Pakistan has made it clear that there can be no talks with India unless Kashmir is on the agenda.
Interacting with television channel CNN-IBN, Pakistan's National Security Advisor Sartaz Aziz dismissed the notion that the Pakistani Army had scuttled the talks with New Delhi and said that the military and Islamabad are united on the Kashmir agenda.
Here is the excerpt of the conversation:
CNN IBN: When the two leaders met in Ufa, there was an impression that they developed an understanding. What according to you was that understanding? What was intent of the Ufa statement according to you?
Sartaz Aziz: It is a very relevant question because our interpretations do not seem to converge.
First of all, I think at the moment the first thing was of course that it was the first contact, ice breaker, India suggested that the two NSAs meet to discuss issues connected to terrorism and we should also discuss the border questions through meetings of the DGMOs and DG BSF and to non-controversial items like fishermen and religious tourism but we suggested that unless outstanding issues are discussed it will not promote peace.
After discussion they agreed that India and Pakistan have collective responsibility to ensure peace and promote development. To do so they are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues.
Now Sushma Swaraj's interpretation is that that's a preambular paragraph and the operative paragraph is the one in which all the decisions are given. Now if you read the thing properly, they agreed and what she calls the operative paragraph that says they also agreed.
When use the word also which means both are equally important and there is no preambular paragraph. The formulation and structure of preambular vs operational is very different so that is one.
The more difficult question, the more fundamental question is what will promote the objective of Ufa? Which is to reduce tension and promote peace.
Now if we only discuss terrorism then obviously, it can probably vitiate the atmosphere and may not necessarily improve trust . So our emphasis on discussing all issues without which durable peace cannot come is totally relevant and that's why in our agenda we suggested yes we are ready to discuss terrorism because it is not just your concern, we are equally concerned and we can also review two three items like fishermen and others. But then only thing we suggested under the third item was modalities to discuss the other outstanding issues -- this means when and how and what time frame.
Not that we will have substantial discussion but this insistence that we will do only terrorism and in due course have the composite, now the resumed dialogue which includes Kashmir and other issues is not a correct interpretation because under the composite dialogue terrorism was always discussed along with other issues.
So this unilateral decision that we first discuss terrorism and nothing else, I don’t think justifies Ufa. The spirit of Ufa should be linked to the objective of Ufa which is to improve trust and reduce tensions and improve the prospects for peace in that sense, some discussion or initial discussion on the broader issues at least in terms of the road map because I think basically without our interpretation, in fact you know when you meet at this level you don't say we are not going to talk about anything else, I mean normally when two countries meet they discuss some in detail and others they discuss on a preliminary basis.
On the one hand, they say they are not imposing pre conditions then they impose the two preconditions that the agenda will be narrower and the Hurriyat leaders.
CNN IBN: Right Sir, I think what the minister said in the press conference she held yesterday was that India is not running away from discussing Jammu and Kashmir and India has always said it is a part of all outstanding issues but during this meeting, considering this was a meeting between the two NSAs, the focus would be on security and the focus would be on terror. Could this meeting not have happened on one problem that you say your country faces too?
Sartaz Aziz: You see if you really go deeper into this, they say start discussion and until terrorism is discussed and resolved some how and so any time there is a small incident you can postpone the discussion indefinitely.
In the past when terror could be discussed along with others why this unilateral decision that terror alone be discussed because the objective is to discuss those issues that promote peace and reduce tension.
So I think this insistence on narrow definition obviously meant to avoid discussion and we were not talking of substantial discussion on Kashmir but at least the modalities and the frame work and obviously when I go to Delhi I will meet the NSA then our foreign secretary could meet his counterpart, we even requested a call on to the EAM and PM so the other issues could be discussed there so why insist that this time nothing else will be discussed.
It is very unfortunate, because dialogue between two countries was at least at some level beginning and to loose that window of opportunity is rather unfortunate.
CNN IBN: Was diplomacy conducted in complete media glare, would you agree? Or was there a back channel? Did the two countries try to have a back channel to come up with a diplomatic solution at all or no?
