Chairman
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the press. We are indeed privileged and happy to have with us here today the Rt Hon Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It would be presumptuous on my part to introduce an international leader of the stature of Mrs. Thatcher who is known to you all. She has about 35 minutes with us, so may I request you to make your questions short and to the point: the Prime Minister will make an opening statement, after which the conference will be thrown open to questions. We will follow the customary ground rules. The questioner will identify himself and the journal he or she represents. Ladies and gentlemen, the Prime Minister.
Prime Minister
Mr. Chairman: if I might make one or two opening remarks, may I say how very grateful we have been for the extremely cordial welcome we have had here. I think perhaps the talks we have had with Mrs. Gandhi and her Ministers have been characterised by mutual regard and great understanding. I am grateful to Mrs. Gandhi and her Ministers for the time they have put at our disposal. I have had two very long talks with Mrs. Gandhi and then we had a meeting in fuller session with some of her Ministers. I have also met separately the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Commerce to discuss other matters. In the afternoon a dozen or so members of both Houses came along because they wanted to talk about the Nationality Bill, and I think we managed to allay a number of fears about that. I am also very deeply grateful to Mrs. Gandhi for the amount of time which she really has spent with us and the way in which she has put herself out to be at each and almost every function we have attended. Today we left Delhi for a short time to see life in one of the villages and then went to see some of the cultural exhibition and also the Museum of Mr. Nehru. We now, as you know, are going on to Bombay to do a number of other things. The main purpose was to have talks with the Government, so we have not been able to do a lot other than that. We have enjoyed every moment, are very pleased we came and believe we now have a very much greater shared understanding of both our own and one another's problems and of world problems too. I shall now leave it to you for questions. The Chairman will call you. I am responsible only for the answers, not for the questions.
Chairman
Ladies and gentlemen, the conference is now open to questions.
Singh Azad, National Solidarity Weekly
How will you prevent Pakistan in attacking India? Americans were helpless in 1965 and 1971 the same very arms were used (Chairman: What is the question please?) used against India during these two wars. Will you come to the aid of India if and when Pakistan guns are aimed at us? [end p1]
Prime Minister
I think the question really is directed to whether Pakistan should have sufficient arms to defend herself. Let me answer your question in this way. Each nation has the right to defend her own borders and her own people. For that purpose she will need arms to do so. We defend ourselves in Great Britain; India defends herself—and spends quite a considerable amount upon armaments—and of course takes the same view that I have just annunciated, that she has a right and duty to defend her borders and her people. The same must also apply to Pakistan, particularly when she is on the frontier of Afghanistan, which is at the present an occupied country. Now we don't supply very many arms to Pakistan. I know that she expects or hopes to receive arms from the United States and I must say that I do respect a country's right to defend herself, and would not oppose supplying arms for that purpose.
Peter Niesewand, The Guardian
Prime Minister, can you say if your visit here is going to have any impact on improving relations on the sub-continent, particularly between India and Pakistan, and whether it is your intention later in the year to pay an official visit to General Zia?
Prime Minister
Whether my visit has had any impact on improving relations between India and Pakistan, or will have? I would not think that it would make a great deal of difference, although Lord Carrington had just been to Pakistan and General Zia had sent a message asking if I would make it clear that Pakistan wishes to pursue friendship with India, and of course I delivered that message and I hope myself the relationships between the two countries will steadily improve.
Peter Niesewand
Will you visit Pakistan?
Prime Minister
Well, I just don't know beyond the trips that I have announced. Sometime I will go to Pakistan, but so far the tours that I have announced I am doing—two other States in the Gulf on the way to Melbourne for the Commonwealth Conference in October, and will also go to Mexico for the Third World Conference: I don't know whether we will have time to get in any more. Incidentally, between Melbourne and the conference in Mexico is my party conference, so that does not leave me very much time to make many visits on the way back.
Ranjan Gupta, NBC News and Sydney Morning Herald
Will you be conveying to the American President India's concerns about arming and providing sophisticated armaments, sophisticated, to Pakistan?
Prime Minister
It would be customary to let other friendly nations know the gist of one's conversations. Of course, one will mention India's concern about Pakistan among other things that one will convey. I should equally make it clear that I have conveyed the message from President Zia to India. [end p2]
Hari Pratab Singh
My concern is the same as that of Mr. Azad. I am afraid you didn't reply to the question that he asked. (Chairman: What is your question?) … will come to help India if Pakistan guns are aimed at India?
