VB The attack by the Kashmiri rebels on the Indian Parliament on Thursday has greatly aggravated tensions between Pakistan and India, doesn't India have a valid point in insisting that Pakistan harbours the Kashmiri terrorists and that India is entitled to take the same kind of self-defence faction against Pakistan, that Pakistan has approved the Americans taking in relation to Afghanistan?

RI Well, we're jumping to conclusions in this case because it has not been established so far as to who perpetrated those attacks, the government of Pakistan has expressed its shock over the attacks. It has strongly and openly condemned them. The President of Pakistan has sent a message of sympathy to the Indian Prime Minister and for the time being, until it is established who was behind it, we have refrained from any further comments on it.

VB But the overwhelming likelihood is that these were Kashmiri militants whose organisation is based in Pakistan.

RI Well, that has not been proven.

VB OK, but the likelihood is that.

RI Well, this is then just speculation. Like I said, you are jumping to conclusions and the government has refrained from any comments so I would also not like to comment on that.

VB According to the Express of India yesterday, there has been a lot of shelling by Pakistani troops across the line of control (between India and Pakistan) in the Kashmir area in the last day. Is war imminent?

RI I have no information concerning that (the reports of attacks across the line of control) so I just can't comment.

VB Are there any circumstances in which Pakistan would use nuclear weapons as a first strike in circumstances, for instance, in which its conventional arms forces were being overwhelmed by the stronger Indian conventional forces?

RI Pakistan has stated time and again that it will never resort to first strike where its nuclear weapons are concerned. The rest of your question, I would say, is again hypothetical. However, repeated statements are there stating that we would not go for a first strike.

VB Is Pakistan happy with the interim government that has been formed in Afghanistan now?

RI Pakistan has welcomed the formation of the interim government in Afghanistan. It is our hope that it would usher a long era of peace and prosperity and stability in that country, not least because the Afghan refugees whom we are hosting, whose number is nearly the population of Ireland, would be able to go back, almost three million of them.

VB Has Pakistan been destabilised by the bombing of Afghanistan and the Taliban with which there were such close relations?

RI I wouldn't say Pakistani society has been destabilised. There have been demonstrations in Pakistan and those have been carried out by extremist parties which are in the minority. The majority support the government policies.

VB It must have been difficult for Pakistan to support the American alliance against the Taliban, given the close ties there have been between the Taliban and Pakistan, even if it was Pakistan's "patron" (the United States) was insisting on it joining the alliance.

RI The environment changed (by what happened on September 11th), so Pakistan had to respond in accordance with that change. Pakistan made every effort (to resolve the issue peacefully), we sent two delegations (to Afghanistan) to apprise them (the Taliban) of what the world community wanted and when those efforts failed, then further action was taken. As regards Pakistan's relations with the Taliban, let me clarify that it has been Pakistan's consistent policy that whichever government is in power in Kabul, Pakistan recognises that government, we do business with them and that is also a geographical compulsion.

VB Pakistan has been identified by the State Department in America and by the CIA as being very much involved in the creation of Islamic extremist elements in Afghanistan and the State Department's report on patterns of terrorism, published earlier this year, identified Pakistan as a locus of a lot of terrorist activity. Was there concern about this?

RI (Reading from a prepared statement) Pakistan had always pointed out that the US reports were flawed by glaring omissions and contradictions. The reports misinterpreted the Pakistani people's sympathy for the freedom struggle of Kashmiri people and the government's policy of extending political, moral and diplomatic support to them.

VB Are you saying that there is no terrorism by Islamic groups in Kashmir?

RI No. That is a freedom struggle. That is a struggle for a cause. They have a very noble cause and that freedom struggle has been sanctified by international resolutions, the UN Security Counsel resolution which gives the Kashmiri people the right to self-determination.

VB All terrorists think that they are sanctified by a noble cause.

RI No, I would like to make a distinction. Terrorism is violence, which results in the killing of innocent people. When there are people or groups who are struggling for freedom and, there may be violence, then it is not terrorism.

VB Even if innocent people are killed?

RI That may be what you would call collateral damage but the cause is there, the noble cause is there. The objective is noble; it is to attain freedom.

VB To return to the issue of conflict between Pakistan and India, the issue of Kashmir, why won't Pakistan settle for the partition of Kashmir as is presently the de facto position?

RI But what about the UN Security Council resolution?

VB Pakistan doesn't pay much attention to UN Security Council resolutions when it suits it, for instance on nuclear arms testing?

RI As for the nuclear issue, (reading again from a prepared statement) I would like to point out that Pakistan's nuclear tests were in response to the tests carried out by India. Pakistan has always advocated nuclear non-proliferation and conventional arms control in South Asia and despite India's 1974 nuclear tests Pakistan continued to promote a goal of nuclear-free South Asia even while preparing ourselves to respond to India's nuclear ambition.

Now, the tests in May 1998 by India compelled Pakistan to respond in the interest of stability and balance in South Asia, and Pakistan has maintained a credible nuclear capability at the minimum possible level thereafter.

VB What is Pakistan's nuclear capacity at present?

RI As I said, minimum nuclear deterrent is a central pillar of our defence doctrine. Our nuclear programme has been maintained at the minimum possible level.

VB President Musfarraf has indicated recently that even though elections may take place next year for the Parliament in Pakistan, he will remain on (as dictator) subsequently.

RI The Government position on this has been that after the national and provincial assemblies and senate are in place by the end of November 2002, the election of the President will be discussed at that time.

VB He promised when he seized power in 1999 that he would remain in power for only two years and then there would be a return to democracy.

RI Yes. That's if the national and provincial assemblies and the senate, whichever way they think the matter should proceed. It will be decided by them.