His Excellency
Jaswant Singh
Minister of External Affairs of India

It is not necessary for me to even outline what the nature of the global situation was when we last had a visit by the President of the United States almost a quarter of a century ago. Indo-U.S. relations were defined in the context of the then existing Cold War situation. It is difficult to identify when exactly the great meltdown, as it were, in the Cold War took place. If we were to establish 1989 and the pulling down of the Berlin Wall as much more than just a symbolic act, then that is the defining line from when we begin to examine potential already existed then for Indo-U.S. relations and why it has taken almost 11 years for both the U.S. and India to recognize that elementary and self-evident truth which the prime ministers of India have repeated: that India and the United States are natural allies.
 
In 1989, with the pulling down of the Berlin Wall, the United States' principal preoccupations remained the Gulf War, the post-Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the rearranging of relations in a post USSR Europe, and America's situation. With the successful conclusion of the Gulf War, it was assumed that most of the work of addressing the new global reality had been done. A huge gap was left which covers that part of Asia east of the Gulf and west of China. But it was not just the United States; India, too, perhaps characteristically, perhaps perversely, just when the world went into a phase of the entire reordering of international affairs and global relations, went into a phase of internal reordering and attempting to find an answer to one of the most difficult questions in a democracy - how to execute orderly and peaceful democratic succession. 

Between 1989 and 1998, we had a series of elections. If you pause for a moment and reflect on the enormity of what India does with every general election by considering just one factor - the size of the electorate - then the challenge that India was faced with in this decade will become a little more apparent. The Indian electorate is roughly 650 million voters. And these 650 million voters are greater in number than the combined population of the U.S., Canada and Western Europe. Seeking an answer to democratic succession by an electorate of that size is not any sign of democratic instability. It is to me, as a participant in every election that has taken place between 1989 and 1998, and indeed even earlier, a sign of the inherent democratic vitality of the democratic systems of India. We were not defeated by the fact that the electorate failed to throw up an answer that could meet the requirements of orderly succession, continuity and stability. It was because of this that just when the rest of the world was reordering their international affairs, India remained principally preoccupied with internal reordering. The U.S. remained content that the Gulf War was over, the Soviet Union had disintegrated, the Warsaw Pact was no more. Therefore, this large, subcontinent- sized country, In- dia, did not really appear on the radar screens of American consciousness. But the inevitability was in the situation itself I must pay completely unambiguous tribute to the great statesmanship and leadership of the President of the U.S. who, as the Prime Minister in his reply to the toast in Washington recently said, "had the courage to reach across the divide of differences and rediscover India." The Prime Minister also said that he owed his presence at that banquet principally to two people: Christopher Columbus, who set sail for India but landed in the U.S.; and President Clinton for rediscovery of India. We do often wonder if, in fact, Columbus, instead of landing on the shores of the U.S. had actually reached India, where India would be and where the U.S. would be.

What now? And what has been achieved by these two visits? When research scholars and historians begin to analyze the great turnaround that has taken place in Indo-U.S. relations in the last two years, many students of diplornacy and history will remark upon the great achievement of management and leadership by the two governments. They will also note the recognition not simply of the natural alliance that exists between the U.S. and India, but also the fact that India and the U.S. are on the right side of history. It is this recognition, this elementary truth, which is simple in enunciation but profound in consequences. It is to this truth that we owe the period of March 2000 to September 2000. There has not been any other similar period in Indo-U.S. relations in which two heads of government have exchanged visits, not so much as to simply go through the ceremony, but to impart to the relations a degree of momentum and continuity. As President Clinton put it, he will hand over Indo-U.S. relations to his successor in possibly the best health that they have ever been, so that his successor, whoever it is, can simply pick up the ball and run with it.

Good economic relations are really the finest lubricant of good political relations. It is an aspect of our relationship which was not earlier recognized because, for the past fifty-some years, India practiced a state-controlled economy, which the government now and predecessor governments have undone. One of the motivating factors behind the economic reform program, which continues apace with redoubled vigor, is the recognition that if people of Indian origin, whether in the U.S. or other parts of the world, can display the great creativity, ability and excellence when they are outside of India, what is India, as government or as a system, failing to do that they cannot display the same inside of India? A kind of clamp of state control that had been placed on the great creative genius of my country men and women inside of India has now been lifted. The potential for economic cooperation between our two countries is now truly without territories or boundaries. San Francisco, with a time difference of 12.5 hours, is on almost the opposite end of the globe from New Delhi. But in the world that we live today, the Internet and the Indian-American's ability to transcend this distance, brings India and the U.S. so close together that we are now working on a borderless world bound together by the website. The potential in knowledge-based industries of cooperation between India and the U.S. is really without limits.

