In the background of the perception that the long talks with both China and Pakistan are going nowhere much, National Security Advisor M K NARAYANAN is questioned by Karan Thapar on the CNN-IBN television channel’s Devil’s Advocate programme. Edited excerpts:
In recent weeks, there is a widespread perception that Chinese incursions across the Line of Actual Control have increased and many people say they are coming deeper and deeper into Indian territory.
There hasn’t been any increase, if you take the last few years. And I find it hard to explain why there has been so much media hype on this question. Almost all the so-called incursions have taken place in areas which are viewed as being disputed by one side or the other. In terms of number of incursions; there has been hardly any increase. There is much more knowledge about what’s happening because I think people are much more alive to these questions. Occasionally, maybe the inroads are a little deeper than what they might have been in the past. I don’t think there is anything alarming.
Our idea is that our border should be tranquil. My (Chinese) counterpart and I have discussed this from time to time. Not only the two of us as the special representatives but political leadership on both sides is very keen to maintain peace and tranquillity on the border.
I don’t want to blame the media but why there is so much reporting? I won’t even use the word exaggerated reporting. But this is a national security issue. The more you raise people’s concerns, the tension could rise and we would then be facing a situation of the kind we wish to avoid.
It’s also been reported that the army has sought the lifting of restrictions on patrolling along what’s considered sensitive sectors of the border.
There are limits of patrolling placed from time to time, and it’s a calibrated exercise. Everybody who is on the border is conscious that you need to keep the border safe and therefore there are different views. But the decisions are taken at the highest level, basically by the China Study Group, and then these are approved by the Cabinet committee.
But it has been suggested that there could be differences within the government over the nature of the patrolling. It is said that the army wants a more assertive response and the MEA is concerned about offending or provoking the Chinese. Is there any truth to these differences of opinions?
There are always (differences) – even I suppose within the army or within the MEA or within Ministry of Home Affairs. That’s why you have a China Study Group which looks at all aspects of the question. Then over and above that, there is the Cabinet committee. There are perceptions of what you need to do. An organised government which has various checks and balances looks at these questions and sees what is in the best interest of the country.
One reason why people are concerned is a second perception that the border and boundary talks you’re holding are not making progress and, second, that the Chinese are trying to wriggle out of an understanding reached in 2005 that settled areas would not be the subject of any future boundary alignment. Are your talks with the Chinese on the boundary making progress?
My last round of talks with Mr Dai Bingguo (Vice-minister for foreign affairs) was the best in the nine rounds I have held with him. We had over 14.5 hours of discussion over a couple of days and of which eight-nine hours were about the border. I think we are much more comfortable at this moment than a year ago.
One of the widespread beliefs is that the Chinese are trying to wriggle out of an understanding in 2005 that settled areas would not be the subject of any border realignment.
It’s a way of looking at some of the language used. We have talked in terms of due interest of the settled population and the nuances of that are different. I think the Chinese would like certain areas with settled populations to be brought within the system. We have under the political parameters and guiding principles a certain understanding. That’s why we are negotiating.
Also Read
People say India is reluctant to face up to China. That India thinks of excuses or justifications to explain away Chinese behaviour. Do we have a China complex, particularly after the 1962 war?
I don’t think so. I think we are careful partly because of what happened in 1962, that we should not provoke a situation which we do not wish to have. I do not think anybody in India wishes to have a conflict with China and I think that goes also for China. Both sides are therefore careful but there are issues in the two countries. I don’t think we have all the answers to these issues but the whole purpose of dialogue is to see where the areas of congruence are and where are the differences.
But you’re saying to me quite clearly that there is no sense of appeasement or hesitation or fear in India when dealing with China?
No, at least I am not aware of anything of this kind. Yes, we are careful and that’s important and imperative. We do not wish to get into a situation that we do not want to be in.
People also say China is disdainful of India, that China doesn’t treat India an equal.
No, China certainly sees us as a rival. They wish to be numero uno in this part of the world. I think the more the rest of the world sees India as a rising power, more importantly as a democratic power, as a country with a tremendous future in terms of not merely its GDP growth but the fact that it is a young population and a tremendous intellectual capability, therefore there is rivalry.
Let us come to Pakistan. At Sharm-el-Sheikh, the prime minister agreed dialogue was the only way forward and the two foreign secretaries should meet as often as necessary. But six week later, he said relations with Pakistan are currently not conducive for the two sides to have talks at any level. To many people that sounds as if he has done a complete U-turn.
The policy laid down is that dialogue is the way forward. We are not talking in terms of a conflict with Pakistan. The whole problem is that you can take a statement out of context. Even with regard to Sharm-el-Sheikh, people took certain words or lines out of context.
Clearly, dialogue is the way forward. At the moment, the issue is the dialogue should be essentially confined to discussing terrorism. We need comfort on this issue. Apart from Mumbai, there are other issues and therefore we will not expand the range or the scope of the dialogue till there is a fair amount of comfort. That is more or less the context in which the statements have been made by the PM or others.
If the PM’s thinking or attitude has not changed, presumably the problem lies in the response and the attitude of the Pakistanis. I want to explore that with you and let’s first start with Hafiz Saeed. The home minister in his interview to Al Jazeera has made perfectly clear the extent of detailed evidence that India has connecting Hafiz Saeed to the Mumbai terror attack. What is Pakistan’s response to that specific detail?
If you take the Hafiz Saeed dossier that has been provided, I think we have marshalled almost grade-1 evidence. You have the evidence from three people, three admitted terrorists: (Ajmal) Kasab, Fahim Ansari, Sohrabuddin, who talk of how Hafiz Saeed had come, talked to them, apart from other connecting evidence. I agree, one can never be sure what a court would do with that kind of evidence. But if you are not willing, in the context of saying what you said in Sharm-el-Sheikh to ensure that terrorism is stamped out, you are not even willing to test that, it certainly leaves in our mind a big question mark as to where Pakistan stands on terrorism.
Despite the rhetoric, when they repeatedly say they will leave no stone unturned to bring the Bombay accused to justice, they don’t act?
They don’t act and there are other issues we have. There are several other credible threats. This evidence is coming from not only our agencies but from friendly intelligence agencies. Unless Pakistan is willing to take action against the two main terrorist groups targeting India, the (Lashkar-e-Taiba) LeT and Jaish, the rest is all rhetoric from our point of view.
The Prime Minister on August 30 spoke of forces working to destabilise India-Pakistan relations. He said, “I could say a lot more.” What was he referring to?
Primarily, the intelligence we have is they wish to strike at targets bound to create widespread mayhem. There is no other particular significance of some of the targets. The basic point if you take the totality is to create as much destruction for the sake of destruction. Our concern is that if you really have a problem of this kind and even in Mumbai, for instance, you could very well have had a situation where because the attack came from Pakistan, people would see it as some Muslims are responsible. We are worried that something might sometimes trigger off a reaction which we are not able to control.
How seriously scared are you that there could be a second major Bombay-like strike on India?
Here you’re asking me a question that I live with in almost daily dread. Not merely I, but all the members of the security architecture or security force live with.
The dialogue mechanism or, rather, the restricted dialogue mechanism, will continue. We are hoping that as a civilised nation, although with a civilian leadership not very much in control but hopefully anxious to do something - somewhere, sometime, the forces arranged against us operating from Pakistan can be brought to book.
Slim hope, isn’t it?
Slim hope, but I think if we don’t have hope, you cannot achieve anything.