Interviewer (Mr. Karan Thapar): Foreign Minister, let us start with Pakistan. There is a widespread belief that the country faces the gravest threat to its unity in sixty years at a time when worse still the Government in Islamabad has perhaps lost all credibility with the people. How do you view the state of affairs in Pakistan?
External Affairs Minister (Mr. Pranab Mukherjee): There is a problem, no doubt. At the same time I am quite confident of the resilience of the system and the people of Pakistan and I do hope that they will overcome this crisis. After all we shall have to keep in mind that in different phases there have been different types of problems in the history of Pakistan, but somehow or other the people of Pakistan and the system there have managed the situation. Let us hope so because in our own interest we want a stable, peaceful and prosperous Pakistan as it is an important neighbour of ours, and in our neighbourhood we would like to have peace, stability and development.
Interviewer: You are talking about the resilience of Pakistan and the resilience of the Pakistani people. Does that mean that you do not share the fear, many experts have it, that Pakistan could be breaking up?
External Affairs Minister: I am not coming to any such conclusion. Experts have their liberty of passing their judgment and making analysis. That is the privilege of the analysts or the journalists. As a representative of the Government my job is to deal with the representatives of Pakistan.
Interviewer: Let me quote to you what the American scholar Stephen Cohen wrote on December the 27, the day Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. He wrote, “I fear for Pakistan. Its further decay will affect all its neighbours in unpredictable and unpleasant ways”. Do you share that concern?
External Affairs Minister: Of course. The problem is that whenever there is instability in the neighbourhood it has its impact on the other countries here in the neighbourhood. It goes without saying.
Interviewer: So, instability in Pakistan will have an impact.
External Affairs Minister: If there be instability in Pakistan, naturally it will have adverse impact on us and on other neighbours of Pakistan. But I am not coming to a definitive conclusion. Let us hope that Pakistan would be able to address the problems in the way they want to address; stability will be brought back; peace, prosperity and development will take place.
Interviewer: Do you have a special Committee or special monitors watching the situation for you carefully at the moment? Have you put in place mechanisms to watch closely what is happening?
External Affairs Minister: There is a mechanism to share information.
Interviewer: To watch Pakistan too?
External Affairs Minister: There is no such group of experts to watch developments in Pakistan but we are watching. We are getting reports from our Mission. We are analyzing the reports coming from different sources and trying to share our perceptions.
Interviewer: Now you say that you are getting regular reports from your Mission in Islamabad. Does your Mission view General Musharraf as part of the problem or does it see General Musharraf as part of the solution?
External Affairs Minister: Firstly, your question is like a leading question of a criminal lawyer. If I say yes there is one set of problems and if I say no, there is another set of problems.
Interviewer: You have to grant it is better than a misleading question.
External Affairs Minister: First of all, we are interested in peace, stability and development of Pakistan. As I mentioned in response to another question, we are to deal with whoever is in office in Pakistan. Therefore, we do not make any value judgment of any individual.
Interviewer: Don’t make a value judgment but the people of India look upon you as Foreign Minister for some sense of understanding, for some sense of guidance on what is happening in Pakistan. In that light let me ask you, do you believe that General Musharraf is stable and the moment or is he in danger of being removed perhaps by the Army, perhaps overtaken by political developments?
External Affairs Minister: Only future events will show what course of action will be taken by the establishment in Pakistan or the people of Pakistan. From the past history we have seen that developments have taken a particular turn at a particular point of time, but it is not always predictable.
Interviewer: So, unpredictability is really the key word for Pakistan at the moment.
External Affairs Minister: I am not saying that unpredictability is there but an element of unpredictability is there. I cannot say that situation will not turn around in a positive manner. I started my observations by saying that I have tremendous faith in the resilience of the Pakistani people to manage their crisis.
Interviewer: It was reported in the Indian papers that the Government wanted to send you as Foreign Minister to attend Benazir Bhutto’s funeral but you were advised by the Pakistani Government that it might be better for you not to come. Is that correct?