The second part of it involves the political. What is it that India needs to do to address U.S. concerns? India has to address areas of disarmament and non-proliferation, as they cause a difference of perceptions, of opinion, or approach between the U.S. and my country. It is again a tribute to the leadership of the U.S. that we came to address to this particular question. Our aim should be to establish a situation wherein it is not differences that define Indo-U.S. relations. Instead the aim should be to have the ability, with great openness and self- assurance, as two democracies - one the eldest, the other the largest - to engage with each other, confident that we will simultaneously gain. We may address the differences, too, but not permit the differences to define our relations. That is the principal achievement of these two visits. What has come into existence is not simply the great feeling of good  will. In any event, so far as the vast populace of my country is concerned, there has never been any ill will, or animosity towards the U.S. or the people of the U.S. - a factor which I think has been the strongest motivating influence upon the two governments; along of course with the great ability and influence that the people of Indian origin are now beginning to exercise in the U.S.

Because India is now much more on the radar screen the U.S. has to address what its policy for this part of Asia is going to be now and in the coming decades. The U.S. has to reexamine the shadows of the Cold War that have been carried forward and shed them. The approaches that the U.S. had in the past so many decades about this part of Asia will have to be reexamined. The great political potential that exists between the U.S. and India would be made clear by an examination of all the events that have taken place between March and September It is not just two state visits that are the events. Between these two state visits, a complete architecture has been built: of cooperation, of consultation, of working together at various levels - at the level of ministers, at the level of prime ministers and head of government, at the level of officials as Joint Working Group on Terrorism, and on economic, science and technology and human resources levels. The areas in which we have already begun to work together are not simply statements on paper or enunciation of good intentions. They are actually now being implemente at a variety of levels and through a variety of steps that have already been taken.

President Clinton eloquently enunciated the aim of the Indo-U.S. relations when he said recently that India and the U.S. are not simply natural allies, they have a common destiny. We have to work together globally in many fields, and not simply in the fields that we have identified. We have to work together in the United Nations and UN peacekeeping. We have to consult with each other much more. We have to engage with each other much more such that in the foreseeable future we will eliminate a gap of 25 years between visits from the President of the U.S. to the second most populous country of the world, or a  gap of almost a decade between visits to the U.S. by the Prime Minister of India. This kind of forgetfulness will now no longer work, for the demands of the global situation dictate that India and the U.S. will have to engage with each other much more, not as adversaries, but as allies, so that in this evolving world we are able to work together for the greater global good, whether it is for alternative sources of energy, or for the environment, or for science and technology, for greater human benefit. What else do we need in Indo-U.S. relations? We need continuity. We need stability. We need pre- dictability. And we need the confidence in each other so that we constantly engage with each other, not simply in areas that are of agreement, but also of such areas that we did not entirely look at the issues in exactly the same manner. When I was introduced it was suggested that I had a role to play in the situation that exists in Indo-U.S. relations. I must admit that yes, I can be so charged. But I was only a small pawn that attempted to perform what I thought was my national duty and in the light that God showed me. I am convinced in my mind that the future, not simply of Indo-U.S. relations, but of a greater global good, depends on healthy, constantly progressing Indo-U.S. relations.

A. The fact that 150 heads of government collected is a great achievement in itself. That a unanimous statement was issued by all these 150 is truly an outstanding achieve- ment. In specific terms, there is, in their statement, a commitment to reform of the United Nations, including the UN Security Council. The second agreement is about financing of the United Nations. And the third agreement, unanimous, is about UN peacekeeping, because that is increasingly very troublesome and very challenging. On the digital divide, I was once asked the question, "To what do you owe the great success that India has achieved in information technology, of software?" I had, in all candor, to reply by saying that I think principally it was because in the early stages there was no government involved in it. The government woke up too late and a great many creative Indians had already done a great many things. When it comes to bridging the digital divide now, I get asked for assistance from India. And India would be ready to help. I had once, and not lightly, suggested that India and the U.S. ought to consider establishing a kind of new digital Peace Corps that attempts to bridge the digital divide. But I believe that this digital divide will not be covered unless the same individual enterprise and talent and creativity is displayed, as is displayed in the flowering of this new knowledge-based industry. Governments by themselves will not be able is to do it. 

Q. What do you think should be India's role in the the United Nations? Should it be granted, for example,  membership in an expanded Security Council? And was that discussed during your trip to the UN? 

