Transcript of Press Conference by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh

Washington, DC
July 20, 2005


Question: In your interaction with President Bush and others in the US Government did you highlight the steps we are taking to combat terrorism in Kashmir and the rest of India?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, let me say that in every forum that I attended, I laid emphasis on the necessity of terrorist elements being under control as a precondition for our moving forward with Pakistan on the peace process. And I think there is a great appreciation of the dilemma that we face in this regard, that terrorism is now a global phenomenon. It is clear beyond any doubt, if ever that doubt existed. And the situation on the ground, I have discussed extensively with the U.S. authorities. And my own feeling is that the President and his cabinet colleagues recognize the task that lies ahead if the peace process between India and Pakistan is to move forward. And the joint statement reflects our joint commitment to work together for the eradication of this evil.

Question (Smita Prakash): Mr. Prime Minister, do you see any resistance coming forward from your allies and the opposition in putting the new India-U.S. policy to practice? And will you seek a parliamentary consensus or approval to the new direction you seem to be taking in foreign policy?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, the Parliament in our country is sovereign. It is my intention to make a statement in Parliament when I go back home. And it goes without saying that we can move forward only on the basis of a broad national consensus. But I am confident that what we have done and what we have achieved, we command universal support of the thinking segment of our population.

Question (Chidanand Rajghatta): Does India still intend to go ahead with the Iran pipeline, and did this matter feature in your talks with the President?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: India’s needs for commercial energy are now well recognized. The President himself mentioned to me that energy needs of countries like India and the United States have to be met in a manner without damaging the environment. And we have discussed the role of clean coal technologies. We’ve discussed also the relevance of nuclear power. And India’s need for import of hydrocarbons, gas and oil are a fact of life. These needs are going to increase under any strategy of development. Therefore, we have a right to diversify sources of imports. And as far as the pipeline is concerned, that’s a decision between us and Iran. I don’t think outside parties have any role in that matter. 

Question (Bharat Bhushan): Sir, do you think the obligations on America and India are balanced in the joint statement, because we are expected to do certain things definitely while President Bush will only try and take the Congress along, and he may or may not succeed, but meanwhile you have done all the things that were listed there?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: That’s a misconception. I think we have taken obligations only on the basis of reciprocity. It is only if certain things are done by the United States and done to our satisfaction that we will be called upon to undertake those measures by way of obligations. So it is certainly not true that this is a one-sided arrangement, that whereas the U.S. has merely stated its intentions, we will be doing things on the ground. I think the principle of reciprocity, which is mentioned in the joint statement should give you the right connection.

Question (Barkha Dutt): Mr. Prime Minister, there’s been a statement from Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Delhi just half an hour ago specifically criticizing the decision by India to separate the civilian and military nuclear facilities, making the allegation that this is surrendering a security interest. Would you like to respond?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, I’ve not seen that statement. But if that statement has been made, I think that it’s based on misconceptions. Whatever we have undertaken is going to be based on our own decision. The separation between civilian and strategic components of the program is a national decision. It is a decision which will be taken on the basis of our own security concerns being taken fully into account. It’s a decision which will be faced in a manner so as to protect our autonomy in matters relating to our strategic efforts.

So I think if what you have stated is, in fact, what Atalji has stated, I think that’s based on wrong information or misconceptions.

Question (Tarun Basu): Some analysts have said that US is getting closer to India in order to balance the rise of China. What are your comments?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, I have had very fruitful talks. I came on a mission to acquaint the leadership of the United States with the challenges we face in managing a complex polity that India is and what we are trying to accomplish by way of social and economic transformation in the framework of an open economy and an open society. And I found great understanding and support for a phenomenon, what is called India’s unique experiment of combining democracy and sustained development.

I have not come here to use this visit directed against any other power. I believe what we have achieved, if we do succeed, we will create new opportunities for more resurgent growth and development in South Asia. If the Indian economy does grow at the rate of 8 to 10 percent per annum, I think our neighbors would also be very greatly benefited by that. 

Now, if you are asking about the impact on India-China relations, we are for purposeful engagement with our great neighbor in the north, China,. We have made progress. The peace and tranquility and the line of control has been maintained since 1993. We have succeeded in agreeing with the Chinese authorities on the fundamental principles which should guide the resolution of the boundary question. We will persist with that constructive engagement.

Our economic relations with China are improving. So my own feeling is that a strong, resurgent India is good for the growth and balance in Asia, as it is in the rest of the world.

