We’re committed to the ceasefire: Khurshid

External affairs minister Salman Khurshid says, ‘Nobody should feel that we are not serious about what has happened (on the LoC recently).’ He tells Parul Chandra that India’s  dialogue with Pakistan is influenced by the level of satisfaction we get with regard to the Mumbai attacks.
Will the dialogue process with Pakistan be impacted after the recent macabre incident on the Line of Control?
The dialogue process is faster when things look good and not so fast when things are not so good. The dialogue must address issues such as ceasefire violations, peace and accountability. It is inherent in the dialogue to cater to circumstances around it. So as the situation evolves, we will do whatever is appropriate. What is our duty, we will do.
What made India’s stance suddenly look more hardline?
There is no change in our stand. All this is part of an evolving situation. We’re still in the process of assessing wh­at happened with regard to the soldiers’ killings. Nobody should feel that we are not serious about what has happ­ened. We’re committed to the ceasefire. At the same time, we feel there should be a re­s­p­onse. Our stand is consistent.We’ve not indicated any ite­ms at all on our agenda. We be­lieve that as the situation ev­olves we will do whatever is appropriate and is our duty.
Trade, cultural and sporting ties between the two countries are already hit. Where do they go from here?
Unless we take a decision and announce it, things will remain as they are.
Pakistan foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar, while responding to corruption charges against Prime Minis-ter Raja Parvez Ashraf, said that even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had faced corruption charges. What do you make of this?
The kind of language they use while commenting on their domestic politics is not something that we’re going to respond to.
Is India satisfied with what Pakistan has done so far to bring the masterminds of 26/11 to book?
No, we’re not. We haven’t found our level of satisfaction vis-à-vis the Mumbai attacks. The Pakistani response has not met our expectations. Our dialogue with Pakistan is influenced by the level of satisfaction we get with regard to the Mumbai attacks.
With the US and Nato forces leaving Afghanistan by 2014, the Taliban are being assiduously wooed by Pakistan. Does this worry India?
I wouldn’t use the word “worry”, but we’ve not been as enthusiastic or willing to get into any kind of a conversation with the Taliban, good or bad. We have adhered to, and believe everyone should adhere to, the red lines that have been drawn.We’re conscious that the combat forces are being withdrawn on the understanding that there will be a political settlement. It’s part of the political settlement that the Americans have gone along with those elements in the Taliban they can engage with. Afghanistan, too, has proceeded with the engagement. Since we’re not directly involved in any such initiative or enterprise, we don’t have to take a call right away though we’re watching carefully.
How is India looking at Afghanistan as the endgame nears, particularly when the US appears to be veering towards Pakistan, keeping India out?
Nobody’s keeping India out. That’s more than clear. If anything, there are a lot of invites for India.
But India itself is taking steps very carefully because we want to be part of the solution, not the problem.
Despite Kabul’s willingness, and Kabul nudging us, we’ve said, “Let it be done in a manner that’s comforting and acceptable to all stakeholders in the region.” What happens after 2014, nobody knows. Kabul is yet to come out clearly with its own perception of things beyond 2014.
Despite Pakistan’s fears about Indian influence in Afghanistan, shouldn’t New Delhi be playing a more pro-active role at this stage?
I think we have evolved a style that is careful and cautious and we believe it is good for Afghanistan. Moving slowly but surely is more important than moving hastily. We’re reasonably sure-footed about the manner in which we’re proceeding.
There’s a perception that India is not “serious” about its relations with the US — that after signing the civilian nuclear deal, matters remain stuck on issues of suppliers’ liability.
Certainly, some of the companies have reservations. We have indicated that it’s not possible for us to rework the legislation and rules within which there is adequate addressing of their concerns. We’ll be opening a Pandora’s box if we try to tinker with it. We also have Canada, Australia, France dealing with us on this. If something is safe and secure for one major nuclear country, there is no reason why others should have problems.
The US would like India as a “pivot in Asia” in rebalancing its forces. Your view?
If it’s something that complements or supplements India’s “Look East” policy, then we’re on the same page. However, we haven’t ever responded to or encouraged anything that looks like a containment or an attempt to create another pole of influence and power vis-à-vis anybody else in Asia. It can be alarger collaboration but not by way of directing it against anyone.
What is the state of boundary talks with China?
The talks have proceeded at a snail’s pace but always proceeded in the right direction. China’s new leadership has indicated it is positive about moving forward.
India has close bilateral ties with Israel but appears cagey about being overt about it.
It’s a good thing that Israel understands that our commitment to Palestine is undiluted. Israel didn’t want us to go with Palestine when it was trying for UN membership, but we did. We’ve found the right sort of balance between our legitimate concerns about Palestine and our growing relationship with Israel. It’s important that we keep in mind popular perceptions in the country that, historically, we have been strongly in favour of Palestine. The relationship with Israel is steady, firm and moving in the right direction.