DR. P.C. ALEXANDER (contd.): The question of a congruent foreign policy, that has been stealthily brought into the House of Representatives Agreement, has thrown a lot of confusion. Later it is followed by a specific provision about Iran, which has been talked about by the previous speakers, something to which we will not subscribe. We will decide what policy we should have with Iran. Nobody should tell us what policy we should have even with Pakistan because we are matured enough, strong enough, wise enough to know what policy we should have with these countries in our immediate neighbourhood. We are not concerned about these countries than others are because we all know that most of our neighbours are, what they call, failed States. We are living in the midst of failed States. We handle them with delicacy; we handle them with care. And, I am not proceeding further about Iran because enough has been said about them. That has caused my second area of confusion.

The third one is the Presidential certificate. I think my good friend from the Telugu Desam Party referred to it as a good conduct certificate, a character certificate. This is not there in the Joint statement of the Prime Minister. This is not there in the 29th July statement before this House. This is not there in the 27th February, 2006, statement before this House. This is also not there in the 7th March statement before this House. We follow every word of what he tells this House because he is making a statement solemnly before the people of the country, through us. He never said that we have agreed to a good conduct certificate to be given by the President of America so that we will become eligible to the concessions that are now being given. He never said it, and I was very happy that Mr. Anand Sharma said in the morning speech, "Certainly, we are not going to agree to that." Well and good. We should have brought that point into our sense of the House statement because when the Minister of the State said that in the presence of the Prime Minister, he must have had the authority of the Prime Minister to say that. I am sure the Prime Minister would never agree to that. Therefore, that was another point which we could have brought into the sense of the House Resolution. But we missed that opportunity as well.

Sir, the fourth point is the confusion about the words 'a responsible State with an advanced nuclear technology'. A person, like me, who is familiar with the transaction of business with foreign countries, still fails to understand what is sought to be conveyed by this set of words. Why can't we say, "nuclear weapon State" plainly? Why can't they plainly accept it as a nuclear weapon State? Instead they have used the words "a responsible State with advanced nuclear technology to which concessions can be given". And what concessions? Nothing follows because of that certificate.

Finally, Sir, when we say that the President of the United States will be able to get over these difficulties when the reconciliation proceedings are initiated between the House of Representatives and the Senate, when we say that the President, who has signed this Statement along with the Prime Minister, will be able to deliver on the promises he has made to our Prime Minister, we are ignoring the realities of politics in the United States. Mr. Arun Shourie has rightly mentioned what happened to President Wilson? And, we know what happened to President Clinton, a man who arm-twisted the Heads of Governments in a dozen of States and made them sign the CTBT! For three years he waited for the Senate to agree to America becoming a Member of the CTBT. He could not do anything more than that. Every President had to suffer humiliation in the recent past, and President Bush, who will very soon become a lame duck in his own country -- elections have already started and they know that he has only so many months left -- will not be able to change what the Congress has already said.

(Continued by 4B)


DR. P.C. ALEXANDER (CONTD.): Therefore, let us not put all our hope on the authority or capacity of the United States President to switch on things in such a manner that he will be able to direct the Congress towards the Agreement that he signed with the Prime Minister. Therefore, there is confusion all around created by the US Congress Bill. Before that, I was very clear in my mind because listening to the three statements before the House, I knew that the country's interests were safe in his hands, he has articulated them boldly before us, we all agreed with that something is being done, and he has safeguarded our interests. Now, I know, he may not be able to safeguard our interests; President Bush will not be able to safeguard our interests. New negotiations may have to take place, and, therefore, I thought, we will strengthen his hands through a resolution which would have enabled him to conduct further negotiations which have to take place, to make sure that things do not go beyond their line which are drawn by Members of Parliament. Thank you very much, Sir.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now, Shri Shahid Siddiqui. You have only five minutes.

ק (ָ Ϥ) : ָ, ֮־֤ ֕ ֵ֤ ָ ޛ-00 ߻ ָ ֟ ֮ ߻ ָ , ֈ ֮ ֻ և ״׮Ù ә֮ ָ ֈ և ״׮Ù ָ-ָ ֈ ֟ ֱ ָ , ־֕ ִև ָ ָ-ָ ֟ և , ꌕꮛ ֵ֟ ָ ֮ ֲ 18 և ֤ ֮ ״ֻ , ֌ ָ ֟ ï™ Ù , ߴ , ־ , ֕ ֱ , ִ ß ָ ֮ , ֈ ֣, ֣ ߴ ߴ , ִ ׸׿֋ ֕ ׸׿֋ 000 ֣ ׸׿֋ , և0000 ֣ ׸׿֋ , ָ ߕ ָ ִ֮ ֌ ֵ , ֯ ִ֟ ꅠ ֮֮ ֕ 13 ߮ ֋, ֮ ֵ ֌ ֤ , ֌ ֟ և, և ״׮Ù ִָ֟ ױ և Ù ֋ ֵ Ù׸ ߴ ִָ֟ ױ , 18 և , ֤ ִָ֟ օ ױ ָ ֋ ױ ָ ߚ ֣֯֯և ևԅ Ù׸ ߴ ָ ֣օ ָ-ָ Ù׸ ߴ , ݮָ , ݮָ ֲ ׸ Ù֮ ָ, Ù֮ ֮ ֟ , ָ֕ ֟ Ùӕ ָ ֻ ։, ָ ׌ כ ֟ ִֵ ֱ ָָ ֮ ֮֮ ֮֮ ִ , ָָ ָ-ָ ֟ , ִ ֵ ߴ ֮ ֤ ֮ ߱և ֤ ״ֻ֮ ֻ ? ֟ և פ ֕ ֌׸ ״ֻ֮ ֻ ֱ ֵ , ևיÙ ֱ פ , ֯֙ , ִ ֯֙ , ֕ ֯֙ , ֲ ֱ פ ֕ ֌׸ ߴ ״ֻ֮ ֻ ױ ״ֻ֮ ֻ , ׻֋ ߴ ָ , ָָ ֱ ֮֮ ? ָ ֣ ß֮ ֣ ָָߠ ״ֻ և , ß֮ ߴ օ ִ֮ ֟ , 18 և ֮߮ ׸ ֟ ß֮ ֣օ ß֮ ֛ ïֲֻ Ù , ָ ߚ ֣֯֯և , ֛ ֲ , ֛ ׸ ָ ֲ ָ ָ ֛ , 녠 ֕ ߮ , ײֻ , ִ ֟ ִ֮ , , : (4C ָ ֿ:)


SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI (contd.): "To achieve a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear explosive purposes by India, Pakistan and the Peoples' Republic of China at the earliest possible date." ױ ֟ ,

"To achieve as quickly as possible a cessation of the production by India and Pakistan a fissile material for the nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices."... In the July agreement, India undertook to join in good faith negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty to be universal in nature.

ָ, ֟ ß֮ ֮ ֻ , ִ ֛ ָ֟ ָ֕ ß֮ ָ ֲӤ , ֮ ׌ֵָ installations , ևԋԋ ֻ ֛ , ׾ֻ ״׻֙ ә ֛ ֲ ֻ , ֣-֣ ß֮ ֛ ֮ ָ ִ ״ֻ , ֛ ֮ ָ ִ פ , ָ Ù֮ , ָ ָ Ù֮ , ֮ ֻ ֌ , ֤֕ ׌ֵָ Ù , ָ ָ - ׻֋ self-perpetuity, ֮ ׌ֵָ ףֵָ ֜ , ָ , ָ ִ֮ ־ֻ ֮ ֻ ָ֮ ׸ ֻ ߴ , ָ և֤֮ , ָ ׌ֵָ ևיÙ ָ ָ֟ Ӭ ִ ֲ ֤ , 1987 ֕߾ ֣ ׸ ֵ ֌ ָ ֮ ֛ ֮ ָ , ָ ָ ָ פ ֵօ ֮ , ׯ , ևיÙ ָ ֵ ֕ ָ־ָ, ևԙ ָ־ָ ..(ִֵ ә).. , ָ פ ֵ , ׻֋ ֮ ֮ ֟ ߅ ָ ׌ֵָ ß ָ ־֙ ֻ և, ֮ ָ ֟ , ֲ ß֮ ֕ ָ ֲ ֵ , ֲ ָ ֲ , ֲ ֕ ״ ־ָ , ֲ ֕ ָ ָ , ֌ ֯ ִ֮ , ֕ ֻ֟ ֋ ָ, ֕ ֛ ־ֻ ֻ ߴ , ׸ ֣ Ùיו ֮ , ֛ , ׮ֵ֤ ־ֻ ֮ ֣ ߴ , Ը֮ ֣ ߴ , ָ ֟ ִ ֋ ֋ ׮ִֵ ֻ ֤ ײ֟ օ ׸ ֵ֟ ֟ ִ֟ , ָ ֟ օ ־֕ ׮ֵ֤ ֮, , ָ ִ֮ ֕ ߴ , ֕ ݮָ , ֕ ֻ ֤, ֕ ֻ ֤, ָ ֣ , ָ , ָ , ֈ ֮ օ ָ, ָ ֈ ָ ֻ, ױ, ֮ ֻ û ־ֻ ָ ֮ ֻ , ֤֕ ֻ , ֕ ֯ ׌ֵָ ־ָ ײ֮ ׸ , ظ 1947-48 , ׌ֵָ ִ ֮֮ ߅ ֕ ָ ֲֻ֟ ֯ ׌ֵָ Ù ֕ ׸ Ը֮ - ֌ ֲ ׸ ׸ ָ ֻ , ֕ ׸ ֟ ׸ Ӥ ֻ ߅ ֕ ׸ ִ ִ , ׸ ָ ֜ , ׌ֵָ Ù ֮ ֻ ֌ , ß ָ ֻ? ...(ִֵ ә)...ָ, ׻֋ ֯ ܾß ֈ ׸껵֮ ֯ , , ֯ և, ֯ , Ϭ֮ ӡ , ֯ ָ ֛ ָ וִָ , ֯ ָ ֛ ָ וִָ וִָ ׮ֳ֮ ׻֋, ֯ ֈ ִ֣Ԯ ־ֿ , ֈ , ־֕ ֯ ߔ ֛ ֟ߕ ֯ ו ֣ ֻ ֟ , ֛ ֣, ׸ ֣, ׮ֵ ֣, ֯ ״ֻ֮ ֻ ֕ ֲ ә ֈ , ֮ ә , ә ֣, ָ ֯ ֟ , ֯ ֕ , ֯ ִ֮ ֯ ֻ֟ , ֯ ֟ , ֕ ֯ וֿ֮ ֯ ևֻ ֵ, ׸ꌙ , ֯ ׸ꌙ ֵ ָ ֯ ׸ꌙ , ߴ֟ ß֮ ֮ , ֯ ׸ꌙ , ֕ ו֋ ֮֮ Ӥ ꯙ , Ӥ ׸ꌙ ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֯ן : ֯ ֟ ו֋

ק : ֈ ֕ ִԻ ָ ֈ ִԻ , ß֮ ִԻ֮ ֯ ֛ ״ֻ߅ - (ִ֯) (4 ָ )



SHRIMATI SHOBHANA BHARTIA (NOMINATED): Thank you, Sir. Sir, for the past 40 years ever since the emergence of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, NPT, the United States has steadily increased its pressure on India's nuclear programmes both civil and military. In fact, even countries that were hitherto willing to bend rules such as Russia, which was supplying us fuel for the Tarapore Power Plant, expressed their inability to deal with India on nuclear issues. Through legislations, Sir, both domestic and multilateral, India has been debarred from the use of foreign nuclear technology and in fact, even the dual used technology that may have spill over effect into nuclear use has been kept away from India thereby depriving us of high end acquistion. In the document tabled in Parliament on 7th of March on the Separation Plan, there is a very interesting table the most common reactors found in most various countries. It is being seen from this document that the average size of Indian reactors is 220 MW whereas the average size of the reactors in most of the other countries is 1000 MW. It is shocking to see that our installed nuclear capacity today is even less than the wind energy capacity that we have in this country. If we are to achieve the Tenth Plan which talks about scaling up our nuclear power requirement to 50,000 MW by 2030, there has to be a huge incremental increase and this can only be achieved if we end our nuclear isolation from the world of R&D and the nuclear market. Many of my colleagues have been arguing and saying that we have coal energy that is sufficient. Which country wants to depend entirely on one source of energy? There is also something called clean energy and judicious mix of energy. We do not want to be dependent only on one form. Therefore, we have to make that investment today if we have to move ahead. On July 18, in a historic agreement with India the US turned its nuclear policy on its head. In a grand bargain it agreed to recognise a nuclear weapon status in exchange for India putting under perennial IAEA safeguards all its nuclear installations and reactors that were civilian in nature, in any case. Since then both the countries are trying to work out arrangements to operationalise this agreement. Several steps have been taken in this regard. But ultimately it is going to be an enabling agreement, which is also popularly known as one-two-three agreement that will direct the course of this understanding with India. It will not be the legislation, Sir, and the one-two-three enabling agreement will be keeping with the July 18 understanding, keeping with what the legislation has said in the United States and the commitments made by India in our Separation Plan. There seems to be a deliberate attempt to misinterpret the legislative process in the United States. As we know, Sir, the US House of Representatives and the Senate pass separate legislations. Thereafter they are reconciled and only then this final legislation is actually formed. People are picking on individual legislations saying that these are the conditions being sought to be imposed on India. That is not correct because the final outcome of the process is not yet over. In all democracies there is free debate on this issue and legislatures express their views either verbally or through amendments both substantive and declaratory in nature but the final outcome is yet to come. The Prime Minister has assured us that we will be keeping to the July 18 understanding and the President Bush too has said so in so many terms and to the Congress as well. Sir, there also seems to be an unnecessary requirement in the call to our Parliament to approve of this Bill. The US presidential system is very different from our system of Parliamentary democracy. In our system, the Government comes from the legislature and it is answerable to the legislature as opposed to the US where there is separation of power. To say that we will take one amendment from there, we will use it in our, we will move a Constitutional amendment, to my mind, makes just no sense. Sir, I think the Prime Minister and his colleagues deserve to be congratulated for what they have achieved so far. They have persuaded the US to stand the policy on its head. In the amendments so far, the amendments seem to have empowered the President to have the ability to waive the clause that debars Indo-US nuclear cooperation.

(Contd by 4E)


SHRIMATI SHOBHANA BHARTIA (CONTD.): Sir, let it be quite clear that the rest of the world will also align the civil nuclear policy with India on the basis of the policies that we achieve with the United States. Countries like France, Japan, U.K. have all said that they will align their civil nuclear policies on the same basis as the agreement that we arrive at with the United States. Sir, moreover, this has also ended India's nuclear isolation. Our scientists and our nuclear scientists have worked against great odds during this period. Now that we are getting a chance to remedy that and come out of this isolation, I think, we should try and grab it with both hands. On December, 7th, Sir, India was invited to become a Member of the International Thermo Nuclear Experimental Reactor Project which is a very prestigious Membership. This would allow us to work alongside EU, Russia, Korea, Japan to explore cutting edge nuclear technology. This too has been an outcome of the July 18th Agreement. Moreover, contrary to what some critics have been saying, this will also allow us to import Plutonium, which is much needed for our Thorium-Uranium reactors. If you were to depend on our internal resources, Sir, looking at our ambitious plan we have to have a very long wait. Having said this, there are certain deadlines which are areas of concern which, if crossed, could potentially be deal breakers and, I am sure, that the Prime Minister and the Government could, perhaps, certainly look at those before they sign any formal agreement. So, for instance, if there are efforts to narrowly define which particular technologies the US could impart to India or if their efforts to push India into formal commitment, not to test again or equally if there is a requirement of an annual declaration of our fissile material stock, these could be potential deadlines which I do not think we should cross. Sir, having said this there is nothing so far that would be as tangent or would deter India's nuclear status. We have eight reactors. We have the prototype fast breeder reactor and with Kalpakkam and with Trombay, all being kept out of the civil list, I think, you are more than secure in our nuclear deterrent. Sir, there have been several calls, Sir, for the sense of the House Resolution. I don't know what sort of a purpose this is going to serve. We had one in 1962 with China. We had another one in 1994 on the issue of Kashmir but they seem to be borne more out of emotions than out of legislative commonsense. I would just like to urge the House, Sir, on a last note that in relation to our policy with foreign countries, we should see them in a non-partisan manner, through the cold calculus of national interest and not through sentiment. Thank you. (Ends)

DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (WEST BENGAL): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, it is a matter of great concern for India that even after issuing a joint statement with India on 18th July, 2005, the United States is now seeking to make significant changes in the terms and conditions agreed upon in the US Nuclear Deal, and obviously, these changes are detrimental to the national interest of our country. That is the reason for which we want the Government's categorical declaration that India is, in no way, prepared to deviate from the original agreement. It is now widely apprehended that with the proposed changes in agreement, the US intends to bind India on nuclear issues, and at the same time, seeks to influence our independent foreign policy to tilt in their favour particularly, to manipulate India's support to their aggressive moves to contain Iran. It is a dangerous proposition to accept the changed provisions of the agreement as re-framed by the US Agreement, particularly, because those newly framed provisions infringe on our indigenous research and development in the field of nuclear technology. (Contd. by NBR/4F)


DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (CONTD.): We must have our own right and scope to develop with our Thorium reserves. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that recently quite a few leading nuclear scientists have appealed to the Parliament to take a unanimous decision to reject any restraint in perpetuity on the country's freedom of action or research capabilities in the nuclear field. Eight leading scientists, including three former Chairmen of the Atomic Energy Commission, have signed the aforesaid statement.

