Introductory remarks by PR : I have the pleasure to introduce to you the Minister of External Affairs of India, Mr Jaswant Singh. He is not a stranger to you, at least to some of you. He has been in this room before and to take advantage of the time available to us I intend to launch the conference straightaway. The floor is open with the show of hands. You can indicate if you want to ask a question. Please identify yourself.

Mr Ramesh Chandran, Times of India: Could you please tell us a little more about the Convention on terrorism which you referred to in your statement and what do you think about your conversations with the Russian Foreign Minister and whether there was any allusion to Afghanistan nexus as far as terrorism is concerned vis-a-vis what is happening in Kashmir ?

EAM : The Convention on Terrorism is a proposal which India has mooted and it is under consideration and has been under consideration for sometime. We are reemphasising its centrality and importance as part of current effort and understanding -- that internationally has been manifest -- about the menace of terrorism combined with narcotics and trade in arms. In my discussions with His Excellency Ivanov - we are meeting just not in New York but just a week back in Almaty in Kazkhstan and before that in the ARF meeting in Singapore - the question of international terrorism figured prominently. He shares our appreciation that from South Caucasus from Dagestan, the Caspian Region, Central Asia, Afghanistan and into South Asia there is an unacceptable level of coordinated terrorist activity and this needs to be addressed to seriously by the international community. Specifically about the situation in Afghanistan, I have made known India's viewpoints not simply to H.E. Mr Ivanov but during my recent visits to the Central Asia n,Republics and I have covered all except Kyrgyzstan which recently has been subject to terrorist activities and I find a remarkable coincidence not only of concerns in regard to developments in Afghanistan but also on how we need to approach collectively, through the UN, to tackle this menace (terrorism).

Mr. Al Haq, Egypt Press : First of all on behalf of UN Correspondents Association I want to welcome-you to this briefing. Yesterday in his speech, the Pakistani Foreign Minister Mr Aziz had made a comparison between the situation 
in East Timor and the one in Kashmir. I was wondering first of all what your thoughts were on the comparison and its applicability and secondly what India feels about the intervention in East Timor and the concept of humanitarian intervention in general ?

EAM : I disagree with my distinguished colleague, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan's assessment. There is no comparison between the Indian State of Jammu & Kashmir and what is currently taking place in East Timor. On the question of humanitarian intervention, I have made known my country's viewpoints through what I said in the General Assembly . We continue to believe that State has a role and a relevance, that strong sovereignties result in a strong United Nations, not the reverse;as I said in my speech that it is strong states that result into strong United Nations, weak states can only result in a weak United Nations. We also believe that the new postulates and theories about the intervention need to be debated much more fully and defined, and cannot be selectively applied. On the specific question of what has been taking place in East Timor, any violation of human rights is a development that is both distressing and must be combated and corrected.

Mr. Scott Neuman, Washington Post: We have heard reports in the past few days to  United states, unnamed indiviuals in the State Department, suggesting to elements in the military in Pakistan that they need to respect human rights -basically what appears to be a veiled warning against any attempts of a coup. Is your government afraid that the conflict in Kashmir recently has pushed the civilian government in Pakistan to the brink ?

EAM : No, we are not afraid. As to what developments take place within Pakistan, again an internal matter of Pakistan itself, and as you worded rightly "advise" -- that the State Department might be giving to whoever in Pakistan publicly or privately, India is not privy to it.

Ms. Ambalika Mishra (?), Voice of America: Question and Answer in Hindi.

Mr Ian Platt, The Guardian : Can I ask in the light of your speech yesterday and the speech of your Pakistani counterpart whether countries elsewhere in the world should be concerned about the impression that a serious arms race is now underway in your region ?

EAM : I do wish to disabuse you of that impression. There is in fact no arms race now or even earlier. I have read what my distinguished colleague from Pakistan has said. It is more of a reflection of what I call the compulsive hostility that we have been experiencing. Any fears about the arms race are completely unfounded.

Mr Prakash Swamy, News India Times : In the light of the support India got from the EU and the U.S. on the Kargil issue, did the Minister take up any issue during the bilateral talks or with the Secretary General, What happened in Kargil or how India suffered because of the intrusion ?

EAM : Well amongst the issues that have come up - of course this issue has feature because it has been an incident of the recent past and it is an issue - but the larger dimension of it is the encouragement of across the border terrorism and the manifestation of terrorism on a much larger scale in many other countries now and the need to understand this phenomena and to address it collectively.

Mr Chidanand Rajghafta, Indian Express : Sir, two specific questions about CTBT. You have spoken about creating  the widest possible consensus in India towards the CTBT. When do you think you would achieve that and at what point do you think this would arrive ? And two, are you happy or satisfied with the steps that the Clinton Administration has taken to make it more conducive for India to sign the Test Ban Treaty ?

EAM : First when and secondly whether I am happy or unhappy about the Clinton-Administration. First is not really in my hands because it is a matter to be determined entirely by the next Government which, as I said, is now on the cards from around 15th of October. It is my belief that next Government shall address itself purposefully to building the widest possible consensus within the political community of India. As to what the Clinton Administration has done, I can scarcely express happiness at imposition of sanctions and declaration of entities list. These are, I believe, steps that are counterproductive and do not contribute to, what you would like to term as, my state of happiness.

Mr K.P.Nair, Telegraph :You said in your speech yesterday that the dialogue process with Pakistan is open and that no preconditions attend to it. Mr Aziz is for resumption of the Lahore process as well. Yet one doesn't see the talks
taking place in spite of the fact that both the Ministers are here. Why is that and when do you see the talks resuming between India and Pakistan ?

