COMMENTRY
SPECIALS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/Inder Kumar Gujral

'No foreign policy of any country can ever be divorced from internal policies'

First it was the media. Then came other political parties. Finally, it was his own Cabinet colleagues. In recent weeks, everyone has been openly carping about the prime minister's frequent foreign travels. Are they necessary at a time when the nation is reeling under the shock of several political and economic crises? Does the head of an unstable government need to go out and project India as often as Inder Kumar Gujral has been doing in recent weeks? Or should he stay at home and try to sort out his own problems, ensure the stability of his government? That is the question everyone is asking. That is the question he attempts to answer in an exclusive interview to Pritish Nandy.

You have travelled far and wide over the past few weeks, from New York to Johannesburg to Edinburgh, with Kampala and Cairo thrown in. You have brought back some medallions but you have also attracted enormous criticism... that you have been travelling far too much even as domestic problems have gotten worse. What is your response to this?

You see, when we speak (about foreign travel), you must keep two things in mind. In today's diplomacy, every head of state has to travel because the entire character of diplomacy has undergone a change. When presidents or prime ministers travel, it is not for joy. Or for the fun of it. It is a hectic sort of programme. The three journeys I have recently undertaken were of this sort. My purpose in going to New York was two-fold. One, President Clinton had invited me to come and talk to him. It was a very useful discussion. We were able to sort out some of the key issues in our bilateral relationship.

What were these issues and how did you sort them out?

The Americans had been looking at India only in the context of Pakistan. But India is a very major country. It is a big power. It is a large market. It has a future that is very positive, very promising. And American interests (are involved) in that. I think when we discussed, we were able to sort out things. That has, in a way, initiated a new era in our bilateral relationship.

I will give you one example of this. In the last month or so, two of their leading officials in the state department have come to India. On the 17th of this month I am expecting the secretary of state. I don't know but it must be after 20 or 25 years. And the president of America himself will be visiting us in February. These visits are important. They are the manifestation of the interest and the focus that a particular country places on you.

My first visit was to New York, of course. I was to address the United Nations. As the electronic and the print media has said, I was able to project India's case for the Security Council seat. The issue has not been clinched because the entire matter is still under discussion.

As to what type of UN reforms should take place and in what way there can be a place for India... India has to project itself. That we are a major country of 960 million people. That we have an economy which is mentionable in the world today. So, to try to project this idea -- that India has to have a place in the Security Council of tomorrow -- was important for me. I had to say it there.

Would you say we are any closer to realising this objective because of your visit?

You see, I did not want to get embroiled in India-Pakistan issues. The day before I spoke, the Pakistan prime minister had spoken. I refused to take notice of what he had said. Instead, I discussed India's role in the world scene. I think it was appreciated. Another important thing I had to do was to have a long discussion with President Clinton and I think we have been able to understand each other better.

Will this understanding make any substantial impact on Indo-US relations?

Ultimately relations are mutuality of interests and I think diplomats everywhere have to work out a way to discover what are the common interests which can build relations. In today's world, with the end of the cold war, we have to think in terms of the economy more than anything else.

We must understand that India's market today is not just an economic market; it is a weapon for politics and diplomacy as well. That is where we have to concentrate. That is where I am concentrating.

By the yardstick, the United States should be taking more interest in us than in Pakistan. We are bigger. We have better market potential, a stronger and more stable economy.

Well, that is obvious now. Why did these four senior US government officials who are coming down -- including the president -- not come in the last seven years? The Cold War was one reason. But the Cold War ended five years ago.

Do you think it is the economic liberalisation process which has attracted their attention and interest? That they are now addressing a huge market with great opportunities for themselves?

India's economic potential is very major today. We are a huge market. It is generally assumed -- and I think correctly -- that out of our 960 million people, 30 to 35 per cent have entered the middle class. Now this middle class has purchasing power and it is about 320 to 400 million strong. These 400 million people are equal to the entire population of Europe! Who can ignore them...? The job of diplomacy is not to let this fact be exploited as a mandi but to also keep its potential in hand. I think the example of China must be seen. China has used the same weapon which we are trying to sharpen.

Do you think the Clinton administration sees it in such clear terms -- now that you have tried to explain it to them?

Well, otherwise he would not have taken the trouble of coming here. After all, the last American president who came here was Carter. In between, no one bothered. We were only asked to receive Raphel, nobody else. This change has come. It was why I also used my visit of three days to New York to address some think-tanks. In American society, these think-tanks have a very big role to play and I think I was able to convey to them the message that India wanted to project.

Then I come to my second visit. I think it was an overdue visit to South Africa. From the very first day, India has played a role in the end of despicable apartheid in South Africa. And (even though) they became free four years ago, unfortunately no Indian prime minister was able to go there.

Why? Why did we not go there? Deliberate policy?

Well, I don't want to blame my predecessors. But they had a grievance and, as their president said in Parliament itself, India was the first country he visited and India has taken its time to come. It was very interesting for me. They reserved this for India, that I was the first prime minister after the freedom of that country to address a joint session of Parliament. Now that was a link between our two countries which is important.

A very sizable population of Indian origin lives there and plays a very important role there. Gandhiji's own memories are there, which people still respect and that is a cohesive factor which brings us closer to each other.

In the same journey I had also gone to another country, Uganda. We have also ignored them for quite some time. In fifty years, no Indian prime minister has visited Uganda -- and Uganda is one country which, after expelling the people of Indian origin, has invited them back. Approximately, about 5 million people are living there now and I asked the president who was the biggest investor in the country. Indians, he said. That gives you a lever.

Did you meet the Indian community out there?

Yes.

Substantially or only casually, the usual shaking hands routine...?

Substantially. They are playing a very worthwhile role there. As a homage to India, a point from where the Nile comes out of Lake Victoria, I unveiled Gandhiji's statue. I said there, in my unveiling speech, that I am faced with two eternities. The eternal Nile and the eternal Gandhian values. This is the message India is projecting in the 50th year.

My third journey was Edinburgh. Two-and-a-half days. The Commonwealth had this meeting for its 54 members. India is the largest member of the Commonwealth. It is a mix of small and big, rich and poor (nations).

We had missed going there since 1990. But once we went there, it was such a welcome that the Indian prime minister was the only person invited to address CHOGM's inaugural ceremony.

But do you see the Commonwealth as a live platform, an active body?

Yes, it is an active body and we can definitely benefit from the relationship. But having said all this, may I tell you one thing. Indian diplomacy, from the days of Nehru, attached a great deal of importance -- and rightly so -- for India's place in the world. We cannot be insular. We are not a small country that we can be confined within our own area. We have a world role to play and that is what I am trying to do. India must play a role in the world. It must find a highly respectable place for itself. That is my effort.

I never go for journeys for the joy of travel. I never get time for anything. I was telling some of my colleagues that wherever I go, I see only three places. The hotel room where I am put up, the conference room, and the car. I never see a fourth place. In my life I have done enough travel. Travel for me is more strenuous than joy.

But there is a fear that because of your successful stint as foreign minister, you want to keep those memories alive and insist on playing foreign minister even though you are the prime minister. Which means: you are ignoring important responsibilities at home and travelling far too much.

You must keep in mind the fact that internal and external policies are interlinked. They cannot be segregated. If I go and talk to the Pakistan prime minister, I do not know if it is internal policy or external policy. If I discuss some issues with Bangladesh, is it internal or external policy? If I am able to neutralise Britain from interfering in Kashmir, is it internal or external policy?

And if you are able to bring American multinationals to invest in India, is it external or internal policy?

Actually, some people think it is compartmentalised. It is not. No foreign policy of any country can ever be divorced from internal policies. It is a projection of the same and only the naive would think these can be looked at separately.

Do you see the yin-yang of this relationship growing in the future?

A great deal in the coming two or three months. Now, for instance, we have been able to consolidate our relationship with Russia a great deal. President Yelstin will be here in February. The French president will be here on 26th January. All this is happening because we feel that our internal economic interest needs these relationships. Russia, for instance, is very important for defence also. Is this internal or external policy? When President Jiang is travelling to America, is he making a mistake or is he projecting something?

Unfortunately, the media hypes it when I go somewhere. Then I am criticised again. I did not go to Malaysia for obvious reasons. This stocks-and-share-market crisis was on. I wanted to stay at home and watch the progress. But I have seen people writing that I should have gone. They are not wrong. But the point basically is that any head of the government in India -- from Jawaharlal Nehru to Indira Gandhi to Lal Bahadur Shastri -- had to travel in the interest of the country.

What is your travel agenda for the immediate future?

I am going for one day to Bangladesh on the 23^rd and, I think, for this year that is the end. In Bangladesh, there is this trilateral meeting between the prime ministers of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. We are also, the three of us, taking our businessmen along so that we can build up some sort of economic relationship between the three countries which ultimately might help in bringing the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation free trade zone closer.

You have blamed the media. But it is not the media alone. Some of your Cabinet colleagues have also criticised you for travelling overseas so much.

Not fair. Ten days in six months that I have been in office. Three days in New York, five in South Africa, two in Edinburgh. This is the sum total if I exclude the travel time.

The Rediff Interview