What's new

Advani admits he sabotaged Agra summit

mujahideen

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
2,407
Reaction score
0
Advani admits he sabotaged Agra summit

By Our Correspondent

NEW DELHI, March 17: Indian opposition leader Lal Kishan Advani has claimed that inviting President Pervez Musharraf to Agra in July 2001 was his idea, but he also admitted in comments published on Monday that it was his rejection of the draft agreement discussed between the two sides, which torpedoed the summit talks with Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

The Times of India quoted Mr Advani as saying in his new book My Country, My Life that the failure of the Agra summit “was a huge PR disaster for the NDA government.”

Mr Advani said that “the Pakistan leader’s televised breakfast meeting with Indian editors, blasting India’s position on cross-border terrorism and Jammu and Kashmir ensured the collapse of the summit in acrimony and mutual blame-game.”

Consequently, the Vajpayee government was “accused of poor planning and allowing Musharraf to launch an audacious bid to ambush Vajpayee on commitments which would recognise Kashmir as the core issue between India and Pakistan with no references to cross-border terrorism or Islamabad’s commitment to a peaceful resolution of the dispute under the Shimla Agreement.”

Mr Advani recalled in his book that President Musharraf in his book, In the Line of Fire, had accused the BJP hardliner of scuttling the summit. Mr Advani’s book offers a rare admission by him that President Musharraf was not entirely wrong.

From India’s point of view, two unwelcome things happened at Agra, he writes. “Firstly, the exercise of drafting a joint declaration proved highly unsatisfactory. The inconclusive draft, which (foreign minister) Jaswant Singh brought from his meeting with Pakistan’s foreign minister, Abdul Sattar, was discussed at the informal meeting of the (cabinet committee on security) that the prime minister convened in his suite on the evening of the July 15. I noticed that there was no reference to cross-border terrorism in the draft. ‘This cannot be accepted,’ I said. My view was unanimously endorsed by all present in the room.”

Similarly, Mr Advani claims credit for the genesis of the summit following a bloody standoff with Pakistan over Kargil. “The six-month-long break in combat operations was soon drawing to a close, and Atalji, in informal discussions with Jaswant Singh and me would ask us ‘Ab aage kya karna chahiye’. (What should we do now?).” I too had been thinking about the issue for quite some time. During those days, I was in close contact with a senior Pakistani diplomat... On the Pakistani side, it seemed that Gen Musharraf, who had since then assumed the tag of President from CEO, in June 2001, was keen on ending his country’s isolation.

“For that purpose, he too was keen on resuming talks with India. I said to myself that we should test the mind of this military ruler who does not carry political baggage and seems to be his own master in a country where democratically elected leaders have never exercised real power...Thus, one day in May 2001, when the Prime Minister had called Jaswant Singh and me for lunch at his residence to discuss the next course of action, I suggested to him, “Atalji, why don’t you invite the General to come to India for talks? It does not matter that your Lahore initiative failed. It was highly appreciated both at home and abroad. Similarly, your invitation to him will be welcomed as an act of statesmanship, both within India and internationally.” Jaswant Singh concurred with the suggestion and the prime minister accepted it.”

Mr Advani describes his first meeting with Gen Musharraf at the Presidential Palace in Delhi thus:

“Our initial banter was centred around the fact that both of us had studied at St Patrick’s high school in Karachi which I have mentioned earlier. After exchanging pleasantries, I said, “General, although you were born in Delhi, you are visiting your birth place for the first time in 53 years... there are lakhs of families on both sides that are not even as fortunate as we are; they have never visited their native places. Isn’t it odd that this should be the case even after the passage of more than a half-century? Shouldn’t we find an enduring solution to the issues that are keeping our two countries and two peoples apart?”

“Of course, we must,” Musharraf observed. “What are your ideas?”

“The most important thing is to build trust in each other.” He nodded in agreement, and again asked how that could be done. “Well I will give you an example. I have just come back from a fruitful visit to Turkey. I understand that you have a special liking for Turkey, having spent your formative years in that country.”

“Yes, my father was posted there. I can speak fluent Turkish.” “I had gone there to conclude an extradition treaty between India and Turkey.

Now, what great need does India have to have an extradition treaty with Turkey? If an extradition treaty is needed, it is between India and Pakistan, so that criminals committing a crime in one country and hiding in another can be sent back to face trial.”

Musharraf’s first response, not quite knowing where the conversation was headed, was: “Yes, why not? We should have an extradition treaty between our two countries.”

