Opinion - Interviews   

"Do not transfer your problems to us"

India's Foreign Minister makes a firm stand, and expresses guarded optimism, on a nuclear deal that hangs in the balance.

— Photo: R.V. Moorthy

Pranab Mukherjee: "This arrangement will have to be India-specific."

IN THE first interview given by India's Foreign Minister after the recent Shiv Shankar Menon-Nicholas Burns talks, Pranab Mukherjee sends this message to Washington: "Do not transfer your problems to us." The senior Minister told Karan Thapar on the CNN-IBN television programme Devil's Advocate that he was "hopeful" the deal would go through but added, "I do not know whether that's a positive word." In the interview broadcast on Sunday, June 10, the Minister added that if the deal ultimately did not happen, "I don't think it will have any adverse impact on the India-U.S. relationship."

Asked if he was disappointed with the outcome of the Burns-Menon talks, Mr. Mukherjee replied: "there is no question of disappointment, we are [still] engaged in a negotiation." Speaking about Washington's reluctance to grant India reprocessing rights, he declared: "Reprocessing is absolutely necessary for us because we do not want to have a situation like the repetition of Tarapur. They say that they have some problems. We say do not transfer your problems to us. What has been agreed in the joint statement of July 2005 and subsequently in March 2006 and what's in our commitment to Parliament — they are already aware of it — therefore within these parameters this 123 Agreement has to be signed."

Asked if India would be prepared to accept reprocessing rights on the same terms and conditions that America has granted to Japan, Switzerland, and Euratom, the Foreign Minister responded: "We will have to examine that in the context of our commitment to the Indian Parliament and the joint statement of July 2005 and the separation plan of 2006."

However, when asked if India would be prepared to encourage the U.S. by designating specific plants where the reprocessing would happen and placing them under safeguards, and also by showing an accommodating attitude to Washington's stand on fall-back safeguards, as Japan, Switzerland, and Euratom, have done, the Minister seemed to indicate that this was not possible: "There are certain issues which we shall have to keep in mind. For instance, India is a non-signatory to NPT. The other countries, which you have referred to, are signatories to NPT. Therefore this arrangement will have to be India-specific."

When asked by the interviewer if India could accept reprocessing on the same terms and conditions as the U.S. has granted to China — where if permission is not given within six months Beijing acquires an automatic interim right of reprocessing — the Minister responded: "You are making a comparison between the non-comparables. China is already declared a nuclear weapon state. I have already stated it will have to be India-specific in the context that India is a non-signatory to NPT."

The Foreign Minister used careful, measured language in registering confidence that "we will be able to find some way out" because "both countries are trying their best."

Some relevant excerpts from the Karan Thapar interview with Mr. Mukherjee:

If none of the earlier examples or precedents are applicable to us, as you point out doesn't that make the granting of reprocessing more difficult?

I don't think it will be more difficult. We will be able to find some way out. Though the negotiations are protracted — in complicated negotiations like this sometimes this happens — both countries are trying their best. I do not doubt their sincerity ...

Do you think if both countries try their best, the outcome will be satisfactory for India or is there a danger that the best may not be good enough?

That's your value judgment. I'm not entering into a value judgment at this juncture. Let me first reach that bridge then I will think of what to do next.

Asked about American laws that require the right of return of all nuclear equipment and fuel sold to India in the event of a future test, the Foreign Minister said: "We would not like it to have any impact on our indigenous nuclear programme and also we would not like it to affect our strategic programme."

Elaborating on the `right of return' issue, the Minister noted that the fact that the nuclear deal would be "India-specific" was designed to ensure that any strategic reserves of fuel that India would build up — sometimes called lifetime reserves of fuel — would not be covered by the `right of return' clause.

Some interview excerpts on this point:

I imagine your prime interest is to ensure that any strategic reserves of fuel which you build up are not covered by the right of return. But can America exempt India's strategic reserves without making a mockery of its own law on right of return?

But what would be India-specific? Otherwise where does the question of India-specific arise? It is known to everybody that India is not a signatory to NPT. India has its strategic programmes. That is why the separation plan was placed before the Parliament.

And therefore you are saying that anything that's India-specific must take into consideration the fact that we have certain demands that are different to other countries and they must be met and catered to?

Exactly because we would like to continue our existing position with respect to the other things.

The interviewer then asked the Foreign Minister about the prospects of a satisfactory 123 Agreement.

How confident are you that at the end of this whole series of negotiations you will have a satisfactory 123 that India can accept and sign? Are you optimistic or pessimistic about it?

I am hopeful.

Only hopeful?

I am hopeful that everything will fall in line.

But hopeful is not a very positive phrase. It's a fairly neutral word.

I do not know whether it's a positive word. I'm not a great linguist. So let us leave it to the linguists ...

The interview next turned to the impact of a failed deal on the bilateral relationship:

If for some reason, after two years of negotiating, the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal falls through, how much of a setback will it be for Indo-U.S. relations?

No, I don't think it will have any adverse impact on the India-U.S. relationship because the India-U.S. relationship is growing ... this is an important landmark in our bilateral relationship, no doubt, and we do hope we will reach the successful conclusion of the present series of negotiations. Therefore I am not looking at that [the deal falling through] at all.

But you are also saying that if you don't reach the hoped for and satisfactory conclusion it won't have a major impact on the relationship?

It should not have.

In the interview, Mr. Thapar also asked Mr. Mukherjee about the United Progressive Alliance's relations with its Left allies. [The Foreign Minister is the CPI (M)'s and the Left's preferred candidate for President in the election that is due to take place in July.] Some relevant excerpts:

Various political parties make assessments of the current situation and sometimes they criticise the economic policies, sometimes they criticise the failure of the government to contain communal forces. That is the reason why they are upset with the government. I'm just saying that it is their assessment but as long as they will continue to support the government, the government will go on.

The question is how long?

Till the end of the term of this government.

On what basis can you sound so confident?

Because I am dealing with them every day. That's why I'm confident.

(The Devil's Advocate interview with Pranab Mukherjee, which was broadcast on CNN-IBN at 8:30 p.m. on June 10, will be broadcast again at 4:30 p.m. on June 11.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

No breakthrough on climate change
Here's wishing India's new coach
"Britain's Bofors" returns to haunt Blair
U.S. presidential campaign and India
When to replace an old car
High Court ruling
Out of reach?
Gujjar agitation
Helmet rule
Hear more, listen more for better journalism
"Do not transfer your problems to us"

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu