In the Eye of the Storm

Wearing a white kurta and a blue turban, India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, 77, appeared relaxed on the eve of his state visit to Washington, which takes place this week. Many Indians worry that the Obama White House, unlike the previous two American administrations, may tilt toward China instead of India. Singh sat down in his Delhi residence last week to discuss with NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth how he believes India and the United States can work together to further their strategic partnership and why he believes it is critical that the U.S. not leave Afghanistan. Excerpts:

Weymouth: What ideas do you have on how India and the U.S. might cooperate in the future?
Singh: We have a watershed and landmark agreement with the United States on nuclear cooperation. We would like to operationalize it and ensure that the objectives for the nuclear deal are realized in full. My sincere hope is that we can persuade the U.S. administration to be more liberal when it comes to transferring [nuclear] technologies to us. The [current] restrictions make no sense. India has an impeccable record of not participating in any proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I also think that India and the United States could be partners in refocusing our attention on an equitable, balanced global order. (Article continued below...)

What does that mean?
We would like to strengthen energy cooperation with the United States [in] clean coal technology and in renewable energy resources. Similarly, there is concern for food security. In the first green revolution, technology which was a byproduct of the U.S. public sector played a major role in transforming Indian agriculture. We need another new green revolution to carry forward that process.

How do you see Afghanistan? Are you concerned that the U.S. will not stay involved in this conflict, and what are the implications for India?
I sincerely hope the United States and the global community will stay involved in Afghanistan. A victory for the Taliban in Afghanistan would have catastrophic consequences for the world, particularly for South Asia, for Central Asia, for the Middle East. Religious fundamentalism in the '80s was used to defeat the Soviet Union. If this same group of people that defeated the Soviet Union now defeats the other major power [America], this would embolden them in a manner which could have catastrophic consequences for the world at large.

Do you believe there is a close connection between Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban?
There is a close connection. They are chips off the same block.

How do you feel about President Karzai?
Let me say that President Karzai's regime is not perfect. There are problems of improving governance. But you cannot transform Afghanistan overnight. It is going to be a long-term affair.

How do you assess the situation in Pakistan?
We are concerned about the rise of terrorism in Pakistan. We have been the victims of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism for a long period of time. Now, if the Taliban and Al Qaeda type of terror, which in the past was located in the [tribal] area of Pakistan, gets transferred to the mainland of Pakistan, I think it has very serious consequences for our own security. We would not like terrorism to lead to a situation where the [Pakistani] civilian government is only a nominal government.

Don't you think that's the situation now?
I'm not saying that's the situation now. We would like democracy to succeed in Pakistan. But obviously now Al Qaeda and the terrorists have a grip over several parts of Pakistan.

Do you think the Pakistanis are trying as hard as they can?
Our feeling is that as far as Afghanistan is concerned, I'm not sure whether the U.S. and Pakistan have the same objectives. Pakistan would like Afghanistan to be under its control. And they would like the United States to get out soon.

So does that leave India and the U.S. able to cooperate against the Taliban?
We have supported the strong presence of the international community in Afghanistan. We have provided a substantial amount of resources for the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, about $1.2 billion. We would like to do more for the construction and development of Afghanistan and believe we can do it more effectively than any other aid donors. We are active in building infrastructure in Afghanistan.

Many people in the U.S. don't understand why we are in Afghanistan.
I hope the U.S. public understands where it all started after 9/11. If Al Qaeda did not have a home in Afghanistan, maybe 9/11 would never have taken place. God forbid if Al Qaeda gets another strong foothold in Afghanistan.

And that's what you believe will happen if the U.S. leaves?
I'm not an astrologer, but there's a great worry that it could happen.

Might there be a civil war in Afghanistan if the U.S. withdraws?
There is that danger.

Regarding Pakistan, from your point of view is the most important matter to see the terror groups brought under control?
Yes, the terror groups in Pakistan. As I said, we have been the victims of Pakistan-aided, -abetted, and -inspired terrorism for nearly 25 years. We would like the United States to use all its influence [to persuade] Pakistan to desist from that path. Pakistan has nothing to fear from India. I have said on many public occasions that the destinies of our two countries are interlinked. We should both be waging war against poverty, ignorance, and disease, which afflicts millions of people in our poor countries. It's a tragedy that Pakistan has come to the point of using terror as an instrument of state policy.

Do you worry about Iran getting a nuclear weapon? India has a much better relationship with Iran than the U.S. does.
I met yesterday with the Iranian foreign minister here. We did discuss the nuclear question. The message he left with me was that they feel encouraged by the messages they are receiving from the Obama administration. I see a glimmer of hope in what the Iranian minister told me yesterday.

It depends what your aim is: is it to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or not?
We have taken a consistent position on this. Iran is a signatory to the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. It must have all the privileges that go with being a member of the NPT, [including] the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It also has all the obligations that go with membership in the NPT. Therefore, I think nuclear weapons are not an option that Iran is entitled to under its membership of NPT.

But many astute observers believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear-weapons program.
I had the pleasure of [meeting] the director-general of the IAEA a few weeks ago, and he was not so sure that Iran is definitely working towards a nuclear weapon.

You entered into talks with Pakistan's former president Pervez Musharraf, when he was head of Pakistan, for two years. Are there any steps to be taken now with Pakistan?
We are committed to resolve all the outstanding issues with Pakistan through purposeful, meaningful bilateral negotiations. Our only condition is that Pakistan should not allow its territory to be used for acts of terrorism against India. This is the commitment that General Musharraf had given to my predecessor when he visited Pakistan in 2004. This is the commitment that was given to me whenever I met General Musharraf; this is the commitment given to me at Sharm al-Sheikh by [Pakistan's] Prime Minister [Yousuf Raza] Gilani. If Pakistan really honors that commitment, we can go back to negotiations to resolve all outstanding issues between us.

If you look at last year's attack in Mumbai, the Pakistanis apparently were not honoring the agreement.
As far as the perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre are concerned, they [Pakistan] have taken some steps but not enough. As far as Lashkar-e-Taiba is concerned, [it operates] under a different name, Jamaat-ud-Dawa. They are the perpetrators of terror in our country, and Pakistan has the obligation to take effective actions to prevent them continuing to indulge in these undesirable acts.

Do you worry about another Mumbai?
Every day I receive intelligence reports saying that terrorists based in Pakistan are planning other similar acts.

How do you see China—as a threat, a trading partner, or both?
The peaceful rise of China creates new opportunities for the world to engage China. China has emerged as a major trading partner with us. But we have problems with China with regard to our boundary dispute [in the northeast]. I believe there is enough space in the world to accommodate the ambitions of both India and China. But there are certain areas where there will be competition in trade and investment, and that's healthy.

Do you believe that the economic crisis that struck the U.S. last year has eroded its leadership role in Asia?
With the entrepreneurial skills of the U.S. business class, the U.S. educational system, which encourages innovation and invention, I have no doubt the U.S. will overcome this temporary setback.

What about India? You seem to have escaped the downturn.
Our export growth rate has sharply declined. Before the crisis, our growth rate was at 8.5 to 9 percent per annum in the previous four years. Since then it has declined to 6.7 percent, and this year it will be about 6.5 percent. In two years' time, we should go back to 9 percent growth rates. I'm confident because our domestic savings rate is as high as 35 percent of our GDP.

What would like to achieve in the next few years?
A growth rate of about 9 percent per annum, and to ensure that this growth is an inclusive growth—that the benefits of development reach out to all sections of our population, and that the disparities between rural and urban India are reduced and ultimately eliminated.