After the Indo-US talks, do you see India signing the CTBT?
It does look as if the present government is going to sign the CTBT on American terms. But that's not the right way out of the crisis. It's a pity all this was not thought of before they went in for the explosions. But I still hope some other countries are going to be involved in improving the CTBT and reintroducing into it the international enforcement which India has insisted on before.
What specific harm could result from India's signing?
We'll lose the opportunity of persuading other countries to have a much more general agreement. To make it effective, other countries have got to sign the CTBT to make it operational this September. That would help get a much more general application of the doctrine. I don't think the Americans will want to be exposed as being chiefly responsible for not getting any progress in this field.
Won't India's not signing be seen as holding up the CTBT?
It wouldn't only be India saying this; indeed it would then be reverting to its position before the tests. Gujral stated the argument most clearly when he said he wanted to use India's position not as a threat, but to show how the right way out of this situation was the destruction of arsenals as per the Rajiv-Gorbachev formula. India returning to that point of view is the best way of forcing the rest of the world to face the situation. It would've been better if India hadn't done the tests, but now it can be part of the argument as well.
What about the US insistence that India sign without having signed itself?
That's of course wrong. But I'd hoped these negotiations would force the Americans to look at their position too. My book details the responsibilities they have and also my own country, and I'm sorry to say so far we don't seem to have understood this. I still think such arguments will influence in getting all the countries to commit themselves not merely to the CTBT but to the npt's preamble obligations that involve the eventual destruction of all arsenals.
Do you see America and Britain making a genuine effort in that direction?
The Americans, I'm sorry to say, have shown no signs yet; that's why we've got to shake them. As for the British government, its last strategic defence white paper says they want to live in a non-nuclear world. They don't go into it, but the implication is that a non-nuclear world will be much safer than a nuclear one.
But shake America, the only superpower?
Even superpowers can be shamed at intervals. It's not as if no Americans are on our side. One of the purposes of my book is to quote prominent Americans who understand this problem, who advocate the same course as I do and who believe India does too.
Does the West see problems with Indian policies per se or only the present bjp government?
The Congress has its own policy on this. If they come to power, I hope they'll look afresh at the proposals which Rajiv Gandhi put forward in the Delhi Declaration. When the new government takes over, they'll have a new chance of looking at this situation, to get the rest of the world to listen. The present bjp government doesn't speak with the same authority as the new government will.
Are the improvements in Indo-British ties in anticipation of India signing the CTBT?
Because we're a country claiming to have nuclear weapons, we weren't in a good position to criticise India or Pakistan for doing what we've done, for much the same reasons by the way.Since then there has been some improvement, that is to say, of the British government understanding better the Indian position. I hope they are.
Kashmir was brought into these resolutions on the nuclear tests, and Robin Cook...
I believe there was some big misunderstanding on the part of the present Labour government, Robin Cook too, if you like, about Kashmir, and I think they've learnt about that now. Partly, my book was written in order to tackle that question as well, because I believe India's always had a strong case on Kashmir. But it's often been confused and overlooked or not understood at all by our people, including I'm sorry to say, some of us in Labour. Every time there's a crisis, Pakistan uses it to inflame the Kashmir situation. That's very serious indeed. Because Kashmir is a part of India - and I don't believe India could possibly accept a different doctrine. I hope now that people have looked at the situation more carefully they understand the Indian point of view better. Tony Blair understood this well when he met then Indian premier Gujral. That was of course before the explosions, but I don't believe they alter the argument.
Would Pakistan ever accept on its own, under pressure or persuasion, that Kashmir is a part of India?
Well, it's very difficult for people in Pakistan to accept that or to say that, and I don't think they are easily going to say it. But it's just as difficult - and people don't understand this for India to say Kashmir ceases to be a part of India. Because right from independence it has been a part of India - the arguments for Kashmir being a part of India are even stronger now. People in Kashmir have had the chance of voting on these questions, and they do have the vote. It's not been a full-scale referendum, but they've had several elections there in which, unreported in the rest of the world, governments have been voted in. But this has often been neglected and in my book I do illustrate how injurious that neglect was. But that doesn't alter the facts, because the idea that Kashmir could be transferred elsewhere is a policy for the total disruption of India altogether. It's not merely putting the case back to the pre-independence times, it's disrupting the whole position of the Muslims in India and of reopening questions that would be absolutely wrong to reopen. Although the present bjp government had a policy of not understanding fully the special status of Kashmir, I hope they've learnt that too because that's partly the reason why Kashmir must remain a part of India.
Do you see a growing understanding of this in the West?
The more you look at the facts, the more I think people can be persuaded. I know there are many Kashmiri groups in different parts of the world and here in Britain who say they speak for Kashmir. Well, they don't. There are lots of people in Kashmir who speak and vote for themselves, and who don't share the view of the Kashmiri groups in Britain. Of course there are many people in Kashmir who're very critical of New Delhi. Well, that's not new. But among elected leaders when I first met Sheikh Abdullah, prime minister of Kashmir for many years, he put to me how strongly it was necessary for Kashmir to stay with India. That was Sheikh Abdullah himself. His son is now pursuing the same policy for the same ends: to protect all the people of Kashmir - Muslims, Hindus and the rest.
