Excerpts of Questions and Answers From Times’ Interviews

Following are excerpts from The Times’ interviews with Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi:

Times:Americans in and out of government are hoping that relations between our two countries will be more friendly under your administration than they have been previously.

Gandhi:So do we. I think it very much depends on U.S. policy. We have an open mind, but there have always been problems with the arming of Pakistan. We see these weapons as ultimately being used against us. This worries us. This is the biggest problem we have with the United States in our region.

Q:So Pakistan is the main problem you feel the United States does not understand about India?

A:Maybe they do understand but have decided that Pakistan is part of a larger global strategy for them. We, of course, find that strategy unwarranted. We want to live in peace with all of our neighbors. We can’t afford to spend too much on weapons. So far, we have kept our spending to a little more than 3% of our gross national product. This is much lower than most other countries. We feel that we are very balanced (in foreign relations) and that we have not taken sides in the world. We try to judge each case on its own merit.

Q:Do you feel that the United States is generally less responsive than the Soviet Union?

A:I think the U.S. is much more touchy--more sensitive--about disarmament. But I think it is the (Reagan) Administration more than it is the people.

Q:What is your position on the presence of more than 100,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan?

A:We believe in two themes: noninterference and nonintervention. What that really means is that we want both sides to lay off, to put it bluntly. Once this thing has built up it requires some coordination to unwind.

Q:What about recent news reports that the Central Intelligence Agency is spending more than $200 million to supply Afghan rebels based in Pakistan?

A:This is the highest they have spent anywhere since Vietnam. That is worrying us, as well as the weapons in Pakistan. And really, it gives a reason for the Soviet troops to be there.

Q:Does this mean you favor the Soviet position?

A:We don’t like any intervention by any country in any other country. And that goes equally for both major powers, and for smaller powers.

Q:I’m sure the Sri Lankan government is glad to hear that. (Some officials of that island nation off India’s southern coast have expressed fear that their larger neighbor might intervene or even invade, as conflicts between the army and Tamil separatists have escalated).

A:I made it very clear to press reporters the other day that there is no question of India’s intervening in Sri Lanka. But I don’t think they (Sri Lankan officials) are fully in control of their armed forces. We’re getting terrible reports about the army in our newspapers. That makes it difficult for us. I told Lalith Athulathmudali (Sri Lanka’s minister of national security, who met with Gandhi two weeks ago), “As long as there is a feeling in India that you are committing atrocities on the civilian Tamils--not the terrorists, but the non-terrorists--it is very difficult for us to help you.”

Q:New Zealand recently refused port calls to U.S. ships that it felt might be carrying nuclear weapons, and Greece has lately said it doesn’t want U.S. planes on its territory. What do you think of these moves?

A:I think they are good. The dangers are so great, with faster and more accurate missiles in these times. It is now down to a matter of seconds. The New Zealand decision will have some impact. More countries should take a stand against both blocs--not targeting only one or even the two superpowers. Great Britain, France and China have the weapons. What is getting more and more dangerous now is this talk of a limited or controlled nuclear war. This is a highly dangerous concept because I don’t think that any such war, once started, can be controlled.

Q:India built a nuclear bomb, then in 1974 abruptly halted the program. Is there anything--for example, development of a bomb in Pakistan--that would make India re-enter the nuclear arms race?

A:It is very difficult to foresee every situation, but at the moment I don’t see a situation arising where we would start up again making the bomb. Just the fact that Pakistan made a bomb would not make us change our policies. We don’t want to become the same as the others. That would only make the situation worse, not better. It would make us no different than the others who are making a bomb, whom we are trying to talk out of making a bomb. We have been a very good example to the world. Firstly, because we can make a nuclear bomb, and have not done so; secondly, because we will not be drawn into a race.

Q:What about population growth, possibly your biggest internal problem?

A:Our program is much bigger than it has ever been before. We are concentrating on it. It really is a make-or-break thing with India. If family planning doesn’t work, then nothing else will work. One thing we need is a comprehensive program. There is no one method which can be satisfactory for everyone. One of the key issues is education--more specifically, women’s education. By that I mean not education about family planning, but just education, normal education.

Q:In the past, family planning has been a political hot potato. (The program administered by the late Sanjay Gandhi, the prime minister’s brother, for their mother, the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was a key factor in her defeat at the polls in 1977. It was unpopular because, in some areas, sterilization was forced on women). On this campaign trip, however, you have been able to joke about it.

A:There is no tension on this issue at this moment. One method (of sterilization) that is becoming extraordinarily popular is laparoscopy (a viewing process to detect abnormalities in the abdomen before surgery). Women are really going for it in a big way. They have camps set up in villages and schools, where the doctors go with their laparoscopes and equipment. And the women just wait and won’t go away. I’ve had doctors tell me they’ve had about 900 operations in one day. The women have even made up songs about it that they sing in their camps.

Q:You’ve begun a dramatic anti-corruption campaign. How is it going?

A:We’ve got our fingers crossed. We’ve really taken on the whole test at one blow. We could have tried it piecemeal, but we probably never would have made it. The system over the years has slowly deteriorated, and the corruption sort of inched itself in at all levels--everywhere. We’ve got to change the mental attitude of the people about government.

Q:Are there any lessons or bits of advice from your mother that guide you now, as prime minister?

A:She never taught me anything like that. I think it’s (political acumen), more what you sort of imbibe without getting dos and don’ts.

Q:It is well-known that you didn’t want to be a politician. What keeps you going now?

A:The challenge, and the hopes of the people. I just get the feeling that the people put everything they’ve got on me. Now I can’t let them down. They gave us (the Congress-I Party) almost 80% of the seats (in Parliament).

Q:One of your aides said he worries about meeting the people’s rising expectations. What about that?

A:This is always a worry. I think one thing they are expecting is a cleanup of government. This we can do. There is also always a very high expectation on the development side. That may be harder to do. But we are very confident that India has it in her to accept the challenge and rise to the occasion.