Address and Q&A by Ambassador LALIT MANSINGH at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Washington, DC
October 11, 2001

I am grateful to the Woodrow Wilson Center for giving me this opportunity to address this distinguished forum.    

India has benefited greatly from the work of this prestigious center of learning and research. The Asia Program at the Wilson Center has emerged as one of the major schools of innovative academic studies in Washington, shaping and influencing thinking about the region in India’s extended neighbourhood. 

Today, democratic and multi-cultural societies like those of India and the United States live in the shadow of terror.  September 11 began like any other Tuesday.  It ended like no other.    That Tuesday brought a new divide into the world. On one side, are those who believe in freedom, pluralism, secularism and tolerance. On the other, are those who seek to enslave us in the bondage of their narrowly defined ideology. 

Across this divide, the forces of civilisation and progress are ranged against those of barbarism and obscurantism.   This is a war in which India and the United States stand shoulder-to-shoulder.  Both our countries have a vital stake in defeating the forces of terror wherever they exist. 

Woodrow Wilson said, “Democracy is not so much a form of government as a set of principles.” What is at stake in this new war is more than our lands and our sovereignty.  What we are defending are our principles.  The leaders of India’s freedom movement were inspired by the ideals of Jefferson, Wilson and Mahatma Gandhi. At Independence, we opted for a parliamentary democratic system based on universal suffrage. We rejected the notion that our multi-religious and multi-linguistic society constituted different nations. We chose instead to be one nation where different sections of our society lived in harmony, committed to pluralism and guided by our historical ethos of tolerance.  It is precisely these factors, fundamental to India’s existence as a nation that the terrorists have chosen to strike.

In the last twenty years, over fifty thousand innocent Indian lives have been sacrificed to the monster of terrorism.  Our aircraft have been hijacked. One of them was blown up over the Atlantic. Trains and busses have been bombed. Buildings have been destroyed. Market places, work places and even centers of learning have been attacked. The terrorists’ objective is simple and diabolical – to destroy our harmony and our way of life.  But they have failed. And we will never allow them to succeed.

On Christmas eve two years ago, an Indian Airlines aircraft was hijacked to Kandahar, the headquarters of the Taliban.  178 innocent passengers were held hostage there for a week.  My government had to make an agonisingly difficult decision. It was forced to release three terrorists from our prisons to secure the safety of the hostages.  Within days, the three released terrorists were in Pakistan. They received succour and support in that country. They were hailed as freedom fighters. 

One of them, Masood Azhar, founded the Jaish-i-Muhammad. Ten days ago, this group launched a suicide bomb attack against the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly in Srinagar. 42 innocent people were killed in this attack on a symbol of democracy. Another of the terrorists, Sheikh Syed, is now known to have sent money from Pakistan to Mohammad Atta, the ring leader of the September 11 attacks.  Other groups that regularly terrorise the people of India like the Harakat-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen are all mutations of the Al Qaeda. They receive their sustenance and support from the same sources. 

The global response to terrorism must never be projected as a clash of civilisations. To do so, would be to play into the terrorists’ hands. To do so, would also destroy the edifice of our multi-cultural societies.  It is evident that terrorism thrives on the soil of authoritarianism. The long term bulwark against terrorism is to strengthen the democratic impulse and principles in every country and to promote a sense of inclusion and tolerance in every society – in short build a strong nation based on the edifice of a democratic, multi-cultural framework.

This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between India and the United States. The history of most of these last six decades has been meticulously recorded by Ambassador Dennis Kux. To him, we were “estranged democracies”. Despite the common ideals and values that bind our two countries, our vision was blurred by the thick clouds of the Cold War. The domain of our diplomatic endeavours remained narrow. It was confined to the effort to reconcile differing interests instead of building upon the sturdier foundations of our common strengths. 

Now the clouds of the Cold War have lifted. We can see each other more clearly for what we are.  My Prime Minister has said we are “natural allies.” The people of our two countries share a deeply entrenched commitment to pluralism, rule of law and open debate. Our partnership is anchored in the solid foundation of democracy. It is driven by the congruency of our interests on many issues.

