‘India is engaged in true reforms, maybe slow and uneven but it’s the real thing’

A career banker at the top level — he has a PhD from Oxford University and was Chairman International of Credit Suisse First Boston for a decade before he came to India — Mulford says India is undergoing a period of “major historical changes” as it reforms its economy in the “true” way and effects social change.

Known for speaking on a range of issues and speaking straight, Mulford sat over lunch with Express journalists and encouraged, invited — and indeed forthrightly answered — an array of questions. Sampled here is a mix from that exchange:

DAVID MULFORD: I would start by making three brief points and then take your questions. The first is: When I came here nearly three years ago, I immediately began to characterise the India-US relationship as a comprehensive relationship and those words have turned out in time as increasingly the case. By comprehensive relationship, I meant to distinguish between the bilateral government-to-government relationship that is the focus of so many people. The focus has been for so many years between the United States and the up and down relationship on one hand and the full relationship on the other, the vast inter change and engagement of our private societies, our business economies, our technical people, our citizens in general. A sort of people-to-people movement, which represents a huge historic engagement in my view, which increasingly will characterise our relationship in our coming years.

The cornerstone of that process over the past 18 months has been the civil nuclear agreement but that is not everything that indeed is the most important part of the relationship. Now, a major initiative by the President of the United States and which required a change in the U.S. law to the atomic energy act which has not been changed for over 35 years and that process has culminated few days ago in the U.S. Senate. This was achieved a few days after one of the most divisive elections in recent American history where Democrats and Republicans had not been able to agree on anything for months. They are deeply divided by social and cultural issues, by Iraq but India enjoys bi-partisan support. This is a very important statement by America. It is a part of our critical security arrangements in the world and there was a need to change the law to make an exception to bring India into the system to strengthen non-proliferation system. You can include virtually every corner of the United States was reflected in this decision, a truly national decision not just one government in power making a decision.

Now, to my final point. What are we doing in the mission today? The answer to that is we are already looking beyond civil nuclear decision. Reflecting back at the comprehensive relationship, what does the future hold for our two countries? What should we be working on beyond this major event? There are many issues of all kinds because the engagement between US and India is a comprehensive of sorts, across the board it covers every aspect of human activity and policy that exists.

We have 17 agencies that represented in the mission covering a wide range of issues. There is an opportunity for both the countries, two true democratic anchors in the world system to build a partnership that will sustain us through the 21st century. You can list some of the things that represent the future. We are cooperating and developing relations in space, defence and education. We have an extensive economic relationship, open trade more open for direct investments also in health. We are fighting diseases like polio on one hand and trying to provide better medical services on the other. The list is long. It extends to protection of intellectual property, IT, the advancement in bio-technology, life sciences, telecom. So we are working on these issues.

Before you ask your questions, I’m here to represent the interests of the United States and to reflect to the U.S-India ties and it just turns out that many of the issues that I have mentioned are chiefly of interest and benefit to India but they also happen to be of benefit and interest to the US.

SHEKHAR GUPTA: Did you anticipate problems would be faced in Congress or were you expecting a smooth process on the nuclear deal?

I anticipated considerable problems from the US side with the non-proliferation community. I knew it would be difficult to win them over to the idea by accepting India’s nuclear weapons as a de facto reality. Bringing India into the system in a way that strengthens the system would be intellectually difficult for them to accept because they are the sort of people who have spent their whole professional life designing and implementing the present non-proliferation regime. I must say I was a bit surprised by the restrained questioning by the scientific community here.

Looking at the rationale, namely India’s record, the fact that it is a democracy, that it is a country that needs alternative energy source and it fills the criteria. Most Americans felt it was the right thing to do and we have accomplished that end very well.

SHEKHAR GUPTA: Can you tell us how the conference process was? Some said it was behind closed doors, no one knows what went on there?

The conferees are chosen by the leadership of the Senate and the House and they make a select selection of the participants. The conference functions behind closed doors without staff and without administrative officials present. They can be outside and pass a note in, they can be called in to answer a question but they are not a party to the process.

RITU SARIN: As the representative of the US, how would you define President Bush’s idea of global peace, and equality of different religions and communities?

President Bush is deeply committed to secularism, a country that believes in democracy and personal, religious freedom as well as freedom of the press. The US provides as a growing economy for many years as an engine of growth for the world. That is one of the great benefits US exports everyday to the world, that is, buying the world’s goods, conducting business with the world and contributing to world growth. President Bush believes in greater freedom in representational government that includes the participation of the people, which will advance the effort against global terrorism and war. I think that really summarises President Bush’s vision.

