A: No I will not because I have made a statement in the Rajya Sabha. And I will leave it at that. I am working on a book and a copy of the book will be sent to you.

Q: You have surprisingly expressed discontent on the Indo-US deal because you were one of the key negotiators. What has gone wrong?

A: I was very much for it. When there was a hitch about it I played a role. I even discussed it with Kakodkar. I agreed with the PM on the statement he made in July 29, in February 27, 2006 and March 7. But 5th April is the cut off date.

Q: Why is it a cut off date?

A: When Condoleezza rice went to the senate committee and the house committee she did not use the word reciprocity, not used the word energy, introduced non proliferation, NPT and beyond, permanent safeguards, intensive intrusive IAEA inspections, separation of civilian and military facilities with numbers and who will look after them. And the waiver for supply of fuel it will not be permanent but annual. Every year we have to go to the President of the United States and say please would you give us a waiver. The resolution of the house talks about congruent foreign policy, policy on Iran. Then there is a combined resolution for the house and the senate which is much tougher. And Mr Bush by then will be a lame duck president. If the Prime Minister says there will be no change, I will be the first one to clap. The nuclear issue is now a national issue not a party or Government Issue. The government should try to work for a national consensus based on the letter and spirit of the July 18 agreement.

Q: If this deal goes through post the shifting of goal posts will India's national interests be hurt, crippled?

A: You heard all the top scientists like Iyengar, Gopalkrishnan who were fathers of the movement have serious objections. Srinivasan and knowledgeable people like Brahma Chellaney have raised issues. I have said. If the original deal goes through I am all for it.

Q: But the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says if the deal is not according to the July 18 agreement then we are free to reject it?

A: If he repeats it the situation can change. I stand by the fact that I was involved with the July 18 agreement. I am not in agreement with the post April 5, 2006 package.

Q: Are you saying in the changed proposal India's interests have been discounted?

A: That is a judgement you have to make. I am only going by what world famous scientists are saying. I am not an expert. I am fully for having a close deep relationship with the US. There are differences though. For example nobody condemns terrorism more than Indians. We have lost 65000 people. Our hearts went out to the victims of 9/11, London, Chechnya and Mumbai. But these Muslim jehadis do not represent Islam. And to use a phrase like crusades, fascist Islam…there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world.

Q: You say you are all for better relations but at the same time you say you were forced to resign under US pressure? Why would they be against you?

A: I don't want to personalise this. Jack Straw British foreign secretary said America's idea to bomb Iran is nuts. He was out in four days. Abdullah Abdullah of Afghanistan questioned what was happening in his country was out. Natwar Singh went to Vladivostok to discuss India China Russia triangle and I am out. These are related events. I have no proof but I know enough about the American system, the Vulcans and NeoCons. Even a man like Fukuyama who is a neo Conservative has attacked the Iraq policy. You think the Muslim psyche has not been hurt. They say humanitarian intervention. How many people do you want killed? The say benign hegemony. That is like telling a fish do you
want to be fried in butter or margarine.

Q: So it is not just the nuclear deal that you differ on but also the US approach to the war on terror. Do you agree with President Bush's characterisation, Islamic Fascists?

A: First of all with great respect to President Bush his linguistic incoherence is quite dramatic because one doesn't quite know what precisely he means. First he said crusades. Crusade for the Muslims is something terrible a war which went on for 300 years. What is happening in Lebanon? I want good relationship with the Israel but in Lebanon they have gone for overkill.

Q: But the government of India has not expressed any view?

A: This is what distresses me. I don't want to be critical of my government, they are doing they can. The fact is the Islamic world is disappointed. We should make a much stronger statement.

Q: We have had bomb blasts in Mumbai. Our peace talks with Pakistan have been put off. How should we tackle Pakistan?

A: I am all for good relations. But Lashkar e Toiba is responsible for Mumbai blasts. The dialogue can't go forward unless export of terror is stopped as you promised Atal Bihari Vajpayee in January 2004.