Sir, on behalf of our party, All India Forward Block, we strongly put forward our demand that the Government of India must not deviate from any of the terms and conditions of the original Indo-US nuclear deal. When the US House of Representatives can elaborately debate and impose many new restrictive conditions on the Indo-US nuclear deal, has agreed upon and declared by the President Bush, our Parliament should have the right, at least, to adopt a resolution highlighting India's concerns about the reframed deal. We request the hon. Prime Minister to make an affirmative statement in this respect, honouring the sense of Parliament. We reiterate our demand that India must not bow-down to any US pressure in whatsoever way that may come. Thank you. (Ends)

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (NOMINATED): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I have always proclaimed that I am 75 per cent Communist and 25 per cent non-Communist.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: Whether today you are speaking within that 25 per cent or 75 per cent?

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: It is only to keep her at peace, I want to make it clear that today happens to be one of those occasions which falls within that 25 per cent.

Sir, I heard my fried, Yashwant's speech with great attention. The trouble with him was that whenever he came to the crucial point and I thought that he is about now to clinch the issue, he said, 'but to save time, I am leaving it to my friend, Arun Shourie.' Ultimately, his whole speech makes me no wiser. Then, I waited for my friend, Arun Shourie. I am afraid, Arun has given up his usual job of a very, very experienced and talented journalist and has taken to construction of documents and activity with which he is totally, totally unfamiliar. His reading of those documents is bad.

Today, we are really discussing a very important issue. So much so that my friend, Arun, said that this will affect the destiny of this nation for the next fifty years. I do not believe so. But, I will take him at his word. If it is that important, I thought, we must first establish some criteria by which you evaluate an international deal like this. I suggest that there are only three criteria. The first one is: what was the state of affairs before the deal, who wanted a change in the status quo which had existing until the negotiations for the deal or the deal itself came into existence. The second one is what has the deal achieved for us. And, third one is, have we paid any unfair price for that deal.



SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (CONTD.): I believe that the nation has not been told honestly and accurately about what this deal has achieved, what this deal has rescued us from. I thought it was the first duty of the critics of this deal to tell this House: Did we want a change in the existing status quo, or, did the Americans want a change in this status quo. Sir, I do not have too much time. But I have been assured that today is a day when nobody will be interrupted not even by your bell. (Interruptions) So, Sir, just to save time, let me say that before this deal we were suffering from what a very respectable newspaper has called 'a uranium squeeze'. We are short of both kinds of uranium -- the higher and rich uranium and the lower and rich uranium. The second one we use for the production of energy, and the first one we use for the production of nuclear weapons. We went round the country, my Prime Minister went round the country to persuade those who were responsible for that squeeze, to put an end to that squeeze. Sir, my experiences as a lawyer tells me that truth has a inconvenient habit of leaking out even from reluctant mouths. My friend, Yashwant, did say that they faced, what they called, 'a state of seize', but, he said that they bravely survived that. Bravo! But there was a state of seize. An honest witness should have told the nation that the Prime Minister of this country has put an end to the state of seize without paying the price for it.

My friend, Mr. Alvi, called it, "ָ֮ ֟ ֮ ". Sir, it was ָ֮. Unfortunately, those who represent the Government are unholders of office. They are lurking today on this delicate issue even to speak the whole truth. We don't expose our weaknesses on the floor of Parliament. The truth is -- I don't know how much of it the Prime Minister wishes to share with the nation -- that our nuclear units, our energy units are terribly starved. Some of them are having outdated, antiquated technology. They are short of new technology. Some are short of raw material for use. And, some of them are in the danger of being imminently closed down. I don't know why somebody has brought out that we have made some kind of commitment that things will close down within four years. Maybe, I don't know the details. And, I am not supposed to know the details. It must be an official secret. But, I have no doubt at all that some units of ours are imminently in danger of being closed. And, that's the present status quo, which has changed. If this was the squeeze that we were facing, did we want to persist with that squeeze and do nothing about it? Or, should we enter into some kind of a deal by which those who are responsible for that squeeze change their policies. Sir, I believe -- and I am not a best letterer, I have nothing to get from the Prime Minister of this country or from this Government -- that what the Prime Minister has succeeded in achieving for this country from July, last year, is an achievement for which the whole Indian nation has to be grateful to him and his Government. God will give him long life. But I wish that some day when he is gathered to his forefathers, a grateful nation will build a monument to perpetuate his memory. This is the achievement of this deal. The achievement of this deal is that those who do not want India to become strong are, today, agitated by that achievement.

(Contd. by 4h -- VP)


SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (CONTD.): Has not China disapproved of this deal? Has not Pakistan disapproved of this deal? If I did not know that my friend, Shri Yashwant Sinha, and my friend, Shri Arun Shourie are both patriots, I would have accused them that they have the same motivation as China and Pakistan have. But, Sir, they are misguided patriots. Patriots they are. They are, certainly, different from many people outside whom I consider as malefic critics of this country because they do not want this country to become strong. This deal will make this country strong. Sir, it is not that the cartel has been created before. We are proud of our sovereignty, but, equally, other nations are sovereign. Those sovereign nations, in the exercise of their own sovereignty, have decided that those who do not accord with their notions of correct international behaviour, namely, signing what they consider, from their point of view they consider it good, that states; as many states as possible should sign the NPT. And those who do not fall in line will suffer from some disabilities and from some inconveniences. And they have passed legislations in their own country imposing severe restrictions on export of this kind of a material to those Governments and those countries which have not signed the NPT. Sir, it is we who wanted those legislations to be repealed. And, my Prime Minister has succeeded in persuading the major country, the United States to repeal that legislation. And, therefore, Sir, let us look at it. Let us look at it from the point of view of President Bush's critics. What are his American critics today vociferously attacking President Bush for? Sir, let us see one by one. His American critics are attacking him for having created an international evil precedent. Sir, I just again, to save time, I don't want to tell you the names of those distinguished critics who have accused President Bush that he is creating an evil precedent which is not good for the United States and for the world. What they say is that the entire non-proliferation system is already under attack. It is under attack from North Korea. It is under attack from Iran. And some countries have already been persuaded to reverse their course like South Africa. And, yet, Mr. Bush, why this special treatment for India? What has India done to you that you are creating this exception and are asking the Congress to pass legislation creating an exception only for the benefit of India? Sir, what is the reply of the American President? The President's reply is that India is a civilized and a responsible nation whose word is as good as a bond and whose bond is as good as a bank note. We don't insist on any written commitments from them, their record shows that they have behaved like a civilised and a very disciplined nuclear power. In spite of the fact that they have nuclear weapons, they have never used them, they have never threatened to use them. And, Sir, this is the reply which President Bush gives to those critics who have said, to use the exact words, that Mr. Bush you are making a big hole in the United State's laws creating strict export restrictions for countries which do not sign the NPT. The second line of criticism of these critics is that India has not given even an oral promise not to make more bombs. Sir, has my Prime Minister or the Foreign Ministry signed any agreement under which they have said that we are going to make no more bombs? It is not the Manmohan Government which has given any undertaking that we will have some kind of a moratorium. It is not done now. (Contd. By PK/4J)


SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (CONTD.): It is not done after the 18th of July. There is already a moratorium in existence, which at least creates a moral obligation to continue it. But this Government has not been compelled to give that kind of an undertaking, and in spite of the fact that we have told the United States Government, we have told the world, we have told every supplier that we shall continue to make bombs and we shall make such number of bombs as we can make; there is no cap imposed on us. The cap is imposed by our own economic conditions. Sir, let us not forget all the hullabaloo that is being made about our nuclear weapons and all that. Some time ago, they were all talking about total disarmament. After all, we were not opposed to Non-Proliferation Treaty. We are opposed to it on the ground that it is unequal. Some States have weapons; they are not subject to its obligations, and we are being subjected to that obligation. In principle, we have not been opposed to non-proliferation. Sir, what is all this we are talking about? When it comes to a push, do you think that this poor country can ever afford to meet the combined nuclear might of Pakistan and China? Sir, this is precisely what happened to the Russians. The Russians went into a race with the Americans. The result of it was that after many, many years of lying, they discovered that the nation has been bankrupted. It was bankrupted. They gave up that race, and ultimately what happened was that the cold war ended when the Russians realised that the arms race is bankrupting their whole nation and the Berlin wall came down, and a new world was born in the year 1989. So, Sir, by all this hype that India is giving up its nuclear weapons programme, I mean, we are creating some kind of a false bogey before the nation as if our whole defence depends upon the possession of a few nuclear bombs that we have manufactured and which Pakistan has also manufactured again. Let us not forget Mr. Yashwant Sinha, today, told us that we have already made three resolutions: that we shall not be guilty on the first strike; we shall not strike against non-nuclear powers and the third one is, we will inflict unacceptable damage upon our adversaries. Sir, the Pentagon conducted a survey as far back as 1956. Their official scientists' report was that if the Russians engage themselves in the first strike upon the United States, 65 per cent of the American nation will be totally destroyed. Sir, what is this kind of few nuclear bombs that you have kept; you will not use them in any event. They are lying useless. They have only absorbed our money and our scientific skills. They are totally useless. We will have to wait for a first strike which will destroy 65 per cent of our country, then, with the remaining 35-- I don't think, Sir, Mr. Yashwant will survive-- he will inflict unacceptable damage upon his adversaries. Sir, all this is baloney. I have never heard such baloney..(Interruptions).. Sir, then, Bush's critics are telling him that you have now become a broker for India. Because he has to go around, suggest to those other 45 suppliers that please relax your restrictions; we are relaxing them, you also relax. Now, let us all start supplying things to India. So, Sir, they are asking him that Mr. Bush what has happened to you? Are you their agent, their sub-agent, broker, waqil, advocate, or what? You have destroyed American's sovereignty and you have destroyed America's dignity that you are now becoming an advocate of the interests of India. What does President Bush tell them? (Contd. by 4K/PB)


SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (CONTD.): Bush tells them that Indians today are our partners in the war against terror. And, I give credit to Atalji for his achievements. I give him credit. But I give greater credit to Dr. Manmohan Singh because when he went there, he expanded the scope of that partnership. Atalji's partnership was confined only to the war on terror, and, today, the Government is now a partner, India has become a partner in that partnership, the objective of which is the ramification and the spread of democracy and giving the democratic spirit and sustenance to those who are willing to imbibe the democratic spirit. Of course, Sir, I understand Mr. Manmohan has got his old hangovers; he will not always, always speak with the tender with which I speak, but subject to those hangovers, for the first time, he has effected a very shuttle and a great, great important change in the foreign policy of this country. Let us be clear about it and I compliment him for that. Today, it is for the first time that he has brought India's foreign policy in line with article 51 of the Constitution of India. Article 51 of the Constitution of India, as I have always written, is a teaching, is a lesson by the forefathers of our Constitution to posterity, to succeeding Governments in this country how to conduct foreign policy. Such an article doesn't exist in any other Constitution of the world. That article says that 'India shall always, shall always, enforce treaty obligations and shall enforce international law.' This is only one thing.

And, Sir, we have never hurt the interests of Iran. We have never gone against the Iranian people. The Iranian people are our friends, and when their Governments were good, we were always good to them. Even when they are bad, we only hurt the Governments; we don't hurt the Iranian people who will continue to be our friends and brothers. Sir, what has happened today? Sir, I am sorry, I am digressing for half a minute. They have now elected a President, a new President who first made a statement that 'I will see to it that another member of the United Nations, whom we have recognised, who is our friend, who has been our supplier in the Kargil War shall be wiped; it will be wiped off the map of the world.' Sir, that country does not deserve our vote. That country deserves to be voted against, and I am very happy that the Government of India, for the first time, has shown moral courage, international courage and voted against Iran. I can't understand any President of any country, civilised country, publicly saying that 'I am going to wipe off another country from the map of the world'. And, Sir, what is more, I wish to tell those people who have been making this Iran argument that we have voted against Iran on its merits. The merit was that in 2003, the Iranian Government signed the additional protocol to the NPT, which allows snap inspections of nuclear sites in a country which has signed the NPT. And, Sir, not only they signed it, they allowed those inspections, and for full two-and-a-half years, until this new President came, they have been faithfully observing the terms of the NPT. There was peace all round; Iran was getting its full supplies. But this new President, threatening to wipe out another country, is also saying, 'he has repudiated the protocol which his country has singed.' We have not signed any protocol; but Iran has. And Iran having signed that protocol has, in February, 2006, said that it was repudiating that protocol. And, they say, 'we shall now continue to enrich uranium' -- an undertaking which they had given in 2003 that they will not do this enrichment. They are guilty of breach of treaty obligation; they are guilty of breach of international law. And, if this Government, which Gandhiji said will reflect the conscience of humanity, does not vote against Iran, I would have attacked this Government, and I would have attacked it as vigorously as I am today supporting this nuclear deal. ...(Interruptions)...

(Contd. by 4l/SKC)


SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: Was his conscience sleeping when people died in Lebanon?...(interruptions)...

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Kindly have another discussion on Lebanon. I am prepared to join with you on Lebanon as well. We shall discuss Lebanon separately. But you are a friend; you may come and discuss that with me in my drawing room!...(interruptions)...(Time-bell).. Sir, I shall take five more minutes.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. Five minutes is too much...(interruptions)...

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Sir, my friend, Dr. P.C. Alexander, knows how much respect I have for him. But, Sir, he said he is afraid of policy congruence.