“Even before we conclude a formal extradition treaty, you would be making a great contribution to the peace process if you handed over Dawood Ibrahim to India, who is the prime accused in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts case and who lives in Karachi,” I continued.

Musharraf’s face suddenly turned red and unfriendly. Hardly able to conceal his discomfort, he said something that I regarded as quite offensive.

“Now, Mr Advani, that is small tactics,” he remarked. I could sense a sudden change in the atmosphere of the room, in which five Indian officials were seated on one side and five from Pakistan on the other... Musharraf, his unease palpable, replied assertively: “Mr Advani, let me tell you emphatically that Dawood Ibrahim is not in Pakistan.”

Mr Advani then gives an interesting reason for disbelieving Gen Musharraf, saying: “Several years later, one of the Pakistani officials who was present during the meeting said to me, ‘What our President said about Dawood Ibrahim on that day was a white lie.”

Advani admits he sabotaged Agra summit -DAWN - International; March 18, 2008
 
Interesting bit on the Dawood Ibrahim issue - what did the Pakistani diplomat mean by suggesting that what Musharraf said was a "White Lie" - why not a "lie" outright? Of course assuming the encounter took place in the first place.
 
Hardly a sabotage if one finds the issues too slanted.

Or is selling one's country is to be taken as the most correct thing to do?
 
Well it wasnt a one sided draft, afterall the high officals on the indian side were also involved in the making of such a draft, then why only advani seemed to have a problem with it? or did he wanted to be the hero of the day.
If indians want to continue their blame game for pakistan sponspering terrorism, they can continue another fity years, results will be the same. He called on a leader and stated that his country is sponspering terrorism, what else you could expect of him, its obivious his face would turn red, besides lets not kid our self india does the same, if some of you suffer shortage of memory on the indian side BLA is the name to be remembered.
 
I was thinking along the same lines IceCold.

It beggars belief that an issue that has been so central to India's relationship with Pakistan, and indeed the major bone of contention between the two, could be completely overlooked by the Indian negotiators and their foreign minister.

Apparently, contrary to what Mastan Khan thinks (;)), the Pakistani negotiators are indeed so good that they can make the opposing side completely forget their major concerns during negotiations, and only those not present and later viewing the draft (presumably after the "spells" weaved by the Pakistani negotiators have worn off) are able to discern the absence of ones major interests in the "draft".
 
I honestly feel that there will be no peace between the2 countries till we change the focus of our relations away from Kashmir and on to other things, ie trade and industry. I am afaraid Kashmir is a dead issue. It will eventually be decided depending on how the people of kashmir think and the most likely scenario is Independance with limited governance from both sides. It may well include Pakistani side also, although the more likely scenario is not. The more trade we have the less the reason to fight and more the incentive to negotiate.
Araz
 
Araz,

One has to agree with you if one is to be pragmatic.

Indeed, Kashmir is a millstone on the neck for both India and Pakistan.

Unfortunately, emotions seem to rule rather than the reality of the situation!
 
I was thinking along the same lines IceCold.

It beggars belief that an issue that has been so central to India's relationship with Pakistan, and indeed the major bone of contention between the two, could be completely overlooked by the Indian negotiators and their foreign minister.

Apparently, contrary to what Mastan Khan thinks (;)), the Pakistani negotiators are indeed so good that they can make the opposing side completely forget their major concerns during negotiations, and only those not present and later viewing the draft (presumably after the "spells" weaved by the Pakistani negotiators have worn off) are able to discern the absence of ones major interests in the "draft".

Again, I would like to remind you of the issue of personalities over issues!
 
I honestly feel that there will be no peace between the2 countries till we change the focus of our relations away from Kashmir and on to other things, ie trade and industry. I am afaraid Kashmir is a dead issue. It will eventually be decided depending on how the people of kashmir think and the most likely scenario is Independance with limited governance from both sides. It may well include Pakistani side also, although the more likely scenario is not. The more trade we have the less the reason to fight and more the incentive to negotiate.
Araz

I agree with you that in current situation, India and Pakistan have to focus on trade and people to people contact, and put Kashmir issue at back burner (I am not saying Kashmir issues should not be solved).

I appreciate one interview of Mr. Zardari to Karan Thapar, there he made a legendry statement to start the trade and PtoP contact and build a cordial relation so that at least next generation can sit together in amicable environment and solve the Kashmir issue, else I am very sure Kashmir issue will never be solved and may lead dangerous situation where both countries will be biggest looser along with Kashmiries.
 
