PREVIOUS PAGE

Kgg-sch/2n/2.00

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (Contd.): The Minister himself said that we are already discussing with the IAEA for an India-specific protocol. You have admitted. Why discuss when they have not lifted this?

SHRI ANAND SHARMA: What I had said is that we are negotiating India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA. 'Negotiating' does not mean placing the facilities under the safeguards. We are very clear because the negotiations have to take place. (Interruptions) We have never said that we are not going to start the negotiations... (Interruptions)

SHRI N. JOTHI: What is the necessity?

SHRI ANAND SHARMA: I am answering him. You can hear. Let me first show respect to Sitaram Yechuriji who has raised this.

Sir, I would like to assure that what is being negotiated is for the civilian nuclear facilities' India-specific safeguards, as I had mentioned, with a multi-layered assurance of fuel supplies. I had also mentioned fuel supplies for the life-time of the reactors. I had also mentioned that it is in the phased manner, starting from 2007. So, why are we jumping to the conclusion that those facilities would be placed first under the safeguards agreement? No. What has been said will be adhered to fully, there should be no doubt.

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: I will tell you why I have raised this. Because the restrictions have not been lifted yet. We have said that we will not place our facilities under the IAEA safeguards until the restrictions are lifted. But they are not lifted and we are conducting negotiations! My point is, suppose they have not lifted, why these negotiations at all? Once they are lifted, once we have an assurance that they would be lifted, yes, you talk. We are not saying no. But what I am saying is... (Interruptions)

SHRI ANAND SHARMA: On negotiations, there is no departure. You have quoted from Prime Minister's assurance and there is no departure from it.

ֳ֬ ( ָ֕ ״): ֮֮ , ֯ և ...(־֮֬) ֺ , ֯ ֟ ֋ ...(־֮֬) ֮֮ , ָ ֋߅

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: That is why I said, these are our apprehensions. What I am saying is, we have our experience with the United States; we have seen how they have dealt with many other countries and what they are doing.

Well, my earlier point, point number two, when we talk of the question of the complete fuel cycle, we have our apprehensions. As rightly pointed out, there is a great pride for being Indian that we have developed these technologies on our own, combating and fighting these sanctions. Our fast breeder technology, nobody in the world is working for the last two decades. You open them up now and what intellectual property we have achieved, you are handing over these technologies to the world where they have not worked, if you are opening up. You can say no, and that is the assurance I want. Why do they want to restrict us? If there is a movement towards using thorium as a fuel, where India is the country in the world where the largest thorium deposits are there, then, we will, for ever, be independent of any nuclear blandishment and blackmail when we reach that level. We apprehend that the United States of America want us to reach that level. And that is the assurance we want that nothing will be done to stop India from reaching that level so that we attain our own independence from the rest of the nuclear supplier group where we start using our own thorium, we have the world's largest deposit.

The fourth point, Sir, on which we see a shift in the goalpost is that in the March agreement, it was said that the USA will take necessary steps to change this loss and also align the nuclear supplier group rules to fulfil the terms of the Indo-US nuclear deal. Now what do we see in the Senate Resolution, Sir? It says, "In addition, we require that decisions in the nuclear supplier group enabling nuclear trade with India are made by consensus and consistent with its rules." That is very clear, they are not going to seek an amendment in the nuclear suppliers' chapter at all. It has to be consistent with the nuclear supplier group's rules. Then what is the change that they are making so that our uninterrupted flow is not affected? And that is a very serious departure.

The fifth departure that we see is the original agreement talked of an additional protocol which the Prime Minister's statement made clear was an India-specific protocol, not covered under the protocol for weapon-State or a non-weapon-State. That is what the Prime Minister assured us.

Then, the Congress and the Senate have suggested a more inclusive model additional protocol of the IAEA which only few countries accept in the world today... (Contd. by kls/2o)

