Former prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral had written to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, asking for a further extension of the cease-fire in Jammu and Kashmir when Special Correspondent Onkar Singh met him this week.

Gujral feels there is a need to hold talks with Pakistan, but insists the meeting should take place bilaterally.

"We have not met bilaterally to sort out this issue," he said. Gujral, along with three former prime ministers -- Vishwanath Pratap Singh, Chandra Shekhar and H D Deve Gowda -- had sent Vajpayee a message, after the unilateral cease-fire was announced.

"We had written a letter extending our support to the bold initiative taken by Prime Minister Vajpayee," Gujral said.

Do you think the courageous step taken by Prime Minister Vajpayee in announcing a unilateral cease-fire, and its subsequent extensions, is working out at the ground level?

When Prime Minister Vajpayee announced a unilateral cease-fire, we former prime ministers wrote him a letter, expressing our support.
I still think this was the correct step. When you are dealing with complex issues like Kashmir, immediate results should not and cannot be expected. I have written to him again two days ago, suggesting continuity of the cease-fire.

What else needs to be done to consolidate this peace initiative?

I personally feel one more initiative needs to be taken. That is to activate the SAARC contacts. We must hold talks with Pakistan on a bilateral basis.

But you met Nawaz Sharif a number of times.

The first time I met Sharif was in Male under the SAARC banner. Then I met him again in New York at the UN meeting. My third meeting with him took place, at Edinburgh, at the Commonwealth meet. The last time I met him was in Dhaka, because a sub-group of SAARC was having a conference there.

Even Vajpayee met Sharif in Sri Lanka at the SAARC meeting. Then he went to Lahore and we all know what happened after that.

This was the only bilateral meeting between the two heads of state.

Do you think such meetings hold any meaning, when so many innocent people are being killed in Kashmir by the militants? And if the intentions of the enemy is always suspect?

The intentions of your enemy are always suspect. But if you want to avoid war, and avoid acrimony, then the only way is to open other avenues.

What have been the net gains of the cease-fire?

The net gain is that the world, as a whole, and the international community, at large, has appreciated India's restraint.

Talks were going on. Five, six rounds have taken place which have identified the issues.

The main issue, which I have been saying, again and again, is not Kashmir. But India and Pakistan's relationship.

What is of importance is: Can we live as good neighbours, or not?

We should pursue this goal and we should not shy away from holding talks. We have never done so in the past and should not do so even today.

There have been having piecemeal extensions of the cease-fire in Jammu and Kashmir. But there is an indefinite extension in Nagaland. Why can't we have the same rule here?

No two situations are similar. The Nagaland problem is an internal problem, one hundred per cent. But the Kashmir problem is an external problem. Again, hundred per cent.

Pakistan is using this as a pretext to intervene internally. So the two situations cannot be measured with the same yardstick.

Another suggestion being offered is for the trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. Do you support this kind of solution?

Under no circumstances. We cannot, and should not, compromise under any circumstances on our national integrity and our secularism. This was my opinion when I was in office and I hold the same view even today.

These two issues are non-negotiable and this must be understood by both friends and foes.

Kashmir is a mini India. It is not a valley that we are dealing with. We are dealing with the whole problem of Jammu and Kashmir. It is composite and unified by its diversity. And hence we cannot possibly break that.

But the hawks within the government say that innocents have been killed. And that the terrorists are holding the state to ransom, hence the cease-fire should be called off.

I have already said the issues involved are complex.

Secondly, it is an intervention in the internal affairs of our country by Pakistan. The intervention is on several fronts.

First, at the Line on Control.

Second, the infiltration of jihadis into Kashmir who come from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But we have to work out our strategies to counter these things.

If you were at the helm of affairs, would you allow the Hurriyat leaders to go to Pakistan?
Hurriyat leaders can go to Pakistan as citizens of India. But they must understand that the Government of India cannot have another third group mediating between India and Pakistan.

Besides, they come from diverse groups and represent diverse cultures and thoughts. What is most important is, who do they represent? When they came to meet me, I asked them, who gave them the authority to represent Kashmir? They cannot represent the Government of India.

The people of Jammu and Ladakh want separate identities for themselves.

Every part of India has an identity. All regions are examples of unity in diversity. Ladakh and Jammu are no exception.

Design: Lynette Menezes

ALSO READ:

Will this peace initiative have a different fate?

An earlier interview with Inder Kumar Gujral

'The weaknesses are not of the Constitution but of the system and of the State'

Full coverage of the Jammu Kashmir cease-fire

The Rediff Interviews