archive: 'India is neither in the first, second or third world, India is
'India is neither in the first, second or third world, India is
Amberish K Diwanji
BJP Today
May 16-31, 1999
Title: 'India is neither in the first, second or third world, India is
a world in its own right' (Interview with Jaswant Singh on Pokhran-II,
CTBT...)
Author: Amberish K Diwanji
Publication: BJP Today
Date: May 16-31, 1999
Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, whose recently published book,
Defending India, has received high praise, talks to Amberish K Diwanji
of Rediff-on-the Net on a wide-range of issues:
Q: It is one year since India conducted its nuclear tests. How has
the situation changed over the past year?
A: It has caused fundamental transformations. There is first of all a
much understanding of India's position and a much greater appreciation
of India as a factor in the international community. I don't speak
simply in power equation terms. From the tests of Shakti -- the
nuclear tests carried out on May 11 and 13, 1998 --up to the Agni II
-- the intermediate range ballistic missile -- India has acquired for
itself greater and more enhanced strategic space and, without a doubt,
greater consequential strategic autonomy. That there is recognition
of this new reality is borne out by the objective reality of the
visits that are made to India now. The manner in which India has
managed the post-Shakti situation the entire year gives reason to be
satisfied.
Q: Today we have three nuclear powers as neighbours -- China, India
and Pakistan. What does this portend for Asian security In general
and South Asian security in particulars
A: I think there is a kind of simplicism and a harking back to the
fixed views and clinched idioms of the post-Cold War (sic) era. South
Asian nuclear reality is a reality of its own variety. I have always
maintained that every nation has a right to decide for itself and seek
for itself its security parameters that are in its national interest.
That is why whenever such queries have been made to me, I have stated
that I can scarcely deny to others the right which I claim for myself.
The principle involved here is of equal and legitimate security for
all. And such equal and legitimate security can be found globally,
equally and legitimately for all, only through the path of global
disarmament. India has not forsaken its commitment to global
disarmament simply because from Shakti to Agni II it has enhanced its
security space. In fact, it only goes to underline our viewpoint.
In light of the events in Yugoslavia, you might perhaps say that
India's decision to go nuclear now appears to be justified. I don't
wish to retrospectively justify the decision to go nuclear. Our
decision for Shakti on May 11 and 13, 1998 was a correct decision that
subsequent events have gone on to underline. And the further
correctness of this decision In the coming decades is something that
good people like you and other can draw!
Q: How would you describe your ongoing talks with Mr Strobe Talbott to
bring Indo-US ties back on an even keel? After all, Indo-US ties did
suffer following the nuclear tests.
A: Indo-US relations suffered because of misperceptions and our
efforts have been to harmonise these viewpoints. I do believe that
there is now a much greater understanding of India's viewpoint. When
you ask me how will I characterise them, I'll say that these have been
the longest lasting, most productive and potentially, the most useful
talks the US and India have had in the past many decades. Of course,
the talks must continue.
Q: Has much progress been made on the talks?
A: (Laughs) Without a doubt, there has been a much greater
harmonisation of viewpoints, without a doubt there has been progress.
But have we come to the end of the road? No. That is why the talks
must continue.
Q: Before the nuclear tests, India had aspired for a permanent seat on
the UN Security Council and had refused to sign the CTBT. Are we now
likely to change our position on these two counts?
A: These two are unrelated. The nexus that you establish is, to my
mind, non-existent. I don't see how a greater democratisation of the
UN can be undertaken without India. I do not see how an organisation
that got formed 50 years back, post World War II -- I refer to the UN
Security Council -- can continue to exist as it does now in
perpetuity. There has to be movement forward, there has to be greater
representation.
And when the case of greater representation is made, 1 simply cannot
understand how anyone can make out a case for India's exclusion for a
permanent seat In the UN Security Council. You are referring to a
country as ancient as India, to a country with 1 billion human beings!
Q: What about the CTBT? Are we going to change our position on it?
A: I think our position on the CTBT has been stated by our prime
minister in the UN General Assembly and in the Indian Parliament.
Before the elections, our position was that India will not stand in
the way of the CTBT coming into force provided other Article 14
countries also did likewise and if a suitable environment were found.
However, now we are in the middle of an impending election and how can
this government undertake that?
