PREVIOUS PAGE
MAIN
NEX PAGE
<

KSK/SCH/6.00/4N

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (CONTD): But, I said, by all means....

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now, don't repeat that....(Interruptions). Don't trouble me.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: *

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Do whatever you want. This is too much....(Interruptions). Do whatever you want to do.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Sir, I am amending my sentence. I want to put.....(Interruptions).

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please, conclude. ֻ֮ , ֯ ӌ ו֋ ...(־֮֬)

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Sir, you cannot surrender to this chaos...(Interruptions). On the contrary, I want to put the apprehensions expressed by the scientist...(Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Nothing will go on record. Please, conclude.

..׻ֵ: **

. ֮ : **

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕: **

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: All that I want to mention is that you accept the statement what the young Minister of State has made this morning that no nuclear installations are subject to any safeguards and scrutiny. And, second, all indigenous units shall be totally free from international inspections...(Interruptions).

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Next speaker, Shri Arjun Kumar Sengupta.

* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

** Not recorded

 

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: And, Sir, this is....(Interruptions).

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, you have concluded.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: All the scientists, they will all support the deal and not beyond their right.

. ֮ : ֯ ֈ ׮ ִ֮ ...(־֮֬)

ֿ־ӟ ֮: ֈ ׮ ִ֮ ֤Կ ...(־֮֬) ...(־֮֬)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sengupta....(Interruptions).

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: Sir, is this debate to denigrate the scientist community?

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I cannot understand what exactly do you want? ֯ ֟և, ? ...(־֮֬). I have been telling that he has withdrawn those words....(Interruptions). ֤ ...(־֮֬) ֯ ֟և ...(־֮֬)

ֿ־ӟ ֮: ׻֋ ָ ֟

. ֮ : ׮ ָ ִ֮ , ֤ ׻֋ ד֟ ...(־֮֬)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have deleted it and he withdrew it. I said that it should not go on record and I have deleted it.....(Interruptions).

. ֮ : ֲ ֯ ד֟ ָ ׮ ִ֮ ...(־֮֬)

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: Why don't you expunge those remarks?

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have expunged it.

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA: Sir, the whole world is watching...(Interruptions).

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: Because the whole House....(Interruptions). Nobody, in the House, will agree to discredit the scientists....(Interruptions).

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Don't shout. Mr. Jothi, if you speak coolly, I can understand. If you shout, I can't understand....(Interruptions). What can I do?...(Interruptions). I have expunged those remarks....(Interruptions). I have expunged it.

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: On behalf of the whole House, I would like to say that we hold our scientists in high esteem.

. ֮ : ֕ ׮ ָ ֲ ֛ ...(־֮֬) ָ ֜ ײ֮ ׮ ֵ֟ ֜ ...(־֮֬) ָ ֕ ֛ , ׮ ֕ ֛ ...(־֮֬) ָ ֕ ֛ ׮ ֕ ֛ ֕ ָ ֟ ...(־֮֬)

ֳ֯ן: ָ ָ ִֵ ֲԤ I have expunged it

. ֮ : ֻ, ײֻ ֻ֟ ֟ ...(־֮֬) ׮ ӲӬ ָ ֟ ײֻ ...(־֮֬)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have expunged it....(Interruptions). If there is anything in the rules, you show it...(Interruptions).

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA: It has been telecast live...(Interruptions).

(followed by 4o)

GSP-MCM/6.05/4O

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: It has been telecast. Sir, what is the use of expunging? It has been already telecasted. (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have no answer for this. Mr. Ramachandraiah, there is no answer for this. (Interruptions) I cannot give you any answer. (Interruptions) It is telecasted. If you want, I will stop the telecast. (Interruptions).

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: Sir, I have a suggestion. Why don't you, on behalf of the Chair, say that this House holds the entire scientific community in high respect. (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We hold the scientific community in great respect. Their contribution is accepted, and, they have participated in building the nation. Nobody can denigrate them. (Interruptions)

DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI: And that the House does not approve any remark against the prestige...(Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sengupta, please continue.