Question (K.P. Nayar) Going beyond the agreement, the various initiatives and fact sheets, what is in your visit, Prime Minister, for what Prakash Karat would call “the toiling masses of India” or what R.K. Laxman would call “the common man?” What can they look forward to as a result of your achievements in the last three days?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, if India’s pace of economic and social development improves, I think that would be the biggest help that we could give to the toiling masses of our country. And as I stated before leaving, the United States is India’s largest trading partner. We need larger flows of technology and investment. And if we do succeed in that direction, we will have greater maneuverability in managing our growth processes and our quest for a more inclusive growth, growth which touches the lives of the most downtrodden. That is our ambition. That’s our hope, that our ability and our maneuverability to manage a more inclusive growth process will be accelerated by an improvement in international environment for India’s development. 

Also, in particular, what we have achieved with regard to cooperation in the field of agriculture research, the university system, the research systems of our two countries, the development of Indian agriculture under conditions of water stress, I sincerely hope that out of it will emerge new ideas to focus on the problems of small and marginal farmers who constitute the bulk of India’s rural masses.

Question (Aziz Haniffa): Mr. Prime Minister, while it can be amply appreciated and justified about the euphoria over the civilian nuclear reactor agreement, and what better lobbyist than President Bush himself to bat for India, already Congress and our critics are out, the nonproliferation lobby is out, and these are some of the best friends of India in Congress who are saying that it’s going to be a difficult issue to deal with. And President Bush, with the domestic political challenges he faces, are you confident that this joint statement can be translated into a tangible transfer of these nuclear reactors within the next few years?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, I very much hope so. I was greatly impressed by the sincerity of the President, the sincerity of his senior cabinet colleagues who met me. And therefore, I am very hopeful and confident that the U.S. administration will use all its influence to convert what is stated in this statement into a living reality.

Question (Manas Chaudhry): Mr. Prime Minister, while it’s good that the country has signed an agreement with U.S. on nuclear energy, I would like to draw your attention that we have not been able to convince the state of Meghalaya where we have the largest uranium deposit in the country. This has been lying unutilized because of small population opposing the whole idea. What would the country like to do to tap this natural resource?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, let me say that that’s our internal problem. We must, I think, overcome obstacles to all these mining activities. But what I have done, I believe I have at the margin increased India’s maneuverability in meeting the increasing demand for nuclear energy in our part of the world.

Question: Mr. Prime Minister, your speech was well appreciated yesterday when you spoke in the joint session of Congress. But then after the speech when I was talking to some of the congressmen, they said that one thing was missing, that you did not mention President Clinton’s role in making India-U.S. relations this fruitful. Did you omit this deliberately, because the U.S. Congress, you know, that the House of Representatives and Senate has been taken over by the Republicans.

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: I do not follow your question.

Media Adviser to Prime Minister: The speech yesterday in the U.S. Congress did not make any reference to President Clinton’s role in improving Indo-U.S. relations. Was it deliberate to please the Republicans.

Okay, he’s got the question. 


PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Yes, I’ve got your question. 

Let me say that it was not my intention. I thought we were dealing with contemporary situations. But when Mrs. Clinton called on me, I mentioned to her how grateful we are to her husband, President Clinton, because he was the one who started the process. And when Mr. Dua asked those questions about the line of control, and I think it was President Clinton who laid down the U.S. position that, fortunately, President Bush has confirmed, that there’s no change in U.S. position with regard to the sanctity of the line of control.

So, I have great regard and respect for President Clinton, for Mrs. Clinton, and that they have made a substantial contribution to improving relations between our two countries is something which I acknowledge.

Question: My name is Hasmukh Shah from Business Times.

You are the architect of the economic reforms. And during the last three days we heard that Indian-Americans have been playing an important role in improving the relations between India and America. And we are very grateful to you, as well as the U.S. government, for acknowledging that. But one of the questions which arises among the analysts, as well as the American investors is that, at the federal level in India clearances are being given promptly. But at the state level, things are still moving slowly. So I would suggest or I would bring to your attention that if something can be done at the State level, a lot of investment, a lot of technology would come to the States. I would appreciate if you can do something about this.

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, I do recognize that our state governments have to do a lot with our infrastructure, water, electricity, land. Those decisions can be taken only at the state level. Our government’s effort in years to come will be to work together with state governments to see that important projects are pushed forward. 

We have recently entered into a very big agreement with POSCO of South Korea for setting up an integrated steel plant in Orissa. The central and the state governments will work together. But one way of dealing with this problem is – and that I have been telling our chief ministers – I think they should come here and interact with the non-resident Indian communities. We take pride in the achievements of the Indian community in the United States. And I’ve often said it is my ambition that we should create in India an environment which is conducive to creativity, conducive to the spread of adventure and enterprise, which is in abundance among the Indian people. And to prove so, they shouldn’t have to migrate to the Silicon Valley. I believe more chief ministers should come here and interact with the non-resident communities here. Well, that would be a salutary experience, and maybe when they go back home, they carry back the spirit of what Indians can do in the United States. Why must we not have the ambition to repeat that in our own country.

