‘Granting passage… was the right thing to do’ - Interview with M.K. Rasgotra

Transcript of an interview with the Foreign Secretary of the time who processed the safe passage of Warren Anderson, by Karan Thapar, broadcast on CNN-IBN on June 17:

Updated - December 04, 2021 10:52 pm IST

Published - June 18, 2010 05:34 pm IST

New Delhi, June 27, 2007: Former Diplomat and  author of  "The New Asian Power Dynamic",  Maharajakrishna Rasgotra  during  book release function  in New Delhi on June 27, 2007.   Photo By: Rajeev Bhatt

New Delhi, June 27, 2007: Former Diplomat and author of "The New Asian Power Dynamic", Maharajakrishna Rasgotra during book release function in New Delhi on June 27, 2007. Photo By: Rajeev Bhatt

Transcript of an interview with the Foreign Secretary of the time who processed the safe passage of Warren Anderson, by Karan Thapar , broadcast on CNN-IBN on June 17:

In 1984, when Warren Anderson visited India shortly after the Bhopal gas leak, did he request for safe passage?

Yes, indeed, he did, through the United States Embassy here.

Gordon Streeb, the American Deputy Chief of Mission at the time who was Charge d’affaires in Ambassador Barnes’ absence, has gone on record to say that he contacted you with this request. Is that true?

Yes, that’s true. It’s not wrong. Ambassador Harry Barnes was out of station, I think out of India, at that time, and the Charge contacted me. He was entitled to do so.

And what exactly did the Charge say to you?

It is 26 years ago. So, I can’t reproduce the exact words. But he said Anderson wanted to come. There was a tragic situation. He wanted to see things for himself. He wanted to offer his condolences. But he will come only if he is granted safe passage.

And what did you say?

Well, I said I can’t assure you of safe passage. I’ll have to consult the concerned authorities and I’ll get back to you.

And what did you do?

Well, you know, the Ministry of External Affairs cannot grant safe passage. Foreign Secretary doesn’t have those powers. I got in touch with the Home Ministry, I got in touch with the Cabinet Secretary, because those are the people. Safe passage had to be assured in Bhopal itself, not in Delhi. So, they had to get in touch with the authorities there in the State. Foreign Secretary does not normally get in touch with State authorities. I told them what the Charge has asked me for, and I awaited their instructions.

In the end, was safe passage granted?

It was, yes.

How long did the process take?

Not very long. The same day.

The same day?


At the time and in the circumstances that prevailed, was this an understandable request, or was it an unusual request?

Well, I think it was quite understandable request. The man wanted to come, express his condolences, sorrow. I thought it is quite understandable, and if he wanted to come we should let him come.

So, would I be right in concluding that there was no problem that the Government of India had in granting safe passage?

Not really, no.

At the time, Rajiv Gandhi was not just Prime Minister, he was also Foreign Minister, which of course made him in that capacity your immediate boss. Was Rajiv Gandhi consulted or informed?

Rajiv Gandhi was not in Delhi. And I felt that really the Home Ministry was concerned and they will do the needful, which they did.

So, you as Foreign Secretary did not contact Rajiv Gandhi at all yourself.

In those days you didn’t have e-mails; you did not have mobile telephones. I think he was electioneering. I don’t know exactly where he was. He was not in Delhi, he was not immediately available to me.

So, he wasn’t consulted during the process of making the decision. Is that what you’re saying?

Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

Was he informed afterwards that safe passage had been asked for and granted?

Well, not only he would have learnt, he would have been informed afterwards by the PMO.

And did he object to the granting of safe passage or did he concur with that decision?

Obviously he concurred with that decision. But that was after the event.

Quite right. He found out afterwards, but he concurred. He didn’t object; he didn’t raise any objection whatsoever.

No. But as I said, he was not consulted beforehand.

But he was informed afterwards.

Afterwards, yes.

Fully informed.


Now, as it happens, when Warren Anderson reached Bhopal on December 7, he was arrested. Would that arrest, therefore, have been a breach of promise?

Well, I would say yes. He was given safe passage. And then the arrest was wrong. And the authorities, I think, realised that that was a bad thing to do and they released him.

As you said, you contacted the Home Ministry to process the request for safe passage and they in turn had to ensure that safe passage was available in Bhopal. You said it was in Bhopal that it mattered, not Delhi. So, when Arjun Singh arrested Anderson, did this mean Arjun Singh was uninformed and unaware of the safe passage, or was he being defiant?

Did Arjun Singh really arrest him or the administrative authorities or the police arrested him, I can’t say. In Delhi, I think Narasimha Rao was Home Minister. He had been my Foreign Minister. And I was happy, I was content to leave matters with him, with the Home Secretary and others I consulted.

But you are suggesting that the arrest in Bhopal may not have happened either at Arjun Singh’s instructions or even possibly with Arjun Singh’s knowledge. It might have been the administration doing it without the Chief Minister being in the loop?