Prime Minister
I do not think you can expect me to answer a wholly hypothetical question like that. Do you not think that it would be better to try to work for mutual friendship between Pakistan and India? Would it not be better for the peoples of both India and Pakistan if one directed all one's efforts to that end? That I believe is a much more constructive way and the more helpful way for the peoples of both countries.
Peter Niesewand, The Guardian
You carried a message from General Zia to Mrs. Gandhi. Are you going to be carrying one from Mrs. Gandhi back to General Zia?
Prime Minister
No, it was just a general message that General Zia had asked me—that General Zia had asked Lord Carrington to ask me, knowing I was coming to India, to say that he wished to have friendship with India, and it is a general message one is very glad to carry. [Will you be carrying one back?]
Prime Minister
I'm not seeing General Zia, I'm not in a position to carry one back.
Mr. Chakravarti, Aj-Kal (Calcutta newspaper)
Madam Prime Minister, are you in a position to say anything on Afghanistan in the light of your discussions with Mrs. Gandhi?
Prime Minister
Nothing further than what I said in my speech to Parliament last night. You know the view that we take. Afghanistan is an occupied country; we condemn that occupation; and we shall continue to work for the Soviet troops to leave, hoping then that Afghanistan can become once again a non-aligned country, if that is her wish. And we do not regard the present state of affairs as normal in any way, and we must never accept the presence of troops in Afghanistan under those circumstances as normal.
L P S Srivastava, Navbharat Times
Madam Prime Minister, do you have any indications that Pakistan is trying to manufacture a bomb or develop anything like that?
Prime Minister
I have no indications one way or another about that.
Moncrieff, Press Association
Does the Prime Minister think that Asian people are justified in feeling their confidence badly shaken by the British Nationality Bill, as Mrs. Gandhi yesterday said they were? [end p3]
Prime Minister
I have tried in fact to lay fears at rest, as you saw in the speech which I made to Parliament last night. I went into the provisions and the amendments of the Bill in some detail and I think, insofar as they have been worried about it, they have misunderstood some of the Bill and not taken into account some of the amendments. And that's why I spent a good deal of time on it last night, and also to the twelve members of Parliament who came to see me.
J D Singh, Times of India
One of the basic concepts of nationality or citizenship is that a person has the freedom to live in the country of which he is a citizen. Now, your Nationality Bill creates three types of citizens and those belonging to two categories, that is, the citizens in Dependent Territories, like Hong Kong and those British Passport Holders who are in East Africa and Malaysia and elsewhere, do not have this right of abode in Britain. What do you have to say to that?
Prime Minister
First, that each and every country has the right to determine who shall receive her own citizenship. Each and every country. India has the right to determine who shall have Indian citizenship and who shall have the right of abode in India. Every country has that. Indeed, every country had exercised that right to a very much greater extent than Britain in the past. Because of our history we have not exercised it strictly in any way at all, and of course if every single person who had carried British citizenship of either Britain or the colonies had, in fact, come to Britain, we simply could not have taken them. As you know, we have taken a large number of immigrants in the last years, the last number of years, indeed we have some half million British citizens who at one time or another came from India. Now we felt the time had come to clarify the position and so we have laid down conditions for British citizenship. They are not conditions defined according to race or religion. They are conditions defined according to belonging or close or continuing associations with the country. You'll find that those conditions are a good deal less stringent than they are in some other countries. But may I make it clear—we are now taking the privilege which most other countries have taken for themselves. The new nationality of British citizenship will carry with it the right of abode in the United Kingdom which is one reason that we are making these changes. And of course, most of those whom I have mentioned, the half million Indians, already carry British citizenship. It doesn't affect their rights at all. It does not affect the existing rights of United Kingdom Passport Holders to come to Britain. It doesn't change that particular aspect at all.
H K Dua, Indian Express
Your Government has already promised to make four amendments to the Nationality Bill. After talks with Mrs. Gandhi in which she expressed concern at some of the provisions of the Bill, is your Government ready to make some more amendments to make it acceptable to the Asian community? [end p4]
Prime Minister
No. I think that some of the comments that have been made to me while I have been here have not taken into account the four amendments. Some of the comments, you see, seem to think that those people who once lived in India who have become British citizens—some of the comments seem to think that those British citizens will be affected by the Bill. They will not in any way. And I have just tried to set out the four amendments and what the Bill does, as I did in my speech to the Parliament last night. And I think if you read that carefully you'll find that it allays most people's fears.