KLS/2O-2.05

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (CONTD): ...and the additional protocol as a non-nuclear State. Are we accepting that status? Both the Congress and the Senate talk of an additional protocol of India with IAEA as a non-nuclear weapon State. So, that is something again which we think is not in India's interest, which has to be safeguarded. Point No.6. The assurance given by the Prime Minister on March 7, 2006 was that we are placing our facilities in perpetuity as reciprocally the USA is also guaranteeing fuel supply in perpetuity. In case, the US defaults on fuel supply agreement, as it did earlier with Tarapore, it will ensure that other members of the NSG will take over its obligations. This was the assurance we were given. Now the amendment to the Senate Bill says and I quote section 102(6), "The US should not seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any other party if such exports are terminated under US law." You cannot be more explicit than this, that is, the US will decide whether the Nuclear Supply Group will continue to give India fuel or not. It is a clear-cut restriction and reneging on what the earlier understanding was. On this an assurance is required. Point No.7. In the original agreement, India had to agree to work with the US for a Fissile Material Cut Off Treat what is normally called the FMCT. This is now being restricted to India's fissile material stockpile. And this is in section 103 of the Declaration of Policy Concerning United States India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation, which states to achieve as quickly as possible a cessation of the production by India and Pakistan of all fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosives devices. As has been pointed out by others here, the President has to report the efforts it has made with India and Pakistan for 'disclosing, securing, capping, and reducing their fissile material stockpiles'." Is it an international multilateral agreement that we are entering into and FMCT, or is it a bilateral pressure on India that we reduce our stockpile while nothing will happen to the global stockpiles that are there? If that is the case, as I have said earlier, we are contradicting our own commitment towards universal nuclear disarmament. This needs to be clarified and an assurance has to be given on that this is not going to happen. Point No.8. In the original agreement only IAEA safeguards were considered. But in section 107 of the Senate Bill, the end-use monitoring programme states, that in case IAEA is unable to fulfil its safeguard obligations the US President takes measures to ensure all material and its use is in conformity with its declared purposes. This includes physical verification and suitable access to be provided by India to US inspectors." Are we now going to allow a situation where we will have the US inspections taking place in our country? It is there in section 107. The final point that I have here is that the military programme had no monitoring requirement from the IAEA or the United States of America. The Minister also made it clear that it is going to be totally independent. What section 108 of the Senate Bill says is that, 'the President to report to the Congress significant changes in the production by India of nuclear weapons or in the types and amounts of fissile material produced." Now, Sir, this, as I said, my Party had opposed Pokhran-II. We have said that India should not be stocking nuclear weapons. We stand by that. But it is part of the overall universal disarmament that we were talking about. But as I said earlier, that is a decision which is our sovereign right, India's right. We cannot do it at anybody's behest, anybody telling us. This actually here says that the President of the United States of America will keep on reporting on these matters and the type of fissile material produced. This, I think, is a severe breach of our sovereignty. Therefore, Sir, on these nine points I request the Government and the Prime Minister that in the interest of the country, in the interest of our future to actually assure this House. If that assurance is coming and precisely that is what, I think, all of us, everybody had expressed earlier that let that be an expression of this House. Do not use the word sense. I do not want this. It is a US borrowed thing. I mean I am not particular at all on that. (Contd by 2P)

-KLS-SSS/2P/2.10

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (CONTD.): But some form of expression, whether it is a resolution, declaration, assertion, statement, whatever it is, some form of expression from this House, is needed. Yes, this is the bottom line, beyond this India in its own sovereign right, for its own self-representation will not go. Let that message go loud and clear to the world and to the country that yes, this Government is just going to strengthen India's sovereignty, strengthen India's independence and not kow-tow to US pressures in terms of strengthening our foreign policies. That, I think, is what we owe to the country today and that is the responsibility with which I want this discussion to be taken, not in terms of tu tu main main, or who did what, when. I mean there are so many other things. We can talk about what happened in those six years. But right now, I do not think that is the point we have to emphasise. Let us all unanimously come to this understanding that this is in the interest of India. This is the bottomline that we define. We shall not go below that and it is in that spirit I want the Prime Minister and the Government to take this entire debate and then assure all of us. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

SHRI N. JOTHI (TAMIL NADU): Sir, already, Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is opposing this deal tooth and nail, with the minimum level or to the maximum level with no concession. there is no compromise in these matters. We should maintain our sovereignty in the absolute manner and to the extent possible we should never have any discussion at all on this mater. That is our view. Sir, I will illustrate the reasons why. Sir, we have had Jawaharlal Nehru as our first Prime Minister and the illustrious Prime Minister, Madam, Indira Gandhi and up to the level of Narashimha Rao also, the Congress Prime Ministers opposed NPT Agreement. They never ventured into it. They never thought of it. They were opposing it. What change has suddenly now taken place? Why has it taken place? This nation wants to know from the UPA Government. What is the possible answer which they want to give? The answer they want to give is, the fuel to our reactors is now lacking and we need reactors further more and fuel further more. For that, we should have the treaty with them. This is their answer. This is what they want to tell the world. Sir, the information from our scientists indicate, neither the fuel is lacking nor the scientists are lacking in their attempt to have self-sufficiency in nuclear energy. What is lacking is political will. That is all. Sir, if you join the NPT, what will happen? There will be fast discrimination between nuclear weapon haves and nuclear weapon have-nots. There will be discrimination. The discrimination will lead to inroads into our sovereignty. Sir, it is a one-sided treaty.

(Contd. by NBR/2Q)

-SSS/NBR-SC/2Q/2.15.

SHRI N. JOTHI (CONTD.): If you go into the treaty, you will know that it is a one-sided treaty. It is something like, 'you bring your grains; I will bring my chop. We will mix it together and then we will have them equally.' It will lead to only such a situation. And, you are willingly joining in it. Sir, your basic theory that fuel is not available is not correct. Have you ever verified the data? Have you checked it with our scientists? Have you checked this up with the available material in India? Sir, according to my information, Uranium, which we are using, as on today, as fuel, is available in plenty. It is available at Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh. It is available in the North-Eastern States. It is also available in Jharkhand. This can last, at least, for another fifty years. It can also go further. In the meanwhile, we are already on research of harnessing Thorium. We are already on it. We may also achieve that in the years to come. Under these circumstances, where is the need for fuel to be borrowed or the reactors to be borrowed. I don't see any reason. What explanation do you have? Have you come to the conclusion that Uranium is not available in India? Have you come to the conclusion that our reactors cannot be fed any further with the available raw material? Have you come to that conclusion? Have you got any data for that? If so, please, explicitly show the same to the House. Please show it to the world. Please show it to the nation. Sir, Uranium is a natural ore. Our scientists have developed it and made it as a fuel. And, as on today, we are having, at least, ten reactors situated in Tarapur, Kalpakkam, Narora, Kaiga and Kakrapar. And, now, Koodankulam is in the offing. They are being run. I am sorry to say this word. I don't think you will be disagreeing with Smt. Indira Gandhi. I don't think that you will be disagreeing with Dr. Homi Bhaba. I don't think you will be disagreeing with Sarabhai. And, I don't think that you will be disagreeing with Narasimha Rao or with any other Congress Prime Minster to that extent. In such a case, why, suddenly, you want to sign the NPT? What is the reason? I don't suspect your bona fides. No. I am not saying that. I am not saying that you are less patriotic. I am not accusing you on that. But, I only want to know why are you suspecting our scientists? Why are you not heeding to our scientists? You are not giving audience to our scientists. When your Prime Minister could meet vagabond politicians, comedian politicians and others, why is he not interested to meet our scientists? I am very sorry to say that. Scientists have expressed their disagreement with your Prime Minister on this issue. They want audience. You refused to give them audience. Why, Sir? Don't you like any explanation from scientists who have been working for this nation? They have been working for this nation. Still, you don't want to give any audience to them! Sir, there is something wrong with your policy. Please correct yourself. Please touch your conscience. You claim yourself that you have brought freedom for this country. You -- Congress people -- claim that you have brought freedom for this country and hence you have the right to rule this country. This is what quite often you proclaim. But, kindly think loudly, can you ever say this hereafter, because what would be the difference between the people who invited East India Company to India and yourself, now, when you are inclined to sign the NPT? What is the difference between you and them? I see no difference between those who invited the East India Company and those who are now speaking for the NPT. I see no difference between you both. I am sorry. And, you are justifying! Whether your justification is correct or proper. Sir, according to me it is not. I will tell you. I will tell you what happens once you sign this treaty. Often, I have been hearing, both from Shri Anand Sharma and through statement of the hon. Prime Minister here, saying that we are taking care of our civilian requirements and we will not allow them to interfere in our military matters. We are self-confident on that.

SHRI ANAND SHARMA: Just a minute, Mr. Jothi. You are talking about the NPT. We are not at all signing the NPT. We are not discussing the NPT...(Interruptions)...

SHRI N. JOTHI: I know where it is going to lead. I know that. I know where you are going and where it is heading. Now, you are having only learner's licence. Finally, it will land there only. I know that. We know how to look at you. We know what you are doing. What is the necessity, first of all, to have linkage with America? Mr. Shivraj Patil was the Minister of Science and Technology earlier and he visited Kalpakkam several times. I know that. With all this, I would say that our scientists have harnessed nuclear energy and are running all these reactors so far. But, you have no confidence on them. I am not saying that you are going to sign. But, I am saying that the day is not far off. It is something like passing a love letter. Thereafter you will marry. I know that. Now, you are having some looks at each other. Then, letters will be exchanged and, finally, elopement will take place and marriage will be elsewhere. This is going to end there only. We have seen the fate of so many assurances. We have seen so many tactics. And, we have also seen where you have landed finally. (CONTD. BY USY "2R")

NBR-USY/2R/2.20

SHRI N. JOTHI (CONTD.): Sometimes ago you talked about self-sufficiency in food. Now, you are importing food. We are seeing your working system. We know that.

Sir, where does the problem arise? You all say that you will not allow our sovereignty to be interfered and you will keep them off wherever they are to be kept off. This is what you have often been telling. Mr. Anand Sharma, will you assure, will this Government assure this country that they will not have inspection rights over waste management? The waste management is the raw material for the production of atom bombs. Will you assure that they will not interfere in it? (Interruptions) One minute; one minute. You can assure in the end. (Interruptions) Will you assure that they will not count on the production of your heavy water? Will you assure that they will not interfere in your heavy water production? Will you assure that they will not interfere in your fast breeder reactor research, where you are already advancing from 250 MW to 500 MW? Sir, our scientists and our military exponents have said this treaty, this further understanding with them will cap our research capabilities on military warfare. They have already been warning us. You are not interested in meeting scientists. You are not interested in meeting anybody. You suspect us saying that we are opponents; why should you respect us? That is the error of thinking that you have got. Kindly think about this nation. If it is a political decision, which you have taken, please have a referendum. If it is a scientific decision, please have a symposium with scientists on this matter. So, on both these counts, will you assure this august House? If you have taken a political decision on this matter, are you prepared for a referendum in the public? If you have taken a scientific decision, are you prepared to have discussions with scientists, a fullfledged discussion? Are you prepared? Everything is under camouflage. From day and day two you are bottling our interests.

