THE TRIBUNE INTERVIEW

‘The bottomline is that these mosquito bites from Pakistan must stop’ 
— Salman Khurshid, Minister for External Affairs
by Raj Chengappa

It has barely been five months since Salman Khurshid took over as India’s External Affairs Minister. But his tenure has been an eventful one — be it handling the Italian marine crisis, the human rights imbroglio with Sri Lanka or hosting a lame-duck Pakistan Prime Minister for lunch. There has never been a dull moment for Khurshid, who has taken to the portfolio with aplomb. He is articulate, accessible and speaks with refreshing candour on major issues, as he did when he sat down for an exclusive interview with Raj Chengappa, Editor-in-Chief, The Tribune Group of Newspapers, at his Delhi residence on Sunday morning. Excerpts:

On the recent vote in the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council) there is criticism from experts that India had always dealt with Sri Lanka bilaterally on issues that concerned us but we are now resorting to multi-lateral means. As an example they cite the recent vote by India in favour of the US resolution and a similar one last year calling for devolution of powers to the Tamils and an inquiry into human rights violations by the Sri Lankan army. Isn’t India compromising its foreign policy approach in many ways?

India is powerful a country. India is not going to be pushed and shoved by mosquito bites from Pakistan. I think it is important that Pakistan gets beyond the pranks and tricks of the past and makes a serious effort to take forward the investment that both countries have made in the peace initiative.I wouldn't say that the dialogue with Pakistan is dead. It has gone very leepy.

Interesting, that you should ask this question.  I have had a lot of people within the political establishment in India saying that why we are not doing what we should be doing which is seeking amendments to the resolution or bringing your own resolution saying that there should be a credible independent international investigation.  The closest we came to this was saying that the independent and credible investigation that must take place should be to the satisfaction of the international community. We even suggested to the US that this be taken on as an amendment but within the parameters and dynamics of the body of that nature.   They felt that it would have disturbed the consensus that they had been able to get together over a long period and, therefore, they did not agree to our suggestion. Now why is all this a departure from India’s foreign policy?

The fact that we are moving away from the bilateral approach.  Does it mean that we have a diminishing clout with Lanka?

Fortunately, whatever we have said multilaterally is what we are saying to Sri Lanka directly.  The 13th amendment was the bilateral agreement between India and Sri Lanka that there was a commitment given to India because Sri Lanka felt that it was necessary to give that commitment and we certainly desire that commitment.  We do believe to this date and that is what can ultimately guarantee sustainable peace in Sri Lanka and there has to be sustainable peace in Sri Lanka. It is good for them and it’s obviously necessary for us.  But it must be within the sovereign rights of the Sri Lankan state.

Why did the DMK move out then?

Frankly, this was their call. The world sees India as having made a very determined effort to both appeal to Sri Lanka and to add to the world view as far as the human rights issue was concerned.  So it can’t be that we were wrong in both places or that we were wrong in not doing enough as far as the DMK was concerned. Right now it may appear that we owe explanations to the people in Tamil Nadu but frankly I think as tempers calm down, as the dust settles and clarity prevails, people will ask them why you are not admitting the extent to which the Government of India has, as you said, redefined some of its positions but tried to address the aspirations of the people of Tamil Nadu and we are not going to shy away from saying this. Fortunately, and I hope that this will remain true, our compulsions and the principles of the stand that we have taken have been understood by Sri Lanka.

Coming to the Italian marine crisis, Italy’s major reason for keeping the marines back was that they believed that they should be tried either by the International Court or by their own domestic process.  What was the problem with that?

The problem was that our courts said no, we can only go by what our court says about jurisdiction.  Our courts, including the Supreme Court, said prima facie the jurisdiction does exist, it does not exist in the state government of Kerala, but it exists in the Central government to appoint a special court to try this matter. But they have also left open that the court that tries this matter can examine the jurisdiction issue in its entirety and then finally come to a conclusion whether the full trial is permissible or not.  That’s the Supreme Court judgement – we accepted it and so did Italy.

So why did the problem arise?

We keep telling Afghanistan that India wants to be part of a solution and not part of the problem. We have said we are not entirely excited by the American idea that they should talk to Taliban.