Sartaz Aziz: Back channel issue is a different matter. Once we start the front channel, some issues are better pursued in back channel but back channel without the front channel is meaningless.
This is the whole concept of modalities when we talk of modalities that means okay let’s start this and this we can discuss in back channel and this is the whole concept of modalities. So once we have an opportunity we should have used that to promote the dialogue process.
One should accept that composite or resumed dialogue is necessary and then you don't delay it particularly when the only discussing channel can further vitiate the atmosphere rather than improve it.
CNN IBN: What about the meeting between the DGMOs and the DG BSF and the Pakistan rangers, is that going ahead Sir?
Sartaz Aziz: Yes, rangers and BSF is going ahead but her assumption that they were suppose to meet before, this was not in Ufa.
First was NSA and then early meetings of BSF and followed by by that of DGMOs. They, of course, talked to each other every week and we would like the BSF and the rangers to meet because I think reducing tension on the LoC necessary, even if the NSAs have not met we must pursue that particular agenda because humanitarian issues are involved, civilians are dying, people's lives are disrupted so we would like to intensify that direction but that is not possible only at that level, DGMOs will also talk.
It requires a mechanism to go beyond and suggestions have been made to make sure that some reduction in tensions take place
CNN IBN: And Sir can you confirm the dates for both these meetings?
Sartaz Aziz: The BSF is confirmed for the sixth, they have already had a preliminary meeting to discuss the agenda -- they will be meeting on the sixth of September. The DGMO talks happen every week anyway and they can agree among themselves whenever they want to meet.
CNN IBN: Sir, the script playing out in Pakistan, is this dictated by the Pakistani army and the ISI, is the Sharif government under pressure?
Sartaz Aziz: I think this is a narrative that India loves. There is no difference between the Army and them. The whole thing that India and Pakistan like to know which are the forces -- I think as far Kashmir is concerned not only the political leadership as I said in the press conference -- the whole nation is united that we cannot talk to India without Kashmir. It doesn't require Army to dictate that.
CNN IBN: Okay but Sir, will the two leaders be meeting in New York? Is that something you're going to be proposing?
Sartaz Aziz: We are not going to propose that, but if India proposes then we'll see.
CNN IBN: But Sir you said that you would like to hand over India the dossiers.
Sartaz Aziz: That is you know, handing over is not a meeting, if I get a chance I will probably. We have prepared these things so lets exchange them even if we can’t have a meeting.
CNN IBN: There's also been a lot of evidence against Dawood Ibrahim, you've been provided with passport numbers, addresses. several times Indian government has provided that to Pakistani authorities -- any development sir? Will there be any cooperation from Pakistan on that front?
Sartaj Aziz: What cooperation? I mean they, let them provide. On Gurdaspur, nothing has been provided. If they provide we will take action. So India is always using the media to target and point fingers at Pakistan without providing anything. In my two years (tenure), I have not seen any evidence being provided on these two issues.
CNN IBN: DG FIA Mr Khosa has said that according to the New fair trial act in Pakistan that came in 2013 the voice samples can be recorded of Zaki Ur Rehman lakhvi, he is out on bail. Why is Pakistan not recording his sample if law allows.
Sartaz Aziz: No, No, we need the voice sample that you have recorded so we can present it in the court. What is the point of providing it to India? We need the trial here. We are going to write, because we could not meet to ask for the all the additional evidence we require to conclude the trial.
This is what the Ufa agreement says. So we are going to write about it and so there fore we need the voice sample here so that we can then present it to court as evidence if it matches.
CNN IBN: You said you will be presenting evidence against India on an international stage? What is this evidence? If you can give us any details.
Sartaz Aziz: I can’t give you details but that is not a part of the UNGA, that is on the sidelines and we will see how things move by then.
Image (Top): A Kashmiri government teacher shouts anti-government slogans from inside a police van after he was detained during a protest in Srinagar. Photograph: Fayaz Kabli/Reuters
(Below) Pakistan's National Security Advisor Sartaz Aziz
