'Perhaps more could be contained within the agreement that speaks of the need to restrain the growth in nuclear weapons'

What must the Indian government do for the agreement to be ratified by the United States Congress?

The first most important thing is to meet the most rigorous requirements and standards with respect to the separation of civilian and military (nuclear) facilities. That has to be very clearly understood, the methodology, the enforcement, the clarity of it. That has got to be very clear. I don't think it is, yet.

Secondly, I would like to explore ways -- and I am going to speak to Secretary Burns about it -- that perhaps more could be contained within the agreement that speaks of the need to restrain the growth in nuclear weapons. Some people have suggested holding back some fissile material. I don't think that is going to work and I understand why.

India has passed a law internally with respect to IAEA standards and it is possible that that might be incorporated in the agreement so people see more clearly, precisely what kind of standards are going to be lived up to and what India has already done in order to do that. There may be different ways to approach this and we need to look at them.

Your colleague on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator Richard Lugar told our newspaper India Abroad that the Indian plan must be 'credible, it must be transparent, it must be defensible from a non proliferation standpoint.' Would you agree with Senator Lugar in this regard?

Broadly, I agree with that. That is precisely, that is exactly the same kind of approach I am taking to it. I will talk to Senator Lugar when I get back. Maybe we can work together, even help do that in a constructive way. He wants to be constructive. I want to be constructive. I can't tell you until we see what's in the final agreement. I can't pass on the hypothetical.

You haven't seen the Indian plan?

Well, I have seen the plan. You have to see more than a plan. You have to see what's the agreement on the separation of facilities, what is the full measure of transparency, what is the full measure of accountability. These are the things that we need to see.

Has the Indian government not shared that plan with you?

I haven't seen that language. No. And I am not sure that kind of language is there yet, to be honest with you. I think it is being worked up on at this moment. Secretary Burns is coming here in a week or so and he will pursue that. But I am confident that people of goodwill can find a way to do this.

What is important to remember is what I said: While the agreement itself has not been properly held accountable as to China, Pakistan, other countries, the fundamental thrust is to reduce the building of nuclear weapons in the world, and to reduce the number of people who are nuclear and have access to it.

Now this is a big step we are taking with respect to India. It is a fundamental change in the entire post-Cold War and even Cold War articulation of nuclear States. So I think it is important to get it right.

Also Read: 'National interest is at stake'
'The US is perceived as hypocritical'