Yashwant Sinha, the Indian foreign minister, is 67 years old. Like many other Indians, he stands straight and speaks as the foreign minister of the biggest democracy in the world with radiant confidence. His record includes membership in secular parties Janata, Janata Dal and the extremist Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party as well as the India’s ministry of finance. He was appointed minister of finance in 1998 and switched to foreign ministry in 2002 and believes that he had brought about many economic changes including cutting inflation rate down to less than 2% and decreasing foreign liabilities.

His appointment as the foreign minister of India has been interpreted as a measure for making economy and trade the spearhead of that country’s foreign diplomacy. It is from this viewpoint that Sinha’s trip to Tehran and his participation in the joint trade commission of Iran and India can be assessed. Despite the fact that the party which Sinha is one of whose leaders is reputed for sectarian Hindu tendencies and opposition to Muslims, he does his best to depict a moderate and non-sectarian figure of India’s foreign diplomacy because he believes that economic moves are more to the benefit of India than political disputes. However, conditions following September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States provided India with a good opportunity to charge Pakistan; that is, a neighbor that was born as a result of hostility between Hindus and Muslims, of terrorism because Al-Qaeda, which is considered as the most blatant manifestation of terrorism, had risen in that country.

The main message is a message of friendship, good will and sincerity. As you know, I have come here to take part in the joint economic commission meeting and issues discussed in such meetings are mostly economic. Therefore, I discussed economic, trade as well as energy and agriculture cooperation with your foreign minister during the meeting. I also talked about defense cooperation and other issues.

We have granted $200 million credits to Iran, which was announced during President Khatami’s last year trip to India. We talked about how the credit should be used. The credit has been considered for infrastructural projects. My delegation comprises a group of Railroad Ministry officials and they talked about renovation of Iranian railroads with their Iranian counterparts.

With regard to energy, we are basically interested in two issues: participation in oil production in Iran and participation in renovating refineries for which we enjoy technical know-how. The issue of gas pipeline was also brought up in our discussions.

At present, we have conducted a study on the passage of the pipeline from the sea bottom which is not complete yet. A working group has been set up which holds regular sessions to study the project. The group would present the results of studies to be used for decision-making. During my negotiations with Hashemi Rafsanjani and Kamal Kharrazi, I declared my country’s readiness to make arrangements with the Iranian side as a prelude to the establishment of a free trade zone between Iran and India. However, such a zone would not be complete without Pakistan for various reasons. Therefore, I proposed that we could think about a free trade zone with the participation of Iran, India and Pakistan. In other words, a common market shaped after models we have witnessed in other parts of the world. India has established such a mechanism with a number of countries such as the member states of ASEAN, Thailand and Sri Lanka. We are implementing a similar project with Singapore and preliminary negotiations have started with SARK member states and Mauritius.

It must not be so. Trade must not be sacrificed for politics. Economic issues must move at their own pace and they must not be used as political bargaining chips. This is our approach. I have said this and I hope Iranian officials study it. We have also decided to establish a smaller group of officials including the two countries’ ambassadors in Tehran and New Delhi as well as related directors-general and foreign ministries of both countries to accelerate some of these projects. This four-member group will hold sessions from time to time to review the progress as well as possible obstacles to the projects. In case of any problem, we would be informed and take expedient decision.

Not at all.

No. We have told them that we cannot send troops there.

I think the choice is theirs because it is their money. If we had the money, we would have made the choice. Therefore, they will choose who is to do the job.

I said it differently. I said if having weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation as well as exporting terrorism were criteria for military interference, then the US must interfere in Pakistan too because it would be more justifiable. At that time, I thought that there were more grounds for the America’s interference in Pakistan than Iraq; not India’s military interference.

That is true. Whenever we talk with Pakistanis about trade, culture, marine borders, peoples’ relations and any other thing, they talk about Kashmir. Therefore, they are preoccupied with Kashmir while, for us, Kashmir is only an issue of foreign policy and it is not even the main issue. I think Pakistan feels some kind of obsessive animosity toward India. India is rapidly progressing in every field, but this is not the case with Pakistan. It would be to the benefit of Pakistan to desist this involuntary animosity and it would be good for its own people too.

This was a road map that was signed by me and Mr. Kharrazi. It encompasses issues of interest for both countries such as cooperation in the field of science and technology, agriculture, infrastructures, trade and investment.

The policies of this or that side is not an issue here; not even the world’s leadership. The world has changed and no country likes to be ruled by another country. Therefore, if you say "I want to be your leader", nobody would listen to you. Leadership at national and international levels is a result of adopting logical positions about various regional or global issues.

In those days, India was one of the first countries to become independent after a period of colonization. We then helped other countries to get rid of colonialism. For example, we opposed apartheid in South Africa. At that time, it was possible for one or several countries to form the frontline of struggle. The time for those struggles is now long past. There is no racial segregation in South Africa. The world today is busier with economic issues than anything else because countries are concerned about the welfare of their people. Our negotiations here are pivoted around the same issues and India would not spare any participation. India’s leadership is being manifested in another field. The country’s importance is that its economy enjoys one of the most rapid growth rates among developing countries. We have progressed extensively with respect to development of human resources. In the field of science and technology we are pioneers in information technology and basic research. It is in these fields that India’s leadership has been recognized by other countries.

The difference between Iran and India is that we developed nuclear arms in 1998. We did not sign NPT, but Iran did. Therefore, it is under obligations. We decided to develop nuclear weapons out of our security concerns and our policy is that India would never use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them. In addition, India will not be the first country to use them.

This charge is usually leveled against us by Pakistan and is, of course, baseless. Our official policy toward Muslims is the same as stipulated by the India’s constitution. Based on our constitution, India’s governing system is secular, but under this democracy everybody is entitled to choose their religions and Islam is no exception.

India is independent in decisions it makes in various fields including foreign policy and those decisions are made based on our national interests. Our ties with Israel can be defined within the same context. I must remind that India’s relations with no country aim to threat a third country.