Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. As attention starts to focus on India’s relationship with China and United States, those are the two key issues I shall raise today in an exclusive interview with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee.
Mr Mukherjee, let’s start with the Chinese President’s visit to India, which has just been concluded. The joint declaration says, “International civilian nuclear cooperation should be advanced through innovative and forward-looking approaches while safeguarding the effectiveness of international non-proliferation principles.” Do you interpret that as an endorsement of the Indo-US nuclear deal?
Pranab Mukherjee : No. After all we are also for non-proliferation. At the same time, what is being done with India, especially with regard to the Indo-US nuclear deal, they are giving a special treatment to India because of India’s track record related to non-proliferation.
Karan Thapar: So, you’re saying that China has not endorsed it?
Pranab Mukherjee : No. China has endorsed it. I am just explaining the ‘innovative’ word.
Karan Thapar: So, when officials of your ministry have given an assessment to The Hindu, as they did on Friday, to say that China will not come in the way of any decisions of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to lift restrictions on international civilian nuclear cooperation with India,” you agree with that agreement?
Pranab Mukherjee : I hope so.
Karan Thapar: When you say hope so, is there some doubt? Is there some uncertainty?
Pranab Mukherjee : No. There is no uncertainty. I hope that they will not come in the way.
Karan Thapar: So you’re confident that China will not come in the way?
Pranab Mukherjee : Why are you playing with words? In diplomacy, we don’t play with words. What we say is we wait till the official outcome comes.
Karan Thapar: But you are confident?
Pranab Mukherjee: I am confident.
Karan Thapar: There is a lot of speculation that China might end up offering a similar nuclear deal to Pakistan. So far in the newspapers, there is no mention of it. But if it were to have been offered quietly and not made public, would you be concerned?
Pranab Mukherjee : We shall have to recognise the fact that different countries have different relationships with different countries, keeping in view their own perspectives. Relationship of one country need not stand in the relationship of the other country. Therefore, we shall have to keep that fact always in view while assessing the relationship between two countries.
Karan Thapar: Very interesting. Most people will interpret that to mean that if China does give Pakistan a nuclear deal similar to the Indo-US nuclear deal, India will have no objection?
Pranab Mukherjee: It’s not a question of my objection or non-objection. It’s a question of what happens in the ground reality. Therefore, we shall have to keep in view… For instance, Pakistan is being supplied with sophisticated weapons by the USA over a long period of time. India is getting military hardware from Russia. But that didn’t not stand in the way of building up closer relationships with each other.
Karan Thapar: I think your point is perfectly clear. I won’t push you further. People will interpret it as they want. Indian newspapers have reported that in his one-to-one conversation with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Hu Jintao indicated that China would accept and even support India’s claim to a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. Can you confirm that such an indication was given by the Chinese President?
Pranab Mukherjee: Look, the talk was one-to-one. Therefore, you cannot accept what appears in the newspapers. Because none of these two, who had one-to-one talks, said anything about whether China will support or China will not support India’s candidature to a permanent membership in the Security Council.
Karan Thapar: So the newspaper reports are purely speculative?” They’re not based on fact?
Pranab Mukherjee: Of course.
Karan Thapar: Of course?
Pranab Mukherjee: Of course, speculative
. Karan Thapar: They are not based on fact?
Pranab Mukherjee: Of course speculative, and if it is speculative, it cannot be based on fact.
Karan Thapar: How would you sum up the visit that just ended? Would you say that it was a success?
Pranab Mukherjee: It was a reasonably satisfactory meeting. I must say that after 10 years, the Chinese President visited India. We have achieved certain positive achievements. For instance, the bilateral trade. The target has been fixed to reach $40 billion by 2010. It has been recognised, and repeatedly the Chinese President referred in his public utterances that India-China friendship and close relationship is essential for global stabilisation and regional stabilisation.
Karan Thapar: In which case, why do you call it only reasonably satisfactory? Why that qualifying adjective?
Pranab Mukherjee: I think ‘reasonably satisfactory’ is quite a good word.
Karan Thapar: All right. Many people would say that sounds like half-satisfactory.
Pranab Mukherjee : No. Full satisfaction.
Karan Thapar: But you still call it reasonable?
Pranab Mukherjee : Reasonable, because satisfaction can’t be unreasonable.
Karan Thapar: Let’s move beyond relationships and let’s talk about China’s role in the region as a whole. In the last 10-15 years, China has been building a string of what they call ‘Pearls’. These are basically military and naval facilities, which they have built in the Cocoa Islands, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Seychelles and Mauritius. In addition, China repeatedly talks about Indian Ocean as its next frontier. And then on top of all of this, China has perhaps as many as 5,00,000 troops in Tibet, which is perhaps one Chinese soldier for every 15 Tibetans. It has 14 airfields, 10 missile bases and a growing stockpile of nuclear weapons. How do you view all of that?
Pranab Mukherjee : What should I view about it? Every country is entitled to prepare its defence preparedness as per its own threat percept.