Sir, Mr. Yechury has said that old posts are being rearranged. I feel further. Not only old posts are being rearranged, the old playing fields are also being rearranged; the markings are being rearranged; the playing rules are being rearranged; and players are being rearranged. And, this is a game that you want us to witness. No, we won't. We will take this agitation further not only here, but I appeal to all the patriotic Indians to take this agitation to the streets and to the public and tell this Government -- this minority Government, this minority Congress party -- that they cannot hold this country to ransom forever, especially in the sensitive matters. You have all forgotten Smt. Indira Gandhi -- how indigenous she was; how great she was. You have all forgotten. We remember her. I am mentioning her name. You are mentioning only Dr. Manmohan Singh's name. You have all forgotten her name. The foreign invasion in all the matters is increasing in all the matters day-by-day. Why? Some foreign element is triggering you off. That's the reason. (Interruptions)

SHRI ANAND SHARMA: No; no. (Interruptions) Just to help him out. (Interruptions) I am asking him. (Interruptions)

SHRI N. JOTHI: Mr. Anand Sharma, I am not yielding. (Interruptions) Please do not interfere. (Interruptions) Do you want to say Smt. Indira Gandhi was not your leader? (Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI KALRAJ MISHRA): Please don't disturb. (Interruptions) Mr. Jothi, please continue. (Interruptions)

SHRI N. JOTHI: Mr. Anand Sharma, I may tell you for your information that....(Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jothi, please conclude. (Interruptions)

SHRI N. JOTHI: Sir, our scientists developed our fast breeder reactors indigenously. We have risen to 500 MW from 250 MW. And, they are saying, "Americans have to help us now". We already know driving; we already know the cycling; we already know the swimming; we already know how to speak, but they still want to help us in all our activities.

(Contd. by 2s -- VP)

VP/2.25/2S

SHRI N. JOTHI (CONTD.): There is something wrong with these people. Somewhere something is wrong. ..(Interruptions).. Something is wrong. (Time-bell) Please, Sir, I will take five minutes.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI KALRAJ MISHRA): Mr. Jothi, the time allotted to you is over.

DR. K. MALAISAMY: Sir, he is talking about the interest of the nation. Give some more time to him.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Please allow me, Sir. This is a sensitive issue. Sir, without the help of anybody..(Interruptions).. Sir, without anybody's help, we had Pokhran-I. Then the whole world got up and started looking up to us with some respect. Then, we had Pokhran-II. What have we lost due to these two? What were the sanctions? We, Indians, are not ordinary people. Our mass, 110 crore people, our intellectual level, our scientific level is much greater than anybody who can interfere in our country. Our country is supreme, that pride I am having. Sir, for your information, Mr. Minister, please check up your records and consult your scientists and you will get a positive reply. We are the first country in the world, we are the first scientists group in the world who have successfully launched GSLV in the first attempt itself. We succeeded in the first attempt. No country in the world succeeded in the first attempt. Please check up the records. Dr. Kasturirangan has done it. He succeeded in the first attempt. No country has succeeded in the first attempt including America, Canada and France. Dr. Kasturirangan is sitting quietly. The problem with our scientists is, they are quiet. They are very calm. This is the problem with our scientists. The problem with our politicians is, they are timeservers; not we, but Members on that side. For the time being they are saying, oh, this person is great; oh, this Prime Minister is great. Sir, by comparing this Prime Minister, you are denigrating Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. You are denigrating Smt. Indira Gandhiji, whom, even though we are in the Opposition, respect more. Sir, we are also patriotic, though not more, at least, equal to you. Kindly understand this. ..(Interruptions).. It may be more also. ..(Interruptions).. Sir, have we not seen Kasturirangan? Have we not seen disciples of Homi Bbhaba? Have we not seen disciples of Vikram Sarabhai? Have we not seen those people? Have we not consulted them? Why should this be done? Why should we kneel before Americans, Sir? I am not an anti-American. In whichever field we want help, we will take help from them. And whichever field we have to help them, we will help them. But why should we kneel down? Why should we spread a red carpet for them? It is an unnecessary field. It is a sophisticated field. You can invite your friend up to your drawing room, not to your bedroom where you have a beautiful wife. ..(Interruptions).. I am very sorry to say that. My blood is boiling. As a citizen of this country, who has taken oath under the Constitution, and as a Member of Parliament, I feel you are all insulting the patriotic people. I feel I am insulted by this Government.

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: Sir, the words, 'inviting into the bedroom' should be expunged. It is not in good sense.

SHRI N. JOTHI: That is the best example I can say on this issue. While participating in the debate, I am very thankful to the media. But for the media, the issue would not have gone this much further. Sir, I am thankful to the comrades. I am very thankful to them. They stood their ground. They insisted on their policies in this matter in opposing this Government. I hope they will continue further. Sir, in the Communist parlance, they used to call opponents as reactionaries. I feel that term will apply to them. I feel the term will apply to these people who speak for this Bill. They are the reactionaries. They do not recognise our scientists' talent. Without the help of anybody, Sir, indigenously, we are running this. Then, why should somebody come suddenly? Why should they come? What is the purpose behind it? Because they want to wage a war against Iran. (Continued by PK/2T)

PK/NB/2T/2.30

SHRI N. JOTHI (CONTD.):They want to wage a war against Iraq people; they want to wage a war against the Gulf people, and they want to use us as a tool. They want to use India as a tool. Sir, globalisation is moving in a different direction. America alone is not the only country where you can (Time-bell) look to for matters. There are other countries also. Very nearby is China. Have you ever looked at China? Have you ever thought of it any time in your life? Why you just look at Americans?

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI KALRAJ MISHRA): Mr. Jothi, please conclude.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Sir, I will finish in two minutes.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN:You have already taken ten minutes more.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Sir, there is Pokhran I and Pokhran II. Like that, I will deal with it...(Interruptions)... Sir, if you continue to persist with this kind of a thing and giving explanations saying that we will not give you anything, the sovereignty will be looked after, this assurance will stand, even after July 18, nothing has changed, etc. --you would like to go on like this-- you will stand in trial before the public. Public is watching you. You will stand before the trial. You will stand in trial before the public. Sir, there is some * and some kind of a * view is being developed somewhere in policy-making sector of this Government. Please find out who they are. Please find out who they are who are acting against the interests of our nation. Please weed them out. We will support you on that. Please weed them out. Sir, nobody is supporting this deal. Our scientists are opposing, public are opposing, all political parties except the Congress Party are opposing, and NRIs in the USA are opposing. Sir, who are the better people to oppose it? The NRIs who live in very America are saying, "Indians, please don't do this." They are appealing to us. Please do not agree further on this matter. In spite of all that...(Interruptions)..

THE MINISTER OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS (SHRI VAYALAR RAVI): Sir, I am on a point of order...(Interruptions).. Accusing the person sitting on this side of * , I think, is unparliamentary. ..(Interruptions)..

SHRI N. JOTHI: No, no. It is a section...(Interruptions).. It is a section...(Interruptions)..

SHRI VAYALAR RAVI: I know the law...(Interruptions).. Don't teach me Law...(Interruptions).. No Member can call any other Member..(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI KALRAJ MISHRA): I shall look into it.

SHRI N. JOTHI: It is not unparliamentary, Sir...(Interruptions)..

SHRI VAYALAR RAVI: What do you mean by unparliamentary?...(Interruptions)..

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Sir, it is not unparliamentary...(Interruptions)..

SHRI VAYALAR RAVI: Sir, you cannot accuse any Member, or any Government of a * ...(Interruptions).. * is a word...(Interruptions)...which is very serious.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI KALRAJ MISHRA): I shall look into the record. If it is there...(Interruptions)...

SHRI VAYALAR RAVI: I am assuring you, Sir...(Interruptions)..

SHRI N. JOTHI: Sir, it is in the IPC. There is a section...(Interruptions)..(Time-bell)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Please conclude.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Okay. Sir, the NRIs are opposing. The NRI Minister is now opposing it.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Now, please conclude. Finish your speech.

SHRI N. JOTHI: The NRIs are opposing this and the whole world is opposing this. I don't know what makes these people to go ahead further. If you go ahead further, for the remaining few days, when you will be in the office....(Interruptions).. you will be leaving an indelible mark. For that, you will be cursed for ever. Thank you. (Ends)

SHRI VAYALAR RAVI: Sir, I withdraw my last sentence.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay, thanks. Shri Mangni Lal ji.

( ֳ֯ן ߚ߮ )

֮ ֻ ӛ (ײָ) : ֮֮ߵ ֳ֯ן , ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ֯ ׾ֵ ָ ֮ ֟ ֿ־ӟ ֲ ָٳ֟ Ӯ ֮ Ԯ ׿ ִֻ ׾֢ ִֻ ֮ ִ֟ , ֿ־ӟ ֲ ו֮֟ ֟ , ִ֟ ֮֮ ִ , ׾֤ ֕ ӡ ו֮ ß ֮ פ , ָ ֟ ־ֲ פ ֻ֟߮ Ϭִ֮ӡ þֵ ָ ֤

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

ָ moratorium ֵ, ָ ָ ׻֋ ӓ ׻֋ , ָ ןֵ և ֪ׯ Ϭִ֮ӡ 27 ָ, 7 ֓ 29 և ֤ ֌־ פ , ִ ײֻ ָٿ֟ 2U/AKG ָ ֿ:

AKG/2U/2.35

֮ ֻ ӛ (֟) : 18 և ן ָ֬ ָ ׸ ™ן ָ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֌־ ֵ ֌־ ֤ ׸ ™ן פ ֵә Ù ֵ , ֤ ֌־ ֵ , Ϭ֮ ӡ ָ-ָ ן ֌־ ִ , ײ֮ ֮ ִϳ ־Գ״ ִ

, ׮ ֟ ׮ֻ ״ ֕ ߿֮ þֵ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֤ ן ֮ , ִ ֮ ׮ ׻ֵ , ֟ 9 ׮ ֵ֮ ֵ , ו ֻ , ׮ , ֵ֮ ִ ו ָ Ϭ֮ ӡ ߮ ָ ֤ ׾ ׻ֵ ֤ ֮ ֟ , ׾ָ ִ ֱ ׾־֮ ֟ և , ܵ ֟ և ִ֟ ֲָ ִָ֓ ֲ ִ ™ן ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ן׮׬ִӛ ֵ , ן׮׬ִӛ ״ֻ֮ ֤ ֲָ ֟ ֟և և, ִ ֟ և ϴ ãן և , ו ׾־֮ ï™ ϴ ãן , ׾־֮ ? ։ ׸ׯϕי ֟ , ײֻ ׸ ׿ ӟָ™ߵ ִֻ ״ן , ִ ֓ , ִ ןֵ֯ ӿ֮ ֋ ӿ֮ ֤ ׮ և ָ ׮ ִֻ -- ֟ ־ֿ ß ֮֮ ִ ֬և ֣ ײ֮ ָ ָ þָ ָ ִϳ , ִ , ׸ ™ן ָ Ϭ֮ ӡ ߓ ן ֮ , ִ ֮ ֟ ָٿ֟