Our two countries are now engaged in an intense and multi-faceted dialogue at the political and official level covering political and security matters, economic and commercial ties, energy and environment, science and technology, counterterrorism and UN peacekeeping. 

It was during Director Lee Hamilton’s term as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the seeds of the India Caucus were sowed. The Caucus now boasts of a membership of 130, the largest single country Caucus in the House of Representatives. It constitutes the driving force of closer relations between the people of India and the people of the United States.  The community of Indian origin in the United States has been a valuable asset in this remarkable transformation. It has helped to bridge the cultural and geographical divide between our two countries. It has invested the relationship with substantial political, economic and technological value. 

Our positive reaction to the new US strategic framework unveiled by President Bush on May 1 reflected our belief in its potential to move us away from the offensive posture of the Cold War era to a safer, defensive alternative.  We particularly welcomed his intention to reduce and place on de-alert strategic nuclear weapons because this was consonant with our own commitment to global disarmament.

Concerns about India’s nuclear programme have fortunately been allayed. Our nuclear tests of 1998 were a response essentially to the deteriorating security environment in our region. Even as we maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent, we have declared a voluntary moratorium on all further explosive nuclear underground testing.  The international community should be assured that India does not consider nuclear weapons as instruments of war. Our policy will be governed by considerations of restraint and responsibility. 

We welcome the lifting of the economic restrictions imposed by the United States in the wake of our nuclear tests three years ago. We hope that we would soon be able to move beyond other constraints that have been in place before 1998.  These gestures would enable our two countries to move forward in developing a fuller, broad-based and more meaningful relationship.  rade and investment have become the sinews of our new dynamic partnership with the United States. Our bilateral trade, which has grown impressively in the last few years, is today close to US$15 billion. Several measures have been taken recently to widen the trade access that each has to the other. The US is also the largest foreign investor in India. There is much that both countries can do to build further upon this great mutuality.

Over the last decade, our economy has grown at an average annual rate of six per cent.  The Government of India has launched a second generation of economic reforms. In April this year, the last remaining quantitative restrictions were removed. Sectors such as power, telecommunications, transport and insurance have been opened up to private and foreign investment.  The Information Technology sector has been growing at over 30 per cent and the software industry at an average of 50 per cent per year. The exciting prospect before us is the emergence of the Knowledge Revolution, which India’s ancient genius is well qualified to lead. Concern expressed in some quarters that the impulse for reform in India is weakening is misplaced. There is a strong political consensus in favour of reform, which is now irreversible.  India has demonstrated that even in developing countries, economic reform can be pursued through the democratic process. Our financial and juridical institutions are strong and responsive. India aspires to be a major participant in the global economy.

Economic development is critically dependent on peace and stability in our region. India’s extended neighbourhood stretches from the Gulf of Hormuz to the Straits of Malacca.   With our immediate neighbours, our policy has consistently been to develop our relations in an atmosphere of mutual trust and on the basis of mutually advantageous initiatives. As two of the oldest civilisations in the world, India and China have the potential to imbue their bilateral relationship with the sagacity that history has endowed their people with.  We are confident of resolving our political differences with Pakistan and with other neighbours through a spirit of constructive bilateralism. It is in this spirit that our Prime Minister hosted President Musharraf recently for intensive talks in Delhi and Agra. Our approach is realistic. We believe that it is in the larger interests of our people to build upon areas of convergence, even as we work towards progress in the more difficult areas. 

India has historical links with Afghanistan. The statues of Buddha at Bamiyan which the Taliban destroyed a few months ago, were manifestations of India’s cultural diffusion in that region. Until the advent of the Taliban, India was a major contributor to Afghanistan’s socio-economic development. Thousands of Afghan refugees continue to seek shelter in India.  The bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania three years ago and the hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft in December 1999 led to the setting up of a consultative mechanism between India and the United States on counterterrorism.  This cooperation was made institutional in the Vision Statement signed during former President Clinton’s visit to India in March last year. It has intensified and gained momentum under the present Administration. 

