Interview with External Affairs Minister Mr. Jaswant Singh
( 25 November, 1999) 
  Courtesy:T I M E

---

TIME: How has the coup in Pakistan affected relations with India? 
Singh: India's dealings with Pakistan have always been governed by principles
of good neighborly relations. The coup is of course a disappointing
development. It's matter of concern for us. It is no doubt indicative of a certain
degree of impatience with the demands of democracy. The new order in
Pakistan is yet to stabilize. We are still watching the situation. 

TIME: Do you have anybody in Pakistan that you can pick up the phone and talk to if there is a problem? 
Singh: We are in touch with the government of Pakistan, whatever the nature of the government. 

TIME: The man at the top of that government now, General Pervez Musharraf, initiated the action in Kargil. Does that indicate anything about the
direction Pakistan may be moving in?  
Singh: I won't comment on the direction on which Pakistan has already set itself. We'll watch the situation. 

TIME: What is your biggest foreign policy concern right now? 
Singh: How far are we from the new millennium--six weeks? This is not simply India's challenge, it is a global challenge--how to distill the lessons of the 20th century so that we are able move into a better future as 2000 dawns. If the 20th
century was marked by the ascendancy of the importance of man and was the century of democracy, let us then convert political democracy
into real economic democracy. 

TIME: Has the development of the globalized economy been kind to India? 
Singh: I am not a globalization fundamentalist. I am greatly attracted by the underlying theme, that globalization will lead to greater equalization. If
globalization is the economic equivalent of political democracy, it's welcome. But it would be an error to treat it as a panacea. I am cautious about cure-all suggestions. I do believe in the creative genius of individuals, in free enterprise and
economic liberalization. But under the guise of economic liberalization, we mustn't permit the perpetuation of disparities. 

TIME: Speaking of globalization, will China's accession to the WTO make it a responsible global partner, or will it merely make China a stronger country able to intimidate its neighbors more effectively? 
Singh: India has always stood for China's entry into the WTO. We believe that this will open the markets in China to the rest of the global community and that China will then have to compete with other countries on more equal terms.

TIME: When India tested its nuclear weapons last year, Defense Minister George Fernandes said that one of the main reasons was to protect India from
a nuclear-armed China. Has that position changed? 
Singh: My good friend George's statement has been inaccurately put across. Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs tend to have different approaches to international issues, just as the Pentagon and the U.S. State Department do. But
India's nuclear program is neither country-specific nor threat-specific. It is an answer to a wholly iniquitous new nuclear  security  paradigm that has come into existence since the end of the cold war. Our program is aimed at acquiring for India strategic space and strategic autonomy.We remain committed to a wholly defensive posture with minimum credible deterrence. We are for global disarmament and for global elimination of all weapons of mass destruction. 

TIME: Did the testing accomplish its objectives by making your job easier? 
Singh: Yes, it did. It was a well-thought-out project. It was a continuity--rather
than an aberration--of policy, and it achieved the objectives of giving India
additional strategic space and autonomy. 

TIME: And this hasn't been diminished by Pakistan's parallel development of a
nuclear program? 
Singh: If you reflect on what I said about India's program being neither
country-specific nor threat-specific, then the question would not arise. I am
mindful of the fact that Pakistan has policies and programs that are centered
around what India does or does not do. But it would be an error to assume that
Indian policies and the path that it adopts are in any sense a reaction to what
does or does not happen in Pakistan. 

TIME: The militant uprising in Kashmir is now 10 years old. The army is still in
the cities, but a solution remains elusive. Are any new initiatives being taken to
break the deadlock? 
Singh: What you term militancy is an externally inspired and aided insurgency.
The armed forces of India have to be present in the state of Jammu and
Kashmir to perform a duty which any armed forces of any country will be
required to perform--to safeguard its borders and to take necessary action
against externally aided terrorism. 

TIME: So the soldiers will remain in the cities indefinitely? Or have there been
other initiatives? 
Singh: We have just held a general election there, and the chief minister of the
state has been talking of local-body elections. But if terrorists continue to come
from across the border and infiltrate the urban centers, the security forces will
have to be present to take action. 

TIME: So the solution is ... ? 
Singh: Stop cross-border terrorism. 

TIME: The turnout in the elections was very low, particularly in Srinagar and the
Kashmir valley. Do you attribute this entirely to intimidation by militant groups? 
Singh: Yes, I do. 

TIME: I [Ghosh] visited the state during the elections and the sense I got was
quite different. The people say they don't trust the election system and certainly
didn't trust the chief minister. Do you get that sort of feedback at all? 
Singh: I am sure if you went around the streets of Hong Kong and talked to
people, they might not be entirely supportive [of the government]. I am aware of
the challenges and difficulties that we face, but we will answer those difficulties
and meet those challenges. If this cross-border terrorism is discontinued, the
people will be at peace. The state of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of
India. The difficulties in Jammu and Kashmir are as important to our government
as are, for example, the difficulties that we are encountering in the eastern state
of Orissa, which was recently devastated by a cyclone. 

TIME: To what extent has the presence of the Dalai Lama and his followers in
India hindered your relations with Beijing? 
Singh: The Dalai Lama is an honored guest, and he has the freedom to
practice his religion in India. But he does not practice any politics there. We
recognize China's position on Tibet and its sovereignty. 

TIME: You were host to another global religious figure recently, the Pope. Do
you think it's unfortunate that he made remarks about the need to convert the
people of India to Christianity? 
Singh: The Pope combines two functions--he is head of state of the Vatican
and head of the Catholic Church. My obligation to the head of state was to
accord to him total cooperation to make his visit as successful as possible. As
head of the church, we made all the arrangements to ensure his security and to
ensure that no impediments were placed in his path. 

TIME: So you don't consider that his presence ... 
Singh: I don't comment on religious matters. 

TIME: Actually this is a matter of politics. The issue of conversion has become
a touchy one in India, especially among Hindus. 
Singh: This needs to be placed in perspective. Conversion is touchy not simply
among the Hindus. Conversion would be touchy in Islamic countries too. If there
were conversions to Islam in Christian lands, there would be protest. The
protests in India were really far apart and very few. They were blown out of
proportion. 

TIME: China seems to have been vastly more successful in attracting foreign
investors than India. Are there any lessons that India could learn from the way
China manages its economy? 
Singh: India has nothing to be defensive about how we have managed our
economy. India will manage its economy as India. We are ready to learn
lessons from anyone, but I think it is really the international community that has
to learn lessons from how China is managing its economy and how India is
managing its economy. As for foreign investment, I am informed that nearly
80% of the foreign investment in China has come from overseas Chinese, and I
do not know what lesson we have to learn from that. The democratic process
makes its own demands, and that process will inevitably be slower than the
processes of a totalitarian system. But the democratic process can run a
marathon, and in that it will be victorious. I accept that we must reduce the gap
between the promise of democracy and the delivery of democracy. India also
has to reduce the bureaucratic obstacle course that investors face. 

TIME: Are you disappointed by the reluctance of the international community,
and especially the U.S., to be more outspoken about the death of democracy in
Pakistan? 
Singh: The approach of the U.S. is course disappointing. It is disappointing
because the U.S. advocates a commitment to democracy and human rights
globally. If that yardstick be applied to this situation, it is a disappointment. But
I also occasionally apply the yardstick of realpolitik. The U.S., after all, is one of
the contributors to the situation in Pakistan today. The U.S. has invested
heavily in Pakistan over decades, in men and materials, armaments and
money. Now the U.S. has run into a blind alley, and therefore there is no other
option for it to adopt than wait-and-see. It is disappointing, but I have to live with
it.