Suzanne Green, UPI
Madam Prime Minister, did you and Mrs. Gandhi discuss the danger of a nuclear arms race in the sub-continent?
Prime Minister
In the sub-continent? No. There is, of course, always a danger that if there were a third world war it would be a nuclear war, and that is why I think both the West and the East are determined to do every single thing we can to prevent any world war again. Weakness doesn't give you protection, strength does. There is a balance between East and West at the moment and we believe that that has held the peace. What we'd all like to do is to strike that balance at a much lower level so that none of us has to spend as much on armaments. And that is why in the West we have always offered to negotiate and hope that we can succeed in getting defence agreements that can be monitored and which are verified. That's absolutely vital if you are seeking a balance. If you are seeking both to protect yourselves, to deter the other by view of a balance of armaments, that balance must be capable of being monitored correctly and verified, otherwise there is no confidence.
C S Pandit, Amrita Bazar Patrika
Madam Prime Minister, you have talked of withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan as a precondition for normalisation of relations. But don't you think similar withdrawal should take place from other areas which are not part of people who occupied it, like Diego Garcia or El Salvador? They should be regularly returned all over the world.
Prime Minister
Diego Garcia, as you know, at the moment is British territory and we have an agreement with the United States about its use. We also have an agreement with Mauritius. But that is all the result of agreement. I am not aware of foreign troops in El Salvador. With regard to Israel, some people sometimes say that the West Bank of course is occupied. There is United Nations Resolution 242. We are all seeking ways of implementing that. There is no parallel—strict parallel—to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Gene Kramer, Associated Press, New York
Madam Prime Minister, do you see any realistic way for ending the occupation of Afghanistan, as you call it, and leaving behind a Government in Kabul that would be acceptable to both the Afghan people and to their Soviet neighbours on the north? [end p5]
Prime Minister
Your question implies that you think the right—you think the Soviet Union has a right to determine the government of Afghanistan. I would not accept that. Nor, I think, would the Non-Aligned Conference. Each nation is sovereign, each people has a right to determine its own government. And I would not accept the premise beneath your question for one moment.
C B Patel, New Life and Gujarat Samachar in London
Madam Prime Minister, is there any country in the world with category like the British Overseas Citizenship? Is it not a way to liquidate the existing rights, and also would you agree with those who claim this Bill is a technique like paper genocide?
Prime Minister
Certainly not on the last thing. Most countries have set out the conditions for citizenship of their own country. Those conditions tend to be much more stringent than we are laying down for British citizenship. Much more stringent. So we in fact are already rather behind other countries in laying down conditions of British citizenship which carries with it the right of abode. Of course, most other countries don't have a kind of overseas citizenship—they have a very different history from ours. But India will have a nationality law. Other countries on the Asian continent will have a nationality law. African countries will have a nationality law. European countries will have a nationality law. We have been rather behind in having a nationality law that carries with it right of abode in Britain and we are now having to do that and of course we are creating another category—British Overseas Citizens. And if they came and resided in Britain for a period of, say, five years, they would apply in the usual way to be naturalised British Citizens and they could of course also apply for that. But I think before people criticise us too much about having a Nationality Bill, they should look to see what other countries in the world also define nationality, and the way in which they define them. Because I am seeking similar rights for Britain as other countries already exercise for themselves.
Reddy, Economic Times
I have two separate questions. First, do you advocate military intervention in Afghanistan? Secondly, in your talks there was no mention about any multinational initiative for the problems of payments and poverty in developing countries. What do you suggest on that?
Prime Minister
I am not recommending military intervention in Afghanistan. We are trying to do everything we can through diplomatic channels, by bringing public opinion to bear, by bringing the opinion of the Non-Aligned Conference, by the opinion of the Commonwealth, by the opinion of the United Nations—opinion to bear on the Soviet Union to withdraw her troops. And we shall continue that way. What was the second part of the question? [end p6]
Reddy
This is about the problem of payments and poverty of the developing countries. What is the multinational initiative on this?