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA (WEST BENGAL): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this important discussion. Sir, I would like Dr. Joshi and Mr. Yashwant Sinha to listen to me because while speaking, most of the things will be addressed to them. So, I would very much appreciate if they listen to me. Sir, this is the fag end of the whole debate. Lot of things have been said. I don't want to go over the whole subject. But, Sir, let me point out two things. Mr. Yashwant Sinhaji said that we have had tremendous achievements by our scientists on nuclear development. There is absolutely no doubt about it. But had there been a cooperation in technology, these scientists would have done much better, would have gone far ahead and this is the reason since Mrs. Indira Gandhi time, after the first Pokhran, we have been trying to get an understanding with the United States on nuclear technology cooperation. This is not new. It started in 1980s when Mrs. Gandhi went and talked to the American Government about the blue-ribbon technology to get the dual-use technology, which was also followed by Rajivji. Then, it was carried on by your Government during your tenure; nuclear cooperation was something that you all desired, and, which all the Government desired. The question that is raised is what did we get, or, what are we getting out of it. It is precisely this. Now, the time has come when the American Government has agreed that we have reached a position where we must have nuclear cooperation with India, and, this is an opportunity we must not allow to be missed. I will come to the point in detail and I would urge all of you who have been associated with international diplomacy that when a treaty is being negotiated, when an agreement is being negotiated, you do not tie down the hands of the negotiator. I am afraid, and this is somewhere I disagree with the formulation of the team of the Prime Minister. Even the July 18 document is nothing but a general framework. We should not tell the Prime Minister or anybody that he is bound by the words, the sentences, the phrases, talks about goal posts, the sequences, these are all totally irrelevant. He must have the full freedom to change the goal post; he must have the full freedom to change the words, to change the sequencing, whatever that is necessary, provided the ultimate aim or the whole purpose is to get this agreement.

Sir, I have great respect for Dr. Alexander who was my boss. Sir, I want to put forward one thing, and it is not a question of the sentiments of the House. The sentiments of the House are quite clear. There is one sentiment expressed by Shri Ram Jethmalaniji who just pointed out certain points of views with which I have absolutely no agreement. Now, if you talk about the sense of the House, you will be in a great difficulty. The whole world is watching. The whole world knows what the country feels. We don't have to have a resolution. This particular thing is announced all over the world. The United States has a very powerful diplomacy here. They are reporting to their Government that this is the sense of the country. There is nothing that a resolution can do except to tie his hands, and, that is not acceptable when you are going for a major diplomatic initiative to sign treaties.

(Contd. by sk-4p)