Since September 11, India and United States have consulted closely on the response to the attack against America.  Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Bush have exchanged written and telephonic messages.  The Minister for External Affairs and Defence Mr. Jaswant Singh, and the National Security Adviser Mr. Brajesh Mishra, held intensive consultations in Washington with President Bush and his Cabinet members and advisers.   Secretary of State Colin Powell will visit India early next week.  India and the United States are agreed that India has a vital role to play in helping the people of Afghanistan elect a broad-based representative government that will no longer be an exporter of terrorism. 

As the campaign against terrorism progresses, we need to look beyond an agenda bound by the more urgent issues.  A resurgent Asia offers us both opportunities and challenges.  For us in India, Asia has always been a distinctive region, comprising nations who share millennia of history.  My Prime Minister’s visits earlier this year to Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Iran were intended to emphasise our interest in ensuring the well-being and prosperity of the people in India’s extended neighbourhood.  Beyond the economic convergence, our security interests are also closely aligned with the region that borders our territorial waters and which forms a gateway to many important destinations for our exports.   India and the US have a strategic interest in ensuring peace and the security of sea lanes in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf.  India will be a force for stability and an important factor in Asia in this century. 

India-US cooperation in the ASEAN Regional Forum is a vital element in our endeavour to achieve common objectives in the region. Our decision last year to establish a dialogue on Asian security is a step in the right direction.  We hope to build on this further.  Gen. Shelton’s visit to India in July provided an opportunity to review and discuss ways to further strengthen bilateral defence cooperation between India and the United States in consonance with our converging strategic interests in the region.  The institutional dialogue on defence cooperation has been revived. A meeting of the Defence Policy Group is likely to take place in Delhi next month.  We have also made progress towards concluding important bilateral agreements in this area. 

The goals of peace and stability cannot be fully achieved until we are able to bring about a more cooperative and less inequitable world order.  Despite the passage of the Cold War, the world remains deeply divided.  The rifts created by the fault line of bloc confrontation have yet to be fully healed.  Poverty and underdevelopment are endemic in large parts of the world.   

The United Nations must be strengthened and become a repository of the confidence of all the nations in the world.  India supports the move to reform the UN system.  As a democratic country, India believes that the UN structures and institutions, particularly the Security Council, should be democratised and made more representative of its present vastly expanded membership.  India believes it is fully qualified to fulfill the responsibilities of permanent membership of the Security Council.

The issues I have dwelt upon are but a few that are vital to the building of a prosperous world in the twenty first century.  As free and vibrant democracies, India and the United States have succeeded in forging a bond that has helped them to relate with each other and with the rest of the world, in a manner that accommodates the legitimate aspirations and concerns of their people.  We have the vision and commitment to work together to bridge the development gap and create an enabling environment for the realisation of an equitable world.

Thank you.

MR. HATHAWAY: Okay. We'll now take questions from the floor. We've got mikes on either side, and I would ask you to wait until we get a mike to you and then identify yourself and keep your comments or questions brief, if you would. We'll start back in the back one; then

Q My name is Nayyar Zaidi. I represent the Daily Jang, which is the largest newspaper in Pakistan. Bob, may I ask two brief questions, instead of one?

Q You mentioned that Sheikh Said (sp) sent some money to Mohamed Atta, and there was a news item in the Indian press -- PTI, to be -- I think it was PTI -- and it was quoted in Pakistani press also, because there are a lot of theories about why General Mahmood was let go as DG ISI. And I think the linkage was that that money was traced to ISI or Lieutenant General Mahmood being a go-between. Can you shed some light on that, number one?

And let me state the other question also. Indians have been threatening hot pursuit, particularly the interior minister, of so- called, you know, cross-border terrorism. In the present context, under what circumstances India may consider hot pursuit across, you know, into the Pakistani territory? Thank you.

AMB. MANSINGH: Well, regarding the first question, yes, I have seen these reports that money was sent by Sheikh Said (sp) to Mohamed Atta. These are being investigated by the agencies. I can't tell you any more than what you have seen in the press.