A. Yes, it was discussed. It is now being repeatedly discussed. The question is not so much whether India should or should not be a member of an expanded UN Se- 
curity Council. Is it possible to have a Security Council continue in operations es- tablished as a consequence of the Second World War some 50 years back? Is it possible to have a UN Security Council that does not take into account the contribution that 1 billion human beings can make to it? Is it possible to have a UN Security Council in which the developed world alone has a voice, and the developing do not? I'm struck by the curious irony that when it came to the membership of the People's Republic of China in the early years of the UN, India was invited to join the UN Security Council. The then Prime Minister, Jawahar Lal Nehru, in an act of really incredible and unbelievable self-abnegation, then said and continued to say: No, no, no, that seat ought to go to the People's Republic of China. Our memories are short, and things happen. What would Indias role be? It would be that of a responsible member of the international community, as a representative of the developing world, of a voice that is perhaps not finding full expression in the UN Security Council.

Q. Kashmir appears to be a problem without a solution. Is this statement too pessimistic, and if so, why? 

A. It is pessimistic. I think there are certain aspects that have to be understood about Jammu and Kashmir. When we say Kashmir, we really limit it to the Valley of Kashmir, which is only 76 miles by 24 miles. A much larger part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is, for example, Ladakh, which borders Tibet. It is quite often still called Little Tibet. It's part of a plateau that is under the illegal occupation of the People's Republic of China. This is part of it. The other part of it is that it is the responsibility of the government of India to find answers to the aspirations of the people that are disaffected, but a compounding factor is constant encouragement of cross-border terrorism. The problem is not a simple territorial issue between Pakistan and India, nor is it any kind of unfinished agenda of partition. India cannot subscribe to denominational nationalism. It is wedded to civic nationalism. I can cite to you many districts in India which has a higher density of Muslim population than the Valley of Jammu and Kashmir. It is often forgotten that India has the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia; larger than the Muslim population of either Bangladesh or Pakistan. Therefore it is not a territorial problem. Will there be a resolution? Yes, there will be. In what kind of a timeframe? In the kind of a timeframe which, please believe me, we can find. And a timeframe cannot be imposed from outside. 

Q. Why won't India agree to peace talks involving Kashmir and Pakistan? What situation could change this position? 

A. India, as the initiator of the dialogue process, remains committed to dialogue. I accompanied the Prime Minister on a trip between Delhi and Lahore. The bus is not the most convenient way to do so. And yet we chose the bus to graphically emphasize a point that we wanted to take a step that would correct the mistakes of the past half a century or so; to turn a new leaf. We are neighbors. We can change our friends in life, as perhaps also in politics, but you cannot change neighbors. And we need to remain committed to finding an answer. But soon after Lahore, a number of incidents followed. We will go back to talking to each other because India and Pakistan are born of the same womb. It is not as if there is no exchange between India and Pakistan. The bus continues to operate on a daily basis even now. The train services take place. Tens of thousands of Indians move almost daily to Pakistan to meet their relatives, and the reverse takes place from Pakistan. Have patience. Talks and dialogue will resume yet again, but leave the timing of it to be decided by the two of us. 

Q. How great are the chances of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan? What do you say to Americans who are terrified about this possibility?

A. I want to place it in the correct perspective. Between the U.S. and Russia even now, the principle on which you operate is launch-and-warning. That is your doctrine. That is also the doctrine that the Russians practice. That's also the NATO doctrine. So far as India and Pakistan are concerned, please reflect for a moment that in the earlier conflicts that have taken place, there has never been any aerial bombardment of civilian targets. We have in place a continuing agreement, which has never been rescinded and continues to be renewed, of non-attack on each other's nuclear installations. The chances of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan are concerned are nil because of these factors. And most recently now, the day before yesterday in the United Nations General Assembly, I had the honor to address the UNGA policy of no-first-use, of nonuse against non- nuclear weapon states, and a progressive movement towards a de-alert. That is the policy framework on which we are moving, the possibility of any accidental exchange between Pakistan and India really is far, far less likely than if you have a policy framework which is based on launch-and- warning. 

Q. India will suffer an enormous number of deaths from AIDS. Will this have political consequences? 

A. There is a conclusion drawn here that presupposes the government is blind to this issue. The government is very conscious of HIV/AIDS. The government is very conscious that it is beginning to spread in India. But that it is in any degree similar to the epidemic proportions that it has, regrettably, in other parts of the world, would be to overstate the case. One of the government programs, which is very ambitious and so far, I believe, successful, begins with spreading consciousness about HIV/AIDS through democratically elected agencies. We have a very active democratic system that goes right down to the village level. And this awareness campaign about HIV/ AIDS will begin to have very telling and very good effects. The supposition that we'll have many deaths, and therefore it will have a political consequence, is perhaps to be needlessly pessimistic at the moment.

Q. What are the Indian government's plans to overhaul laws that hinder the flow of investment - for example, the licensing process for new businesses and rent control laws that prevent non-resident Indians from recovering their own property?