Q: So you don't want talks? You are okay with the closing of doors…

A: No the door cannot be shut completely. Diplomacy doesn't offer salvation, it offers hope. On this I am totally with the government. But these young men involved don't represent Islam. I told President Bush with respect you came to know Islam after 9/11 we know Islam in the 9th Century. Of the 150 million Muslims in India not a single has joined Al Qaeda or Taliban. I told Condeleeza Rice We know how to reconcile contradictions why don't you ask us?

Q: You hinted that the US sabotaged the attempt to forge the India Russia China front?

A: I see know rational reason for a meeting to be held in March 2006 postponed. This is not a gang up. We are major countries in Asia, we have issues like energy, global warming and can contribute to global peace. We were very active when we met at Vladivostok the steam has now gone out.

Q: It seems strange your criticism of foreign policy is post your leaving the government. You didn't protest when you were foreign minister.

A: Not true. Everything was hunky dory when I was foreign minister. The goal posts on the US deal was not changed, meetings were not postponed. I am 75 and the ministry means nothing to me. I am not saying this because I have resigned. I am a committed dedicated Nehruite. The man was an idealist and realist at the same time. He read history made history wrote history and understood history. He was a great statesman.

Q: You are suggesting the current regime is not Nehruvian?

A: I don't want to use this terminology. I have said my views. It is for you to conclude. They say Natwar is an old warrior talks about NAM. NAM is not a dogma it is a state of mind. NAM is irrelevant. NATO is? What does North Atlantic Treaty got to do with Afghanistan?

Q: There is a sense among people that some Congressmen that some leaders are out of touch with reality and talk about NAM. Is the leadership out of touch with reality or are you out of touch?

A: This is a mind set of some people in the media who don't understand the dialectics of modern world and complexities of the 21st century. There is sub-nationalism, ethnicity, migration etc. How do you deal with it?

Q: You have been critical of how we have dealt with the crisis in Nepal, Sri Lanka?

A: I think more attention should be paid. The Nepalese PM has written to the UN on running elections in Nepal. There is nobody with better experience on running elections. Why they haven't asked us? It is against the treaty of 1950. Why haven't they asked us?

Q: You are asking the question, what is the answer?

A:The answer is that there has been a failure.

Q: What more did you want done in Nepal?

A: For us monarchy and democracy were two pillars. There should have been an effort towards a constitutional monarchy.

Q: You were there in Sri Lanka when India intervened militarily. Do you want military intervention again?

A: No I want a continuous dialogue. The eighties were different. Running the foreign policy of India is a full time job not a part time job.

Q: You were Foreign Minister. What did you do?

A: There was peace; the Norwegians were heading towards a peace deal.

Q: You are in short suggesting that we have a non existent foreign policy, that our leadership is not resolute that the PM doesn't understand foreign policy. All these statements lead to Race Course Road…

A: I am not saying the Foreign Service is not doing its job. It is an extremely competent team. I am not saying I am the answer to all the prayers. You said NAM is outdated? What is Manmohan Singh going to Cuba for? To ask Castro about his health?

Q: You said the leadership is not resolute? Is this a reflection on the foreign ministry being run by the PM's office?

A: No it is not. I will not say anything else on the prime minister.

Q: You are saying there are inadequacies and we have abdicated our role in world affairs.

A: No. You are trying putting words into my mouth. I have measured my response. Running the foreign policy of India is not easy. We are a coalition government. The prime minister is a leading world class economist and is taking the country forward towards making India economically powerful like China. I want his hands to be strengthened in every aspect.

Q: Where do you stand after your suspension from the Congress?

A: I stand still. My relations with Sonia Gandhi go back to many years. I am grateful to her and to her family for so many things. I will leave it at that. I have very good relationship with Manmohan Singh.

Q: So you are not migrating?

A: Most certainly not, I am not an illegal immigrant

Index