"Let's not take the worm's eye view"

Apart from his new portfolio of External Affairs, Jaswant Singh continues as deputy chairman of the Planning Commission and heads a host of key task forces, including ones on infrastructure, information technology and telecommunications.

The BJP-led Government came to power at the Centre promising to be different. What has it done in foreign policy to show that?

It has already demonstrated this. Take the May nuclear tests. I don't want to over-dramatise it but without any doubt it is a defining event certainly in the last quarter of the century. Not simply in terms of the scientific and technical experiment but also as a switch from what was earlier a covert attitude to an overt policy frame.

So what did the Pokhran tests achieve for India?

It has to be understood that the May 11-13 tests were a continuity inasmuch as development of the technology is concerned. It was a validation of the technology we possessed. But in strategic terms what it did was to acquire for India the much-needed strategic space. Also, we gained in the process a measure of strategic autonomy.

There was a lack of cohesiveness in the response of the Government post-Pokhran. We had different voices speaking on foreign policy and the home minister even made a provocative statement about our policy against infiltrators in Jammu and Kashmir.

In a coalition government it is entirely possible that people will speak in different nuances. But to constantly pay attention only to the nuances and not to the centrality would be an error. Union Home Minister L.K. Advani only asserted the country's right to react to the externally-aided insurgency continuing over decades.

But at a time when we were trying to assure the world that we were not an irresponsible nuclear power?

I am not going to be defensive about protecting the country. You have had a series of five tests which spoke louder than any voice can speak. That you do not pay attention to the message of the tests but only to the detail is unfair.

Your colleague George Fernandes said that your talks with Strobe Talbott did not yield much.

That is a subjective viewpoint in a very different context. What has been attempted is the harmonisation. You reflect for a moment on the original agenda of P-5 and G-8 for India. The 12-13 points that they insisted upon have now got focused to just four. Surely it is not an arithmetic exercise alone to point out that there is movement here. The movement was on the reality of India asserting that we will not subscribe to the NPT. There is no going back on the country's weaponisation programmme and the missile development and flight-testing programmes. These are some of the aspects that were part of the P-5 and G-8 agenda. I am not imagining them. It is a matter of simply looking up the agenda and comparing it with what is happening now.

Where do we see our relations with the US going from here?

What we are endeavouring is not resolving but harmonising. I must say with total candour and honesty and tribute to Mr Talbott, my counterpart in the US, that he accepts this in totality. Resolving presupposes conflict. Harmonising denotes an understanding, an acceptance of the sovereign right of a nation to decide its national interests. I told Mr Talbott that we have a saying in Rajasthan -- Jis gaon nahin jaana, uska raasta mat poocho (Don't ask for directions to a village if you aren't going there). So we are attempting to harmonise our relations with the US -- the world's greatest power -- in areas wherever it is possible to do so.

The fear is that the US is pressurising India to define a minimum deterrence according to its terms?

India is too great a country to be pressurised like that. Minimum deterrence is not a physical quantification. It is not a fixity. It is the enunciation of a fixity. The principle is in contrast to cold-war phraseology. It is to be determined in accordance with the reality of an assessment of the security situation. And as the security situation alters with time, the determination of a minimum deterrence also alters.

Will you be able to overcome the huge political resistance to signing the CTBT?

It is an evolutionary process attained through consultation and exchange of ideas. I do believe we are moving towards achieving a national viewpoint. My senior colleague Mr Gujral likes to say that between India and the CTBT and the NPT there is a Lakshman Rekha. I would only point out that we are on the right side of the Lakshman Rekha.

Moving to China, have we handled our post-Pokhran relations with our neighbour well or not?

Can you reverse the question and ask it?

Why?

There is a need to ask. Then it becomes a different analysis because things have to be seen in its totality.

But defence minister Fernandes said that China was India's enemy No. 1 even before the tests?

I would like to know in what context the defence minister said that. If you address yourself to the annual reports of a few ministries it is individualised. Does the Ministry of External Affairs have the same assessment of the country as the Defence Ministry? It is simplistic in the extreme to compare the assessment of ministry A with ministry B. And I wouldn't like to do that.