A. Is the situation about opening new ventures in India smooth enough to my satis- faction? No, it isn't. We are having to combat not simply 50 years of lawmaking with a highly centralized approach to investment and state control, but also all that preceded it during 150 years of highly centralized colonial rule by the British. The government is now faced with the enormous challenge of repealing any numbers of laws which are redundant and are an obstacle to investment, but simultaneously, and much more importantly, of turning the mindset around. To illustrate: in the last two years, we have repealed over 283 laws. The most outstanding examples are in for- eign exchange regulation, insurance, tele-communications, power. All these were completely fenced in by all kinds of restrictive laws and all these laws have been changed. Have they been changed to such a degree that now there is no difficulty? No, but one of the principal challenges before the government now is to further reduce this unsatisfactory gap that exists between promise and delivery. It needs to be narrowed. But then I can move only at the pace that democracy would permit me to move, particularly in a federal country where the states of the union are extremely jealous of their powers, reserves, and their authority. Land is owned not by the union government; land is owned by the states of the union. I come from Rajasthan, but I am in the central government. I cannot tell the Rajasthan government, "So-and-so wishes to establish a factory. Now you jolly well go and give him land." They will say to me, "No, you jolly well tell him to come and ask us." I have to meet the demands of democracy. If you have the patience to last it out, then the rewards that India has to offer are truly unmatched. 

Q. Does the Indian government have a commitment to saving the unique and valuable rainforests of India's western areas, and how can American groups and individuals help India in this regard? 

A. Yes, we have. By rainforests, perhaps you mean the forests on the western part which first catch the monsoon. These are the forests which are outstanding along the coast of Kerala and Karnatic. The commitment is total. The forest cover of India fell soon after the early years of independence because of mass migrations of population
from what is now Pakistan into India and out. How can the U.S. help in this regard? By giving greater cooperation to India, particularly on energy and alternative sources of energy. Cooperation in just three areas would be an enormous gain not simply to the U.S. and India, but to humanity. What are those three areas? One: an affordable, photovoltaic cell. India has a surplus of sunlight, as does California. It is not beyond human creativity to be able to devise an affordable photovoltaic cell. We would be creating an alternative source of energy that would meet the requirement. Two: an affordable method of desalinization of water; water is going to be a problem. And three: joint research in finding a preventive and a cure for HIV/AIDS. If we undertook research in just these three areas, I can assure you the beneficial effect of this will be felt through the entire field of Indian endeavor. It's also a great commercial and economic benefit to whoever researches this. 

Q. Could you describe the extent of science and technology cooperation that has been launch as a result of this visit? 

A. Yes, science and technological cooperation has been launched. Am I satisfied? No. I have been advocating that it shouldn't be government to government science and technology cooperation. It would be much more effective if it is laboratory to laboratory, or institution to institution, whether academic or devoted only to science and technology. Is that sufficiently well attained? No. Will it be attained? Yes, inevi- tably because as soon as the potential is seen, and as soon as it is observed that the governments are really standing in the way, the laboratories will reach out, I can assure you. We have witnessed this. I have total faith and confidence that laboratories will reach out once they realize that this has to be done. At the present moment, we are only at the doorstep, as it were, of cooperation in science and technology. 

Q. How would you describe India's current relationship with China, and how has the bomb changed that equation? 

A. We are each other's largest neighbors. We have the longest land boundary. We are two ancient civilizations. We have our concerns. We have had our arguments. But I believe that we have come to a phase now in Sino-Indian relations wherein, with responsibility, both countries are addressing their concerns, and while addressing their concerns, are also attending to moving forward in a cooperative endeavor. So with China's population, economic potential and growth and with India's population, economic potential and growth, the future of these two countries is impressive. Yet, just as the same principle applies with my western neighbor, my eastern neighbor is my neighbor. I cannot change that neighborhood. I am what ancient scholars in China often termed as the Great Western Civilization to China. And I shall remain that. So India and China have to learn to be good neighbors. And I think we are moving in that direction. 

Q. Prime Minister Vajpayee telephoned Governor Bush soon after his arrival. What did they talk about, and if elected, do you expect Governor Bush to continue President Clinton's policy?

A. I don't know what they talked about because I wasn't really eavesdropping on the conversation. But would Governor Bush continue? I believe that Indo-U.S. relations have now entered a phase beyond individuals; beyond government. The inner dynamic and strength of Indo-U.S. relations have really been established by these two visits. A momentum has been established today based not on government, but on the overriding international and political necessity of two countries having to work together. A tapestry of Indo-US relations has been woven. You cannot start unweaving. But even if that were possible, the kind of bipartisan support I experienced - for example from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee or the House International Affairs Committee - has been overwhelming. Now in the face of an election where job security and survival in the House is involved, the supportive presence that was there in those meetings is really testimony to the bipartisan commitment to Indo-US relations.  

InterviewsE