India's External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar visited Brussels last Friday to meet top EU officials and sat down with POLITICO to discuss issues including Kashmir and India's trade relations.

The following is a transcript of the interview, which has been redacted for the sake of brevity. You can read our news story on the interview here.

What is your reaction to Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan's op-ed in the New York Times in which he says there is an invitation offering Indian dialog on Kashmir?

Jaishankar: Look, frankly, India wants normal neighborly relations with Pakistan, like every country wants normal neighborly relations. Now here’s the problem: for many years now, and many decades now, the Pakistanis have been conducting terrorist campaigns and terrorist activities against India. Now, I ask you: how do you have normal neighborly relations with a country that openly practices terrorism?

Now, you don’t have to believe me, you look at PM Imran Khan own earlier interviews where he speaks about terrorists in his country: It’s not just us, other have had the same problem. The issue is not whether you talk or not, [but] do you talk to a person who simultaneously conducts terrorism against you, or not? Our viewpoint is that, we are happy to talk to any country, including Pakistan, provided Pakistan stops his terrorism. We think that is a completely reasonable position, and to anybody who asks us questions, we ask: What would you do? Would you talk to someone who is conducting terrorism against you?

Is there anything he would do in the short term that would make you do that? Are there any diplomatic options available to India to actually speak directly with Pakistan over Kashmir now, in the next weeks or months?

Jaishankar: Why doesn’t he begin by stopping terrorism? Now, what do I mean when I say “stopping terrorism”? Terrorism is not something that is being conducted in dark corners of Pakistan, it’s done in broad daylight, it’s done in the main cities where people are recruited, financing is raised, arms training is provided! Don’t ask me, there is enough material out there, everybody knows where these cities are, and which these groups are, how money is raised. It’s all done in broad daylight. This is something which everybody else should be worried about. Instead of saying why aren’t you talking to them, I think the question should be, so when are you going to stop terrorism?

Well, if he gives us an interview, we will ask him. I suppose, with the change of policy on Kashmir, the new policy, you must have expected that there would be some sort of response? It seems to me that India is getting quite a lot of negative feedback on this change in policy.

Jaishankar: Look, first of all, let us recognize what has changed. There was a temporary provision of the Indian Constitution. I underline temporary because I do not see this word coming often in press reporting. That temporary provision, after 70 years, has been made non-applicable. [...] Why was it temporary? Because people initially felt that the circumstances warranted much more time for what was then the princely state of Kashmir, which became the state of Jammu and Kashmir, to align itself with all the laws and regulations of India. Now, with a bit of time, my understanding of the word temporary is definitely less than 70 years. What was meant as a short-term measure extended to a point where it affected governance, where it affected development and where it created an atmosphere — you know, because of the lack of development – of separatism in some quarters, which then served as an excuse for Pakistan to practise cross-border terrorism. [...] I think the right answer is to get to the heart of the issue, and the heart of the issue is, unless you have growth, unless you have development, unless you have economic opportunities, for which a temporary provision which is an obstacle, it had to be worth it.

In what way was it an obstacle to growth and development?

Jaishankar: Well, it was an obstacle in many ways. One, it had very restrictive ownership in property and economic activity provisions, which frankly completely killed entrepreneurship and development of the state. If you look at that state, compared to other Indian states, where are the big business investments, where are the big job opportunities? I think, in this day and age, people are not willing to invest in a state where you have such restrictive conditions. What it did, is that in different ways, this kind of very protective local narrow ownership, and honestly, it is at the cost of doing business! That also discourages people from doing business in the state. In that sense, what was intended as a comfort provision in the initial phases ended up actually as an obstacle to governance and development.

Now, it wasn’t just the economic activity, you had a range of issues on which laws were passed or rules were made in India, you actually had a clause where it wouldn’t apply to that state. So you had a number of what we take today as very basic givens, [such] as equal treatment of women whether it is on property or social rights; representation of women in local governance bodies; domestic violence laws; juvenile protection laws: everything that the world would see as progressive in India in the last 20-40 years, stopped at the borders of that state.

What is the point to which you think the curfew and the current restrictions can be lifted, and how long are they required for?

Jaishankar: It’s like this: if you have years of vested interest where a particular temporary situation has been prolonged beyond all reasonable limits in order to frankly arbitrage it, then naturally if you change it, there will be reactions, because you have affected the interest of many parties. If this happens to be in addition a state where there has been cross-border terrorism, and terrorists, to put it very mildly, are very intimidating people [...]. We expected that there would be reactions to this, and it is important therefore that, as the changes happen, that there is a transition arrangement, so that the message gets through to people.

