Pakistan has once called for the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to monitor the Line of Control in order to arrest the spate of ceasefire violations a day after an Indian soldier was killed by the Pakistani army along the LoC in the Nowgam sector of J&K. Pakistan High Commissioner to India Abdul Basit, in an interview to BusinessLine , said Pakistan is not interested in keeping the LoC hot and urged India to formalise the 2003 Ceasefire Agreement. Excerpts:
You will be completing three years here. How would you evaluate your role?
Pakistan and India ties have always been very complex and the last three years are no exception in the sense that there have been ups and downs. But, I think despite all these the two countries were able to agree on the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue, that was a big step forward. We hope that it will resume because that’s the only way to settle issues.
Our relations have not worsened because of Uri or Pathankot. We have fought wars in 1947, 1948, 1965 and 1971. So, we need to understand why there continues to be mutual distrust. We cannot deny the centrality of the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) issue. We need to resolve this once and for all, in accordance to the wishes of J&K people.
When Uri happened Pakistan immediately ordered international investigation in order to establish facts. In the Pathankot incident I think the two countries reacted maturely and we agreed to get to the bottom of the issue. Amarnath is also very unfortunate.
Ceasefire violations have also seen a substantial rise in the last three years...
What is the solution? You either authorise the UNMOGIP to monitor the LoC or we have also proposed formalising the 2003 ceasefire understanding. But India never responded. We would like to see the understanding converted into an agreement. We are not interested in keeping LoC hot. We are too busy to create more problems for us in the LoC.
India has certain preconditions to resume talks. So if you are eager to resume talks then why not agree to those?
In my view these preconditions are unhelpful. When you talk about finding a solution, people of J&K are the main stakeholders and no solution can be tenable unless it is acceptable to them. Hence, Pakistan has been interacting with Hurriyat since its formation in the 1990s and even Indian governments have been engaging with them in one form or other.
But not everyone in J&K sees the Hurriyat as their representative …
I think the Common Minimum Programme (of the UPA) and the Agenda of Alliance (PDP-BJP agreement) clearly state that we need to engage with all stakeholders. The Hurriyat does represent political aspirations of the people of J&K.
In that case there is no common ground …
I think it is for India to decide. We did agree in December 2015 to revive the dialogue. So there is a common ground. It was decided in Sharm-el-Sheikh that talks and terror will be kept separate. And India as a state had taken that position. Shimla Agreement, Lahore Declaration were not negotiated by this government, states abide by commitments.
Then why did you not allow NIA to visit Islamabad?
Here cooperation is far more important than getting into reciprocal visits. Despite the limited mandate, our team came to India, they went back and all of a sudden everything fell apart just because of the insistence on NIA team visit.
It was imperative for the NIA to visit there to ascertain Masood Azhar’s role in it …
But how? That is our problem and it is for us to handle. And if at all some people are involved it is for the Pakistani investigators to investigate. Prematurely asking for something when our investigations were at play was slightly off the mark.
India has gone out of its way to smoothen ties, where do you think matters worsened?
We all started on a positive note, but we were not able to sustain it. The question is whether we become hostage to 2-3 events or we would react maturely and move on. We want to discuss terrorism when the dialogue will resume. We have not set any precondition. Leadership should show the way.
What are you doing about Kulbhushan Jadhav?
Firstly, we need to understand that Commander Jadhav is not an ordinary citizen and this is not an ordinary case. He was arrested and subsequently convicted for subversive activities in Pakistan. Secondly, we signed a bilateral consular access agreement which states on matters related to security issues it will be decided on merit. The matter is now also sub-judice at the ICJ at India’s behest.
So if the ICJ rules that he be given consular access, will you abide by it?
I do not see why the ICJ will say that which is not consistent with our position. We will take a decision according to our bilateral agreement as well as our domestic laws.
Do you guarantee that Jadhav will not be executed until ICJ hears the matter?
I do not see Commander Jadhav being executed tomorrow. His mercy petition is now pending with our army chief after the first appeal got rejected at the Military Appellate Court. But, if this one is also rejected he will have the last chance to put a mercy petition to the President. That process is underway. The matter is also sub-judice at the ICJ so we are not in a hurry.
So both processes will run in parallel and will you wait till the case is completed in ICJ?
We are confident of our processes and our responsibilities. We will submit our memorials at the ICJ in December. But, when it comes to jurisdiction we are on solid ground and we are not worried.
What about his mother’s visa?
We did receive her visa. But, it will be decided on merit. It’s not an ordinary case and involves security.