Karan Thapar: Can I interrupt?
Pranab Mukherjee :No. As I am entitled to prepare myself to secure and my defence preparedness should be up to the mark to meet my requirement of my own threat perception. Similarly, any other country will have its own threat perception.
Karan Thapar: What threat perception requires China to set up naval and military bases in the Cocoa Island, in Seychelles, Mauritius, in Sri Lanka?
Pranab Mukherjee : That is for them to decide, not for you and me.
Karan Thapar: Let me quote you M K Rasgotra, the Convenor of your government’s National Security Advisory Board. Speaking to CNBC this week on Monday, he said: “The effect of this is that it generates in any thinking Indian the feeling of being encircled” and then he added, “This string of ‘Pearls’, is heavy to wear.” Do you agree with him?
Pranab Mukherjee : First of all, let me not comment on what somebody else has stated. The relationship between India and China is important to me and we ought to build on this relationship. We have to advance it. We have to progress further. I’m not entering into an academic debate about the defence preparedness of China vis-à-vis India’s defence preparedness.
Karan Thapar: Your predecessors in this office, and particularly your predecessors in your last office as Defence Minister, were particularly worried about China’s military planning and strategy in the Asian area. Are you worried?
Pranab Mukherjee : So what? I’m not worried because I’m quite confident that I will be able to defend myself.
Karan Thapar: It’s also been said that parallel with China’s military developments are political developments. It has extremely close connections with Burma, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, the Maldives and of course Pakistan. Vikram Sood, a former head of RAW, has written in The Hindustan Times this week, “The game to restrict India to the Asian subcontinent remains Chinese policy. Do you agree with this?
Pranab Mukherjee : I do not believe in their containment policy. We have gone one step beyond that. We have invited China to be the observer of SAARC, which they were not earlier. This is an indication of enlargement of cooperation, not a policy of containment of anybody.
Karan Thapar: So you don’t think China intends strategically, tactically to contain India?
Pranab Mukherjee : What China intends, what China thinks will surely be taken into account in my strategic consideration. But surely, it’s not for academic debate.
Karan Thapar: You say that you have taken this into account for strategic considerations, but a whole lot of strategic experts, including former foreign secretaries, former Army Chiefs…
Pranab Mukherjee :I’m sorry, they are all formers.
Karan Thapar: But only formers can speak. Present ones can’t speak.
Pranab Mukherjee : Yes. That’s why you cannot expect me to speak. Only formers can speak. Present incumbent cannot speak.
Karan Thapar: Let me put to you the nub of the point they make. They say that in its relationship with China, India ends up being defensive, India ends up being reactive. Instead, India needs to be more assertive.
Pranab Mukherjee : I don’t agree with that.
Karan Thapar: Let me give you an example. In the joint declaration, India has reiterated its acceptance of Tibet as an integral part of China. But in the same joint declaration, there is no reiteration of Chinese acceptance of Sikkim as an integral part of India. Why is that reciprocity missing?
Pranab Mukherjee : It is not necessary. Because, last time we had this.
Karan Thapar: But if it’s necessary for India to reiterate its stand on Tibet, why is it not necessary vice-versa for China to do so on Sikkim?
Pranab Mukherjee : Because of obvious reasons, for the presence of the Dalai Lama here.
Karan Thapar: But there is an equally obvious reason that China has disregarded India’s ownership and control of Sikkim and disputed it. Chinese maps until recently, in fact, showed it as an independent country.
Pranab Mukherjee : No. That was the position they had from 1974 till 2005. That’s nothing new. In 2005, during the visit of the Chinese Prime Minister, officially it was recognised as an integral part of India.
Karan Thapar: Do you not think that in the context of the comment made by the Chinese Ambassador, just before the arrival of the Chinese President, staking China’s claim, reiterating China’s claim to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh that it might have been wise of India to be a bit more assertive in the joint declaration and request China to reiterate certain points?
Pranab Mukherjee : I told you that whatever was considered to be necessary to be put in joint declaration has been put. So far as the question of Arunachal is concerned, just yesterday, I replied exhaustively on the floor of Lok Sabha.
Karan Thapar: Did the Arunachal question come up in any official conversation that the Chinese President had either with the Government or with the Prime Minister?
Pranab Mukherjee : In what context?
Karan Thapar: In the context of the Prime Minister saying that we have objections or reservations about your Ambassador’s statement?
Pranab Mukherjee : The Prime Minister did not mention it, (but) it has been referred to adequately. So far as the question of border is concerned, we have a regular institutional mechanism, which was set up by the previous NDA government. They have had eight rounds of talks. In the joint declaration, it has been mentioned that they will further carry on their activity to resolve the border issue.
Karan Thapar: So, critics who point out that India is very sensitive and attentive to Chinese sensitivities, but in response China is not…
Pranab Mukherjee : I don’t agree.
Karan Thapar: You don’t agree? You’re happy with the relationship?
