How does the new foreign minister, S M Krishna, view the two key relationships he has to manage – with Pakistan and the US? Karan Thapar explores this on CNN-IBN’s ‘Devil’s Advocate’ programme. Edited excerpts:
It is 10 days since Hafiz Mohammad Saeed was released and even now the government in Pakistan hasn't made up its mind whether they want to appeal against the release or not.
The very release of a known terrorist whomasterminded the terrorist attack on India on 26/11 has certainly created doubts in us about the sincerity of Pakistan.
And now the delay in appealing, is that underlining the doubts?
It is. It is.
Was he released because Pakistan today has a strong and assertive judiciary or because the authorities deliberately presented a weak case?
Well, we know how cases are fought in a court of law. We know that Pakistan could have made more serious attempts in fighting the case. The whole approach of Pakistan has become debatable on terror and attacking terror.
So, handling Hafiz Saeed was a credibility test and they haven't passed that?
That was an important landmark. He was a terrorist who was wanted in the 26/11 attack and the way he was released and the way the Pakistan government took that release and have not followed it up by preferring an appeal shows they are not serious about pursuing the perpetrators of that attack on India. It is our experience that Pakistan says something for outward consumption but it doesn't really mean what it conveys to the rest of the world.
India is also being nudged by the Obama administration to resume the political dialogue with Pakistan. How intense is the pressure?
India cannot be pressurised to take a particular posture. We take decisions on what is best for our national interest. We have taken our relationship with the US to a higher level than what it was, especially after the civil nuclear treaty. As there are a number of other concerns where we are acting closely with the US, so they might have friendly advice, suggestions, just as we can give them. But that doesn't mean they are going to pressurise us.
You do accept receiving friendly advice, suggestions to start talks with Pakistan?
We have a friendly exchange of views about not only the bilateral relationship between the US and India but about the border situation, the neighbourhood.
Given that suspending the political dialogue with Pakistan hasn't pushed them to either bring the accused in the Mumbai terror strike to justice or even to dismantle the infrastructure of terror, how long do you think it is useful for India to keep the political dialogue suspended?
The Prime Minister, on the floor of the House, said if Pakistan shows the sincerity that is necessary to convey to us that they are going the whole hog in trying to destroy the instrumentalities of terrorism directed against India, India will be too willing to resume the dialogue.
So, you are saying show some reasonable movement, give us and help us resume the dialogue by being reasonable with your reactions and responses.
That is what we expect. They should take some credible steps to convey to India that they are willing to fight terror both within and without.
If they respond well, then you will accommodate?
We have said (that) repeatedly.
And, if Pakistan is obstinate, then India can't be accommodating.
I think you have summed it up very well.
Let's come to America. After eight years of an excellent relationship under George Bush, many people believe that under Barack Obama the relationship could be problematical.
I do not share that perception.
Iit is said the new US government has an overwhelming pre-occupation with Pakistan and India is largely seen through the lens of disturbing events in Pakistan. Has Obama's vision re-hyphenated India and Pakistan?
From whatever I have read and heard about President Obama, he believes in democracy. So, India and the US have so much in common in terms of our values. I think we should be working very closely with the US.
You are saying that even if he now has an overwhelming pre-occupation with Pakistan, that won't hinder a good, close relationship with India.
Whether President Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I believe they understand India's position and India's strength in the neighbourhood and India's relevance in keeping peace and tranquility in this stable region.
Former American ambassador Robert Blackwill recently said, in a major speech to CII, that India does not figure in an important way in US calculations on Afghanistan. And you know that America is slowly but surely looking for good or moderate Taliban to incorporate into the Afghan government, something Pakistan endorses but India has strong reservations about.
I do not know how to distinguish between good and a bad Taliban. All Taliban are evil personified.
So, if Obama believes there is an element of the Taliban that can be won over and brought into government, that would cause you great concern and disquiet?
That is something the US will have to work out with Pakistan. We will have no role in shaping that. And we will communicate to the US in our own way what we feel about it.
America has made it clear they would like India to sign NPT and if America itself ratifies CTBT, then you will be under pressure to sign that as well. Do you think Obama understands India's special nuclear status in the same way George Bush did?
We presume so. Without reason, President Bush would not have given us that kind of a status, so I am sure the new administration in the US will understand the compulsions of India to not sign.
There is an element of doubt in that presumption?
We will have to wait and see.
Have you sought an assurance from Washington that the $2.8 billion military aid they are about to give Islamabad won't end up being used against India? Obama himself, when he was a candidate, said that it has happened.
So, we proceed on the basis that he understands the implications.
Clearly, the meeting you are going to have in July with Hillary Clinton is essential.
It is going to be a very important meeting.