SK/6.10/4p

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA (CONTD.): ... when you are going for a major diplomatic initiative, a major initiative to sign treaties. So, I would submit that we should not talk about any of these kinds of obligations. He is absolutely free to choose the sequencing, to choose the words, to choose the phrases, whichever way he wants to do, provided to get what we are actually trying to get. And, what are we trying to get? I would like to point out, this is for the Prime Minister, as he is present here, I have gone through all the documents; I have gone through the CPM's nine points; I have gone through the scientist's arguments, etc., of course, all the newspapers' arguments, including Gopal Krishna's papers which I have read through and through. It is totally wrong. I can talk about that within a minute. But, the main issues are five points that are coming out of this, and the Prime Minister is aware of this. Let us not criticise the Prime Minister or talk about this. A lot of time has been spent on these issues by Mr. Arun Shourie and my friend. What the Americans are doing? He is not responsible for that; we are not responsible for that. The American Senators have their own constituencies. They are trying to put forward their points of view. Why should we consider these many things that this is what is going to bind us? What is going to bind us is what he is going to sign; what is going to bind us is what is the agreement that is going to reach. And, he is telling you again and again that he is not going to be guided by this thing. There is another fact, let me point out, and Mr. Yashwant Sinha knows this thing, even President Bush has written to them that some of these conditionalities that we have given are non-binding. Somebody says that they are all binding on the United States. They are not binding. President Bush has written to them that if you insist on these things, I will not be able to push forward this particular argument. So, this is their gain. Why should we get involved in this? I was listening to this. Most of the criticism is what the Americans are trying to do; what the Americans are imposing on us. These are irrelevant points. They are making their own arguments. The certification that they are taking about, they do that every time. How can you oppose their Congress telling the President that this is what you should do? That does not bind us. That is their procedure. So, the whole argument, I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, is complete non-starter. We are talking about a thing over which we have no control, and we do not want to have any control. The only thing is that we want to tell the Prime Minister, and all of us are telling, what we feel is in our interest. I have summarised this thing in five points and I would like to point out to you, it is not the sense of the House, but this, I believe, sums up all the main arguments for or against this particular Bill. The first point, if we agree to the IAEA safeguards and signing the bilateral agreement of separation, if we agree, then, we expect five things. First, uninterrupted fuel imports. Now, Yashwant Sinhaji, this is the most important thing that Gopal Krishna himself has said that what is absolutely important for a nuclear power regime in our county is that we must be able to import fuel from abroad, for a very simple reason. The reason is that the uranium that we have is this natural uranium. The enriched uranium goes to Tarapore. The other thing goes to the heavy water plants. They are very limited. They cannot even give you the 10,000 megawatt that has been planned by the IAEA. I think, Mr. Yechury was talking about whether they have any plans. Of course, they have a plan. The DEA has a plan of nuclear power generation, 10,000 megawatt by 2010. This cannot be reached with the kind of uranium that we have. Eighteen of our heavy water plants are now in a very difficult situation. They are not closing down; they are reducing their output because there is no uranium. And, we have to have uranium imports. And, even more important thing is, this is the point Mr. Yashwant Sinha knows, but he did not say, the imported uranium is one-fifth the cost of the domestic uranium. The moment we have a nuclear power station with imported uranium, the cost of generation comes down to two to three rupees per unit. It is a unique point. And, if that particular power is generated in a new technology, new capital invested, then, the efficiency of the plant would be much higher. (Contd. by 4q-ysr)

-SK/YSR/6.15/4Q

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA (CONTD.): Mr. Jethmalani pointed it out which is a fact. Most of our nuclear power equipments are poor. We have to replace them. And if we replace them with new ones, the efficiency goes up. You mentioned the cost of Rs.10 or 11 for per unit nuclear power. This is true only if we are sticking to the old technology, old fuel, and old plants. The moment we change them, the cost comes down very drastically. This, of course, depends upon certain factors. I think Mr. Bajaj is not in that game, but if you talk to Mr. Tata or you talk to Dr. Kasturirangan, they will give you an estimate which will come to about Rs.3 or Rs.4 maximum. Now, I am not saying that you should go the whole hog for nuclear power. Mr. Yechury is right. It requires lots of foreign investment; it requires lots of investment to go for that. Probably, if we have this, lots of foreign investment will come. Mr. Gopal Krishna is saying that as a result of this Agreement, we shall have a substantial inflow of foreign capital in our nuclear power stations. Now, if this happens, then we have a major new area of power supply. Now, I am putting it in this way, because I am not saying that this should be the only basket. But we must have the freedom. It is a fact that we are going to face severe shortage of power if we do not look for alternative to hydrocarbons. This has been analysed and this has been stated by different expert groups. We must go through different kinds of methods. One of the methods is conservation. In fact, if we can reduce our consumption that will have the maximum effect. But, in this whole scenario, nuclear power is a major new source of energy security. We cannot give it up. This is a major achievement of this particular treaty. (Time-bell) This is my first point. We should have uninterrupted fuel import. Whatever condition they put, they should see that we have uninterrupted fuel import either from the United States or from elsewhere and we can build up the buffer stock. We can build up the stock within the country. This point was mentioned by Mr. Anand Sharma that we have the freedom to build up stock. That is the first point that must be ensured.

The second point that must be ensured is uninterrupted nuclear technology and high technology cooperation. This would allow our scientists -- who have already done a tremendous job without any kind of cooperation, who have made great achievements in the nuclear technology improvements -- to go very far. If you ask me, the United States is very much interested in joining hands with us on that, because they have realised our importance. I think Mr. Arun Shourie said that there were no investments now in atomic projects. That situation is changing. The United States is moving towards new power stations; England is moving towards new power stations; France and Belgium are based on nuclear power facilities. They are actually going to expand it. All of them are realising that this power expansion is very important, and for them, cooperation with India is a great thing that they are looking for. This is a major support that they are actually looking for. One of the reasons why they are moving in that direction is this.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please, conclude. (Time-bell)

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA: These are the two points.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Still you have three points!