C. RAJA MOHAN: Both the US and the Indian military, especially the Navy, agree on engaging China but could you tell us from the diplomatic side what the engagement actually is?

The US regards itself as having a freestanding bilateral relationship with India that has its own vision of the future and that is India’s vision to develop into a word power. The US is favourable to that vision and the President wants to help India achieve that. The US sees India and China as two great nations in this region — both emerging world powers. We see them as competitors economically but we don’t see them as military competitors, certainly not at this time. The idea that the motivation between US-India relationship is to somehow contain or offset China is not true.

SEEMA CHISHTI: How do you look at the India-China relations?

The US is favourable to India’s growing relations with its neighbouring countries, including China. So, if India-China trade builds up and cross-border trade expands, we view it positively.

SEEMA CHISHTI: After 9/11 and intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, has it been difficult for a US ambassador to defend the country’s foreign policy?

I don’t find it difficult. There are times when people ask me at point-blank range when you have to take a breath and give them the explanation that seems to be required. In India, I find it exciting work and I find the Indian public largely receptive and friendly and wishing to engage.

SHIV AROOR: Will the change in the control of the Congress and Senate influence Bush’s foreign policy and his worldview?

I think the President will maintain his worldview. He will find governance difficult in some respect and he has shown in the past that only as the President but also as the Governor of Texas, a remarkable ability to adapt to opposition and often to turn that opposition into an advantage. So you must have already noticed a rapid change in the defence department and immediate hand of friendship extended to opponents. He listens to them but that doesn’t mean he will change his world vision. He is a man who doesn’t govern on the basis of political polls but on his belief. How much will he be able to accomplish is open to question but it is not wise to write him off and say the last two sessions he will be a lame duck. I wouldn’t bet on that at all.

JAYANTH JACOB: The political arrangement in Iraq is strengthening the course of Shia revivalism. Does that worry US?

The government of Iraq is a legitimate one, which has been elected by the people under a constitution which was framed by the people. We only work with it and hope that this brings the country together. We hope it stabilises the country and improves the security of the citizens and maintain the coherent of Iraq.

TOUFIQ RASHID: Do you see collaboration in education at the primary schools level?

I feel there is an imbalance in US and India in the field of education. I say that because we have 80,000 Indian students and India has 1,700 US students. So by any measure, there is something wrong or unusual about that picture to me. Most natural place for exchange to take is in higher education. For primary schools, its difficult. Our education systems are different. We don’t have a central government control over educational institutes in America.

There are a lot of universities interested in coming to India. Universities are interested not just in taking Indian students but also in student exchange programme. But I don’t think this can reach the primary level because systems are too different.

VERGHESE GEORGE: Is it a coincidence that radicalisation of Islam has been in non-democratic countries that have been propped up by the US, like in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan?

The reason toward radicalisation and terrorism is complicated. I do not think there is a simple connection between poverty and extremism. I believe extremism is born out of frustration and the lack of feeling that you have any control over your own destiny. I think openness and democracy can reduce extremism.

RAVISH TIWARI: Who do you think was responsible for the failure of WTO’s Doha round of talks and what extra can US bring to the table when the negotiations restart?

I think everybody is responsible to that and everyone has to bring something to get the negotiations. No single nation is responsible.

ABHAY MISHRA: Whenever President Bush visits a country, it is marked by demonstrations and protest. So is he the most unpopular president in the American history?

No, I don’t think so. As a matter of fact, in India his approval ratings are even higher than in the US. I think demonstrations are held to convey a message, so they don’t really bother me.

SHEKHAR GUPTA: You have been in Delhi for a while. Now when you look back, what was your biggest surprise here, good and bad?

This gives me a chance to tell you why I took this job. I was the chairman of a major international banking firm, perfectly happy in London, doing very exciting large-scale deals all over the world. One of the places I came to visit in the 90’s was India and came here five-six times. My wife came here a couple of times. I had been the Under Secretary of the Treasury for five years so I was responsible for IMF, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, G7 and many other things.

I was experienced in the business of reforms and distinguished between countries that tightened their belt in order to get a few extra dollars from the World Bank versus those who were genuinely reforming their country. So when I got to India I recognised this country engaged in true reforms. It might be slow and uneven but it’s the real thing.

So when the President asked me if I wanted to take this job, my wife and I took one hour to decide that we were going to India because this was a place where major historical events were going to take place.

That is what I have come for and that is what I have found, which is fulfilling.