Question (L.K. Sharma): Mr. Prime Minister, what is your vision of technology development? I’m afraid it becomes necessary for you to restate it at this juncture because there are two sets of challenges. One, as a former member of the Space Commission, you know very well that indigenous resources materialize only under a challenging situation. As Sarabhai used to say, when imports are shut off, indigenous resources materialize. 

And the second is the market encroaching on the Indian R&D sector, which is basically in public sector. So the depletion of human resources has been taking place. And will projects like LCA be protected?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Yes, there should be no doubt about the protection of that very important national project. And I would like to say that the technological and scientific transformation of our country, that our country should grow as a knowledge hub is an aspiration which our government shares and respects. We will do all that we can to ensure that in this 21st Century, which is a century likely to be of those specializing in the knowledge economy, that India should not lag behind. 

I have set up a Knowledge Commission to look at our educational system, our education structures, our research system, the research laboratories, what goes on in the private sector, what goes on in the public sector. Therefore, our government’s commitment to giving all possible encouragement to domestic, indigenous technological and scientific development will never be diluted. And I do believe that there are today opportunities for leap-frogging, taking advantage of the developments in the international system as a whole. After all, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We must identify our comparative advantage in pharmaceutical research, for example. Many multinationals find that India is the right place to locate their research centers, information technology, biomedicine. In all the new frontier areas, I think India can interact fruitfully with the evolving global economy actors and, in the process, accelerate the tempo of social and economic change in our country.

So there should be no doubt in our commitment to give all possibility encouragement and support to the development of science and technology in our country. After all, what we are today and what we see, the achievements of the Indian-American communities, is very largely a byproduct of what Jawaharlal Nehru did as the first prime minister of India, these new temples of learning which he inspired all over our country.

Question (Dr. C. Raja Mohan): Mr. Prime Minister, if I might take you back to domestic politics. There’s some concern whether this government has the confidence and the political capital to push through some of the big initiatives that it has taken, the peace process with Pakistan, the boundary settlement with China, and now the nuclear pact with the U.S. Each one involves pushing the national consensus forward. Are you confident that these big initiatives can actually be taken to their logical conclusion?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: I am fully confident about our ability to achieve that outcome. We are a coalition government. But I have great faith in the inherent patriotism of all elements in our country. And my own feeling is that whatever initiatives we have taken vis-à-vis the United States, vis-à-vis Pakistan, vis-à-vis China, they are in the larger interests of our country. Parliamentary politics, competitive politics sometime diverts attention from longer-term goals. But I am confident of carrying the Indian public opinion and all our coalition partners, and including those in the opposition, to support, in national interest, what we seek to achieve, whether in our relations with the United States, or Pakistan, or China.

Question (Sonny Abraham): Are you more confident now about getting a permanent seat in the Security Council?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, let me say that you saw the number of cheers in reference to India’s membership of Security Council received in the joint session of the Congress. And let me also say that when I discussed this matter with the President, the President did not deny that countries like India have a legitimate claim to being in the Security Council. If you read the statement that has been made, that reflects the U.S. recognition that the system needs reform, that the system must take into account the capabilities and ambitions of countries like India. But he did tell me that he felt that the priority of reforms should be elsewhere, that the reform of the Security Council should be a later process, and, therefore, the fact that the U.S. is not supportive of G-4 does not necessarily imply the U.S. rejection of India’s claim to the Security Council.

From the discussion that I had, I have no assurance, but it is my feeling that as the time comes to expand the Security Council, we have created conditions in which the U.S. would be probably on our side, though I cannot assert that as of now – And the external affairs minister has reminded me that the number of Senators, the number of Congressmen that we both spoke to have given us this same impression.

Question: My name is Raghubir Goyal. Mr. Prime Minister, congratulations, first of all. You are the Prime Minister of the people, and you are already a household name in India and in the United States. We, both, you and me, saw at the state dinner in the White House, the image of India that was reflected that night. Mr. Prime Minister, where do we go from here, as far as India-U.S. relations are concerned, and what did President Bush tell you about his visit, when is he going to visit India?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, there are lots of things to discuss. We have, I believe, created the right ambience for the growth of Indo-U.S. relations in various directions, and I found the President highly supportive of India’s development goals, also conscious of the dilemmas that we face trying to modernize and expand our economy in the framework of a democratic polity. He has often mentioned to me he marvels how a billion people can work together in the framework of democracy to seek their economic and social salvation. So I sincerely believe that the time is appropriate for giving our relations with the United States new content, new thrust.. But these relations are not directed against any other countries. Well, the president has very graciously accepted my invitation to visit us. I hope the visit can materialize around – in probably the month of January.

Question: Agriculture has been the weakest link and is pulling down growth rate, Mr. Prime Minister. As we welcome the initiative to get back to the spirit of the ‘60s to launch a possible second Green Revolution, what are the next steps you anticipate on this?

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Oh, I didn’t follow your question?