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA: This is a major thing. Mr. Sitaram Yechury is here. Question comes about our strategic programme. Scientists have said that we must not compromise on our strategic programme. Exactly, we should not compromise on our strategic programme. But what is the strategic programme? Mr. Yashwant Sinha made two points. One, 'Minimum credible deterrence.' Two, 'No first strike.' I would like Mr. Yashwant Sinha to contradict me. This implies that we are not madly going in for expanding our nuclear facilities. The total number of nuclear weapons that we have today is enough. I make this point here. I know that Mr. Yashwant Sinha knows it. I know the scientists know it that the total number of nuclear weapons that we have today is enough to put forward as a minimum credible deterrence.

(Contd. by VKK/4R)

-YSR/VKK-MP/4r/6.20

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA (CONTD.): What we need is delivery equipment; what we need is missile; what we need is submarines and airport facilities; not too much of this nuclear facility. Now, I mentioned this because there is a tendency here -- and I am glad that Mr. Yechury is not a part of that -- that as if this agreement is putting a cap on our nuclear ability. No, it is not putting any cap on our strategic requirements of deterrence. It has all the deterrence facilities that you have.

ֳ֯ן : 㯟 , ֯ conclude ו֋ I have to conclude the debate by 6.30 p.m. There are four more speakers. Other speakers take objection. Please conclude.

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA: Sir, I have two more points. There is no restriction on research and development. This point has been mentioned and this point has been repeated by the Prime Minister. This has been repeated, again and again, that no such restrictions would be put on research and development and that should be maintained. Finally, there should be no change in the Foreign Policy. I must mention this that in the initial period, on Foreign Policy, there was a fear, especially when President Bush came here and talked about regime changes. In this House, the Prime Minister got up and said that he does not believe in this regime change. He is not in that picture. (Time-bell) Then, when the Lebanon question came, he again resorted to the same approach which clearly established that the Prime Minister is not going to be tied down by this kind of changing Foreign Policy regime. Now, I am putting forward these arguments because this has been mentioned by some friends that there is a possibility of a change in the Foreign Policy. We are going to be a clan state of the United States....

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Next, Shri Abani Roy.

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA: This is not true. It cannot be true and the Prime Minister has asserted the point again and again. (Interruptions)

SHRI TAPAN KUMAR SEN: Why are you opening a new vista of what is possible and what is not possible? (Interruptions)

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA: All I am saying is...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sengupta, please, you have taken 20 minutes. No, no, please. (Ends)

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

* Pp 609 Onwards will be issued as Supplement.

-YSR/VKK-MP/4r/6.20

SHORT DURATION DISCUSSION

ON INDO-U.S. NUCLEAR DEAL - (CONTD.)

SHRI ABANI ROY (WEST BENGAL): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, it is a very serious issue that we have taken up today. Nobody is talking as to whether we require the nuclear energy or not. We require nuclear energy; we want it. There is no doubt about it. Why we are questioning the Prime Minister is that we are getting news after news from various places, whether from internet, website, media or print media and these things are confusing us. The matter was discussed inside the Parliament three times. There is no doubt. Now, we are talking about shifting of the goal post. How it has come? Nobody is thinking about what they are discussing, what they are talking and what arguments are going on there in their Parliament. We are very much concerned about India. We are very much for India. We are not for the Americans -- what they are giving; what they are doing; why they are interested; why they are going to give you uranium. What you have said just now, pleading this and that, that technology will come from there, machinery will come from there and money will come from there, we know all these things. So, don't try to plead in that sense. The point is, on this question, there is confusion. Let me read one thing. The President has given a speech the day before yesterday on nuclear fuel. He said, "With cooperation of certain States, the country should aim to mine enough uranium. The vast thorium resources of the nation should be harnessed by our scientists and technologists. With cooperation from all other sectors of science, technology and industry in India,... (Contd. by MKS/4s)

-VKK/MKS/ASC/6.25/4S

SHRI ABANI ROY (CONTD.): ".......I am confident that we have the capability to bring our own thorium-based reactors. This will enable us to be self-reliant, secure and independent on nuclear energy." This is the speech given by the President on the eve of the Independence Day. So, we are not concerned alone. I have quoted what the President has said. We have given nine points to the Prime Minister. It is not that because of that, you have to come out of this. We are all nationalists; we are all thinking about it. It is not for the Press alone to show patriotic feelings. I do have that in my mind. But that is not the point here. So, we are cautioning him that this is the thing that America is doing. Why? Sometimes, it is said outside that Lefts are 'anti-American'. We are not 'anti-American'. But we are against the American imperialism; mind it. Before that, the British imperialism was there. That was of one pattern. Today, the American imperialism is of another pattern. Everything is in their hands; money, in the name of World Bank, is in their hands; all the treaties, in the name of WTO; all other things, whether nuclear or thorium, are in their hands. By so many tentacles, they want to grab the others. This is another type of imperialism. That is why, we are cautioning the Government of India that we should take care while negotiating with them. The position that the Americans have got today should not be held by them. That is the main point. That is why, we are making a demand; that is why, we are talking so much. It is unfortunate to say or I regret to say that those who have participated in the discussion from the Congress side were attacking the BJP! Yes, we know what they have done. Is it time to attack anybody or is it time to take serious note of it? Have the consensus of the House. That is the thing we have to talk about now. So, this is my request to the Prime Minister that whatever points we have made here or whatever points we have given on behalf of the Left, as Mr. Sitaram Yechury was mentioning, or to whatever conclusion we have come after having the discussion, take the sense of the House; have the consensus of the House so that nobody could blame others. We have taken a decision inside the House to build India into another form. So, I request the Prime Minister to have the sense of House and, keeping that in view, take a decision. Thank you, Sir. Ends)

SHRI B.J. PANDA (ORISSA): Sir, I wish, the House should function more often like this on other issues, on other days. Every Member, whether he has spoken for or against the deal, has kept national interests above other considerations. Sir, from my perspective of national interest, I am willing to go a long way towards supporting the July 18 framework for a nuclear agreement with America. But, Sir, I will have certain important caveats and qualifications which I will come to. There are, indeed, a lot of confusing statements and developments, and it is important for the Government to clarify this to earn support of even those of us, in the Opposition, who are willing to support the July 18 Resolution. Sir, it is not enough to say that we must wait for the final version of the agreement to be signed. (Contd. by TMV/4T)

-MKS-TMV-NB/4T/6.30

SHRI B. J. PANDA (CONTD.): It is time now for the Government to take a stand on certain critical issues. Indeed, one such stand has been taken today itself when Shri Anand Sharma pointed out that we would not accept, even in the non-binding portion, a reporting requirement. But there are other such issues which need to be addressed by the Government and need to be addressed today.

Sir, much has been said as to whether this is a deal about non-proliferation or energy. Of course, the fact is that it is about both. It is an unfortunate fact that in 1967 an arbitrary line was drawn in the sand which debarred India from becoming an officially recognised nuclear State because we had not tested by then. But the harsh fact today is that it is impossible for the world to accept another official nuclear weapon State. There is no question of blaming America for this. There are more than 100 other countries which will oppose us in getting this status. It is time for us to recognise the realities and to get the most that we can get in our national interest as per today's realities.

Sir, an argument has been made that this deal is almost as good as being recognised as an official nuclear weapon State. It is possible to make that argument, but to do that one has to read between the lines and one also has to have clarity on certain issues. One has to read between the lines as to what are the mandatory requirements of us in any future agreement and what are only declarations of intent which are not binding. I am prepared, on my part, to read between the lines. But the onus is on the Government to bring forward clarity on some of these issues which could become deal-breakers for our country. I am assuaged by most of the international viewpoints that I have come across. In America, the vast majority of the opinion is that India has hoodwinked that country. As has already been pointed out by certain other Members, countries like Pakistan and China have virtually made no secret of their frenetic lobbying to stop this deal. I am assuaged by these things because there must be something good in it for us for those countries to oppose us.

As far as energy is concerned, it is a fact that only less than three per cent of our energy comes from nuclear. But that should not be the limiting factor for our forward vision. The fact is that countries like France have about eighty per cent of their energy coming from nuclear power generation and, though we should not and can't aspire for those levels, we should and can aspire for a much larger chunk of our energy coming from nuclear.

Sir, much has been said about our scientists' contribution. I am one who firmly believes that our scientists have contributed immensely to reach the position that we have reached today. But the fact remains that our uranium position does not allow us to base our uranium-based energy production as the linchpin of our policy. The fact remains that the most optimistic published figures of our uranium reserves, say, about 10,000 megawatts, can be supported for about 30 years. That is simply not enough in the larger picture. Some critics of this deal say that we must make more efforts on exploring uranium. Of course, we must. But, once again, that can't be the linchpin of our reliance on nuclear energy.

Sir, issues have been made about costs. Of course, this is costly. But our requirement of energy is so vast that we can't switch off any avenues of energy, neither hydel, nor wind, nor coal and certainly not nuclear. If the scale of our energy requirements is implemented properly, then economies of scale can come through where nuclear energy costs can drop in future. But the important issue is: Is our thorium technology enough? Are our thorium reserves enough? Are there any fetters being put on our thorium technology because that is going to be a critical turning point?

Sir, I will quickly mention only two or three key issues and then I will raise those caveats that I want the Government to answer. The first one is the scientists' viewpoints. Much has been said about it. I have done my share of reading. In this article, which has been subscribed to by all the major scientists in this arena--Dr. Sethna, Dr. Srinivasan, Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gopalakrishnan--I find that none of them actually fundamentally objected to the 18th July framework. Therefore, neither do I. But there are concerns and those concerns must be addressed. Let me read from this article and I quote:

"We find that the Indo-US deal in the form approved by the US House of Representatives infringes on our independence for carrying out indigenous research and development."

(Contd. by RG/4U)

RG/6.35/4U

SHRI B.J. PANDA (contd.): This must be addressed. I am somewhat assuaged by Dr. Kasturirangan's statement today that he does not buy this; and he believes that we will still have enough freedom for our nuclear R&D. But this issue needs to be addressed in detail, and the Prime Minister must do that. Sir, when it comes to stopping proliferation, again much has been said about Iran. So, I will not even touch upon that. But I wish to make a point that we ourselves have, in our national interest, a very strong stake in non-proliferation. It has nothing to do with going along with America; it has nothing to do with Iran really. But it has to do with asking ourselves: Are we not interested in stopping nuclear proliferation of the kind which Mr. A.Q. Khan was doing from Pakistan, with support from North Korea, with support from China? The fact that, in recent times, the media has reported that Pakistan and China want to enter into a similar agreement simply makes it clear that they want to bring what used to be an underhand above the din. We have ourselves noticed ships that have been carrying illicit cargo of nuclear materials. So we should have no hesitation, as a country, in our national interest, to happily go along with movements like the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) which will stop proliferation not only in our neighbourhood but also around the world.

Sir, another issue is sequencing. Much has been made of sequencing. But again, I will read from the newspapers what all these important scientists have talked about, and their statement is "The sequence of actions to implement the co-operation could be left for discussion between the two Governments." If the scientists have no concern about the change in sequencing, I would say that it is not worth splitting hairs over the sequencing issue. But much has also been made about another issue that we are going to be equal partners with America. Let us not be under any illusion. Shri Arun Shourie has pointed out in great detail that we are not going to be equal partners with America. But I do not want to hang my support to the July 18 Framework on whether we are considered equal to America or not. I want to hang my support for the July 18 Framework on whether it is in India's national interests or not.

Again, on separation, Dr. Kasturirangan pointed out that a natural progression was going to happen. It is not a bad thing for us to have a separation. We are today not a fledgling democracy; we are today not a fledgling economy. We, certainly, in our own interests, should have separation for two reasons. It will free up the civilian part of our nuclear sector for development by both the public and the private sector while putting a much sharper grip of security on the defence sector. There are articles today that certain terrorist supporters have infiltrated even into the PMO. In that kind of a scenario, I can only support any kind of extra securities placed on our military operations.