Regarding your second question, there is a serious situation. We had assumed that after the global war on terrorism was announced by the president of the United States, that the terrorists everywhere would be on the run. We were disappointed that incidents of terrorism are increased in Jammu and Kashmir, instead of going down. And unfortunately, these are terrorist groups which are based in Pakistan, which have been supported by Pakistan. So our prime minister, in his letter to President Bush, mentioned that we have exercised restraint, but there is a limit to our patience.

But nowhere have we said that we are going into hot pursuit; that's an option which the government may exercise. We do not have this as our policy right now.

Q Charles Lowe (sp), long since retired. I came to hear what you would say about the present, but I was fascinated by your own, and Bob Hathaway's references to those early days. I remember perhaps when the United Nations was still meeting in the Sperry Gyroscope plant because its buildings hadn't been completed, something was established called the Kashmir Commission. If you recall that at all, I wonder how great an opportunity that was, how close they came, whether it's only ancient history and nothing happened. It had multi- national members. I know there was an American member. I don't know much else in detail. But that was an attempt to come to grips with the Pakistani-Indian-Kashmir problem. Do you recall that at all, or --

AMB. MANSINGH: Yes, I do. But there have been many efforts to find a solution in Jammu. The fact is that from our point of view, we think that the only way, the only way in which this issue can be resolved is by India and Pakistan sitting across the table and coming to an understanding. We have had experience of attempts by mediation and good offices, and so on. It is our belief that none of this will work until Pakistan and India sit down and sort it out amongst themselves.

AMB. MANSINGH: These were well-intentioned; all these efforts were well-intentioned. We appreciate that people want to help us in resolving the issue. But, sadly, we recognize that we have to do it ourselves. It is only India and Pakistan which can do it.

Q Raghubir Goyal from Asia Today and India Globe. Mr. Ambassador, it is a fact known now that Pakistan is a center for exporters of terrorism. And recently, Jaswant Singh, the foreign minister of India, said that Afghanistan and Pakistan both are the principal exporters of terrorism around the world, including in New York and Washington. And General Musharraf is part of that. Because the same thing, what the U.S. is doing today, it was planned in 1999 under then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, but his government was toppled by General Musharraf and he scrapped that plan to capture Osama bin Laden or topple the Taliban. Now he has reversed. Now, this is a money game, because he's benefitting from the United States economically.

So my question, what message do you have, as the ambassador of India, that people do not know what General Musharraf is and what Pakistan is today, because they believe that these people are freedom fighters, and terrorists cannot be freedom fighters or to destroy the innocent people.

AMB. MANSINGH: Well, let me say that the role that Pakistan has played in building up the Taliban, in helping the Taliban to provide sanctuary to Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda network, and the whole host of terrorist organization which have been operating in India -- that is no secret. That is well known. What is significant is that, in the current fight against global terrorism, Pakistan has become a partner. Now, what we have conveyed to the U.S. authorities is that this is an indivisible problem. Terrorism is terrorism, no matter where it occurs. There is no distinction between good terrorism and bad terrorism. What is happening in our country and the groups that are sponsoring terrorism in our country have to be attacked as much as the al Qaeda group and the supporters of bin Laden. So we have been urging the U.S. administration to focus attention on terrorism in our region, which is very much a part of the global attack on terrorism. In fact, these groups, as I mentioned in my talk, are -- have strong links with the Taliban, have strong links with Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, so they are virtually indistinguishable. And therefore the action against this terrorism -- these terrorist groups must take place at the same time.

Mr. Ambassador, I think it's fair to say that in this environment, your words are going to be scrutinized more than they would have been before the events of September 11th. When you say that India's nuclear capability -- they're not instruments of war, are you trying to assure the United States, the world, Pakistan, that India has no intention of using those weapons, that you just see it as a deterrent capability? And what do you expect to get out of Secretary Powell's trip? Are there -- do you see an effort to cooperate on missile defense? Do you see a commitment from the U.S. to support India's seat on the Security Council?