, ָ-ָ ֤ ׾ ֤ ׾ ? Ϭ֮ ӡ ߮ ָ ֤ ֋, Ϭ֮ ӡ ߮ ָ ֤ ֮ ֌־ פօ , Ϭ֮ ӡ ֵ֮ : , 29 և 2005 פ ױ 27 ָ 2006 פ օ , ֵ ֣ ֮ ֮ ׸ Ùו ֵ - ֮ ןֲ֨ ֟և , ןֲ֨ ֿ֢ ָïָ ֤֮-Ϥ֮ ָ֬ ָ ָ ֳ ֻ , ֲ ׸ ִ ֮ օ ӿ֮ , ָ ֙ , ߮ ֮ ױ þֵ ֿ־ӟ ֲ ױ ։ ָ reconciliation ֤ ׮ִ ׸ ױ ָ ִ֮ ֋, ָ ׾ָ֓ ꅠ ֟ Ϭ֮ ӡ 27 ָ ֤ 7 ֓ օ Ϭ֮ ӡ ױ þֵ ֟ ָ פ ָïָ ֤֮-Ϥ֮ ֯ ֮ ߤ ֟և ָ ָ ֋ ֮ ֻ ֿ֢ ׸ ָ և ָև ָ ׮ֳԸ , ֲ ֟ ָ ֻ פ ֕ ֟ ָ Ùו ֵ ָ ϳ־ ֛ ִ ֋օ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֤ ...(ִֵ ә)

, ױ ֟ Ը֮ ִֻ ָ ׿ ן, כ ־ ֻ ֓ , ׮ֵ֤ ߅

(2 ָ ֿ:)

2w/2.40/skc-hms

֮ ֻ ӛ (֟) : ָ ׿ ן ָ ӯϳ Ը֮ ֋, ײֵ ֋ Ը֮ ִ֣Ԯ , ײֵ ִ֣Ԯ , ֮ ֮ ׸ ֣ ֡ Ը֮ ִ֣Ԯ ׸ ֮ Ը֮ ׾ָ , ָ ׿ ן ָ֬ ָ ן ׮ֵ֤ ׻֋ ִ֟ ָٿ֟ ֮ , ֤ ׾ ׻ֵ ֵ ׸ ײֻ ׸ , ָ ֙ , ֮ ֻ ִ֟ ֿ־ӟ ׾֫֯ ֟ , ֮֮ ִ ָ פ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֤ ־֮ ָ֬ ָ ָ ֟ , ֿ־ӟ ֲ סßָߵ ֓ , , Ϭ֮ ӡ ֌־ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ օ , Ϭ֮ ӡ ֤ 27 ָ ֣ ֵ ו ֌ ֮ , ָ ֓ ׻֋ ӿ֮ ָ֮ ֵ , כ ָ֟ ן ֮ ϵ ׻֋ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֤ ׾ ׻ֵ ֤ ו ֌ ֮ , ֻ ™ߵ ׮־ֵԟ ׻ ָ ֯ Ӭ֮ ֣ ׾ ӲӬ ֓־ ׮׿֟ ָ סßָߵ ָ ֵ ß ֕ ׬֟ օ ֻ ׾֬ֆ ׮ָ֮ ֮ ו֮ ָ ׮ָ ִ֟ֆ ֮ ֋ ־ ָ Ӭ֮ ׾ ϵ ןֲ׬֟ ײ֮ ־ ָ ָ סßָߵ ָ ֵ ׾ ָ þֵ֢֟ ִ ײ֮ ׳ߵ ֵ ׮٤™ ֟ Ϭ֮ ӡ ï™ օ ׻֋ ִ֟ ãן ï™ ָ , Ϭ֮ ӡ ߮ ָ ֌־ פ , ֤ ׾ ׻ֵ ֵ ָָ ֤ ן ־ֲ֤ , ִ֟ ָָ ֤ ֮ ߅

֟ ֣ ִ֟ ָָ ײֻ ָٿ֟ ָ ֬׸ ׻֋ ִ֣Ԯ ֮ ֟ ִ֯

(ִ֯)

DR. K. KASTURIRANGAN (NOMINATED): Hon. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I have been listening to the extraordinary, compulsive and persuasive statements made by some of the very senior hon. Members of Parliament, starting with Shri Yashwant Sinha, Shri Anand Sharma, Shri Yechury and many others. I was really debating in my mind; I was thinking, I have an end goal that is very clear, but how to reach the end goal after having heard all those compelling arguments.

