¢ The intruder was given a further opportunity to prove
his bona fides. This was done through an accepted
signalling system. This involves two aircraft moving
to the side of the intruding aircraft, conveying a
visual signal i.e. wiggling of wings and leftward move-
ment. These are universally recognised signals con-
veying that intruder is in our airspace, and asking
him to follow and land as well as indicating to him
the place he should land. The intruder is expected
to respond indicating that the landing place con-
veyed to his is practical. This effort to communicate
with him was sustained, and every opportunity was
given to him to respond and land peacefully. The
intruder could have proven his bona fides by re-
sponding and complying with the indications. In-
stead, he not only disregarded our aircraft signals,
but also turned towards the interceptor aircraft in an
aggressive, evasive movement. Given the unusual
movements of the intruder over our territory, al-
ready monitored and described above and his sub-
sequent conduct after giving him the opportunity to
land safely, our Air Force could have reached no
conclusion other than this was a hostile military
operation, which required counter-action.

There is no weakness in these rules of engagement.
What they require is that both sides must observe
them honestly. If one side decides to break them the
system becomes unworkable, regardless of how re-
fined and foolproof it might be.

e Pak conduct in this matter is a major violation of an
important CBM. The 1991 Agreement was one of
the 4 CBMs put in place from 1998 onwards, at our
instance. We are committed to observance of CBMs.

e The Pak combat aircraft was hit on its left engine
which caught fire. The indication is that, as a result
it started moving in a leftward arc even though dam-
aged. Apparently in its attempt to head back into
Pak airspace, it cut an arc cross the border into
Pakistan, and then seems to have impacted very
near the border itself. As it moved, it would also
have started breaking up which is why there has
been wreckage found in both India and Pakistan. An
aircraft such as this does not fall vertically but fol-
lows a trajectory based on constantly changing aero-
dynamics. This explains why there are pieces of
wreckage that we have retrieved, and others that
Pakistan has been displaying on TV.

e

Precise location of pieces of wreckage in itself cannot
in this instance, be correlated categorically with the
movement of the aircraft on its flight path before it
was hit. It is natural for wreckage to scatter and this
does not in any way impinge on the basic issue that
aircraft was in Indian airspace as indicated above.

¢ The crucial question is what then prevented the Pak
aircraft from proving its bona fides when it had
every opportunity to do so under the rules of en-
gagement of which they are fully aware.

The question again arises that if the aircraft was
indeed engaged on an innocent, routine mission,
why it could not prove this by complying with the
mutually accepted procedures of engagement when
every opportunity was given to it.

Google

e The part of the border in Kutch where there is a
divergence in interpretation of the boundary is the
mouth of the Sir Creek, which is somewhat removed
from the place where the air intrusions occurred.
The essential point is that at one sector of the bor-
der where three intrusions took place, the boundary
alignment is not in question at all. Therefore it can-
not in anyway cast doubt on air space violation. In
the other sector where the single fourth intrusion
took place, the divergence in interpretation of bound-
ary demarcation is very small (350 meters at maxi-
mum) and this does not in any way detract from the
fact of the air space violation.

© The place where there is a substantial divergence
was not the site of the recent air intrusion, and it is,
therefore, not relevant.

© There have been violations in different sectors of the
border over the past months and years. Many of
them are high-speed aircraft entering and existing
in minutes. It is not possible to intercept them but
they are none the less intrusions and violations of
the 1991 Agreement. Some may be inadvertent.
The existing mechanism i.e. the 1991 Agreement,
taken together with the rules of engagement provide
for fool proof handling of all these possibilities. We
have taken up all major cases with Pakistan govern-
ment.

Recent provocation is yet another serious under-
mining of what should be a common effort to re-
duce tensions and improve relations. It is clear that
this incident was totally avoidable.

It is unfortunate that they have compounded this
with yet another provocation by firing missiles at
our unarmed helicopters carrying civilians (journal-
ists) while within our airspace (on Aug 12). We did
not retaliate in this instance.

e We continue to operate in a larger consistent frame-
work and vision of good neighbourly relations with
Pakistan. We seek to build cooperation and confi-
dence and resolve issues through peaceful bilateral
discussions, working towards realistic solutions. The
Simla Agreement provides the framework. We seek
to build a stable, broad-based relationship on this
basis. We will continue our initiatives as in the past,
including the composite dialogue and the Lahore
process. We remain committed to the Lahore pro-
cess and dialogue.

¢ The Lahore process and dialogue have been greatly
undermined by Pakistan's adventurism in Kargil and
by its renewed cross border terrorism. They have
the responsibility of repairing damage and restoring
trust. We call on Pakistan to take concrete steps for
this purpose. This would facilitate resumption of
Lahore process and composite dialogue. This re-
quires reaffirmation of inviolability and sanctity of
LOC. Sponsorship of terrorism across LOC in any
particular sector, is violation of LOC, as indeed of
Simla Agreement and Lahore understandings. This
also prevents return of trust. Hence, Pakistan must
abjure instigating, sponsoring, aiding and abetting
cross border terrorism.

INDIA NEWS © October 1,1999 7