AMB. MANSINGH: Regarding your first question, you're absolutely right. Our nuclear weapons are not instruments of war. They are a deterrent. We have made it clear that we have no intention to use it. We are -- we have declared no-first-use. We are willing to conclude formal or informal agreements with countries bilaterally or multilaterally to make sure that it is understood that we will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. Also, you will recall that we have entered into a voluntary moratorium and we have no intention of carrying on further tests until the CTBT comes into effect. So that moratorium continues.

Secretary Powell's visit is in the context of the high-level exchanges that we have been having with the current administration. As you know, very recently our minister of External Affairs and Defense was here, and he had wide-ranging discussions with the entire leadership, with President Bush, with Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Adviser Dr. Rice. So Secretary Powell's visit is a continuation of this kind of consultation.

As you know, for these meetings there is never a very structured agenda. They will review the situation in the neighborhood, and they will review the whole range of bilateral relations and have good, intensive discussions.

MR. HATHAWAY: There's a whole series of hands. I'm going to try to go in the order in which I saw them. Two rows back again from Carol. 

Q I'm Jim Landers of the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Ambassador, during the Gulf War, the United States urged Israel to restrain itself from responding to Scud missile attacks from Iraq that were designed to, it would seem, provoke Israel into entering the war. In this circumstance, I wonder, is India being asked by the United States to restrain itself from terrorist attacks that might be coming from Pakistan so that India isn't seen to be attacking Pakistan and thereby inflaming opinion in that part of the world that may lead to the overthrow of Mr. Musharraf's government?

AMB. MANSINGH: No, let me clarify that we have made it clear not only to the United States, we've made it clear to Pakistan directly, that we will do nothing in the present situation which will complicate our bilateral relations and the situation in the region.

Having said that, let me also make it clear that if Pakistan continues to send terrorist groups for creating havoc within our country, we will respond, we will respond with all the means at our disposal. The fight against terrorism cannot end because what is going on is essentially a global fight against terrorism, and if terrorism manifests itself in our territory, we will certainly fight it. I don't see this as a contradiction, I think it's supportive of what the United States and allies are doing.

Q My name is -- (inaudible). I am from original Sindh, which I say occupied by Pakistan. And I am executive director of World Sindhi Institute. And I would like to ask from you that you said that the other side is narrowly defined ideology. I believe Pakistan -- now U.S. is helping to Pakistan, and Pakistan is helping to Taliban. So problem is not Taliban, problem is Pakistan.

So if U.S. helping to Pakistan, what do you think what will be the relationship effect India and the U.S.? And I believe that U.S. always supported the democracy and -- in Pakistan out of 54 years, 24 years is directly dictatorship, and now it is also helping to Pakistan. We minority people feeling very much upset from the U.S. and also from the India, too, that India inviting Musharraf -- he's a dictator -- and what is then value of the democracy?

AMB. MANSINGH: Well, that's a very valid point that you have raised. Let me not comment on U.S.-Pakistan relations, but let me say how we see it from our point of view. Now, if in the current phase of operations, military action is required to be taken in Afghanistan, we recognize that Pakistan has a very important role to play. And if there is cooperation between the United States and Pakistan, that is understandable. But I would like to think that this is tactical understanding -- that in the current situation, this is what is required for the military planning. But I -- our fears are that -- or our concern is that this should not go into a strategic understanding, which will take us back to the years of the Cold War, because any kind of military supplies to Pakistan or any kind of military alliance with Pakistan will create difficulties for the region. And also it will create a problem for the United States in justifying its policy for being at the forefront of democracies.

Remember that the U.S. has taken the initiative, called the Community of Democracies, of gathering together all the democracies -- the established ones and the newly-established ones, and we're supposed to create a global force for democracy. So that message will certainly be diluted if, in the long term, strategic alliances are built up with Pakistan.

Now I'm not saying this is so, but I quite share with you the concern that this may happen in the future.

