An Interview with Rajiv Gandhi

In the year since Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was gunned down in her garden by two Sikh bodyguards, her son and successor Rajiv has demonstrated that he inherited more than just a name from the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that has ruled India for all but five years since independence in 1947. A former pilot who once shunned politics, the young Gandhi, 41, has displayed a deft touch in guiding both foreign and domestic policy. His most recent triumph came in the troubled state of Punjab, where voters endorsed parties that supported a settlement Gandhi had negotiated with moderate Sikh leaders.

Clad in a white Nehru-style jacket and the flowing trousers that Indians call pyjamas, a confident and congenial Gandhi met for one hour with TIME Diplomatic Correspondent William Stewart and New Delhi Bureau Chief Ross H. Munro. In an oak-paneled office graced by portraits of his grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru and his mother, the Prime Minister discussed Pakistan’s nuclear program, relations with the U.S. and his agenda for India’s pressing internal problems. Excerpts:

On Pakistan. Two things are worrying us. One is nuclear. The other is chemical. We have information that they are buying gas masks in very large numbers in Europe. And they have also set up a factory in Pakistan, if I’m right, to produce masks. We have no chemical weapons at all, so they cannot expect any (threat) from us.

Now the nuclear side does worry us very much. President Reagan sent (Under Secretary of State) Michael Armacost here to talk to us, but we are not convinced. The U.S. seems to believe that Pakistan has not got the enriched uranium yet. We believe they have. Now if they have got it, then no amount of inspections and checks is going to show up this uranium. This is why we are not buying the mutual inspection deal. What also worries us is that most of their (nuclear) technology comes from the West, from private companies with the incentive to sell and not really paying heed to the law. Many of these parts are small and may not be discovered if somebody carries them out in a suitcase. I would say the West is responsible for not applying its own rules rigidly enough. We believe the bomb the Pakistanis are making–or have made–has been financed not just by Pakistan but by certain Arab countries. The real danger is not just Pakistan having this weapon but of its going to people who will not have the ability to prevent proliferation.

On India’s nuclear program. We are not going nuclear. Our old decision not to build a bomb remains. But I am not saying the decision is irrevocable.

On Indian-U.S. relations. They are improving. There were tangible and positive results from my visit (to Washington in June), especially regarding the transfer of technology. One of the problems, you see, is that we really do not want to buy mediocre technology. We can develop that ourselves. What we are looking for is what we cannot do. The U.S. today is one of our biggest trading partners, and has been for some time. More than the Soviet Union. Our differences have not affected our economic relations. On the political side, we feel the U.S. has been too demanding of its–What should I say?–allies. Demanding in an undemocratic way. We believe that we should be able to speak our minds on international issues, and we will. But the U.S. might not like that. South Africa, for example, or a new economic order, or the Israeli attack on P.L.O. headquarters in Tunisia are issues where it is not a question of being anti-U.S. It is a question of taking a stand that we happen to believe is correct.

On Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev. I thought he was very open (during meetings in Moscow last May). He spoke very frankly. He’s got lots of new ideas for the Soviet Union. He is going to be tough as a leader. He is not going to be a pushover. He is young, dynamic. He is a leader who has sufficient backing within the system to do what he thinks has to be done. You can talk to him. I certainly think he is a man the West will do business with. I liked him. There is a certain warmth and openness in the personality that most people like.

On domestic priorities. The biggest change on the economic side has been industrial. In some areas we have not done so well, but wherever we have given a thrust we have done quite well. Nuclear power is one, space another. We have got our own launch vehicles. We make our own satellites. On the ) defense side, we have done quite a lot because certain items have not been available, and secondly because security was compromised no matter who you bought them from. Electronic systems, for example. Whoever we buy them from knows what we’ve got, so we have to make our own. And we are fairly good at it.

Agriculture has been most important. With a lot of help from the U.S., there has been a green revolution. What we really need now is a long-term policy rather than our usual short-term decisions. But we are beyond the danger of famine. Who would have believed this possible 20 years ago?

Where we have not done so well is education. We have not invested enough by anybody’s standards, not even our own. Our major task is going to be changing our way of thinking, to think more positively, more modern. We must be able to use technology and modern methods in our daily work.

But, of course, population control is still our biggest problem. One of the factors that will (help) is education, especially for women. We are finding that the traditional methods, apart from family planning and population control, are now giving us reduced results. Those states which have high levels of education already have low birth rates.

On Indian democracy. What Nehru and the founding fathers gave us has stood the test of time, the test of tremendous tensions. Democracy has reached deep into the average Indian. I don’t think anybody could change the system today. In 1984 (after Indira’s assassination), people did not know what was going to happen. But the system really held together. I think we got it right at the very beginning.