The Naresh Chandra Chat
When Indian Ambassador to the US, Naresh Chandra, agreed to come on the Rediff chat, India was toast of the season on Capitol Hill: it had scored a dramatic diplomatic victory in the Kargil conflict, with the US - for long suspected to harbour pro-Pakistani sentiment -- coming out in favour of the Indian stand.
However, the quick-changing character of international diplomacy was evident when Mr Chandra actually appeared on the Rediff chat, on Wednesday. India's downing of the Pakistani aircraft which had intruded deep into its airspace just the day before, it was feared, could lead to an undoing of the country's diplomatic gains. Naturally, questions were raised about this, and to his credit Mr Chandra did not take shelter behind diplomatese.
Deepak Nautiyal (Wed Aug 11 1999 5:44 IST)
Dear Mr Chandra,
congratulations to you and your staff at Washington DC for doing such a wonderful job in presenting India's case during the Kargil crisis. What do you think the NRI community in the US should do to better represent India?
Ambassador Naresh Chandra (Wed Aug 11 1999 6:57 IST)
I am very happy to have the opportunity to communicate with so many interested people on issues of importance to all of us.
Deepak, thank you for your good wishes. People of Indian origin and NRIs are doing a great job and all I can suggest is that all should keep themselves informed and interact meaningfully with our American friends to point out areas of mutual interest and concerns. This way we can utilise Indo-US relationship for the benefit of the South Asia region as a whole.
Marie (Wed Aug 11 1999 6:17 IST)
Hello Mr Chandra, hearty congratulations to you on a job well done. Sir, what repercussions do you see to India downing a Pakistani surveillance plane? In fact, today they have fired a missile at us. Do you agree that the main battle will be won on the diplomatic front? Are we prepared for it?
Ambassador Naresh Chandra (Wed Aug 11 1999 6:59 IST)
Marie: Thank you. I agree with you that a solution does not lie in military activity. Diplomacy is a better option, but the best option is to improve people-to-people relations. There is a lot of goodwill in India for people in Pakistan and I am sure many sections of Pakistani people reciprocate this feeling. What we have to prepare for, is to do everything possible to counter misinformation and propaganda and promote more understanding between the peoples for their mutual benefit and development.
Govardhan (Wed Aug 11 1999 6:19 IST)
Hello Ambassador. I get a feeling watching CNN that they are more pro-Pakistan! When India says Pakistan attacked us it is 'the alleged intrusion on Indian territory' while Sartaj Aziz goes away scot free telling lies and a lot of video footage..... Doesn't that bias the world against us?
Ambassador Naresh Chandra (Wed Aug 11 1999 7:0 IST)
Govardhan: News from CNN or BBC for that matter does appear to present a one-sided picture at times. We are trying our best to submit complete information to counter this. All of us can react to wrong reports by writing to the media concerned. On many occasions analysts and reporters have made comments which clearly show that they have not believed the Pakistani propaganda.
Harish Thawani (Wed Aug 11 1999 6:21 IST)
Mr Chandra, India has been at odds with Pakistan since Independence.... How do you see us resolving our differences? Is there a middle road? What in your opinion is the best solution? Why can't we demarcate the border properly once and for all?
Ambassador Naresh Chandra (Wed Aug 11 1999 7:2 IST)
Harishji: It is unfortunate that India and Pakistan have been at odds but believe me, there is a middle road and the people of South Asia are increasingly realising that their future lies in cooperation and economic development. To reach this best solution, we have to counter terrorist and propagandist activity, ie, discourage the wrong set of people and encourage the more responsible sections for our mutual benefit.
al (Wed Aug 11 1999 6:28 IST)
Sir,
we showed restraint in not crossing the LoC during the Kargil crisis. The Americans sheepishly acknowledged our action. The Pakistani regulars vacated their positions and littered them with mines. Are we still patting our backs on presenting a strong case of intrusion and forgotten these acts?
Ambassador Naresh Chandra (Wed Aug 11 1999 7:4 IST)
al: I don't think Americans were sheepish in acknowledging our restraint. My information is that American authorities were very frank with Pakistani authorities since they knew the facts about Pakistani aggression into the Kargil area. While the Indian troops did a great job in pushing the intruders back, American help shortened the period of conflict and reduced casualties. The American attitude was also responsible for a diplomatic disaster for Pakistan.
anil (Wed Aug 11 1999 6:29 IST)
Hello Mr Chandra, It is true that Kargil has indeed changed US perceptions towards India -- albeit to a small extent? That is certainly encouraging. But do we -- the Government of India, the diplomatic corps and you people on the spot who are the pointsmen -- have the big picture in mind? A comprehensive strategy to put Indo-US relations on a truly collaborative course? If so what are its salient features?
Ambassador Naresh Chandra (Wed Aug 11 1999 7:8 IST)
Anil: US perceptions about India and Pakistan have been changing for some time. Kargil only helped to bring it out into the open. The US and other Western countries as well as China are concerned at the growth of fanaticism and fundamentalism in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Kargil was the latest example of a very dangerous nexus between terrorists and a professional army. This has alarmed most countries who in a friendly way are also deeply concerned about its adverse effects on Pakistani society itself. We have the big picture in mind and our attempt is not to show Pakistan down but to normalise the situation and bring about the necessary atmosphere for meaningful dialogue and cooperation with them. That is the big picture we have for India-Pakistan and other people in South Asia.
Hegde (Wed Aug 11 1999 6:33 IST)
Mr Chandra, congratulations on your great work. Why do you think the American media is pro-Pakistan? Do they take a cue from the US govt?
divyeshmehta (Wed Aug 11 1999 6:50 IST)
hi,
the plane incident will call for a lot of media savvy interaction. How do you plan to do this?
Dr Divyesh G Mehta, MD, Vadodara
Ambassador Naresh Chandra (Wed Aug 11 1999 7:12 IST)
Hello Mr Hegde and Divyesh Mehta. Both of you have raised questions about the attitude of the American media. It does appear at times that the American media is pro-Pakistan. We have to note that there is an elaborate machinery for information and public relations being used by Pakistan for pushing their point of view. Some times they succeed. Whenever this occurs we make every attempt to clarify the position. As a policy we have not been conducting aggressive propaganda in a country like USA because we feel that it is counter-productive in the long run.
On the other hand, Pakistani side has been putting undue and exaggerated emphasis on propaganda. This certainly helps in the short run, but true facts ultimately assert themselves. Consequently, there has been a great loss of credibility in statements made by officials and other agencies of Pakistan. Many thinkers and analysts in the US have told me that Pakistan should spend more time in communicating with their neighbours rather than in publicity and public relations.
Shahezadi (Wed Aug 11 1999 7:7 IST)
Mr Ambassador, one has heard so much of the gripe that Indian officials are lacklustre, they lack chutzpah which presumably the Pakis have in abundance, etc, and that these are the reasons we are unable to communicate our viewpoint to the world, leave alone convince it. As the man in the hot seat, what do you think?
Ambassador Naresh Chandra (Wed Aug 11 1999 7:16 IST)
Hello Shahezadi. I do not share with view about lustre or the lack of it of Indian officials. The main issue is that Indian officials do not put propaganda and public relations at the centre of our actions. In the long run, being too media savvy or clever results in loss of credibility. Your very question suggests that the Indian case is better but has suffered because of inadequate presentation; also, that there is too much lustre and chutzpah in the Pakistani presentation. This by itself suggests that the Pakistani case is worse than its presentation and the Indian case is better than what it has been projected to be. What do you infer from this?
Lyes Ezzekmi (Wed Aug 11 1999 7:6 IST)
Amnesty International recently reported that India is holding thousands of political prisoners without charge or trial. 29 Members of the US Congress recently wrote a letter demanding the release of India's
political prisoners. Why does a democracy have political prisoners?
Doc (Wed Aug 11 1999 7:6 IST)
Mr Ambassador, Amnesty International recently reported that thousands of political prisoners continue to be held in India jails without charge or trial. The book 'The Politics of Genocide' says that over 250,000 Sikhs have been killed in India since 1984. Why do things like this continue to happen in a democratic country?
Amandeep Sidhu (Wed Aug 11 1999 7:8 IST)
Why haven't police officers who violate human rights. such as Swaran Singh Ghotna who murdered Akal Takht Jathedar Gurdev Singh Kaunke by tearing him in half, ever been brought to justice?
Ambassador Naresh Chandra (Wed Aug 11 1999 7:25 IST)
Lyes Ezzekmi and Doc: We have seen reports of Amnesty International over the years. We also find a question about genocide and the number of Sikhs killed in India since 1984. Amandeep Sidhu also refers to this and mentions the case of Sardar SS Ghotna and Jathedar Gurdev Singh Kaunke.
Let me first of all say that we in India take all these reports and allegations very seriously. The people of India abhor violation of human rights and the press, Parliament and judiciary are not only critical but insistent on full investigation and punishment of those who are guilty. At the same time, it would be irresponsible on our part to be swayed by false propaganda. Much of the reports of Amnesty or other NGOs are one-sided statements of allegations and charges. These are not in the nature of judgments pronounced after hearing both sides. There is also an increasing tendency for using propaganda and baseless allegations as a supportive tool of terrorist activity.
Our investigation by the government agencies, by the National Human Rights Commission and so many NGOs in India show that a number of cases were simply cooked up or exaggerated to absurd limits. It is to be seen that the Indian system has adequate strength and will to deal with the problem of human rights violation and that external help of well meaning bodies is hardly required. At times it is counter-productive. I find that whenever action has been taken in suitable cases, it is hardly acknowledged. A number of people have been punished and imprisoned after the 1984 Sikh riots. Many are still being prosecuted in courts. This fact is never brought out. Police officers have been removed from service and at times imprisoned whenever charges could be established against them. I don't think India needs sermons from outside about their capacity to deal with human rights violation.
|