Prime Minister
We shall, from Britain, hope to go to the Conference in Mexico, which is now fixed I think for October 22, and we shall be one of the nations who hope to be attending that, when the whole thing will be discussed. And I think I might just use the chance to point out that Britain is a very considerable aid donor to India: £140 million last year—the highest ever. Not only do we give more to India than any other country, but we are India's biggest donor as well—so I think it's a bit hard to criticise us in that regard.
S Venkat Narayan, New Delhi Magazine
Madam Prime Minister; the Prime Minister of Mauritius has been demanding the return of the Diego Garcia island. Are you going to return it? What is the latest?
Prime Minister
There is no latest. There are the agreements which were made that if Diego Garcia is no longer needed for defence, then it should be returned to Mauritius. But if you go back and look at the agreements there is a perfectly good understanding and compensation for certain matters paid so we could have it for defence purposes, and when the need for that finishes, as one hopes that one day it will, then it's returned to Mauritius; and the conditions are set out in the agreements.
Dilip Ganguly, Agence France Press (AFP)
Yesterday, you spoke in Parliament about some proposals to solve the Afghan crisis, but you did not give any details. That is the first question. And the second is, which way you differed with Madame Gandhi on perceiving the Afghan situation and finding a solution?
Prime Minister
There is not a great deal that I can add to the Afghan situation. We put up an initiative some time ago which was not taken up, that Afghanistan should have neutral status and that that neutral status should be guaranteed by a number of other countries. That suggestion made by Lord Carrington was not taken up in any way, and there have been several other initiative proposed. We are always ready to cooperate in any initiative ourselves, should one be taken up. Until it is, and until we have arrangements for the Soviet troops to withdraw from Afghanistan, we shall never regard the situation as normal. We shall never accept the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and we shall look at every activity of the Soviet Union accordingly. Because once you accept that the Soviet Union has marched into and occupied an independent nation, no other independent nation is safe.
Ganguly
Which way you differed with Mrs. Gandhi on perceiving the Afghan situation and finding a solution? [end p7]
Prime Minister
But I think the Non-Aligned Conference was really forthright and took the same view of Afghanistan. It would be very difficult for a non-aligned nation to accept the occupation of another non-aligned nation. And indeed, the non-aligned countries have been very forthright, both in the United Nations and in their own Conference, in condemning the occupation and they have continued to condemn it.
Mr. Katyal, Hindu
India and Britain are known to have different perceptions in regard to the introduction of arms in the Gulf region and the Indian Ocean. Could we say that as a result of your discussion with Mrs. Gandhi there has been some narrowing down of your differences?
Prime Minister
There are of course a large number of Soviet ships in the Indian Ocean. There are. That is a fact. One cannot possibly ignore it. It is also a fact that that is the most important world trading channel as far as oil is concerned, and we must ensure, each of us, that navigation through the Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz, is maintained. It would be very nice if you could have freedom of navigation absolutely guaranteed without any naval ships of any nation there at all. But I am afraid that is not what the world is like. It is a very very sensitive area and of course with hostilities between Iran and Iraq it is even more sensitive at the moment. There are substantial numbers of Soviet ships. There are some of ours too, ours and France and the United States; and I do not see any major changes there at the moment.
Mark Tully, BBC
Madam Prime Minister; Mrs. Gandhi yesterday indicated to us that you may be going to reconsider or take another look at certain immigration procedures and perhaps policies and also perhaps at the speed with which the quota system was operating, after your talks with her.
Prime Minister
No. We have put up the four amendments to the Nationality Bill. Immigration? I pointed out that at the moment we have two-and-a-half million unemployed in Great Britain; that Great Britain at the moment is more densely populated than India and that those two things would not seem the reason for increasing the number of people coming in at the moment. Indeed, as you know we were pledged at the election to reduce the numbers of people who were steadily coming into Britain because we simply could not go on taking them at the rate at which we had been taking them, and I was very particularly anxious that we should do everything to keep racial harmony in Britain and had we gone on having immigration at the rate we had previously had it, I believe that harmony would have been endangered. It is of course a matter of great sorrow that we had those terrible riots in Brixton just a few days before I came. [end p8]
G N Reddy, Hindu
Prime Minister, you stated a minute ago that to ensure peace on the sub-continent it was necessary to maintain a balance of strength. Would you say that the balance at the moment is tilted against Pakistan?