Q Mr. Mansingh, my name is Hasmukh Shah from Business Times. As we know, whole world is completely engaged in fighting terrorism and security. But equally important thing is the economy and, the Americans are feeling much more than every other country. And what do you think, even so many other countries are thinking of economic diplomacy, even the minister of India's foreign affairs -- recently the Foreign Ministry has sent a message about the economic diplomacy. What diplomacy you think -- can you throw some light on the government of India, and in particular, our mission may adopt it so that the economy get the push? Thank you.

AMB. MANSINGH: Well, you're quite right that economic diplomacy is important. Now, a very important aspect of our relationship is the kind of economic linkages we are trying to build up.

The U.S. is our largest export destination; it is the most important investor in our country. But the level of trade and the level of investment is still much below the potential of both countries. So we should make an effort to raise the levels of both trade and investment We've had discussions in this regard. As you know, Ambassador Zoellick has been to Delhi recently; we've been having discussions on how to improve trade and also how to increase our cooperation on international trade issues. But the fact is that the U.S. is undergoing an economic slowdown, and that's going to affect countries all over the world. As we enter the global mainstream, our economy is also going to be affected.

Having said that, let me say we still maintain that we will be able to keep a six-percent rate of growth of GDP this year despite all the difficulties, and one of the areas in which we still expect to show very strong results is the area of information technology.

In a curious way, as companies downsize in the United States, and they reduce their costs here, they are out-sourcing companies in India. And therefore, business in fact is increasing with Indian software companies during the current period. So I'm still optimistic that we will see this year as a year of growth in India and also for better Indo-U.S. economic relations.

Q (In progress following audio break) -- everywhere, and I'm wondering if you can describe how you expect that to apply in Kashmir, I mean, what U.S. involvement are we expecting to see in Kashmir fighting the terrorists that you see there?

And secondly, you mentioned during your remarks about India's involvement in helping reconstruct Afghanistan after the war in terms of, I think, political ends, and I'm wondering if you can maybe elaborate on that a little bit, both in terms of the political and the economic rebuilding of Afghanistan and India's role in it. Thank you.

AMB. MANSINGH: Thank you. The fight against terrorism has to be joined by all freedom-loving countries. There is already a grand coalition of countries which are fighting terrorism. But we recognize that, so far as India is concerned, we have been fighting terrorism for the past 20 years, and we'll continue to do so. Nobody else can do that fight for us. We are determined to do it with the means at our disposal.

What we expect of the United States is to recognize that there is a problem; there are terrorist organizations which are operating in our country, which are supported, funded, encouraged by a neighboring country, and they have to be recognized. And we have been assured that in due course, the terrorist groups operating in Kashmir will also be named by the United States.

Regarding Afghanistan, let me tell you that before the trouble started with -- before these unfortunate events of the last 20 years, India was amongst the major countries having a development cooperation program in Afghanistan. We had built what is until now the only decent hospital in the whole of Afghanistan. It was meant to be a 100-bed children's hospital, but it has now turned out to be a general hospital where sometimes 400 to 500 patients are treated. We have set up an industrial (state ?). We have sent agricultural experts there. We have built (micro-hydro ?) projects in Afghanistan. So these are the kind of projects that we can help Afghanistan with after normalcy is restored there. We can play an important role, as we have done in the past.

MR. HATHAWAY: We have more hands than time. I am going to go to a number of people in the order that I saw you. I apologize if I don't get to you. I would ask those who I call on now to keep their comments and questions very short. We'll have two right here -- next and next, Amy, that's right.

Q Thank you. Paula Stern. Thank you very much for your statement. I would like to ask you a question with regard to your pointing out that the U.S. is the largest investor in India and the largest destination of Indian exports. And that with regard to your economic reforms, which you, in your speech, talked about a number of different sectors, last week, Indian news reports said that the government of India had announced that investment, foreign investment, in retail, the retail sector in India would be restricted, contrary to what has been, as you said, a series of access opening in other sectors.

I'm wondering if you would comment on that new policy statement and what this will also mean with regards to foreign investment in distribution, in wholesaling -- all of these things which are definitely needed to increase the potential that you were discussing both for exports and for imports for trade in general.

