As foreign minister and prime minister, Inder Kumar Gujral tried hard to normalise relations with Pakistan. Striking a cordial relationship with then Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif, he kindled a new hope for peace in both countries.

Days before Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf arrived for the Agra summit, Gujral remarked the general was holding a pistol to India's head. As history proved, he was not wrong.

In a conversation with Ramesh Menon, the former prime minister says the real strategy is to engage with the civil society in Pakistan, as they want peace and a return to democracy. The army, he says, would rather fight against peace.

It was quite clear before the summit that General Musharraf wanted to discuss only Kashmir.

After 50 years of separation and setting up of sovereign states, Indo-Pak relations have been a bone of contention. Kashmir provides an excuse for Pakistan. The real bone of contention is the inability of Pakistan's army and fundamentalists to reconcile with the reality of a united and secular India emerging as a powerful state.

The psychology of Pakistan today, where it feels that it can 'disturb India' is a progeny of the Afghanistan crisis. Since they succeeded there, they think the so-called jihad and the low intensity war could be more effective. This psychology has been built between two segments of the Pakistan polity -- the army and the fundamentalists. They work in close alliance with each other.

Were there not enough signals that little would be accomplished at Agra?

There were. Any observer at Agra knew that little would be accomplished. I do not know if the government registered it. But all of us saw it openly because of the type of posture General Musharraf adopted from day one. He actually left no doubt in our mind. With his fall back position, it was more than clear.

Seventy-six people lost their lives in terrorist violence in Kashmir in the three days when Musharraf was in India. Obviously, the general had enough clout to stop it when he was here.

'The Pakistani leadership has a vested interest in non-settlement'

I endorse this. General Musharraf said after the Kashmir issue was settled, he would be able to stop this. I do not buy it. After all, it is no more a secret that the headquarters of the Mujahideen are in Pakistan. Previously, they used to say the Mujahideen did not operate from their land.

What does the future of Indo-Pak relations look like?

As far as the future of Indo-Pak relations go, I favour engaging Pakistan, but I would not like to repeat the methodology of Agra. I think it should be done in the classical fashion. Frequent summits are not called for. But at the same time, different levels of engagements should start at both official and non-official levels.

It will take time to really bring them around as the Pakistani leadership has a vested interest in non-settlement.

It is people to people contact that may go a long way.

With 50 years of growth, an influential middle class has emerged in Pakistan. They constitute the civil society of Pakistan who wants democracy, a modern state and liberal institutions. The print media has also to a large extent become independent and assertive in Pakistan.

So we have a liberal civil society and the independent media on one side and fundamentalists and the army on the other. The army and the fundamentalists need an excuse to destroy internal democracy. But the world has opened up, television has opened up making it difficult for them to paint a picture of India that they could do earlier.

Where do we go from here?

India's engagement should be with the civil society and the media of Pakistan.

Before the summit many analysts said that Musharraf will be compelled to work towards peace because of Pakistan's growing image as a terrorist state and pressing economic compulsions at home. But he did not seem to be bothered about both.

That is the sad part of it. The economy of Pakistan needs peace and development. I hope that he will be able to see the prospects of peace. But, it cannot be a one-way traffic. He has to understand India's compulsions. He also has to see India's insistence on its territorial integrity and secular identity.

Do you think Musharraf will be able to keep militant and fundamental elements at bay while working out a solution with India?

General Musharraf has to make up his mind that he wants to fight militants and fundamentalists. Musharraf has not yet built his constituency among the civil society. His constituencies today are militants and fundamentalists. For the moment, I do not see signs of him acquiring a new constituency.

What was it like during your time?

As foreign minister and prime minister, my entire approach was to create bon homie with the civil society of Pakistan. The emergence and expansion of Track II inter-relationships helped.

Unilaterally, we made travel easier. My talks with Nawaz Sharif got a good response. They were distorting the Indian image in their history books but contacts with the ordinary middle class created the right image.