At the moment, what we are seeking to do is to avoid any situation likely to lead to violent situation or bloodshed. Why would you have violence and bloodshed in this state? How do you have violence in a state like this? One, for example, by activating terrorist assets that are already in place. Guess what, it has been happening for many years now. Therefore, communication impediments…

So, the communication impediment is to avoid the activation of “sleeper” terrorists?

Jaishankar: No, more people who are doing violence to contact each other and to organize that. To prevent exhortation to violence and ensuring that… I mean, you show me the New York Times editorial, please look at the language which is coming from that side of the border! You have calls for the Jihad.

This is a time where very extreme language is being used, where sentiments are being fanned. What would you do in such a situation? Obviously, you would take my choice, which would “contain” the situation: let people come to terms with this.

At the moment, what you are seeing, is a moment progressively towards easing up on this. In many cases, my understanding is that lots of the reports about shortages are fictitious. I really cannot find a more accurate word. I would suggest to you that in the coming days you will see an easing up progressively. Then, I think that the situation should be there for everybody to see.

If you are an ordinary wholesaler, in fruits and vegetables, you are actually doing a lot of your sales through using communications, it’s part of a normal modern economy which is is now internet-based.

Jaishankar: Yes, sure. But if you tell me how do I cut off communications between the terrorists and their masters on the one hand, but keep the internet open for other people? I would be delighted to pass on this information.

Some people are saying the intention there is to allow non-Muslims to open up the economy of Kashmir, so that non-Muslims can buy property there, and to de-Islamize the area.

Jaishankar: All I can say is that the kind of people who say this are either people who do not know India, or people that do not want to know India, or perhaps practise this kind of thing in their own homes, and therefore think everybody else does it. Look at the history of India, does this sound to you like the history of India? Does it sound to you like the culture of India? It does not sound like that to me.

Our world is full of people that say many things. I think a lot of good sense is to discriminate about what we pick and choose to repeat. Where in India has this ever happened?

Are you then confident that the situation will de-escalate?

Jaishankar: [...] In some of the parliamentary debates which accompany the legislation on this matter, I do think we have our task cut out for us but I am also confident that this is a government which has delivered on big things, it is a government which has a modernistic progressive vision of Indian society, and which would move on exactly what I have told you is our intention.

Is it part of your mission as you are traveling around, since you have taken up the job, to try and change the negative press India is getting about this?

Jaishankar: Look, I have had 42,000 people killed in the last 30 years. What is the press coverage of it today?

By terrorist attacks?

Jaishankar: Yes. [...] The press can be very differentiated concepts, there is press and press. I see very sober objective reporting, and sometimes, reporting may or may not agree with our positions. I also see very alarmistic reporting with sweeping allegations. I think a lot of it depends on the mindset of the people who are reporting it, and the people who are publishing these reports. My sense is that the reality will eventually set the record straight.

And frankly, I am not in the business of refuting every fictitious report which appears in different parts of the press. [...]

I wanted to ask you a constitutional question as well. It’s about the other autonomous regions in India: We’re dealing with a Kashmir-question at the moment, but there are other regions in Assam, in West Bengal — are there any constitutional readjustments to be done outside of Kashmir ever?

Jaishankar: No, no. [...] The situation with regards to the state of Jammu Kashmir was unique, there is no analogous provision for anybody. It is an issue which focused on that particular state. Again, as a democratic federal country, from time to time, boundaries of states have changed. My recollection is that they have changed 14 or 15 times, but I am not aware of any such debates or intention. This is an argumentative society. Things are debated. What happened in Kashmir is something which was in the manifesto of our ruling party.

These are inconvenient facts which are sometimes left out. People do not say it is a temporary provision, they do not say that, well, there was a debate in India about addressing that particular provision of the constitution. These are not things that happen overnight, these matters have been debated in the Indian parliament before.

When you were talking about a “progressive easing of the situation in Kashmir in the coming days,” do you imagine it is over everything, the economic measures of communications and the extra military in the region across the board?

Jaishankar: Kashmir is a border state, people normally have military in border states.

But there are more now than the norm?

Jaishankar: There are more policemen. Again, do understand one thing: There is no benefit from committing police forces on duty if you do not have to. There is no joy that anybody gets out of it. The idea is that if there is a likelihood of something happening, we would take precautions accordingly. If the likelihood lessens, because there is normalization, people will go back to their businesses, schools will open, shops are working, people are going to offices, etc. All of which happening to different degrees in different places. What would be the necessity for people to be deployed? Frankly they have other jobs and other things to do.