External Affairs Minister: It is correct. It was not merely in respect of me but was in respect of all other countries. Various countries showed interest but they were advised not to go. That was because firstly it was declared as some sort of a state mourning but it was not a state funeral as such and the arrangements were not made to that extent; and secondly, the law and order situation at the place where burial took place was not conducive to receive the representatives of the foreign governments. In this hour of difficulty, we did not want to embarrass the authorities and we listened to that advice.
Interviewer: As you assess Benazir Bhutto, did you see her as a friend of India?
External Affairs Minister: In fact, when she was in Government earlier she was Prime Minister and I was the Foreign Minister. Not in Pakistan or in India but at the margins of various international events several times I had interaction with her. It appeared to me that she had a sincere desire to improve the relationship between India and Pakistan.
Interviewer: So, her death is in a sense a setback to the improvement of Delhi- Islamabad relations?
External Affairs Minister: If a tall leader dies, naturally always we feel – and particularly in our neighbourhood – sad because he or she might have contributed to the improvement of the relationship between our two countries.
Interviewer: And in Benazir Bhutto’s case there was a real prospect for the improvement, you believe.
External Affairs Minister: Her coming back to Pakistan after a long time, the process of democratization, regular elections, kindled hopes for the restoration of normal democratic process in Pakistan to a considerable extent.
Interviewer: The Hindu on the 5th of January reports that as the turmoil in Pakistan gets worse, groups such as the Lashkar have begun to replenish their cadre and rebuild their operational capabilities. Are you worried that you could see a sharp increase in infiltration as well as in Jihadi activity targeted at India?
External Affairs Minister: We shall have to wait till the snow melts and the passes are cleared particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. Infiltration has never stopped completely. Sometimes the number has increased; sometimes the number has decreased. Therefore, our advice to the security forces has always been “Be on alert. Maintain your vigil.”
Interviewer: But once again you are keeping yourself alert to the possibility that infiltration and Jihadi activity could build up because of the turmoil in the country.
External Affairs Minister: As I said, let us not link it with the turmoil in the country because terrorist activities from the other side of the border have never completely stopped.
Interviewer: In other words, this is a situation you have to watch. The Prime Minister on Sunday goes to China. It is a visit that is taking place after months of reports in the papers of alleged Chinese incursions across the Line of Actual Control and even into Bhutan. Are these reports of frequent Chinese incursions both in number and in scale and scope accurate?
External Affairs Minister: Sometimes incursions take place and we immediately take it up. There is a regular channel through which we exchange information. There is an institutional mechanism in the border. You know we signed the Treaty of Peace and Tranquility on the border in 1993 and again in 1996. Thereafter certain mechanisms have` been established through which we address this type of problems.
Interviewer: Absolutely. But has the number and the frequency of incursions increased?
External Affairs Minister: It is normal as usual. It has suddenly not increased.
Interviewer: So, there is nothing worrying about this?
External Affairs Minister: There is nothing to be worried at this point of time; the mechanisms which we have are doing well.
Interviewer: The Hindustan Times claims that the head of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police has said that in the year ending October 2007 there were over a 140 incursions. India Today claims that a few of them in September went as far as five kilometers deep into Indian territory.
External Affairs Minister: Sometimes incursions take place, as I mentioned to you. Every incursion is taken care of. It is being addressed through the established mechanism and the same practice is continuing.
Interviewer: Side by side, The Indian Express has had a report a couple of days ago which says that Chinese infrastructure in terms of road and railway around the border area of Arunachal Pradesh has increased and improved so significantly that now they can move two Divisions, which is 10,000 troops, in just 20-25 days. Apparently, earlier it took anywhere between three and six months. Does that concern you?
External Affairs Minister: As far as the development of infrastructure on the other side of the Indo-China border is concerned, their infrastructure in terms of road, electricity and availability of other facilities is much superior to that of the infrastructural facilities available on our side of the border. It is a known fact. That is why recently we have decided that we should also build up roads and other type of infrastructural facilities.