Q: China blames India for the breakdown in Sino-Indian relations and
Beijing also expects India to sign the CTBT and not aspire to be a
nuclear power. Will this stance harm Sino-Indian ties?
A: The position of the People's Republic of China is clear. It is
based on certain resolutions of the UN Security Council, passed at a
debate in which India had not participated. We are unable to
reconcile ourselves to the Chinese assertions in this regard but we
are also committed to resolving all outstanding issues with the
People's Republic of China. It is an ancient civilisation, it is our
largest neighbour and our concerns can only be addressed through
dialogue.
Q: Indo-Pakistan relations reached a nadir when both nations conducted
nuclear tests and later reached a peak of goodwill following the Bus
Diplomacy. How would you describe the past year of Indo-Pak relations
and where do you see it going?
A: I would describe Indo-Pak relations as inherent in Shakti. I do
not see either a contradiction or a paradox in it. We have always
stated that a prosperous, democratic, stable Pakistan is not only good
for Pakistan but is good for India, Indo-Pak relations and for the
region. Therefore if Pakistan chose to follow a certain path of
making explicit that which had always been implicit for the past some
decades, I don't see how this transforms the fundamentals. These
fundamentals are that India and Pakistan must bilaterally resolve
their issues and begin to live in peace and amity. That is the wish
of the peoples of the two countries. We wish the sovereign country of
Pakistan all the good and we have no ill intention towards them. We
cannot reduce India's size. But how can we, when we both are about to
enter a new millennia, continue to repeat the mistakes of the past 50
years really beggars description. Nevertheless, there are certain
issues that remain unresolved which cannot be wished away.
Whatever the issue, one or the other, we have in the past 50 years
gone down a certain process. That process has not resulted in any
resolution. Are we to persist with the path of yesterday, or through
statesmanship and, more importantly, courage chart out a new path?
Obviously the answer is that in this day and age, we must choose the
latter road.
The nuclear and Agni tests have put security issues centrestage like
never before, perhaps never again to be sidelined as before. Would
you rank this as being the BJP government's greatest achievement? I
am always a bit chary of hyperbole. But that notwithstanding, if you
were to assert that the government of the BJP and alliance partners,
led by Shri A B Vajpayee, has placed in the forefront security issues
as never before in the past 50 years, then I would be disinclined to
disagree! We did this as a conscious choice and we believe we have
done it in a manner that places the issue squarely where it belongs,
of prime importance.
Q: What are the weaknesses that you perceive in India's foreign
policy?
A: I think the biggest weakness in Indian foreign policy is that
Institutionalising of decision-making began to suffer because
governance became personalised. When you personalise or individualise
governance, this is inevitable. It has been my endeavour to re-impart
to the institution of foreign policy establishment the strength,
vitality, and dynamism that It ought to have. I cannot assert that I
have succeeded totally but it is an endeavour in which I am still
engaged.
India continues to remain marginal on the world stage. What 'needs to
be done to give India back the leading image of yore? First of all, I
would not like my countrymen and others who subscribe to your Web
service to not be seized by this kind of inferiority complex! India
is not marginalised, India cannot be marginalised. A country of the
greatness of India simply cannot be wished away from the globe. I
have just said in another Interview, India is neither in the first,
second or third world, India is a world in its own right, of its own
kind. And let us not suffer from this kind of inferiority complex,
which in Hindi is called heen bhavna. I think this is a residue of
many centuries of colonial rule and one of the endeavours we have in
the ministry of external affairs is to change this kind of view.
We are not self-aggrandising, we are not chauvinistic and we're also
not a touch-me-not.
India is an equal partner in the comity of nations and its voice is
the voice of India, which is unique.
Q: What about economic diplomacy? Indian foreign policy has still to
play a greater role on this front?
A: Since I have taken on this responsibility, we have emphasised two
aspects, which I believe, merit greater attention. These are foreign
economic policy and energy as a tool and instrument of foreign
policy. There is much greater emphasis on these two now. As a de
facto nuclear power, even if not recognised as a de jure nuclear
power, what are India's responsibilities? India is a nuclear weapons
power. That is a fact and facts cannot be disinvented. This confers
upon India a much greater responsibility and India is mindful of the
same. Our civilisation remains committed to total global
disarmament. India is not set out on the path of disturbing the
Non-Proliferation Treaty nor has it deviated from the goal of complete
global disarmament.
Back
Top
|