So how would you describe our relations with China at the moment?

Our relations with China are what they have always been. We have our areas of mutual concern which we adjust to. And our relations are based on the agreed principles of Panchsheel.

What is going to be your approach in terms of India's overall foreign policy?

Simply put, pragmatic and problem solving.

Does this mean shedding the ideological baggage of the past?

We are transiting into the 21st century and I find that the essential baggage today in international travel consists of a suit and a laptop. In the face of the greatest adversity, (Charles) De Gaulle, whom I admire, said that there is a great truth: There is France. For us also there is a great truth. You simply need to recognise it: There is India.

What is going to be your emphasis?

I would only like to draw for you a contour map showing the prominent landmarks of challenge and opportunity. Not a detailed one-inch plan. Let us not be drowned by detail. Let us not always have the worm's eye view. Let us attempt to have the eagle's version. After all, they both inhabit the world.

So what is the eagle's vision that India needs in foreign policy?

I do believe that the sub-continent where nearly a quarter of the human population resides deserves better. The challenge is: How can India's foreign policy become a fit instrument for lifting 40 per cent of this one quarter of humanity out of this appalling thralldom of deprivation and poverty? There has to be an economic dynamic to it. I endeavour to articulate hereafter the direction. Another priority is energy. Energy is security, full stop. If the country has to move to energy sufficiency our foreign policy must play a major role.

And now for a worm's view: how do you see relations progressing with Pakistan?

For that you have to reflect on the absolute centrality of lifting our subcontinent out of the morass of poverty. Evidently a self-confident, economically prosperous, socially at ease, politically democratic Pakistan is good. Not simply for Pakistan but also for India and for the region. Our policy must be guided by that precept. Everything else is then a detail.

Do you see a shift in Pakistan's stand towards talks from its Kashmir-first-or-nothing approach?

Change in the attitude will be judgemental no matter what I say. So I won't answer that.

But has there really been a major shift in our approach to Pakistan as compared to former prime minister I.K. Gujral's doctrine?

The difference is between pronouncements and implementation. We have implemented. For the first time in 10 years the prime ministers of the two countries have signed a joint agreement. It is a very significant step forward. Why wasn't it signed in these 10 years despite the eponymous doctrines that you speak of? Why was sugar not imported as we are planning to do? Why didn't technicians talk about power transfer? Why did a bus service not start? My Government has done it or is doing it.

So what is India now saying?

What we are saying is move -- move towards the ultimate destiny. Don't be held back. We just signed a free-trade agreement with Sri Lanka which is a path-breaking step. It demonstrates the profound perception which is economic progress through economic integration. We are willing to sign a similar agreement with Pakistan too.

You were earlier tipped to be finance minister. Between the two ministries which would you have preferred?

I might have shed my uniform but I am still a soldier, soldiering along. A soldier does what he is asked to do. I will be a soldier diplomat among others diplomats soldiering India.

Were you disappointed that the RSS had your name knocked off Atal Bihari Vajpayee's original cabinet list in March?

I was not. My name was given to me by my parents. It doesn't get knocked off. Let me only say that graveyards of the world are full of those who thought they were indispensable to the nation. I am not indispensable.

Is the RSS against you because you don't agree with its philosophy?

No, that's not true. I believe that the fundamental aims of the RSS of nationalism and character building can't be faulted. I am not going to comment on the details of its economic or social policy.

What is your view of the tactics of demolition of mosques or burning churches?

I believe that this country cannot be constructed through demolitions.

Do you agree with the RSS emphasis on swadeshi?

I don't.

Well, then what do you believe in?

If there is a label I would put myself as a liberal democrat. I am opposed to state control and continue to be opposed to the regime of quotas, licences and permits which held India to ransom. It separated the state from the citizens. The citizens become wary of touching the state because whenever they come in contact with the state it stings them. Even in a simple thing like posting a registered letter. Also, I do believe that in India there is no place for a telescopic, narrow-minded vision.