Interviewer: In the meantime, speaking privately Generals in the Indian Army do not deny that the difference in the infrastructure between the two sides gives the Chinese troops a significant advantage over Indian troops. As someone who was Defence Minister just sixteen months ago, are they right to be concerned?
External Affairs Minister: With the situation which is prevailing right now at the border along the LoC, there is no need of pressing any panic button. Peace and tranquility are being retained there and various confidence-building measures were taken up – for instance, participation of troops on both sides on different occasions including the National Days, holding various festivals, etc.
Interviewer: But the important thing is there is no need to press the panic button.
External Affairs Minister: As I told you, one should remain alert, vigilant, but need not be panicky.
Interviewer: Last week the Sri Lankan Government announced that with effect from the 15th of January they intend to abrogate the ceasefire agreement with the LTTE. In your eyes, is this a mistake or is this – given the spate of LTTE attacks in recent weeks and months – both understandable and perhaps also inevitable?
External Affairs Minister: We shall have to see what impact it has. Of late, the clashes between Sri Lankan forces and LTTE terrorists have increased. As far as terrorism is concerned, I made our position quite clear. India’s position in respect of terrorism is ‘zero tolerance’. Therefore, any country which takes action against the terrorists is free to do so within its legal system.
Interviewer: But you are not criticizing Sri Lanka for abrogating the accord.
External Affairs Minister: That is because we are not a party to it. Please remember that we were never a party to it. Attempts were made to drag us to be a party to it but we scrupulously avoided it for the obvious reasons as we had to pay a very high price.
Interviewer: I understand. So, you have no comment to make about the abrogation either.
External Affairs Minister: As I have stated, the fight against terrorists is one issue. But as far as finding a solution to the problem of ethnic minorities including the Tamilians so that their legitimate aspirations are fulfilled within the system of Sri Lanka is concerned, that effort should not be lax and the effort should continue to arrive at a solution.
Interviewer: It is well known that the Prime Minister has been invited to visit Sri Lanka to be the Chief Guest at their 60th anniversary celebrations, which are on the 4th of February. Clearly this is a significant honour for the Indian Prime Minister. The question is, will he accept?
External Affairs Minister: It has not yet been decided.
Interviewer: Is not it getting a bit rude and discourteous to Sri Lanka not to make up your mind one way or the other?
External Affairs Minister: No, because we require time.
Interviewer: But the event is three weeks away.
External Affairs Minister: As and when it will be decided we will let you know. No decision has yet been taken.
Interviewer: Are you hostage to Indian Tamil politics in deciding this issue?
External Affairs Minister: This has nothing to do with it. There are certain things. Sri Lanka is going to host the SAARC Summit this year. Naturally we will be going there if it takes place.
Interviewer: That is a commitment.
External Affairs Minister: Of course, it is a SAARC commitment. If they do not hold the summit, how would I go? If they hold the summit, surely we will be going. But as far as participating in their independence day is concerned, no decision has yet been taken.
Interviewer: Foreign Minister, let us turn briefly to domestic politics. The BJP believes that Narendra Modi’s victory in Gujarat represents a significant turning point. Large sections of the press seem to agree. Would you accept that?
External Affairs Minister: It is an important victory no doubt and as a political party BJP should feel happy and satisfied. But in electoral terms in a parliamentary democracy, success or failure in the elections is a part of the game.
Interviewer: So, do you believe that Narendra Modi now represents a new pole in Indian politics, a new threat, a new figure around which saffron forces can unite?
External Affairs Minister: I do not use the type of epithets, which you are using, to an elected representative of the people. Good, bad or indifferent, he has his own politics. When the people of Gujarat have expressed their confidence in him as the Chief Minister we have to accept it. It is as simple as that.
