'We Have A Right To Test'

India has always taken a moralistic stand on N-disarmament. Why are we talking national security now?

I don't think we've ever taken any stand which didn't have the input of national security. It so happens that our national security and our moral posture coincided. Even today every country would be safe, including us, if there were no N-arms around. That's our general approach, and we continue to have it. In Geneva, we said that the treaty being drafted doesn't rid the world of N-arms. So when we say we are talking security, it's not something new. Every country has to give priority to its own security interests.

We never said it in so many words...

I don't think so. Till now we'd been faced with one reality, that was cold war. Therefore, the articulation and the phraseology was different, our rhetoric was different. This conference is in a way a continuation of the NPT. Our policy regarding the NPT and this is consistent. We did not sign the NPT, we're not signing this. There is a clear linkage between our policy on the two.

In March, Salman Haider had said N-arms are not essential for our security. Isn't this contradictory?

When he said N-arms are not necessary for the world, he meant for everybody. He didn't mean everybody can have N-arms and India can feel secure. His statement has not been correctly understood.

What use is it to have an open nuclear option if we don't exercise it?

I've never said we won't exercise it. The question invariably asked is: when? Now the 'when' is correlated with our assessment of threat. Whether it's a nuclear weapon or not, the weaponry is selected on the basis of threat perception. When we say our options are open, it means we'll act as we see our threat perception.

It's thought if India conducts tests, the West will come down hard on us.

I'm not saying the world will come down hard on us or not, nor am I saying we should test or not. What I'm saying is, if at any stage our security planners come to the conclusion, which they have not now, that a test is called for, then whatever the world might say, we have to do it. Security decisions are not taken on the basis of referendum or popularity.

There's no transparency in our security policy.

Security policies are never transparent anywhere in the world. Do we know the security policy of all our neighbours? Do we know the weaponry they have?

India won't suffer if the Indian public is aware.

I'm all for open debate, but that doesn't mean you tell everyone: "I've got a knife in my pocket to defend myself".

Do we expect sanctions?

The issue is not sanctions. The point is, we've made it very clear that we're unable to sign the treaty as it is now drafted. We're meeting after a month, let's see if there's any change...if so, we'll act accordingly.