They have a larger stated position about international tribunals and international disputes; but within the largest stated position, they accepted the pronouncement and the judgement of our Supreme Court because they are party to it.  And then subsequently, relying upon that very judgement and their being party to it and accepting the jurisdiction of the court, they then sought permission to leave, having come back once under permission that was given by the High Court.  This time they sought permission from the Supreme Court and they were given permission against an affidavit that their Ambassador gave.  Frankly, what is our fault in it?  It’s the assessment they made which is the submission to the jurisdiction that they did, we did not force anything on them and in view of that they were allowed to go to Italy for four weeks.  That is the judgement of the court and we should all respect the judgement.  Then they were advised presumably that they did not have to come back, we persuaded them that that was wrong.

Did we give them guarantees and that is why they came back?

We have given them a clarification in writing. They asked us whether the marines will be arrested on their arrival in India, we said no because they were supposed to arrive by the midnight of 22nd and if they arrived before the midnight of 22nd, then they were complying with the Supreme Court orders. So what could we arrest them for? And the other issue was: would they be subjected to death penalty? We said no because our understanding of the Indian law is that this is not the rarest of rare case as we understand from all Supreme Court judgements and, therefore, there is no apprehension of death penalty. It was a clarification, we are in no position to give guarantees and then as an abundant precaution we ran this by the Attorney General and then gave a written clarification. We have also written to the Attorney General to make all this available to the court when it reopens on April 2. 

So you look upon this as a success of Indian diplomacy and that you were able to avert a nasty situation?

I won’t call it a failure but I think yes it could have become very, very difficult because there were the competing claims — one of domestic law and one of the Vienna Convention and to be put through that very tough test of which way you should tilt is something that was avoided by timely and far-sighted decision of the Italian government. I think there is no reason why we shouldn’t appreciate that and acknowledge it. 

You had lunch with the Pakistani Prime Minister recently in Jaipur when he came to India. Why didn’t the Indian Prime Minister invite him to Delhi for lunch?

Look at the kind of reactions to my having lunch with him – it would have been much worse if the Prime Minister had had lunch with him.  He was on a private visit and not on official visit.  There was a minimalist time required for him to go and pay obeisance at the Ajmer Dargah. We took a call that it would be appropriate for the Foreign Minister to go. So I went there, had lunch with him and came back.

Did you discuss relations between India and Pakistan?

The world sees India as having made a very determined effort to both appeal to Sri Lanka and to add to the world view as far as the human rights issue was concerned. So it can’t be that we were wrong in both places or that we were wrong in not doing enough as far as the DMK was concerned.

We kept mostly to general topics. We talked about Sufism, we talked about music, we talked about food. But I did ask the Prime Minister if he had a vision for the relationship between India and Pakistan. We didn’t go into specifics. I just asked him about a broad vision as anyone would over a meal. He then expanded on that. He talked a lot about it. Then I asked him what he was saying, which was obviously very positive in articulation, was only a position of his party or was it acceptable across the board in Pakistan politics. He said everyone shares it and that Pakistan was changing, particularly the younger generation.

Did you raise any of India’s concerns with him?

No, this was a spiritual visit and I made it very clear that we didn’t want to raise the issues we had. Words are not the only things that you require to convey feelings. These things are understood instinctively by people at that level. You don’t have to take him through the alphabets all over again. I had made it clear that we were extending a courtesy for the spiritual visit. Therefore, my discussions hovered over spiritual issues more than politics.

So India’s dialogue with Pakistan is almost dead? 

I would not say it is dead or in a coma. I will say it has gone very sleepy.

When a new government in Pakistan takes charge in May, what does India expect it to do?

One, we have to go beyond the irritants as they serve little purpose. The irritant on the LoC, for instance, I don’t think it served any purpose. If someone thinks it served an electoral purpose, they were probably barking up the wrong tree. Two, we still do not know whether it is lack of conviction  on their part whoever is in the civilian government or lack of capacity  to deliver on all those things that we want them to deliver  in terms of the safety and security of our citizens. The bottomline is this that these mosquito bites must stop.

We were in no position to give guarantees to the Italians for them to send the marines back. What we gave were clarifications with regard to death penalty and their being placed under arrest.