Interviewer: Does the Congress Party see in Narendra Modi a new, revived BJP that may be much more vigorous since the BJP under either Vajpayee or Advani and, therefore, a bigger challenge for you?
External Affairs Minister: We do not believe in individuals; we believe in the ideology. As far as BJP’s ideology of dividing the society on the basis of religion is concerned, we are totally against it – whether it is of Narendra Modi or whether it is of Mr. Advani or whether it is of Mr. Vajpayee.
Interviewer: What about the fact that the issues Modi raised and won on in Gujarat could translate very easily outside in India? He spoke about terrorism; he spoke about regional pride; he spoke about a strong government; he spoke about development. If those issues can be as effectively raised outside Gujarat as they were inside Gujarat, would that not pose a significant problem to you?
External Affairs Minister: These are the issues every political party raises at the time of election not only in our country but in various countries, especially in the developing countries. The question is as to how people respond to it. In Gujarat, these issues have been responded to in a particular way. But we shall have to see in what manner the electorate in different parts responds.
Interviewer: The press believes that the phenomenon of Narendra Modi could come to loom over Indian politics in the years ahead. If that were to happen, do the non-BJP parties need an equally powerful personality to represent the opposite and in a sense be a counter to him?
External Affairs Minister: As I told you, personalities matter to some extent but personalities are not the whole thing. It is basically the party’s programme, its own organizational strength and its ability to communicate its views to the people. Many factors are necessary to win an election. To the extent the political parties muster these factors in their favour, the election results will be decided.
Interviewer: So, you are saying that Congress is not worried by the rise of Narendra Modi?
External Affairs Minister: There is nothing to be worried by the rise of any individual or even by the success of any political party. I have seen in my not so long political life, political parties come and go. A political party winning two Lok Sabha seats in one election can increase it to 180 in less than ten years. These factors may be of interest to the media, to the journalists, but in the long run it does not have that type of impact.
Interviewer: So, a dominant Modi today could also be a defeated Modi tomorrow, which is why you take it much more calmly than perhaps the press.
External Affairs Minister: Of course.
Interviewer: Foreign Minister, there is a widespread perception that after the Congress Party’s substantial defeat in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh and given the unchanging attitude of the Left parties, it is only a matter of time before the Government accepts that they cannot take the nuclear deal to completion. Would you accept that?
External Affairs Minister: You are fully aware of the fact that we are engaged in discussions with the Left parties and the UPA Chairperson appointed a small group to iron out the differences. Several rounds of discussions have taken place. We have not yet been able to completely iron out the differences. Of course, there was agreement to initiate discussions with IAEA for India-specific safeguards arrangement which are currently going on. As per the decision of the last meeting which we had on 16th of October, we are to show them the agreed text of the Indiaspecific safeguards arrangement which our negotiators will enter into with the IAEA authorities. After that, the Left parties and the UPA partners in the UPALeft Coordination Committee will decide what course of action they will take.
Interviewer: I understand that. The reason I sounded cautious, if not skeptical, is Prakash Karat has gone on record at the end of December to say that the Left parties do not want the Government to complete the agreement. Debabrata Biswas, the General Secretary of the Forward Bloc, in fact had said that the only reason the Left gave you permission to go to the IAEA was so that you could have an honourable exit.
External Affairs Minister: The fact of the matter is that various interpretations are coming and I am not going to comment on that. We are aware of the position stated by various Left parties from time to time. Despite that we are talking with each other. The current discussions in which our negotiators are engaged with the IAEA Technical Team are as per the decision taken in the meeting of the Left- UPA Coordination Committee.
Interviewer: Quite right. Outside that Committee, A.B. Bardhan says that the Parliament majority shown in the last session is against the deal and you are honour-bound to abandon it.
External Affairs Minister: The fact of the matter is various political parties have expressed their views inside Parliament and outside, and it is known. Yes, in speeches the Members had expressed their views but the issue was not framed before the Members. As per the parliamentary practice, there was no scope of ascertaining the opinion of the House on the discussion because the discussion took place under a rule in which this is not required and this is not relevant.