I instructed the foreign office not to enter into a polemical war with Pakistan. I told them to ignore whatever they said. We did. The high point was that twice in the United Nations in 1996 and 1997, I did not respond to provocative statements made by the Pakistani foreign minister and prime minister.

In the end, we lost nothing. We only saved our energy and created a new ambience in our relationship.

Why did Kargil happen?

'Musharraf's constituency today are militants and fundamentalists. For the moment, I do not see signs of him acquiring a new constituency.'

Lahore was a high mark in the Indo-Pak relationship. Once that was achieved, the fundamentalists and the army decided to strike back. So, Kargil was not only an army operation, it was a diplomatic cum political operation to stop the bilateral process that had begun.

India was disturbed with Kargil. For nearly two years, there was no meeting ground.

You have been observing Pakistan for years. You also have a lot of Pakistani friends. Where do you see Pakistan heading?

I have great respect for Pakistani civil society and the Pakistani media. With the passage of time, they have come to occupy a very important position in that polity.

Sooner or later, they will be able to assert in favour of democracy. Several army rulers in Pakistan have tried to defuse the content of democracy on one plea or other. General Musharraf is also trying to create a new type of definition. The media and civil society is already seeing through it.

Do you see an early return to democracy in Pakistan?

It is difficult to say. It needs to be seen whether General Musharraf is able to abide by the Supreme Court orders. Or by abiding by them, he will create a new charade which he is already constructing saying that he has already given democracy. The type of democracy that we in India and the civil society in Pakistan understand is at the moment out of focus.

Let us talk about Kashmir.

The Indian government did take some steps in Kashmir where the high mark was the cease-fire. But we failed politically. After the cease-fire, we should have taken a major initiative to bring back our people displaced from Kashmir. We did depute K C Pant to take charge and initiate moves. But he did not have a brief on what he wanted to achieve and how.

The Jammu and Kashmir assembly passed a resolution seeking autonomy. The Government of India chose to reject it. That is not the way to deal with it. After all, an elected assembly passed the resolution. I don't mean we have to accept it, but it could have been a basis for talks to begin.

When K C Pant went there, he should have gone around and figured out what was acceptable and what was not. After that, a consensus could have been evolved.

The home minister announced in Parliament that the government is ready to devolve some powers. The main focus should be negotiation, discussion and engagement of our people not only in the Valley, but in the entire state.

Don't you think Kashmir is the core issue between India and Pakistan? Why don't we just admit it and start talking about it?

There is nothing to admit about it. The main thing is that Kashmir was the subject, which was discussed in every summit. This was discussed in Simla, Tashkent and Agra. It was mentioned in the four rounds I had with Nawaz Sharif. So there is no innovativeness in what General Musharraf is saying. He is just showing army aggressiveness rather than polite diplomacy.

Will confidence building work? India announced a series of measures. Pakistan announced none with Musharraf saying that resolving the Kashmir dispute was the biggest confidence building measure.

When I was prime minister, I had relaxed visas. We should open up more, even if they do not. It will have a very good effect on the Kashmiri people when the two sides meet and traffic can open up. It is not a question of confidence building, it is an issue of further strengthening people to people relationships which is very helpful.

Whether General Musharraf does it or not, should not bother us. But my apprehension is they will not let it be implemented. The question is how do you negotiate if you do not trust each other?

Looking back, did you think it was a wise move to invite Musharraf, as India knew his mind well?

Inviting General Musharraf was all right. But the amount of work that should have been done before even inviting him was not done. We slipped on that. We also accommodated his assertiveness, which we may not repeat.

There is a lack of trust right now between the two countries especially after Kargil and Agra. Will it affect further talks?

Inevitably. It is not a question of distrust. It is a question of ground reality. Those who are sustained, abetted and supported by Pakistan, for the last eleven years, killed our people. If we have doubts and suspicions, they are not psychological. They are based on reality. That is why we want Pakistan to stop this so that we can live as better neighbours.

Page design: Dominic Xavier

The Rediff Interviews