Larry Pressler, a former US Republican Senator from South Dakota, is best known in India for authoring the Pressler Amendment, which was instrumental in cutting aid to Pakistan because of Islamabad's alleged secret nuclear weapons programme. In Delhi to deliver the first Ramnath Goenka lecture on `Breaking the Indo-Pakistan Impasse,' Pressler spoke to Jyoti Malhotra and Pratik Kanjilal. Excerpts from the interview:Q: What are your comments about the newly restarted dialogue between India and Pakistan?

A: For years we've had this anguish in Washington, that we'd like India and Pakistan to start talking. It's been my feeling that the Pakistan military has been much less candid with us. For example, in the 1980s when they told us that they had no intention of making a nuclear weapon. That was the origin of the so-called Pressler Amendment. Pakistan, in fact, supported the Pressler Amendment when it was first passed, that is one of the ironies of history.

Partly why the Brown Amendment was successful in repealing part of Pressler was because of the feeling that Pakistan had done a lot for the US during the war in Afghanistan when it took a lot of refugees. Also, there is in the US a strong defence lobby and Pakistan is always willing to cooperate, that's why it is so difficult to keep the fight on the Senate floor. That whole group was trying hard to do Pakistan a favour.

Today, everybody wants to see India and Pakistan to get along, wants to see the possibility of nuclear holocaust reduced, make it easy for people like us who want to do business in both countries. I hope this dialogue works.

Also, I think India is really maturing in its foreign policy. In the sense that as Hans Morgenthau said in his Politics of Nations, when big nations reach the point that they can treat small nations with confidence and generously, then they have matured and they will have a more successful foreign policy.

Q: So do you believe now that Pakistan has a nuclear weapon?

A: Oh yes, that was certified in 1990 by the intelligence and the President of the US. Perhaps in a negative sense, because you certified that you were not sure that they did not have a nuclear weapon, which meant that they do have one. One of the generals in the US has also confirmed that they possess a nuclear weapon as well as the system to deliver it. In my mind, both India and Pakistan have the nuclear capability. The question is, however, if more F-16s come into Pakistan now that the talks have started, it would be a very bad thing.

Q: Why is the US coy about admitting that both sides are nuclear capable?

A: I don't know...sometimes the State Department takes a line that is very puzzling to me. I think the Pakistanis have been more aggressive in initiating the build-up, that they probably have more weapons and delivery systems. I've always felt that the elected government in Pakistan is not always in control of the weapons, I think the military stays in control, that's a fundamental difference between the two countries. And that makes Pakistan a bit more dangerous.

Q: There's a lot of reportage about China delivering M-11 missiles to Pakistan?

A: I think China has provided M-11 delivery capability to Pakistan and Iran, that China has behaved in an irresponsible way in the arms control area, and that is a very serious matter. I know that the debate in the US over trading with China, or taking action against it over human rights violations, will continue because it is such a big trading partner.Q: Why do the Americans get so upset when India talks about adhering to time-bound schedules for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons?

A: I suppose it's the time-worn argument that if other people have got some, then you've got to have some to defend yourselves...in an ideal world I would certainly like to see them eliminated but it's certainly not realistic at this time.

Q: How do you see relations between India and the US?

A: I think it's the best ever today since I first came here 22 years ago. Earlier, there was a feeling that India was pro-Soviet, that there was a feeling of anti-Americanism, but that's pretty much gone away. I think the US wants to embrace India in trade and technology.

I've authored the Telecommuniations Bill and I have seen a number of US and Indian businessmen who want to have telecom trade. India is the world's largest democracy and I've always felt that we should reach out and embrace India. I've been a fan of India since 1964.

India's got so much good publicity in its 50th year, every magazine you pick up has something on India.

Q: Why do you think there isn't so much publicity on Pakistan in its 50th year of independence?

A: At least in the US, India is viewed as a more mature democracy, although certainly Pakistan has had a lot of valid elections. I think because the military has had so much power in Pakistan, that's part of the reason.

Q: Can the US and India have meaningful telecommunications trade, given that the former is the most evolved market in the world and the latter among the most archaic?

A: I think it can, because India is very developed so far as software is concerned. I hope this is taken as a high compliment that in the US people of Indian origin are the best software people, the people of Japanese descent are better at hardware, and traditional Americans whoever they might be, are not as good as either. I think India can supply the world in software.

Q: Throughout the debate on the Telecom Bill, you have been accused of changing positions. For instance, you first opposed the V-chip and then supported it...

A: The Telecom bill was a huge bill which occupied four years of my life, including Saturdays and Sundays. It was my magnum opus as a legislator. We had to find a compromise on this difficult business of decency on the Internet, etc,.

So we put it all in the bill, the V-chips and all that, and now it will go up for review in a few months...in our society what ultimately matters is free speech and it'll be determined by our courts. But the bill is not a perfect bill, but it has caused an explosion of new investment in the US.

Q: What is your stand on censorship?

A: As our courts have said, there's no physical way to censor you would need a lot of police. What we can do is through voluntary encryption, for example you can encrypt pornography, it's like beer you don't sell it to 10-year-old kids. There are some software firms who are trying to do this.

Q: Do you think the US should focus on the economic, rather than the nuclear-strategic part of its relationship with India ?

A: I tend to think so. I would like to see us become trading partners and educational partners. We're quite different, but I would like to see us having a lot of trade, telecom, agricultural, exchanges. I think small businessmen do more than diplomats or politicians, that business will define the Indo-US relationship more than anything else in the next 10-15 years.

Q: Despite the fact that India and US are the largest democracies, why do you think New Delhi is not a priority in Washington?

A: It should be, it can be our ally, it wants to be our ally. I think we should put our priority to India than we put to China, but you're correct it is not a priority. Probably because you tend to treat your friends not as well as those who are not your best friends.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.