Interviewer: You are saying something very important. You are saying, therefore, that discussion in the House in December does not constitute a sense of the House against the deal.
External Affairs Minister: I am not saying that because we did not seek the sense of the House. When somebody asked if we were not going to take the sense of the House, I told him that as per the commitment of the Prime Minister I will come to the House when the entire process is complete. The process has not yet been completed and the Government did not seek the opinion of the House.
Interviewer: That is your position, not Karat’s.
External Affairs Minister: Whoever might have said it, as per the parliamentary practice there is a definitive way to ascertain the view of the Parliament and that was not done in this case deliberately, with the consent of everyone.
Interviewer: Do you think your Left allies will accept that?
External Affairs Minister: What they will accept and what they will not shall have to be discussed by us and we are discussing.
Interviewer: This is the problem. Let me quote what A.B. Bardhan says. He says, “The sense of the House is that the majority of the Members are opposed to the deal”. You are disagreeing with that. You have got a problem.
External Affairs Minister: I am not disagreeing that majority of the Members did not speak against the deal. The fact of the matter is that majority of the Members who participated in the discussion expressed their views against Government proceeding further. That point is all right. What I am disputing is your contention that it was the opinion of the Parliament which was sought in that debate. It was a discussion. Normally in parliamentary language in these discussions the issue is talked out; the House does not express its views.
Interviewer: Okay. You have very clearly put the Government’s position. The Left may agree or not, that is their prerogative. Let me put something else to you. Has your ability or your willingness to take the deal to conclusion been affected by defeat in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh elections? Have you lost the political leeway?
External Affairs Minister: No. When we began the negotiations various political parties expressed their views against this deal. The discussion which we had in the Parliament recently was not the first one. On every major development in this deal we came to Parliament. We suo motu initiated discussions and the Members expressed their views.
Interviewer: But Gujarat and Himachal may have changed the landscape. Do you still have the capacity, you have the leeway?
External Affairs Minister: That is a different thing. I do not have the capacity if the Government becomes a minority Government. I made it quite clear that we would not like to proceed with the deal if the Left parties withdraw support from the Government.
Interviewer: But can a Government damaged by Gujarat pursue it?
External Affairs Minister: Please try to understand this. Defeat or success in an election in a provincial Assembly in a federal structure like ours does not matter in this sense because there was no referendum on this issue in the Gujarat election. Gujarat election was fought completely on different issues.
Interviewer: So you are saying Gujarat is irrelevant.
External Affairs Minister: A success in Gujarat election would not have added to the Government’s capacity nor has it reduced the Government’s capacity now because not a single Member has been added or deducted from the existing strength of the various political parties in Parliament. It has nothing to do with this deal.
Interviewer: In which case let us then come to the talks you are having with the IAEA. Has the IAEA accepted India’s Separation Plan, and in particular have they accepted that India wants the capacity to take corrective measures if there is any disruption in fuel supplies? Have they accepted that?
External Affairs Minister: The talks are still going on. I would not like to comment on what is appearing in the newspaper because I do not have that luxury. I shall have to go through the text word by word as and when it is finalized. When it will be available to us I will share it with the Left parties and the country will come to know it.
Interviewer: Let me, for the audience’s sake, flag up two issues that are critical for India and ask you whether you believe progress is being made. The first critical issue is India wants reflected in the safeguards agreement its negotiated position with America that it can have lifetime supplies of fuel. The IAEA it seems is reluctant to do this because they do not want to set a precedent. Have you got over that?
External Affairs Minister: You are placing the cart before the horse, Karan. I am concerned on three matters, not on two.
Interviewer: Which are?