Media Adviser to Prime Minister: Agriculture, you spoke about the second green revolution.

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, in the last fourteen months that our government has been in office, I have conducted an extensive review of the state of agricultural research and extension in our country. I had entrusted the task to Dr. Samuel Matan (ph) and his crew. Dr. Chopra, who is a member of the planning commission and a former director general of the ICAR, has also been associated. Let me say that I worry about the state of our agricultural research and the extension system. The agricultural universities, like Punjab Agricultural University, Pantnagar University, other universities in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh have done excellent work. But everywhere I find there is a plateau now. That creativity is not getting as much emphasis as it did in the wake of the first green revolution. And my hope is that we can – working with the U.S. agricultural universities, research institutions, bringing them in contact with our own agricultural scientists and technologies, we can impart a new momentum to agricultural research, particularly under conditions of water stress.

As I see it, water is going to be India’s number one national priority in the 21st century. Our agriculture must be sensitized; our cropping must be sensitized to that. And I hope that this collaboration that President Bush and I have agreed to will be a pacesetter in bringing a second agricultural revolution in our country.

Question (Mrinal Pande): In several of your speeches, you’ve spoken about a large number of women participating in the Panchayati Raj institutions But a bill for 33 percent reservation for women has been hanging forever and ever. Do you think in the monsoon session it is going to come up, and are you going to see to it that it gets pushed through, or at least it gets debated properly and sincerely? And secondly, before the monsoon session, is there going to be a cabinet reshuffle

PRIME MINISTER SINGH: Well, this is not the occasion to pronounce cabinet reshuffles while I’m abroad, but as far as the women’s reservation bill is concerned, both the Congress President, and I have said on umpteen occasions that we are committed to 33 percent reservation becoming a reality in our legislatures, both state legislatures and parliament. And we will in this session, our forthcoming session of parliament, take an initiative in that area.

Media Adviser to Prime Minister: The External Affairs Minister would like to make a comment.

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER NATWAR SINGH: Now, that I have the opportunity, I thought I would share some of our views about what is happening in U.N. reform. The G-4 ministers -- Brazil, India, Germany, and Japan -- had a meeting in New York at the Indian permanent mission. Present were the Foreign Minister of Nigeria, Foreign Minister of South Africa, senior ministers from Libya, and Deputy Minister from Egypt, and 20 permanent representatives.

The discussion was in two parts. There is a great deal in common between the G-4 draft and the African draft, and the Africans are good enough to contact us because we had decided not to table our resolution even for distribution before the conclusion of the African AU meeting in Libya and the CARICOM meeting of Caribbean countries in Saint Lucia.

The basic difference between these two is that the Africans insist on the veto. Now, we have – all four of us, the four foreign ministers, have said that we all were also for the veto. Prime Minister and I are in accord in the Indian parliament that there should be no discrimination between the present P-5 and the future P-6 on the veto. But since all three colleagues appealed to us that we are not dropping the veto question but merely postponing to 2020, and it may even be possible earlier, for the sake of unanimity and unity we did this.

The other point that is of difference is that I think the veto question can be and is being overcome. The real difficulty is that the Africans have asked for 26 seats. We have asked for 25, both permanent and nonpermanent. Now, this is going to create serious trouble and that is why the PRs are meeting. If you increase to 26, then there would be an addition from Asia, addition from South America, addition from Africa. Where do you stop? The United States prefers a security council of 18 to 20, which we don’t think is practical even in mathematical terms.

When the U.N. was founded in 1945, there were 51 members, including India. We were a founder member because we were a member of the League of Nations. There was a security council, the five permanent and four non-permanent for 50 members -- I won’t take very long – members. And for 192, you can’t agree to 25; we find that very strange even in mathematical terms.

There is great support for India’s candidacy, but we are not willing to break away from the G-4. The G-4 have been able to stay the course – which has made a difference. We are going to meet again very shortly. We had a meeting with the president of the General Assembly, who is an African, a meeting with the Secretary General, who is an African. So you won’t get this kind of situation next time. And when we met the S.G. – and he was hopeful that we could pull through this thing, viewed like many other countries that the veto should not be exercised, even if it exists, but that is not likely to happen.

One final thing in regard to our visit here. I’ve been on visits like this many times before. I haven’t seen anything like this: the cameraderie, the warmth, the general interest in India, the great respect for the Prime Minister. 

I quite frankly tell you that I was quite surprised that Condoleezza Rice decided to come and see me. It is true in another way that the – other way -- in the way that the foreign minister of India used to run after the deputy minister of the United States all over the world.

So I told her that I greatly valued it and it is a signal. And if I let you into a big secret that the differences were not only narrowed but disappeared when the Prime Minister, Secretary Rice and I had a meeting on the morning when the decision was being taken. So this has been a mutual exercise between India and the United States on equal terms.

Thank you.