'India and the US are strong enough to withstand a negative outcome'

Your fellow Democrat from Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives that the India-US nuclear accord has 'grave security implications for South Asia and the world.' Congressman Markey's argument, which is shared by many in the non proliferation camp, is that you cannot have dual nuclear policies, where India can and Iran can't.

He is right in a sense. I disagree with him with respect to some of the applications of this agreement. I don't disagree with him on the broad principle that he's articulating -- which is exactly what has to be addressed in this question of the future and where we are headed with respect to more nuclear weapons.

Iran is in a different state however. Iran did sign the NPT, is a signatory and is breaking its international agreements, breaking the law. That is a different standard. India stayed out (of the NPT), didn't break those standards, but has lived by them all of these years.

If you were to ask anybody in the world who you trust -- the answer is going to be India, not Iran. I think that affects how you approach it.

Does this mean the NPT needs to be redefined where the world is classified into 'reliable' nuclear powers (India, Israel, South Africa) and 'unreliable' nuclear powers (Iran, North Korea)?

That is not what I am talking about. There are certain realties we understand which have not yet been acknowledged by the global community. We are living a fiction. The fiction is there are only five nuclear States in the world. Everybody knows it is a fiction. I don't think we strengthen ourselves by setting up agreements that are based on fiction.

There is an inherent fiction in saying you are going to have a duality of programme and not acknowledge the reality.

What I am trying to do is figure out how we deal more effectively with these new realities. And we need to look at how we are going to proceed forward here in a way that enforces the fundamental principle of the NPT -- which is: the world is better off with fewer nuclear weapons and fewer States possessing them. That is the fundamental principle.

Now what happened years and years ago is a reality we have to deal with today. That should not change how we feel about States that are not nuclear today and trying to be. If we strengthen the fundamental direction of this effort then we are in a better position to be able to stop every other State -- whoever they may be -- from becoming nuclear at this point.

Do you believe the failure to ratify the agreement in Congress will affect the India-US relationship?

With the expectations raised and with the stakes being what they are it would be better for the relationship to have it ratified. But I think India and the United States are strong enough as democracies, as partners in many other endeavours to withstand a negative outcome.

But you should not look at it that way. Obviously the answer would be better if it is (the agreement) is ratified by Congress but the framework has to be in the framework that I described, where it is not perceived as setting back the entire non-proliferation regime.

Also Read: 'Even if nuclear deal is deferred, US-India relations will flourish'
'India should choose Iran, not US'