External Affairs Minister: I am concerned about (1) the assured fuel supply; (2) India should have the right to build up strategic reserves in case of unintended disruption in the supply of fuel, and (3) India’s strategic programme should be pursued independently and it should not be affected in any way. I would expect that these concerns get adequately reflected in the India-specific safeguards arrangements. That is why we are talking of India-specific safeguards arrangement, which is different from other safeguards arrangements. Unless I have the text on all issues, I would not like to make any comment in between.
Interviewer: The only problem is that newspapers have revealed that the IAEA may be prepared to reflect your concerns in a preamble or in a separate statement but not in the operative part of the text.
External Affairs Minister: I have neither seen the preamble nor the articles of the agreement. So, it is not possible for me to comment and I would not like to make a comment in between unless I see the text.
Interviewer: Okay. Is satisfactory progress being made or are you facing resistance?
External Affairs Minister: This is a question which is to some extent hypothetical and is some sort of a value judgment. I have no scope of indulging in this type of speculative questions and answers because as Government of the day I shall have to approve it or I shall have to reject it, as the Board will have to approve it or the Board will have to reject it.
Interviewer: Absolutely. Governments of the day always sound optimistic. They send out a message to the people that progress is being made. I have in front of me a Minister who refuses to talk about progress, who refuses to suggest that it is being made even incrementally. Therefore, I have to ask you this. Are you covering up for problems with the IAEA? Are you meeting resistance which is why you cannot be more positive?
External Affairs Minister: There is no question of covering up anything. I am just stating the fact. The fact is that we are having negotiations and I am happy with the way the negotiations are going on. As to whether it will address all our concerns or not, unless I get the agreed text it is not possible for me to make any comment.
Interviewer: But it sounds, from the way you are answering, that there is a possibility it may not address all your concerns. Otherwise, you would not raise that possibility.
External Affairs Minister: No, I am not saying that. This is your own interpretation.
Interviewer: Okay. Assuming you get a satisfactory outcome from the IAEA, are you confident that you can get a clean and unconditional clearance from the NSG?
External Affairs Minister: How can I say that unless it goes to NSG? In NSG there are 45 countries and all these 45 countries have their different views. Therefore, we will try. That is why repeatedly I am saying on the floor of the House and outside that there are three stages. To just say, ‘you accept it or you reject it’ even before we reach near the goalpost is absolutely irrelevant.
Interviewer: The reason I brought up the NSG is because now it is becoming clear, and I am sure that your officials have told you this, that countries like Austria and Netherlands could possibly insist upon an NSG right of return in the event that India carries out further nuclear tests. That would be a major obstacle. Does it worry you?
External Affairs Minister: In these issues I am not to be guided merely by what information or advice I get from outside. Sometime back Austrian Foreign Minister visited India. I had a discussion with her and she made quite clear their position in respect of nuclear proliferation. They say that they are against any sort of nuclear proliferation. So, naturally these views may get reflected in the meeting of the NSG. But the fact of the matter is, how could I comment on what stand what individual country will take when the agreed text is not even before the Board?
Interviewer: All right, I understand that. Then let me put it like this. Do you have a date in mind by when you would like the deal to go back to the US Congress so that it gets passed whilst President Bush is still in office?
External Affairs Minister: We will try but it does not depend on me because what is required first of all is that one stage we have passed and that is the 123 agreement. Text has been agreed and initialed. Second is India-specific safeguards arrangement. It will have to be approved by the Board as per the USA’s requirement. Then the third stage is NSG agreement. All these three documents will have to be placed on the table of the Congress and they will remain there for 90 days or so after which the US Congress will take it up. Therefore, these procedures have to be followed.
Interviewer: So, you cannot be sure Bush will still be in office.
External Affairs Minister: I do not know. That is why I am saying that it is difficult for me to point out as to at what point of time it will be approved by the US Congress.
Interviewer: In which case let me put it this way. If operationalisation slips beyond the American elections – which could easily happen – and if the new President is a Democrat – which is perhaps very likely – does it worry you that the new Administration may want to seek changes in the 123 to India’s disadvantage?