Sir, I thought, first of all, I should say that over the last one-and-a-half to two years, this initiative, which has caught the attention not only of our country, not only of the United States, but also of countries across the world, is obviously a significant one. This is very clear; I don't think that we have two opinions on this. The initiative taken by Shri Vajpayee, through the Vajpayee-Bush declaration, which was, for the first time, brought on two lines, one related to the cooperation in atomic energy and another related to the Space, was left to the present Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, to be carried forward. So, that single line became a paragraph in subsequent agreements. Later on, it became texts as we advanced more and more into the details of this agreement. Obviously, in an area like atomic energy, it is never a walk-through; it had to be complicated; it had to be intricate and that is reflected here. So, if one talks about the present situation, it is a natural evolution of these kinds of agreements, because these are unique agreements; there are no benchmarks for it. So, obviously, we have to accept that there could be pros and cons which one has to deal with. So, I am not surprised. (Contd. by 2x/hk)

HK/2x/2.45

DR. K. KASTURIRANGAN (CONTD.): So, I am not surprised and, therefore, when this kind of a nuclear deal -- the Indo-US nuclear deal -- has evoked a lot of passion in the country, this has come because of the very nature and complexity of this kind of a system which can affect not only the science and technology, the strategic capability, but can tilt the geo-politics of the entire region, and perhaps, the world. Now, that is, therefore, you can see that it is not only the political parties that has debated this, the general intelligentsia in the country has come forward to give their opinion, and we have also the scientific community who have forcefully argued their own views on this particular matter. So, this only reflects the seriousness of the situation. I don't have to say here the history of this relation with the United States in the area of atomic energy. In fact, it did start in a cooperative framework with America. We have Tarapore. There have been the supply of fuel from Tarapore. Subsequently, of course, we had the Pokhran-I which sowed the relations and even though there has been some kind of a contact, but it was never the same. Then, of course, we had Pokhran-II. At that time, the geo-politics had been already changing. The end of cold war was being witnessed. But in spite of that, the Pokhran-II did leave a certain level of hostility towards India's needs. So, it was left at that particular point. But after September 11, 2001, there was a discernible shift in the attitude of the United States towards India's security needs. Obviously, the nuclear deal which we are currently negotiating with the US is the culmination of this long-drawn process of understanding each other's security concerns in the new global order. Now, what does all this mean? In the context of India going alone since the Pokhran-I -- we have been going alone -- over the last three decades we have been conceptualising our own programmes starting with Homi Bhabha, we have been developing our own directions and also we have been addressing the questions of self-reliance and pragmatic consideration with regard to how do we have a sustainable programme which depends on our own fuel, that is, thorium. So, this resulted in having a three-phase programme and I don't think that I have to repeat this scientific aspect because it has already been very well articulated by Shri Anand Sharma and others. But the most important thing is that India develops its own strategy to develop nuclear power, to develop its strategic capability for national security reasons. This, of course, is very unique, and I should say that the Indian atomic scientists proved themselves to be extraordinary in trying to do this. This has cut across all the party lines. I don't think that there is any question of one party or the other party. Every political system in this country has supported this programme and certainly the major milestone, of course, happened during certain leadership times. But that is a part of an overall systemic support that this programme received from the political system of this country since Independence. That is very unique. In fact, people do envious in this connection when they see that the atomic energy programme and the space programme in this country are very-well supported by the political system, without any reservation in terms of making the necessary funds available. The Atomic Energy used this opportunity to develop several kinds of technologies -- they did this fuel recycling, fuel enrichment using for this three-phase cycle which we discussed. All of them were the product of extremely innovative thinking within the establishments and that provided them with a global leadership that came into picture. In fact, the present Atomic Energy Chairman, Dr. Anil Kakodkar, was telling me that every second or third paper in the international journals that appeared recently or in the recent past has been from India with respect to technologies related to fast-breeder reactor, fuel recycling, fuel enrichment and many kinds of things. One can immediately see the level to which we have progressed in this. We are ranked right at the top in terms of our capability. So, when we talk of any kind of cooperation and collaboration with the country having this level of development and maturity, we are no longer talking as looking for a cooperation to get something. I don't think that that is the spirit in which we are really looking at the United States. We are going to be equal partners. (Contd. by 2y/KSK)

KSK/2.50/2Y

DR. K. KASTURIRANGAN (CONTD): So, the sentiments here are more related to whether we are equal partners. Are we really equal partners or is the US only considering us as an inferior partner? What are our own compulsions? I don't think we have any compulsion to co-operate. But, I think it is our policy to co-operate because you know, any programme which we have started, we always have an international co-operation as one of the cornerstones of our programme in scientific and technological side. The reason is not for us to see. If you want to go for development, if you want to go for understanding what the world community is doing and if you want to be a partner in that kind of an endeavour of a world community, because science and technology cuts across borders, there is an acceleration process that you get. Every country derives an acceleration process benefit. And, this should not be overlooked in any scientific and technology endeavour. So, in connection with the United States, I would like to say that it is the powerhouse of science and technology, many innovations have come from that country. Obviously, India co-operating with the United States is certainly a major landmark, not so much because we are weak or we want to look at their technology, or capability, but there can be an overall synergy which can enhance the co-operation and I do not see any kind of a contradiction in the current enthusiasm to collaborate with the United States and I am sure that that will be for us. So, that part is clear.