EAM : I do believe that here again we have somewhat placed  the cart before the horse . I said no preconditions attached to a resumption of the dialogue process. There is already a composite dialogue which is on the cards, which has got interrupted. There is however another reality, that is also a part of what I said in the General Assembly yesterday. Not as preconditions but as the essential ingredients of the very process of Lahore or Simla Agreement itself and for the sake of making these talks purposeful, it is necessary that violence be abjured and that cross border terrorism be completely discouraged. This is not a precondition but it is an essential ingredient and this is in fact integral element of what has been stated both in the Simla Agreement as also in the Lahore Declaration of February earlier this year.

Mr. Joy Elliot, Reuters America : Yesterday the Pakistani Foreign Minister called for a conference, of nuclear powers to promote the goal of strategic restraint in South Asia. Do you have any comment on that ?

EAM : I do not have a comment on the specific proposal made by the distinguished Foreign Minister of Pakistan. We do believe that an expression of a larger global conference on the issue of accidental use of nuclear weapons or prevention of use of nuclear weapons is something that we have also suggested and that is something that we are recommending to the UN General Assembly to address itself to.

Mr Rohit Vyas, TV Asia News: Sir, During the Kargil crisis a number of Indian leaders had issued statements saying that they were not sure whether the Pakistan Government of Nawaz Sharif was in control of the situation. In recent speeches of yours right here in New York, you have been talking about the key to rebuilding everything is to regain trust. Do you think the Government of India can regain trust with this Government of Pakistan ?

EAM : Let me share with you that when we talk of regaining of trust, it is of course trust and discourse between Governments that is an essential ingredient. But another factor and a very important factor is the trust between peoples. I was a passenger on that bus that went to Lahore, the public approval of that bus journey, the great enthusiasm that it had generated both in India and Pakistan was an indicator of public support to a movement away from the sterility of the past five decades and a movement towards better future for the people of both Pakistan and India. That is a factor of regaining trust between peoples also and these are the challenges, that are the challenges of the leadership of both India and Pakistan.

Mr.Fayaz, Pakistan Press International : There are apprehensions about the
nuclear doctrine. Could you explain why there are these apprehensions at the Pakistan and at the international level and what was the need for this doctrine? There is UNMOGIP in India and Pakistan. They are always based in Pakistan. India never allowed their chief to visit the Jammu & Kashmir area. Why was this and what is your reaction ?

EAM : Second, I think it is a mistaken impression. After Simla Agreement, both countries, India and Pakistan, recognised that having bilaterally arrived at a settlement, the role and relevance of the Military Observer Group of UN is no longer there and that is where the stationing of the group in Pakistan came into being. The question is factually incorrect. India has never said that the head of that group cannot visit the Indian State of J & K is factually incorrect. He has not ever been prevented and he has had access to whatever he wanted to do in the Indian State of J & K. Secondly, what you call doctrine, it is miscalled doctrine, the apprehensions in that regard are completely misplaced. It is a discussion paper produced by the Advisory Board of the National Security Council. Advisory Board is a large body comprised of wide range of public men and women from academics, journalists, to retired officials and it is really a discussion paper. It is not a pronounced or adopted doctrine. Therefore the apprehension in this regard whether in Pakistan or internationally are completely misplaced.

I want to say this in English. It is a noteworthy point, A question that was asked to me in Hindi was on account of this deterioration in relations during the conflict in Kargil, why were the two Ambassadors remaining in respective countries. Because it is not, there is no war declared, there was hostility, there was a war like situation, there was a premeditated armed aggression but what I pointed out was that even during that period the initiative about the Delhi-Lahore bus service worked on and the bus operated on all those days.

Mr. Khalid Hassan, Associated Press of Pakistan : Sir you speak about that it is necessary that essential ingredients Tor the resumption of the Lahore dialogue, there should be essential ingredients which ------- Now who shall determine this has happened, because Pakistan denies what you said and what you charge it with?

EAM : There is an objective reality, it is not a question of denial and affirmation There is an objective reality. And as two mature nations we have to address ourselves to the objective realities on the ground.

PR : We are now to last two questions.

Mr Raja Mohan, The Hindu : Coming back to the question of Pakistani proposal to an international conference on strategic restraint in South Asia. What is our reaction, are we opposed to it, we are for it or are we considering it ?

EAM : I do not believe that it should be limited to South Asia. I don't believe that strategic restraint is required only in South Asia and it certainly is engaging in a kind of simplicism to suggest that, whether in nuclear or conventional terms, restraint is something that only South Asia should demonstrate and nowhere else or no one else in the world has to do. The reality is altogether different. And, therefore, while India has always stood for and we will continue to demonstrate restraint, we believe that such a conference about the restraint is better expressed in what I have proposed in my intervention in the General Assembly.

Bhaskar Menon : During the cold war, Pakistan was supported by the US and in the regional co by China. What is your perception now ? From where does Pakistan in its pugnacious attitude against India draw support internationally ?

 EAM : I would much rather not venture an opinion on who or what supports
Pakistan. That is really a matter of concern for Pakistan and is a question best
addressed to my counterpart from Pakistan. But so far as support goes, I believe
that an understanding of the Indian position during this recent conflict is a
demonstration essentially and this understanding comes from the widest possible
spectrum of international  opinion and that  demonstrates more  than  anything else, that there  was  an understanding  about  India's  correct position. And I would  much rather treat  international  support  to an indiviual  or any  individual  country as support on issues. That is what we advocate.