External Affairs Minister: So many ‘ifs’ you are talking of.
Interviewer: But very likely ‘ifs’, not hypothetical.
External Affairs Minister: It is likely and it is equally unlikely. The fact of the matter is, if you look at the pattern of the voting in Congress both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, this particular Bill received overwhelming majority and bipartisan support. Therefore, I am not going to make any comment on whether a Republican President will support it fully or a Democratic President will oppose it. We will have to see as and when things happen. Let us not presume. That is your prerogative. That is not my prerogative.
Interviewer: Let us not presume but it also sounds as if you are saying, ‘I am keeping my fingers crossed. I am hoping for the best.”
External Affairs Minister: Thank you.
Interviewer: And that is what you are saying, aren’t you? You are keeping your fingers crossed.
External Affairs Minister: I always keep my fingers crossed because unless I achieve every objective, unless I cross every stage, how can I say that it is going to be implemented, it is going to be approved. We do not have that luxury.
Interviewer: Mr. Mukherjee, if India were to put the deal on hold because of domestic political compulsions, what do you believe will be the reaction of the Bush Administration?
External Affairs Minister: We are in discussion with each other. They understand our political difficulties and the ground realities there as we understand the political situation prevailing there.
Interviewer: You are saying they will accept?
External Affairs Minister: Everybody is to await the outcome of these negotiations, and particularly after the IAEA stage we shall have to go to the NSG stage.
Interviewer: And what would be the impact of India pulling out, on our ambition to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and our desire to be recognized as a major international player?
External Affairs Minister: As far as the role of India in the international field is concerned, India is playing an important role in the international arena from the very beginning of its Independence. Therefore, I do not know what you mean by that. If you talk of the permanent membership of the Security Council, there are so many stages which have to be overcome and …
Interviewer: You are saying this will have no impact on it?
External Affairs Minister: You are talking of just catching a train which is yet to arrive at the platform. As far as the expansion of …
Interviewer: I am talking of a train waiting at the platform which you miss because you do not have the guts to get on. That is what I am talking about.
External Affairs Minister: No, that is not the point. As far as the Security Council is concerned, the discussion in the open-ended Working Group appointed by the UN General Assembly President is still continuing. There are various formations. Various ideas are there.
Interviewer: But will anyone recognize India as a legitimate member?
External Affairs Minister: The claim for permanent membership of the Security Council is nowhere visible. There is no question of arriving at the platform.
Interviewer: I put it to you that if India backs out of the nuclear deal it will have lost credibility and face internationally, and it will not be considered by people as a legitimate claimant …
External Affairs Minister: That is your assumption. I do not share your assumption.
Interviewer: A lot of your retired Foreign Secretaries say this.
External Affairs Minister: That has nothing to do with it. The question is that if you fail to implement or operationalise a major international deal, it has some adverse impact. But it has nothing to do with the permanent membership of the Security Council as there is no guarantee that even if this agreement is fructified we will get our seat as a permanent member in the Security Council.
Interviewer: If you get a satisfactory outcome from the IAEA but the Left do not permit you to go to the next stage, will you defy the Left to secure the deal or will you sacrifice the deal to appease the Left?
External Affairs Minister: This is an absolutely hypothetical question.
Interviewer: Of course, it is. But it happens very quickly.
External Affairs Minister: It is a totally hypothetical question. Before I went to IAEA the position was. “No, you do not proceed further”. From that position we have improved somewhat and we have gone to the IAEA.
Interviewer: So, you think you can push the Left incrementally.
External Affairs Minister: It is not a question of pushing in or pushing out. It is a question of accepting the ground reality as and when it unfolds itself. Let us wait, first let us have the agreed text. Let us discuss with the Left leaders in the Committee and wait for the outcome of it.
Interviewer: And let us keep our fingers even more tightly crossed. At that point when you are smiling, pleasure talking to you Minister.
External Affairs Minister: Thank you.
(Ends)