You would call the attacks mosquito bites?

Well, I think we are too powerful a country. We should not undermine our own strength and our own stature by reducing ourselves to that. I don’t think it is more than very itchy mosquito bites. India is not going to be pushed and shoved by a mosquito bite. I think it is important that we get beyond the pranks and tricks of the past and make a serious effort to take forward the investment that both countries have made in the peace initiative.

Do we expect any changes in our relationship with China with a new leadership taking over?

The signals they have given us are very good. So far we have not had any eyeball-to-eyeball contact. But our Prime Minister developed a very good working relationship with the previous Chinese government.  We have been given to understand that there is going to be continuity and enhancement of the relationship.  We are very happy with that and we will reciprocate it. The good thing is the fundamental understanding that  difficult issues will not keep us away from moving forward on areas of convergence. It is already articulated by them, by us and by the new Government in China and we reiterate that as well.

I hope there will be a consensual passing of the historic land boundary Bill in Parliament when it meets after the recess; it will be a tribute to India’s lasting relationship with Bangladesh and will be one of high points of our foreign policy.

Moving to another trouble zone Afghanistan and regional security. With the US pullout in a year’s time, what is likely to happen?

I do not know. This is a huge imponderable. We keep telling Afghanistan that India wants to be part of a solution and not part of the problem.  We have said we are not entirely excited by the American idea that they should talk to Taliban; we know that they will have to talk to Taliban because they are their citizens and they have to talk. But distinguishing between good and bad Taliban or Taliban and Al-Qaida is not something that comes to us naturally. But if it is an Afghan-driven exercise and the redlines that the world agreed too with Afghanistan remain, then I guess it is the best thing that they can do.

In our relations with the US, there seems to be some kind of cooling recently. What needs to be done?

The signals the new Chinese leadership have given India are very good. We have been given to understand that there is going to be continuity and enhancement of the relationship. We are very happy with that and we will reciprocate it.

We have to get back and start talking again. There was no cooling but there was a pause because they were preoccupied with campaigns, with the new government, with the fiscal cliff etc. But now we will have a visit by the new Secretary of State and I will also pay a visit. Our Prime Minster will engage with their President and in the next few months, you will see things back in action. The export of natural gas was an issue we have to settle quickly. There are many issues relating to cooperation with their industry and our agencies with regard to the nuclear deal that need to be worked out. We are in touch with them and the high level intensity of exchanges will resume.

Any big bang developments expected during Barack Obama’s second term as President and the UPA’s second stint?

For us it is a consolidation term. For him it is a legacy term.   I do not think there are legacies to be hunted here in the second term; there are legacies to be hunted in the Middle East or somewhere else. But consolidation is very important. President Obama’s time and energy will be sought by India to consolidate a relationship that, we believe, has come a long way and has become very stable and I think that all the beginnings we have made must be taken further. That’s what we will try to do.

With Bangladesh we still have not fully addressed the land border issue or agreed on water sharing of the Teesta?

No worries on that. We are working on the land border issue. We will introduce it in Parliament after the current recess.  There are a few odds and ends that we need to explain to some MPs from Assam. I think we have got it tied up pretty well. I hope there will be a consensual passing of this historic land boundary Bill; it will be a tribute to India’s lasting relationship with Bangladesh and will be one of high points of our foreign policy. As regards Teesta, it does not involve anybody except West Bengal. We will take up the Teesta issue once the land boundary issue is sorted out. 

President Obama’s time and energy will be sought by India to consolidate a relationship that, we believe, has come a long way and has become very stable and I think that all the beginnings we have made must be taken further.

What is your world view now that you have been almost five months in the saddle?

The world is waiting for us, the world wants to engage with us, the world wants to be friendly with us, the world wants to be our partner in prosperity and the world admires India in many ways.  Only one who can spoil this is India itself. So my appeal to all our political parties and sections of our society is that we have a lot of things that we disagree upon in our country and that happens in our emerging, growing and maturing democracy, but we have been lucky because throughout we have had a consensus on foreign policy and that has given us moral standing in the world far, far beyond this strength that we have both in terms of economy and military prowess.

Read full text of interview