Now, I come to the third point that I would like to make. I have tried to make some assessment on the issues that have been put forward here and this is, of course, my own assessment. I had, of course, the benefit of few discussions with the atomic energy establishment but not to the level that I reflect my assessment based on those discussions. I had also opportunities to discuss with my own colleagues here in certain circumstances, but ultimately, the conclusions are individual. So, it is my own conclusion. I am only placing these conclusions in this august House just so say that how I feel about this particular Agreement, not necessarily because it goes with one or the other views which have been already expressed in this particular House. One of the things, that have been addressed in great detail, has been the question of strategic autonomy of India's independent decision-making in the atomic energy. On going through all the information that is available, formal documents, those authentic documents -- I am not talking about the interpretation in the Press and media on what they are -- I did not find a particular specific statement that our autonomy is going to be infringed upon by this particular deal. I could not, at least, see that. But, one of the reasons, of course, is not far from to see the question of separation that we have agreed. With regard to the military facility and the civilian facility, we have agreed that there shall be a division. I think it is a right step. In fact, this was already envisaged even earlier in the programme. And, civilian and nuclear programme being separated out is not uncommon in any area. If you look at DRDO working on missile and ISRO working on satellite launch vehicle, it is a classic example of what we have already done in this connection. So, it is not that we are developing a new model here. We are only making a natural evaluation of a system into two convenient sections so that we can independently pursue them. Why do we need to do this? We are always in international co-operation. The question of civil area is more amenable to co-operation internationally. The moment I say that I want to develop a missile, I will have a problem. But, the moment I say that I want to develop a satellite or a component of a launch vehicle, I will have less difficulty because it is civilian, it is open, it is transparent, it is more accountable to an international order, which is not so in the case of military. This is exactly the type of model that we are discussing here. So, there is nothing I can see as a contradiction in the decision to separate out providing the civilian thing with more transparency and the military part of it separated out so that we can pursue our own strategic autonomy with respect to this. But, this was envisaged. So, if you give a close reading to the United States and India Nuclear Co-operation Act of 2006, passed by the House of Representatives, it allows India to develop its nuclear arsenal within the facilities that it has declared military. The Act does not prohibit addition to these facilities if needed at a future date. I am talking of sections 123, 128 and 129 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The deal also does not limit India's stockpiles of the fissile material until you go into the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. That is a multilateral issue. It has nothing to do with a bilateral agreement and this multilateral Treaty is a part of the agenda on the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament has been discussing this question for the last several years. No agreement has been reached. (continued by 2z)

GSP/2.55/2z

DR. K. KASTURIRANGAN (CONTD.): Obviously, nobody wants to put a cap. That is why you don't have an agreement. The present assessment of the experts who participated in the conference of disarmament is that it would take anywhere up to 15 years to 20 years to come to some kind of an agreement on FMCT, and, even if I put 10 years as a reasonable time, I think, by that time, we would have solved what our requirements are. So, this is not an area that we should too much worry about so long as we have planned it already. I am sure that atomic energy has already factored this aspect into their own planning so that we won't impinge on our requirements.

The other part of it is the act of the achievement of a moratorium on the production of fissile. There have been statements with respect to India, China and all that. But it is a part of the FMCT; I don't think it is a part of trying to work out some kind of understanding and the US imposing certain types of constraints in the amount of material that we should process at this point in time.

Sir, many Members of the political and scientific community are also concerned that this deal would constrain India's options to conduct further nuclear tests. I think, this is one of the things that have been genuinely expressed by several Members here. Coming to July 18, 2005 statement, we should have some benchmark, which has been presented here, which has been debated here, and, in some sense, has the endorsement of the House. So, that is why, I am taking July 18, 2005. Otherwise, if we don't talk of any basis, then, we are not reaching anywhere. So, we need this kind of a thing. Our Prime Minister had mentioned, "the continuation of India's unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing". Further, India's unilateral moratorium was declared based on the opinion of nuclear scientists in the country. With regard to tests of Pokhran II, they said, we have sufficient technical data to design, refine and develop the current generation of weapons required for India's nuclear arsenal. This also has been mentioned. And, if there is a change in the political environment warranting further development and the refinement of these nuclear weapons or even tests, obviously, we have currently the necessary freedom to respond -- currently, I mean, even when this discussion is going on and the present level of details on the deal.

If at all, there is an iota of doubt that this is likely to be constrained because of the fact that this deal somewhere innocuously brings in this question, I think, it is something which should be discussed. I don't think, anybody, any nation would say that India should not have the option having demonstrated or having come up to a certain point. And, if that is an issue, which the House is concerned about, I think, it is a concern for all of us. I don't think that this can be left. Neither this Government nor the Prime Minister can overlook the aspect of it. But, certainly, we should make sure that we are at full liberty to continue with the development, if the geopolitical decision warrants such a requirement in the context of our declared voluntary moratorium on further tests.

The Indo-US Civil Cooperation comes in the way of relations with other countries. The type of reflection of the opinions in the Act, I could say, is one part of it. "The US shall secure India's full and active participation in the US' efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire WMD, including a nuclear weapons capability (including the capability to enrich or process nuclear material), and the means to deliver WMD". This is one part of it. But if one looks at the July 29 statement of the Prime Minister in this august House, it says, "The Prime Minister agreed to refraining from transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to States that do not have them and supporting international effort to limit their spread and ensuring that the necessary steps have been taken to secure nuclear materials and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and through harmonisation and adherence to Missile Technology Control Regimes (MTCR) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines. So, there is an alignment between that statement and this statement that has been made. I just thought that I should bring to notice this kind of a thing.

There are similar things; one is related to annual review process. There have been some discussions here. Are we reporting to the Congress of the United States? I think, it is simply not possible. There is a kind of system that the US has established that wherever they have concerns of a deal working with a country, they want to make sure that they are in full know of the deal because of the strategic and many other implications. (Contd. by sk-3a)

PREVIOUS PAGE