Pranab Mukherjee : Of course, and I want to improve it.
Karan Thapar: You don’t accept people who say that when it comes to the strategic dimension, India sometimes behaves as if it is intimidated by China?
Pranab Mukherjee : No.
Karan Thapar: Let’s talk about the Indo-US nuclear deal. There are perhaps six, may be eight, clauses common to either one or either of the versions passed by the US House of Congress which India has concerns with. How confident are you that they can either be removed or ameliorated to suit India’s interest?
Pranab Mukherjee: We shall have to wait till the reconciliation conference takes place. Unless the reconciliation conference takes place and the final version of the legislation is available, it would be premature to make any comment on it.
Karan Thapar: I agree with you. But the problem is that some of the clauses that India has objections to are common to both versions of the Bill. I’m talking about clauses to do with nuclear testing, to do with the NSG and to do with the consequences of things like relations with Iran. Now given that they are common to both versions and that both versions were passed with majority over 80 per cent, can they be removed at reconciliation?
Pranab Mukherjee : There will be certain provisions which are binding on the administration. There will be certain provisions, which are not binding on the administration. Therefore, we shall have to take into account the totality of the legislation and the administrative response to it. So far as we are concerned, we have made our position quite clear that it must fit into the parameters set in the July 18 statement and the March 2006 separation statement. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, when the final version of the legislation comes, we shall have to see whether it is meeting our requirement or not.
Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that if there are clauses that are common to both Bills, in reconciliation, they cannot be removed because both Houses have agreed to them and agreed with 80 per cent majorities.
Pranab Mukherjee : Majority doesn’t have much impact so far as the approval is concerned. I’m not going into that aspect. Nor is it my job to analyse what will be the problems with the US administration with regard to the legislation, which the US administration is to implement. I’m only concerned whether the legislation is meeting my requirement or not.
Karan Thapar: Analysts point out and in fact officials of your own ministry would readily agree that India’s biggest problem doesn’t lie in either in the Senate version or the House version, it in fact lies in the nature of US policy. The problem is that US policy bars to all countries sales of enrichment reprocessing and heavy water technology. More importantly, it bars to all countries the right to reprocess spent fuel of US origin. Can you find a way around those bars in policy? That’s the real challenge.
Pranab Mukherjee: We have stated what we can accept. The agreement that was signed between the Prime Minister and President in July 2005 and the separation plan, which we have placed before the Parliament, there we have strictly laid down the parametres. We have repeatedly told the US administration, the PM also spoke to President Bush, I spoke to Secretary Rice and we all made it very clear that it is acceptable to India only if it fits into the parameters prescribed in these two statements.
Karan Thapar: Except for a small simple fact. The Indian Prime Minister on August 17 made it crystal clear that India wants the full civilian nuclear cycle, including technologies for enrichment reprocessing and heavy water production. US policy bars that. On August 17, therefore, India’s position and US policy have been in apparent conflict.
Pranab Mukherjee: Why should we bother about apparent conflict? What we should bother about is what is going to be the ground reality.
Karan Thapar: You are hoping that the US would give you a waiver on policy, which they have done for very few countries?
Pranab Mukherjee : I’m afraid if they did not want to do it (grant a waiver to US policies), then there was no point in making this exercise at all. Everybody knows what is their policy and when the United States of America agreed and when the US establishment went all out to see that the Bill gets the Congressional approval, there are reasons behind that. Our position is also known to them. They are fully aware of their own legal positions, their policies. We need not preach to them their policies.
Karan Thapar: Let me take up the waiver that is most important. I’m not talking about the waiver on sales. I’m talking about the waiver on the right to reprocess.
Pranab Mukherjee : We are just placing the cart before the horse. We need to wait for the final version of the Bill. How the establishment responds to the Act passed by the Congress and Senate.
Karan Thapar: Minister, I’m not talking about the issue that arises from the Bill, because the Bill can only give you a waiver on US law. I’m talking about your need for a waiver of US policy and it’s US policy that bars sales of technology and it’s US policy that bars right to reprocess fuel.
Pranab Mukherjee : I’m afraid, Mr Thapar, these policies existed before these negotiations started. These policies have not suddenly cropped up after July 18, 2005 and March 2006. Therefore, when these talks are going on, both sides know what is their policy. We know what is their policy. They know what are our parameters and what we require.
Karan Thapar: How confident are you that when the 1-2-3 agreement is signed — I am not talking about the Bill going through Congress – that there will be no clauses there that India finds objectionable: be they to do with nuclear testing or be they to do with the right to reprocess spent fuel?
Pranab Mukherjee : My position is very simple. What is acceptable to me within the parametres, which I have laid down, which are clearly known to US establishment, everything will have to fall within those parameters.
Karan Thapar: We have to wait and see whether it does. But that smile on your face suggests that perhaps it might. Thank you very much for talking to Devil’s Advocate.
Pranab Mukherjee : Thank you.