You have been to China recently. Did you get a sense of whether there were any territorial concerns over Kashmir as well?

Jaishankar: There was a reaction, because I think many people misread it. I do not want to characterize other people’s intentions and competences, but I would say this — and I will say to you what I told them – that this was a provision of the Constitution which was decided by Indians in a constituent assembly. It had no bearing on international commitments that India had given, and what happened is a completely internal affair of India. The map of India has not changed as a consequence. We have not made any additional — again, I emphasize the word – claims on anybody. The Line of Control between India and Pakistan and the Line of Control between India and China – the Line of Control is where the troops go up to – has not changed, so that is no cause for external debate.

Turning to trade issues , what is the “Trump strategy” of India? [The U.S. president] is talking, as he does with Europe, about tariffs again, he does not like the latest rise of Indian tariffs. He is trying to make sure that India does not go back to buying Iranian oil, and he does not want India buying Russian weapons.

Jaishankar: We have good relations with the U.S., our relations have improved very significantly in the last two, three decades. They have bloomed over multiple administrations and today, in many ways, I would objectively call India-U.S. relations one of the most important of the world. Like any relationship, there is obviously give and take. There are lots of things we would like out of the U.S., some of these things happen, others do not. That is part of international relations. Quite conceivably, there could be many objectives, many asks, many expectations on either side. What generally happens in life is that after you negotiate, you deal with each other, you settle down to something which is common ground, which works for you and for me and that is how the gives and takes are reflected.

Let me then look at the issues which you have in mind, and which you stated. Number one, with regards to trade, we have had trade discussions, we have had fairly intense trade discussions. The president has himself brought up trade issues with our prime minister. Our expectation is that our trade ministers will sit down in the near future. I think many of these issues are eminently amenable to resolution. There are things which the American administration has done, including by way of tariffs, which we do not like. And I dare say they may have their own view of our positions. Finally, trade negotiators do what trade negotiators have to do, which is to find that meeting point which works for both of them.

In terms of the oil issue, our interest is in accessing energy at affordable rates. That is for us the key issue. We are a country which is heavily energy dependent. The issue for us is not whether we get it from A, B or C; the issue is really how predictable it is, how stable it is. We would obviously want to ensure the highest stability. Right now, the situation is rather complicated. Again, it is our hope that somewhere you will have greater clarity, and frankly better predictability.

Do you find the Americans are open to any form of negotiation? Is there anything that they would have — say, “You know, you can buy Iranian oil,” or is it something they would never accept?

Jaishankar: One of the nice things about an interview is, where you reach a level where you do not want to say what you do not want to say, you do not say it. It is a long way to say “no comment.” On the military relationships that we have, we have them with many countries, we would not accept any country telling us who to buy weapons from and who not to buy from. We would not like the U.S. to tell us that, we would not like Russia to tell us that, we would not like France, Israel, etc. The entire purpose of having an independent policy posture which is designed to maximize options when it comes to national security is that you have multiple avenues and options open. We have very solid, very time-tested security relations with the Russians, we have great interest in nurturing that. As far as we are concerned, we will take whatever decision we have to arrange that.

You have taken that decision already, I mean the purchase [of Russian S-400 surface-to-air missiles] has been made?

Jaishankar: The decision has been made.

And are the Americans suggesting there would be negative repercussions for India if it does it or are they just saying ‘we do not like it,’ in terms of strategic interest?

Jaishankar: Well, again, different people say different things. I do not want to characterize, analyze or project other people’s thinking on that. I can speak for myself. Where I am concerned, my position is very clear: I will do what I think is right for India’s national security and I believe that India’s multilateral policy and national security requires us to have relations with many countries, and many powers. I will obviously and very determinately ensure that all my options remit.

Do you believe Britain’s exit from the EU has changed anything in terms of India’s diplomatic and trading relationship with the EU? For example, has a long-delayed trade deal with the EU become more possible now that the U.K. is leaving?

Jaishankar: I honestly do not know because none of us have clarity on what agreements will happen. How can I criticize an analysis on an assumption about which I do not have clarity at the moment? What I can see is that obviously we have a big relation with the U.K. and with continental Europe. Until now, there was a connection between the two. What happens in the future depends frankly on... they have to make up their minds on the state of their relations. Thereafter I am a downstream customer of that decision.

Camille Gijs contributed reporting.