Possibly. I can’t be definite about it. But it could happen, yes.

Now, after Warren Anderson was arrested, Gordon Streeb says he found out and he immediately got in touch with you again. What did he say?

No, that I don’t recall, that he found out and he came back to me. No.

He said so on television that he came back to you.

After he was arrested?

That’s right. He says that he came back to you or to the Foreign Ministry. And he says that most of his communication with the Foreign Ministry was in fact with you.

Naturally the Head of Mission would be in touch with the Foreign Secretary. That was understandable.

But you don’t recall him coming back to you after Anderson’s arrest.

I don’t precisely recall that, but he may well have done that, in which case I would have gotten back to the Home Ministry; they would have gotten back to the Bhopal administration there.

When Anderson was arrested and thereafter released, was Rajiv Gandhi informed or consulted about the fact that a promise given by the Government of India had been either advertently or inadvertently breached?

That I cannot really comment on because the Prime Minister’s office would have done that. I do not recall being in touch with the then Prime Minister in this case. Prime Minister really was not involved in this.

So, if I understand you correctly, you as Foreign Secretary in the Foreign Ministry were clearly, as you say, involved in arranging and processing the safe passage — the request came to you, you passed it on to the Home Office — but you do not recall whether Gordon Streeb contacted you after Anderson was arrested and you don’t recall whether you had to contact the Home Office at that point.

I don’t precisely recall that, but I may have done that.

You may have done that.

I may have done that.

So, it is quite possible you don’t remember, but you may have had to contact the Home Ministry and say, you’ve arrested the man, you need to release him, this is a mistake.

Yes, indeed.

And you are clear about one thing, that arresting him was a mistake; it was a breach of promise.

It was, yes. The man came on the understanding that he would have safe passage.

Therefore, it also follows that releasing him was the right thing to do.

Of course, it was the right thing to do.

If he hadn’t been released, I take it this would have had repercussions with the American Embassy and possibly with the American State Department as well.

Well, may I go back a little. You see, we were living at that time in a very difficult phase. Indira Gandhi had been assassinated. Before that there was the Temple in Amritsar, Operation Blue Star. There were half a dozen mutinies in India, assassination, Rajiv a new Prime Minister, a looming election. And the unrest in Delhi itself followed by Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Now in these circumstances, if let us say this gentleman Anderson had been arrested and tried in India unilaterally, would the corporates anywhere in the world or the countries who are interested in India’s well-being and progress, would they look at India in those circumstances?

So, what you are saying is that releasing him was the right thing to do and it was clearly in India’s interest.

It was obviously in India’s interest. And I, as India’s Foreign Secretary, when I proffered this request to Home Ministry and others, I had to take into account those circumstances.

Uppermost on your mind at that time when you proffered this request to the Home Ministry was India’s parlous economic state, the uncertainty, the need to maintain good relations with America, and the need to ensure a flow of investment from the West.

The economy was in poor shape; politically there were uncertainties; India needed investments. Would investors, intending investors… If this man, let me say, let me put it crudely, there was [a] law and order problem in Bhopal at the time. If the mob had gotten hold of him, lynched him; or if we had just, having given safe passage assurance, arrested him, kept him in detention for a long time, we would have a running feud with the United States of America. What good would that do to India’s image?

Let’s now come to what happened after Warren Anderson was released by Bhopal, put on a government plane and brought to Delhi. You were Foreign Secretary at that time. Did Warren Anderson meet you?

Yes, he met me. Before leaving for home he met me. He met me I think on the advice of the Charge d’affaires of the U.S.

Gordon Streeb...

Yes, Gordon Streeb. They must have told him that I had been helpful in some way, so he might come over and thank me, which he did.

I want to ask you about that meeting. Did he come on his own or was he accompanied by American Embassy officials?

No, he came on his own.

All on his own?

He came alone, yes.

It was a solo visit?


What did he say to you?

Well, he looked deeply troubled, bedraggled, very sad, sorrowful, remorseful. And he said to me, “I am shattered by what I have seen. Mr. Rasgotra, it will be my endeavour… we can’t undo what has happened, [but] it will be my endeavour to ensure a generous compensation package for those who had suffered.”

Two quick questions. This emotion that he showed, did you believe it was genuine or was it being put on?

Well, no, it couldn’t be put on, you see. You can see from a man’s face. He was deeply disturbed.

He was genuinely, deeply disturbed?


He was genuinely remorseful?

I think so.

The second question. He committed himself to the fullest compensation for the people of Bhopal?

Fullest, I don’t know. But he said he would work for a generous compensation.

Did he accept in that conversation the responsibility of Union Carbide for what had happened?

Well, naturally when he said, “I will try and work out a very generous package,” he accepted responsibility.

He accepted responsibility?


You have no doubt about that?

It is implied that he accepted responsibility.