I honestly feel that there will be no peace between the2 countries till we change the focus of our relations away from Kashmir and on to other things, ie trade and industry. I am afaraid Kashmir is a dead issue. It will eventually be decided depending on how the people of kashmir think and the most likely scenario is Independance with limited governance from both sides. It may well include Pakistani side also, although the more likely scenario is not. The more trade we have the less the reason to fight and more the incentive to negotiate.
Araz

Neither Pakistan, nor India will ever give up their hold of their part of Kashmir unless through war, so it is useless to keep discussing Kashmir. At least for now, I agree with the Indians. The issue should not hold back our trade relations and people-people relations.

Maybe the future generations will be able to find a solution.

PS. Dawood Ibrahim is not in Pakistan ;)
 
It does not matter if Dawood is in Pakistan.

He will die one day.

So long as he is impotent, it is fine.

Indo Pakistan amity and friendship is greater than punks and criminals as Dawood!
 
The issue should not hold back our trade relations and people-people relations.

Ok fine! But even with kashmir issue being put aside, what about the continous indian involvement with terrorist elements such as the BLA in baluchistan.
India never was and never will be serious with pakistan in establishing a relationship, all india wants is to make its grip solid on kashmir and no doubt thanks to our political environment, india has been very much successfull in achieving its goal. Rest assured india will do and is doing everything in its disposal to sabotage pakistan, we sent their spy back home and how did they repayed, killed a pakistani cricket fan and sent its body back. There are numerous other incidents like these which cleary shows the hatred, so to look for trade and better relationships, people to people contact is nothing more then a wet dream.

The difference in ideology and geostrategic interests is so huge that even if kashmir is put aside, there will be other issues of interests against the others. For instance gawadar port, chinese involvement in it. The water issue, siachen issue, and many more.Just by expanding trade cannot solve these issues specially when there is a difference of interest, it will only mean as an eye stealing from the real issues in disguise of trade.
 
Icecold:

On Kashmir, how could India secure its position? I would suggest that it would do so in two ways:

1. Militarily, by crushing the militancy, cracking down on separatism and "forcing local cooperation", by convincing the local population that there was no possibility of a militant or political campaign for freedom being successful.

In this situation I would argue that India would only secure its position temporarily, since resentment in the local population would continue to simmer, and in the long run would be detrimental to the region being integrated into India. But the population could also decide that generations of conflict were not worthwhile - in either case it is the Kashmiris who are making the decision to accept or reject (overtly or covertly) India's sovereignty over them.

2. By employing both military, political and economic measures, India attempts to both crush the militancy militarily, and try and "win hearts and minds" by offering the Kashmiris the possibility of a prosperous life as part of India.

I would argue that the latter approach is the one being attempted by India, and here too the Kashmiris are free to accept or reject the "proposal" being advanced.

The only thing Pakistan can do, in either of the two cases, even in the absence of the Baluchistan insurgency and the violence in FATA, is to militarily wrest control of the territory from India. That would result in a stalemate as history has shown.

I would argue that the best option available to Pakistan is to take advantage of the fact that we do not have to deal with militancy in Azad Kashmir, and invest in the economy and development of the region as much as possible, while also encouraging exchanges between the IK and AK.

The ROZ's will provide a much needed boost to the AK economy, as will the investments being made in infrastructure and development of Hydel resources. Last year there was a article on the enthusiasm of the traders from IK being able to utilize the potential of ROZ's in PK - I think that in the long run, economic prosperity and development in AK, observable first hand by Kashmiris from IK, is how we retain a "solid grip" on the hearts and minds of Kashmiris - at the very least the Kashmiris in PK.
 
Hi agno

I think most of the postings in this thread show that most of us stand in the same plane albeit a littile dented one, however our ideas are nearly same.

I would like to ask you one thing, now that itsbeen nearly 50 years since both AK and Ik were seperated from each other, dont you think there is bound to be huge difference in their identity and way of life as similar to the difference between Indian Tamils and Srilankan Tamil, frankly we consider them to be different. In light of your post dont you think that moment we both nations giveup kashmir issue the freedom struggle in by itsef die down and slowly Ak will be assimilated into mainstream pakistan and Ik will be slowly assimilated into india, just my 2 cents

cheers
 
Back
Top Bottom