bodies found mutilated, one decapitated
Pakistan dubs it ‘Indian propaganda’ to deflect attention from killing of a Pakistani soldier on January 6
Gurdaspur, Punjab
July 27, 2015
3 gunmen in army fatigues first open fire on a bus, then attack a police station
3 civilians and 4 cops dead, 15 injured
5 bombs found on a neighbouring rail-bridge
Pakistan-based terror group LeT suspected
Pakistan reiterates stand against terrorism, extends condolences
Pathankot, IAF base in northern Punjab
January 2, 2016
Pre-dawn attack. 6 terrorists breach high security perimeter of base with strategic assets. Fierce gun battle ensues
7 soldiers dead
India blames Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM)
Pakistan condemns attack, claims to be working on leads provided by India
Army Brigade camp in Uri, 100 kilometres from Srinagar
September 18, 2016
Pre-dawn ambush. 4 terrorists lob 17 grenades in a span of 3 minutes.
Tents with sleeping soliders catch fire. Gun battle follows
18 soldiers dead, 20 injured
India blames Pakistan-based JeM
Pakistan denies involvement. Dubs allegations ‘blatant attempt’ to deflect attention from Kashmir crisis