Anderson at that time was out on bail. Did he in that conversation with you make any commitment to return if he was required by the investigators or the court?

No, he didn’t, and in fact, to be frank with you, I didn’t know that he was on bail.

You had no idea.

I had no idea. I said the man had been granted safe passage and there was some mishap in Bhopal, but he was then let off, put on a plane and sent to Delhi.

This is a very important thing. You were Foreign Secretary, you helped process the request for safe passage, you were aware that he had been arrested, but you weren’t aware he had been released on bail?

No, I wasn’t.

So, you thought that he had simply been released and the arrest in some sense had been reversed?

That’s right.

You didn’t check with him or with anyone else how he had been released?

No, I saw him as a matter of courtesy. I didn’t have to see him.

How long was he with you?

Maybe 20 minutes, 25 minutes, something like that. It is a brief meeting.

Was this meeting at your office in South Block?

Office, yes.

At the Foreign Secretary’s office?

Office, yes.

So, it is possible that the footage that we are seeing at the moment of Warren Anderson clearly outside what looks like South Block might have been when he was either calling on you or departing from that meeting.

Yes, either way, yes.

Roughly what time of day was this event?

I don’t recall exactly. I think it was late afternoon.

Late afternoon.

Yes, early afternoon. It was afternoonish.

Did Warren Anderson, either after meeting you in Delhi or before, meet the President of India?

I have been reading reports in the press that he met Gyaniji. I did make no appointments of any kind for him. I also have read reports that he met Narasimha Raoji. Either the Embassy or he directly, must have made those appointments.

But you as Foreign Secretary or the Foreign Office under you, did not seek an appointment for Anderson to meet either the President or the Home Minister.

No, I don’t recall doing any such thing.

Is it possible that he might have met either the President or the Home Minister without you or the Foreign Office knowing about it?

Possible, yes.

It is possible.

It is possible?

So, these reports that he met…

The President meets a number of people. So does the Home Minister. They don’t necessarily ask the Foreign Secretary whether they should receive them or not.

So, it is quite possible that Anderson met the President and the Home Minister without your being aware or without your Ministry being aware.

That’s right. It could well be.

Did Anderson fly out of Delhi and India that night, the 7th night?

Well, he left, he told me that he was leaving that night. And he must have gone out that night. I didn’t hear further about this.

Just one meeting and you heard nothing thereafter?

I heard nothing further about it. Then you also recall, I was due to retire four or six weeks after these events.

You retired in February 1985 and this was early December 1984. So, roughly two months later.

That’s right, yes. And I was busy with a number of other things also. You know, gradual transfer of responsibility to my successor…

So, Anderson did not crop up again at all.

At all. And I completely lost touch with this affair. When I retired I went into hibernation here in Delhi.

A couple of general questions. Beyond the request made to you by Gordon Streeb, the Deputy Chief of Mission, was there any direct pressure from the White House?

I can’t say whether there was or not but I tell you something. The Charge d’affaires came to me applying not any kind of pressure at all. There was a sense of distress. He made a request which I then dealt with as I have explained. And at that time I did not hear that President Reagan had called up our Prime Minister. I heard nothing of the sort. I think it is probably later inventions.

You say it could be later inventions, but is it possible that the White House or President Reagan may have rung the Prime Minister without you as Foreign Secretary knowing?

It is possible.

It is possible?

It is possible in the sense that Prime Minister has his own staff, people, office. But I heard nothing of the kind. I was there in office for another two months or so and we did not hear any such thing.

Afterwards, did Rajiv Gandhi ever express any concern, disquiet, regret about the fact that Anderson had been released and then let out of the country?

No, I don’t recall any such conversation with me after that.

No conversations about this sort of …

No, I don’t recall any such thing.

So, no questioning, no remorse, no regret from Rajiv Gandhi’s part?

Remorse about what? The Prime Minister must’ve been distressed about what happened in Bhopal.

No, I am talking about releasing Anderson.


No regret, nothing. He never questioned that thereafter?

He never questioned that.

In other words, he was completely in agreement not just with the decision to give safe passage, but he was also in agreement with the decisions to release him and let him leave the country.

Clearly, yes. And there was no question about this. But I said to you, in the process of dealing with the request, I had no occasion to consult the Prime Minister; and Rajiv Gandhi was not in any way involved in this.

Quite right. But if the Prime Minister had wanted to question the decision to arrest and then to release and let the man leave the country, clearly you’d have been one of the people he would have questioned.

Then, he would have summoned me, yes.

And he didn’t do anything of the sort?

He didn’t do any such thing, no.

My last question. Would you say with hindsight that granting safe passage to Anderson, then releasing him after he was wrongly arrested, and finally permitting him to leave the country – all the three were clearly the right thing to do and in India’s interest?

I can’t say arresting him was the right thing, but I think granting the passage, free passage, was the right thing to do; and letting him go, was the right thing to do.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.