AMB. MANSINGH: Thank you, Paula. Let me clarify that we have been following a policy of priority in terms of our foreign investment policy, but it's not foreign investment alone, it's private and foreign investment taken together. This is to reduce the role of the state in the economy, to surrender large areas which had been kept in reserve for the public sector, and to release it for foreign and private investment.

Now today we have opened up virtually every sector of the economy. Whether you talk about industry or you talk about mining, you talk about infrastructure, ports, roads, airports, everything is now open for private and foreign investment. Even a sector like defense industry, which had been held as a preserve for the state, has now been opened up, and foreign investors can also come in there.

The retail business is something different. Now this is -- which gives -- this gives employment to the bulk of the people engaged in industry and trade. And we will have to look at it very carefully, to see what impact this will have on the livelihood of people in the middle class, the lower middle class, before we open it up fully for foreign investment. I think we have some reservation in this regard. Our policy will evolve in due course.

Q Nat Seidner (sp) with the U.S. Navy. I'd like to ask you whether you think whether the terrorism and violence can be reduced in your region, really, without removing some of the violence-inducing mullahs from political life and shutting down --

AMB. MANSINGH: I beg your pardon? Without reducing -- Q Without taking away the -- some of the violence-inducing mullahs from political life and shutting down a number of the extreme religious schools, especially in Pakistan, since those seem to be the areas festering this kind of violence.

AMB. MANSINGH: I completely agree with you. This is a recent phenomenon, and you can trace it back to the madrassas, the religious schools, where young minds are being indoctrinated into fanaticism, into violence.

So what we see in terms of the spread of terrorism is actually -- can be traced back to what is being done in these madrassas, which have spread over large parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. So I entirely agree with you; the root cause is there. These madrassas, these religious schools, must be closed down. If they are doing legitimate religious studies, I think that will be fine. But if they are training young people in acts of terrorism, that is not acceptable.

Q Thank you. I also wanted to thank -- Lee Feinstein, from the Carnegie Endowment. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for a very comprehensive and very straightforward statement.

With the understanding that India's position is that face-to-face conversations are the only, or the best way to make progress on the Kashmir issue, what role might you envision for the United States in helping to improve the situation, and what message might you be expecting Secretary Powell to carry to Delhi next week?

AMB. MANSINGH: Well, we have always believed in having face-to- face meetings with Pakistan. Remember that it was our prime minister's initiative to go to Lahore on that bus trip which resulted in the Lahore declaration. He invited President Musharraf to come to Delhi and Agra. So there should be no doubt that we believe in the process of dialogue, and we continue to do so.

Now, the reason why the efforts have not succeeded in the past is that we believe that when the leaders of both countries meet, they should sit at the table without any restrictions and discuss the entire range of issues which concern both countries. And from our point of view, we'd like to discuss how to give increased access to citizens of both countries to visit each other, how to improve trade relations, how to have cultural exchanges, and a whole lot of other things -- joint projects and so on.

Now, unfortunately, the response of Pakistan has been, "You must discuss this issue" -- and that issue has been Jammu and Kashmir to the exclusion of everything else. That is totally unacceptable to us. Equally unacceptable to us is that we must sit and discuss while there's a gun pointed to our head; that terrorism will go on, violence will go on. It's the same source extending one hand for a handshake and having the other hand on a gun. This is totally unacceptable. I think the dialogue will succeed only if we understand that it is going to be a genuine, productive dialogue.

What can the U.S. do? I think the U.S. can do a lot. The U.S. can give a strong message to Pakistan that export of terrorism to India is not acceptable -- not acceptable to the U.S., is not acceptable to the international community. And there cannot be any dialogue with India unless this is stopped. The U.S. can also help in -- as I mentioned earlier, in naming these terrorist organizations. After all, they have named 27 organizations, and adding a few more, which are creating havoc in our part of the country, would certainly help.

MR. HATHAWAY: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, and thanks to all of you for coming out today.