Prime Minister
No. I'm not talking about the sub-continent. You are more expert on the sub-continent than I am. I was talking about the balance between East and West and all my remarks were directed to that.
Financial Express: Mr. Genge
Madam Prime Minister, during your talks with Mrs. Gandhi did she mention that she wants to back out of the Jaguar deal. If so, on what grounds, and are you going to do that?
Prime Minister
No, I have scarcely mentioned the Jaguar deal, certainly not with Mrs. Gandhi. I don't think it has come up. The Jaguar deal is there, enshrined in a contract. It would need notice to terminate that contract. I have received no such notice.
Mr. Sahal, Maharashtra
Madam Prime Minister; are you aware of the efforts being made by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Mr. Antulay, to get back the Bhawani Sword from your country? Secondly, I want to know whether there have been any letters from our Government to your Government about this particular thing, about this sword? And thirdly … . (Chairman: No, two questions are good enough).
Prime Minister
It is not for me to give away other people's property.
Spanish News Agency (BFT)
Madam Prime Minister, do you think there are prospects of Great Britain returning Gibraltar to Spain?
Prime Minister
I have not discussed that matter since I have been in India. The answer is no. The people of Gibraltar must be allowed to determine their own future. I hope you would not disagree with the right of a country to determine its own future.
Hindustan Samachar
Madam Prime Minister; your emphasis on this right of Britain to define citizenship, forgetting that you are a senior member of the Commonwealth. May I have understanding from you, now what is left in the Commonwealth when even the casual traveller feels humiliated when he reaches London? So is it not the time to wind it up?
Prime Minister
I think you will find most countries in the Commonwealth have rather stricter laws on citizenship of their own countries than Britain does of hers. Last year into Heathrow we had 190,000 visits from Indian citizens. A hundred and ninety thousand. We had problems with very very few. Indeed, out of every thousand on average permission was only withheld to enter from six per thousand. Now of course there is [end p9] occasionally a case which catches the headlines. That is a very very minute proportion of the people who regularly travel between Britain and India every year. 190,000 last year. Trouble and problems only with 0.65 of one percent. That's not bad, is it?
Nagpur
Will you kindly tell us, after your discussion, what are the areas of agreement with Indian leaders.
Prime Minister
We all want peace. We all want stability. We all want a level of armaments a good deal less than that now. We all are going to a conference on the third world, we hope, in Mexico. What kind of things are you seeking?
Hazarika, AP
You have spoken repeatedly, as well as the leaders of the United States, of a Rapid Deployment Force in the Gulf area to protect the interests of the Gulf States. But the leaders of those nations have themselves said that it is only the responsibility of the Gulf nations to defend their interests.
Prime Minister
Yes. A Rapid Deployment Force is not necessarily only for the Gulf. May I make it quite clear that a Rapid Deployment Force would not be deployed except at the request of nations. The point is, one never knows where hostilities are going to break out in the world. If you have a group which can be sent quickly to any area at the request of that area, you can help them if they wish. If you haven't got it, you can't. It would seem reasonable contingency planning to have such a Rapid Deployment Force, and if the United States goes ahead and creates one, we would wish to make a small contribution to it. No suggestion of stationing it in the Gulf has ever been mentioned, nor would it be used unless at the request of nations who wish to have it.
Mr. Gangulay, AFP
May I follow up on that question, please? Would you agree with the people in Washington that President Zia should be built up as the free world's policeman in this part of the world, including the Gulf?
Prime Minister
I have not, in fact, ever had any such intimation from Washington of any kind. I am sorry—I have to watch these false premises, which is the preamble to questions. I think we are possibly all concerned, and I would be concerned, if I had Soviet troops near my frontier and they had recently occupied the country just beyond that frontier. I would wish to have the means to defend myself and my people. India, of course, has the means to defend herself and her people, has increased her equipment and armaments enormously, much more so than some other countries, because she does, in fact, give priority to being able to defend herself. One cannot ask for a right to defend oneself and deny that right to other sovereign nations. What we ask for ourselves we must be able to accord to other people. [end p10]
Chairman
I want to take this opportunity of thanking the Prime Minister of Britain for having found the time to be with us, and thank you ladies and gentlemen of the press.