Breaking News Hub

M K Narayanan is a taciturn man. In a rare interview to Indrani Bagchi, he opened up on a host of
issues. Excerpts:

After the political storm over the India-Pakistan joint statement at Sharm el-Sheikh, is India still going ahead with a meeting between the two foreign ministers at UNGA?

I would presume so. We have never fought shy of meeting Pakistan’s leaders. That’s why Prime Minister met Asif Zardari in Yekaterinburg, and Gilani in Sharm el-Sheikh. The Indian standpoint has been that we will not resume the composite dialogue until we see concrete evidence that Pakistan has acted against terrorism in a manner that we feel comfortable. That position remains. I don’t see any change in that position at any time. People have tried to misinterpret the Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement.

But the statement delinked dialogue from action on terrorism, apart from a controversial reference to Balochistan. Wasn’t that a departure?

It doesn’t delink. That’s a wrong reading of the document. It’s possible that somebody may read it that way but that’s certainly not the intention. I don’t think there has been any change in our position. There was a reference to Balochistan in the document because it found a mention in the discussions. It’s possible that someone could read a meaning into it. I don’t think there is any particular meaning.

Are we heeding the Pakistan request to send the foreign secretary to Islamabad before the UNGA?

I think since the external affairs minister will be in New York for the UNGA. That would be the more appropriate place for the foreign secretaries to meet.

What are the expected highlights of PM’s Washington visit in November?

We’re looking for that one big idea that will symbolize the relationship, just as we had a major achievement like the civil nuclear agreement in 2005. That was then the one big idea. It’s not that the deal alone was important. I think that far more than the deal, the fact that a country like the US and a country like India could reach an agreement like this reflected the maturing of the relationship.

So, we need to one such big ticket item now to show a continuity of that relationship with the new US administration?

I think the relationship itself is very warm. The PM has had very positive meetings with leaders of the new administration. I don’t see any problem with the relationship. The previous administration was extremely accommodative of India. We need to see whether the new administration will see us in the same way. Across the world, there is a great deal of respect for India and for the Indian leadership. Since this is the first state visit arranged by the Obama administration, we are keen to cement it with something substantial.

You have just completed the 13th round of boundary talks with China. While there is no progress on that front, will the talks now be embedded in the larger strategic dialogue?

The Chinese side showed keen interest in widening the ambit of the dialogue. But it didn’t detract from what we discussed on the border. We had 14 hours of discussions. There’s always progress. Certainly we haven’t yet settled the border issue. But each time we meet there is greater understanding.

What is the state of play on the nuclear deal?

There are two issues. First, we have to file a declaration in the IAEA. We are taking things cautiously, doing things step by step. If we take a step we cannot retrace that would make things difficult. We’ve now reached a stage when we are comfortable and we will file the declaration. And we will fill in the Annexure, which is part of the Separation plan. Once you enter into an international agreement we do not back out. The declaration is the final step as far as the IAEA is concerned. With the US, discussions are underway on the reprocessing agreement under 6(iii) of the 123 agreement.

What are your view on the Afghanistan election? Do you think the US could be tempted to cut and run since the war appears to be going so badly for them?

The very fact that elections could be held, despite the violence and threats and with so many contenders, is no mean achievement. Its more than many other countries have done.

Nuclear scientist, K Santhanam says we need to test our thermonuclear weapon again because Pokharan II was a “fizzle”. Is that correct?

It’s untrue. This is a matter that has been examined in great detail. Several measurements have been applied, specific observations have been made. The fact that we had a 45-kiloton successful thermonuclear test is now well proven the world over. We don’t need to carry out another test.