"We'll Discuss All Issues Hampering Ties"

What do you think of Nawaz Sharif’s response?

It has come in response to Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda’s letter offering talksin order to normalise relations. Our response is going to be positive and relevant.

But he has said that unless there is an advance on Kashmir, culturaland commercial ties can’t improve. The interpretation of this is ‘let us getback to Kashmir first before we settle other issues’.

That is not our interpretation.

That is not India’s interpretation?

No. Our interpretation is he has offered to talk and we will adequatelyrespond to it. We have offered to discuss all issues that stand in the way of India andPakistan becoming friends.

But Pakistan sees Kashmir as the core issue?

You see, I am not pre-judging anything since now it has to be sortedout by official-level meetings. We will then work out the agenda.

Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Jehangir Karamat, said what Pakistanreally wants is the right of self-determination for Kashmiris. And as you know, the agendaon India is army-driven in Pakistan.

It will be a mistake to keep ourselves imprisoned in the past. Thischapter opens with the exchange of these two letters. Therefore, I will begin from here.Secondly, it is not for the Government of India to take notice of every statement anybodymakes for his own consideration or domestic compulsions.

Gowda recently said Kashmir is a closed chapter, and that India iswilling to make minor adjustments on Kashmir.

More has been read into the statements than he meant. Basically, itmeans that we are going to talk to each other.

Will Kashmir figure prominently?

I don’t know. Forging a new relationship, naturally, has to be a prominent issue.

But Pakistan always returns to Kashmir. In 1993, talks were held aftera similar exchange of letters. Then Pakistan gave non-papers calling for modalities for aplebiscite.

I go back to what I have said. The two sides are creating a helpfulatmosphere. We will cross the bridge when we come to it.

US Ambassador Frank Wisner saidrecently that there is no point in indulging in sterilehistorical debates on Kashmir and that the Simla Agreement has become irrelevant.

Well, I don’t go by what the ambassador says. It’s not a matter between usand the US. It’s between us and Pakistan. The Simla Agreement emphasises two things.One, all issues have to be sorted out bilaterally and secondly, it is a comprehensivecharter of good neighbourliness. Kashmir is one of the items mentioned there. Therefore,the Simla Agreement is not irrelevant.

In Sharif’s statements before the polls, just after and later, thenuances change progressively. Isn’t there a certain hardening of the position?

I think it’s a softening of their position. We are all confrontedwith the realities of today and these demand that in the SAARC region we work out acooperative relationship on trade, travel, everything. Once the dialogue opens, I thinkboth sides will address these and other vital issues.

But Pakistan constantly takes us back to Kashmir...

See, you want me to defeat the talks before they begin. I do not wantto defeat the talks. I am approaching the entire prospect of talks in a positive andhelpful manner.

What’s the Gujral doctrine?

It’s not for me to define my own doctrine.

Your basic philosophy?

The basic question is that in the post-Cold War era how shouldneighbours live? We have decided on four-five bases. India is a large country, a largeeconomy. Our borders touch every SAARC country. Basically, we will go more than half-wayto accommodate our neighbours’ interests, not demand quid pro quo on every issue. Wehave proved that with Nepal and Bangladesh.

How about Pakistan?

I’m willing to go with Pakistan also on that basis.

But can unilateral generosity be the basis for peace? In Pakistan thisis often seen as India’s weakness.

I can’t change what they think. I think it’s helping us tobuild a new atmosphere in South Asia. In the last six months, the situation is totallydifferent. Look at our relationship with Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. There is a qualitativechange.

Bangladesh does not want to renew the 25-year-old friendship treaty?

I have no such indication.

You mean they may sign it?

I have no indication either way. It has not been discussed and has notbeen raised by anybody. Why should I pre-judge it?

But in international relations, there has to be a reciprocalresponse.

This is the Cold War mindset. It’s time to change relationships onthe basis of India’s strength and role in this region. India is keen to releaseitself from the smaller preoccupations, to play a world role.

Is Bangladesh helping India tackle insurgency in the North-east?

Our major preoccupation in Bangladesh was the ISI-sponsored insurgencyin the North-east. For the first time, the Bangladesh government is cooperating.

What do you think of Gohar Ayub Khan’s appointment as foreignminister of Pakistan?

It is for the government of Pakistan to appoint a foreign minister. Iwill be very happy to work and cooperate with him on bilateral relations.

The high points of your tenure?

We have been able to sort out our differences with all our neighbours,except Pakistan. We have built a new type of relationship with the ASEAN countries. Wehave opened a new chapter in our ties with Central Asian countries and Iran. Now I amgoing to Mauritius to participate in the conference of Indian Ocean Rim countries.

What about the Security Council debacle (voting for the non-permanent seat)?

To be defeated once is not a debacle. As (German foreign minister)Klaus Kinkel told the press himself, this the price India paid for not signing the CTBT.And I am not sorry for that.

On the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), you came in rather late.But there is a general feeling that we handled it quite badly.

What is this general feeling? I do not see in any newspaper or anyserious writer saying our policy on CTBT was wrong. Only an odd person here and there, andin a democratic society it is inevitable. All the political parties supported this policy.

In the end we had no choice...we had got into that situation.

The negotiations were going on for more than three to four years. I came at the end.

What will be our policy on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT)?

It has to conform to our policy on CTBT. So at the moment we are tryingto see what the big powers want to do. They have piles and piles of material. They are notbothered about that. They are more worried about what we people may have.

The Prime Minister recently saidIndia is willing to allow 100 per cent equity innuclear power plants to foreign firms. What is the message?

Some power plants in India are covered by the IAEA safeguards, some arenot. Some which we build ourselves and are outside their purview. The demand is that weshould have all covered. That we are not accepting. But even the Russian agreement we haveand the two nuclear reactors we might import here, they will be covered by thesesafeguards. Therefore, if anybody sets up a plant here and if that plant is covered, wehave no objection.

But will you allow 100 per cent foreign ownership?

We are allowing 100 per cent in so many other things. If energy isgenerated here, and we need the energy, then why not?

But nuclear energy is a sacred cow.

I don’t think it’s so sacred. After all, our first plant wasbuilt with the help of the Canadians.

But it was not owned by them.

No, maybe not. That time the policies were different. Now afterglobalisation we are allowing 100 per cent ownership even to Coca Cola.

But Coca Cola is not a nuclear plant.

What is the difference? We need energy. Thermal or nuclear is not the issue.

Are we going to get the Russian nuclear reactors? Despite US pressure?

When I was in Russia, I was told under no circumstances will they yield to US pressure.

It won’t go the cryogenic deal way?

I don’t think Russia backed out of it also.

We didn’t get the full thing.

Yes, we did get the full thing.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban are fast making gains. You discussed thisissue in Iran last week, but India is behaving as if it’s not a player there.

Let us keep in mind that India is not involved in Afghanistan. But weare concerned about what’s happening there. Our policy is in conformity with the UNpolicy. We believe it’s their own problem and there should be no outsideintervention. And the Taliban are an outside intervention—the support to the Taliban,I mean.

How will you tackle that?

That’s the concern. That’s why other countries met first in Tehran and in theUN.

Should the Taliban be resisted?

It is not for me to say so. We are neither a party in the war inAfghanistan, nor would we like to be.