Sir, I have always been of one opinion and my whole political career depends upon that one principle, and that is that the democracies of the world must learn to sink or swim together. Today, there is a respectable body of writings; please, go into academics and have a look at the literature that is being produced in international circles. The literature that is being produced says, end this United Nations; create another United Nations in which only truly democratic countries would become members, those countries which practice secular democracy, which practice human rights, which respect women and treat them as equals, as I do...

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: America doesn't...(interruptions)...

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: If they don't, democracies have an in-built mechanism for improvement, which other governments do not have.

Sir, now, a word about the scientists, and that is one thing that has been going round and round. My friend, Mr. Jothi, made a huge song and dance about these scientists. He said they are tongue-tied. Now, first of all, a very distinguished scientist got up here and made a speech, so that that takes care of his main argument. For twenty minutes he kept saying that scientists have opposed it! Scientists have not opposed it. Here is a distinguished scientist who has supported the deal! Now, what about the other scientists? Again, Sir, I speak with great respect for the integrity of Mr. Yashwant Sinha, who quoted Dr. Gopal Krishnan's article which he seems to have written only yesterday! Is that right? I have read that article. What does he say? Please, don't misquote; half quotation is more dangerous than a complete lie. What he says is...(interruptions)..

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA: This article was not written yesterday; it was written a week ago.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Anyway, I hope this article of yesterday is a repetition by some people who want to make some...(interruptions)..

Now, see what Dr. Gopal Krishnan says. I presume he is one of those scientists who form a part of this club! Sir, what he says is, every country must exploit its own indigenous resource for creating energy. Now, nobody can quarrel with that. Shri Yashwant Sinha is right that he quoted this part of it. But what he didn't quote was that he says that our major indigenous source is coal and coal is to be found in abundance in the East of India and some southern parts of India. But he says that our coal is so much laden with Ash that it is incapable of producing energy and no technology can really dessify that coal. Sir, therefore, we have to run to alternative sources available.

DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI. Well, sorry to interrupt you, but this is not absolutely correct.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: I know that you are also a scientist...(interruptions)... but that much science even I know...(interruptions)...

DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI: You know about a Science that is completely outdated...(interruptions)...

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Sir, the scientists have not opposed the deal. The scientists have advised -- see to it, Mr. Prime Minister, that you don't give up your sovereignty and that you don't give up the autonomy of your research. Sir, this is the advice, which they have given. The autonomy of research has not been given up. On the contrary, we have preserved intact every single weapon that we have. We have preserved intact our complete liberty of producing more weapons; the only cap is our own economic ability to produce those weapons. And so far as the other part, the autonomy of research, is concerned, nobody has told us that under this, you cannot carry on with your research. You may carry on with as much research as you want. I would be very happy if you give more and more crores to the scientists to carry on research. * But, Sir, I can...(interruptions)... (Followed by 4m)


SHRI AMAR SINGH: This is not acceptable. ..(Interruptions)..

SHRI N. JOTHI: It is very, very unfair. ..(Interruptions)..

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It is withdrawn. ..(Interruptions).. He has withdrawn it. ..(Interruptions)..

DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI: He is the top most lawyer of this country. I respect him. But .. ....(Interruptions)..

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Joshiji, he has withdrawn it. ..(Interruptions)..

֯ և ..(־֮֬).. I don't allow any argument. ..(Interruptions).. Nothing will go on record. ..(Interruptions)..


ֳ֯ן : ֵ , ׾֤ ׻ֵ ..(־֮֬).. What else you want? ..(Interruptions)..


MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: He has withdrawn. ..(Interruptions).. Please sit down. ..(Interruptions)..


* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.


MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: He has withdrawn. Please sit down. ..(Interruptions).. Hon. Member has withdrawn. So, I don't allow any other discussion. ..(Interruptions)..


SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Sir, It is an absolute misunderstanding. ..(Interruptions)..


ֳ֯ן : ׾֤ ׻ֵ , ֯ ך ..(־֮֬)..



MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jothi, please sit down. I am on my legs. ..(Interruptions)..


ֳ֯ן : ׻ֵ , ֯ ך, ֛ ..(־֮֬).. ֟ ֯օ ..(־֮֬).. ֯ ך I am on my legs. ..(Interruptions).. Nothing is going on record. ..(Interruptions).. I am on my legs. ..(Interruptions)..


SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Will you kindly allow me to finish now? ..(Interruptions)..


MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Ahluwaliaji, please sit down. ..(Interruptions).. The debate is a serious debate. He has withdrawn the words. We have to complete the debate. It is an important debate...(Interruptions).. Jethmalaniji, please conclude.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: I said that I consider scientists as Gods.

(Contd. by 4n/KSK)


* Not recorded.