Related Stories 'Sourav (now) thinks there's value in Kartik. At the end of the day, it's the player's value realised by market forces'‘Autonomy of regulators must be taken seriously... nobody gives it to you, you learn to be autonomous’‘Developers are only interested in the luxury end. We’ve just forgotten affordable housing’

Yeah, but everybody is not just American, and we Americans should not operate on the basis that everybody else is mostly America. All countries, large and small, matter on this issue. If small countries — that won’t come up in the course of our conversation — end up with nuclear weapons and are irresponsible custodians of it, then that’s a dangerous thing. That’s what the NPT was meant to prevent. And that’s the problem that we hope India will help us address over the long term.

• But what I mean is that if the U.S. signs it, it becomes very tough for smaller countries to stay out of it. In fact, CTBT was damaged by the U.S. Congress.

Let’s recall some relevant history here. When you and I were dealing with each other, back when I was in the State Department, conducting the dialogue between Jaswant Singh and the BJP-led government here, the U.S., for quite a period of time, had signed the CTBT, which it still has, and was moving towards ratification. During that time, I still heard all kinds of objections from the Indian side. Now when the U.S. Senate did what I think is the most colossal blunder in recent decades, nine years ago when it refused to ratify the CTBT, it cut off the legs of the Clinton administration and the dialogue between us.

• And you expect that the next Congress will ratify it?

Yes, and then it will be interesting to see what position India takes with regard to the CTBT and the FMCT.

• If India were then to go along with the mainstream, it eases the movement on so many aspects of our relationship?

Yes is the short answer. I certainly look forward to the day when the nuclear issue in its avatars, shall we say, does not preoccupy Indians and Americans as much as it does.

• I know you try to argue that one mustn’t presume that you will be in the next administration and dealing with India, but you will be doing something in the next administration if it is a Democratic one. Tell us, what can we expect from American politics next year?

Let’s not waste any time on my career prospects: I have the best imaginable job for me at this stage in my life. Coming to the second part of your question, here is a prediction that can be made with confidence: The next President will be one with a demonstrated proclivity of reaching across the aisle, working on a bi-partisan basis with the other party, and somebody who is committed to the centrality of the U.S.-Indian bilateral relationship. I think Indians can all be confident that there will be continuity and a continued commitment to this bilateral relationship.

• Strobe, we know about Hillary Clinton, but little about Obama. There are some concerns regarding him in India. What is it that we need to understand about him?

I’ve seen Senator Obama and I do think that many of the anxieties about him are not well founded. I have two young sons and their friends who are all climbing aboard the Obama bandwagon. And that’s important. The youth voter percentage has increased this year, starting with the primaries. If the young people decide to be more involved with the future of the country, since they have the largest stake in it, that should be in Senator Obama’s favour and that should be good for America.

• What about the world-view regarding Obama? I know that the opinions of his being immature, inexperienced and rash are misplaced.

I know that it’s an objective fact that he hasn’t had as much experience as the other candidates at the Federal level and also the fact that he is so much younger. Youth has certain attractiveness in our political system: think of Kennedy. I know of his policies, they’re grounded, there’s a lot of reading, I know some of the people on his team. With Obama, I’ll sum it up as follows: There’s a difference between being a boss and a leader, and I think the US in recent years has tended to boss people around too much.

• One problem that one sees with Democrats today, apart from the compulsion to be anything but Bush. The other thing is this whole new rhetoric on the economy, which has replaced Iraq as the main issue in the elections. Can you look at the foreign policy that engages with the whole world, an outward foreign policy and an inward looking economic policy?

An outward looking foreign policy and an inward looking economic policy would be bad for the U.S. and bad for the world. I am quite critical of the fact that Democrats, more than Republicans, have exploited what I think are ill-founded concerns about off-shoring of jobs.

• But do you think Obama or Clinton will make this mistake? Do you think one is more or less likely than the other to make this mistake?

I can’t slice and dice it quite that thin, but on the issue of trade, the Democrat candidates have a bit more challenge there than the Republican side. There is a protectionist nerve that is twitching in the Democrats.

• We’ve been talking about change in the U.S. Around the same time there maybe an election in India and the way the coalition is built might change. You have experience with dealing with the previous Indian administration. But there’s that bit about dealing with the new one.

I find Indian domestic politics fascinating and mystifying. I’ve had some very erudite people explain it to me and I am more confused than before. I think it’s inherently complicated. The Clinton administration dealt with a BJP government on the nuclear issue and the goals they strove for then are not too dissimilar from what the current Indian government has managed to get out of the Bush administration. I cannot understand why they oppose the deal as vehemently as they have.