An Interview with Indira Gandhi

"I do not like carving the world into segments; we are one world

Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi arrives in Washington this week for her first official visit in nearly eleven years. Her mission is to narrow India's differences with the U.S. on a number of issues. Among them: Washington's vocal opposition to the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, the sale of 40 American F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan and the controversial U.S. naval base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The Prime Minister's son, Rajiv, her heir apparent, will accompany her on the trip. On the eve of her departure, Gandhi discussed foreign and domestic problems in an exclusive interview with TIME'S New Delhi bureau chief Marcia Gauger. Excerpts:

On relations with the U.S. We think we should be friends and want to do everything we can for friendship. Of course, we cannot jettison our basic policies. They are not thought up, they are thought out--considered. The tendency in the U.S. is to assume that a person is either 100% with you or not with you. This is not realistic. You can be with a person on some issues and not on others. My goal is to try to show the reality of India, that it is a country with enormous problems but trying to solve them, that it is a country committed to democracy, to peace in the world and to nonalignment. It is equally important to get to know President Reagan better, to understand U.S. policies and to create greater comprehension of our policies. I have met the President only for a very brief moment, but I found him a very open person and very easy to talk to.

On relations with the Soviet Union. I do not think there has been any cooling of relations. Our policy has always been based on certain principles and what we consider our national interest. So it cannot swing from side to side. We believe that we should have friendship with all countries and that friendship with one country or group of countries should not come in the way of friendship with all the others. On the subject of Afghanistan, we have made our stand very clear. We are opposed to a foreign presence, whether in the shape of troops or any other type of interference, anywhere. Everybody rushed in at once to condemn the Soviet Union. We said we disapproved, but we did not join in the condemnation because we felt that it would not improve the situation. We have said from the beginning that there has to be a political solution in Afghanistan, a negotiated settlement.

On relations with Pakistan. I do not know how close they want to get. We have been anxious for friendship, not for any idealistic reason, but because it is a necessity for us. We want our neighbors to be stable and strong. Nothing is so dangerous as a weak neighbor. You just do not know what they will do. Throughout the years, we have taken all the initiatives. My father [Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister] offered a no-war pact in 1949, and in different forms the offer has been repeated. Then we signed the Simla Agreement [a 1972 accord that calls for the two countries to negotiate their differences], but they did not want the words no war used. Now suddenly, along with the purchase of the F16, President Zia puts in this little bonbon about a no-war pact. I have suggested that we have a treaty of cooperation, friendship and peace, in which a no-war declaration would, of course, be included. And I have announced publicly that pact or no pact, India will not attack.

On U.S. policies in the Third World. I do not like carving the world into segments; we are one world, whether we like it or not. It is difficult for the affluent countries to understand the pressures we have from our own people. We got left out of the race for industrialization, and we have to industrialize at a time when people are more conscious of their rights and privileges. For India, with its vast population [683 million], everything is multiplied that many times. Methods that work in an advanced society do not always work in ours. We are told by the U.S., for instance, that we should depend more on private commercial borrowing, but that just is not possible. There are limits to it. And where there are gaps, the state has to step in.

On India's caste tensions. Caste feeling is not something that you can remove in a day. It has taken us a long time to get people committed to the nation. We think that is very important in a country with so many religions. There must be equal respect for all religions and all castes. This is not to say that there is not caste conflict. There is from time to time. We have given the Harijans [untouchables] new respect, and those who were exploiting them resent it. The Harijans themselves are much more aggressive and much more conscious of their rights. This is what brings about confrontation.

On a Nehru family dynasty. Suppose I want somebody to become Prime Minister. How could I manage it? That person would have to go through the grilling process of election. It is a question entirely of who the country wants. The people have reposed confidence in my family dating back to my grandfather because they feel we are sincerely concerned. I do not know whether the people will continue to vote for my family when the time comes. After all, I had a very big defeat in 1977.

On India's problems. Our biggest problem is backwardness, the disparities between the haves and the havenots. But I would like to say it is not true that the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. The rich are richer, as they are all over the world. But I would not say that the poor are poorer, except that they are more conscious of it. The general level of living is higher, and a lot of people have come into the middle class. But poverty remains. There are other difficulties, some of which we share with other countries: the growth of cities and towns; how to prevent pollution; how to conserve the environment, wildlife; all those things. We also have very big problems with industry, with agriculture, with our balance of payments. When we came back to power in 1980, we found the economy in very bad shape. We made investment decisions for future development, and I think they restored a sense of direction to the economy. The G.N.P. has gone up, per capita income has gone up, and we have increased irrigation, food output and petroleum production. But the more things go up, the more are wanted. You are simply not able to catch up.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.