March 12, 2000

Will President Clinton's forthcoming visit mark the beginning of a new chapter in the Indo- U.S. relationship?

We hope that the president's visit will add a new page. There have been a lot of doubts and tensions. They are to be set aside and replaced by mutual trust and understanding of each other's concerns.

You took a tremendous risk for peace when you traveled by bus to Lahore, Pakistan [in February 1999]. Do you feel that you were betrayed by the Pakistani side [when Pakistani-backed fighters launched an attack in May on Kargil in Indian Kashmir]? Is it possible to get talks started again with Pakistan and, if so, how?

From the very beginning, India has endeavored to develop friendly relations. I went to Lahore with the hope that a new beginning would be made. We are neighbors, and we have to live together as friends or in an indifferent manner. My visit once again convinced me that the people of both the countries, India and Pakistan, want to live in peace. Then came Kargil. It was a rude shock to me.

Now, a proper climate has to be created for resuming talks [between the two countries]. As long as the cross-border terrorism is there and the hostile propaganda against India continues, no useful purpose will be served by having talks.

People say that General Musharraf was the architect of the Kargil attack. Is it possible to work with him?

Politicians should really forget the past if a new beginning could be made for the future. But I don't see any sign of a new beginning.

I heard that he has been sending messages saying he would like to have talks at some level with India.

Messages are not necessary. What is necessary is action. . .

Do you mean no more terrorism?

No more terrorism and a commitment that all problems, including [the dispute over] Kashmir, will be solved by peaceful means.

Are you worried about the threat of a nuclear war over Kashmir?

No. There is no possibility. I completely rule out a nuclear war.

But people say that there are a lot of daily artillery clashes, that tensions are high between the two countries. Are you concerned, and is there a role for the United States to play?

There is no role for any third party, however well intentioned. We would like to solve the problems bilaterally.

Do you have a vision of a settlement?

There are many suggestions. But unless it is recognized that [the Indian state of] Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India, there cannot be any enduring solution.

In December 1998, you said at the United Nations that India would sign the [nuclear test ban treaty] a year later. Will India sign in the near future?

The matter is under discussion. We are evolving a consensus. We are a democracy, and on such important international issues, we proceed on the basis of a consensus. What I said in the United Nations was that India would not stand in the way of the treaty being implemented. First, all the nations which matter the most in this case have to sign the treaty. That has not happened. The vote in the [U.S.] Senate [against the treaty] came as a negative development, so far as the people of India are concerned.

It was well-known that India had a nuclear capability. Why did you decide to conduct nuclear tests?

Because of the deteriorating security environment.

Is India today more secure as a result of the tests?

Yes. It is a deterrent. That is all that we wanted to have a minimum credible nuclear deterrent. We have already declared that there will be no further tests. We have also announced that India will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. We will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states, either.

You said there is hard evidence of Pakistani involvement in the recent hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane. What is the hard evidence that shows the Pakistani government was definitely involved in the hijacking?

Some evidence has already been produced the conduct of Pakistani officials who were posted in Kathmandu. They were directly involved with the hijackers. The hijackers themselves had connections with Pakistan and its intelligence agencies.

Were you disappointed by the U.S. reaction to the military coup in Pakistan [in October, during which Musharraf seized power]? Should the United States have been more forceful in denouncing it?

Yes, that is what we had expected.

And what should the United States have said?

That it should not have been done. The United States has condoned the military coup.

Is visiting Pakistan a mistake on the part of President Clinton?

It is for the president to decide. If he visits Pakistan, it will be a disappointment to the Indian people.

How would you like to change India? What do you want your legacy to be?

I would like India to become a developed country as early as possible. In the next five years, we will concentrate on the social sector, on developing the infrastructure. Within five years, we hope to provide minimum basic needs like drinking water, primary health care, primary education as well as to connect villages to cities by roads. It can be done. The goal can be achieved in five years. It is big, but attainable.

In Pakistan and Afghanistan, there are extremist terror groups. If he wants to, do you think that General Musharraf can get these groups under control?

Yes, I think so.

In order to have peace between Pakistan and India, do you have to have these groups brought under some kind of control?

It is for Pakistan to deal with them, [and] they [must] be strongly dealt with.