In conclusion, I would just say that for the time being, I am willing to accept at face value certain assertions made by the Government, but with a caveat that they need to answer. I am willing to accept for the time being that the House Bill in the U.S. is not definitive, that the final Agreement, that we will have to sign, will be as per our requirements. I am happy, as I have already pointed out, about Shri Anand Sharma's statement, and I was even willing to buy Dr. Kasturirangan's statement that it does not matter to us what their internal requirement is as long as we are not bound by that. Sir, the Government has asserted that there will be no fissile material gap. I am willing to accept that, for the time being. But again, I will come to the caveat. I am willing to accept for the time being that the test ban will continue to be unilateral, that it will not be mandated in the Agreement.

Sir, finally, to conclude, my caveats must be answered for me to continue this support. We must have an answer as to what could trigger an U.S. cancellation of any deal and what could be the implications for India. Sir, I am not asking the hon. Prime Minister to speculate. I am asking for a considered analysis because, for sure, if we have a need in future to have another test, then, it will lead to the cancellation of that deal. We need to know what other situations could lead to that situation and what implications are there for India. For example, as for the future fuel supply, is it in perpetuity or not? Is our agreement to have the IAEA safeguards linked to fuel supply, or, is it not? We need a clear stand taken, as was taken on the issue of reporting on these two or three issues, and we need a clear answer as to whether there will be any kind of restrictions on our development of thorium technology, or, there will not be. When I have said that there are conflicting views on this, while eminent scientists, eminent Members of Parliament, have said that there will not be, other eminent scientists have said that there might be. So we need a clear answer on this. Sir, because of paucity of time, I am not going to take further time of the House. I will conclude and thank you. (Ends) (Contd. By 4w)

TDB/4W/6.40

SHRI SYED AZEEZ PASHA (ANDHRA PRADESH): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI B.J. PANDA: I have raised many of the issues that my neighbours have raised. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI SYED AZEEZ PASHA: Sir, in regard to the Indo-US nuclear deal several apprehensions have been raised in the House by several Members. Sir, outside the House also, some eminent scientists like Shri H.N. Sethna and others have raised certain apprehensions. But, we are just brushing it aside by saying that they are free to have their own observations. I think, it is not a proper response which we have to give. Mr. Sethna and others have raised a point that the safeguards are understandable where external assistance in developing nuclear technology is involved. But, here, we have developed our own nuclear technology indigenously with our own help. So, secondly, as my learned friend has already pointed out how the United States House of Representatives has infringed on our independence for carrying out research and development. They have pointed out that no external supervision is essential to hamper our research work. My learned friend has already pointed it out, but, I am giving another quotation which Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan in his website has pointed out. It states, "In connection with the legislation passed on July 26th, some in the Indian media have gone overboard in their enthusiasm to proclaim that a few "killer amendments", which could otherwise have been "deal-breakers" have been defeated in the process. This spreads the false and comfortable feeling that the legislation, as it stands today, is benign to India, and all the negative clauses which the Indian critics of the deal have worried about have been eliminated. The truth is far from it! It is only few of the additional amendments brought forth in the last few days, to further tighten the noose around India's neck, which have been defeated." This is the opinion expressed by the former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan

Sir, I want to put a straight question here. What are the compulsions to enter into a deal with the United States? Is it economic compulsion or political compulsion? If it is an economic compulsion, I am afraid, it is uneconomical, and it is bad economics. Because for generating one unit of hydro electric power, we have to spend only 21 paise, but here we are looking for such a source of energy where we have to spend 20-times more to generate one unit of energy. So, why should we spend on such a huge capital-intensive thing which we cannot afford?

Sir, then, I feel that when we are having a good neighbour like Iran who is ready to provide gas at a very cheaper rate, unfortunately, we are antagonising our good neighbour. So, I feel that it is not economics but it is more political because you want to be more closer to America, who, in the past 59 years, have never come to the rescue of India, and the people of India knows about their so-called friendship with India. (Contd. by kgg/4x)

TDB/KGG-PSV/4X/6.45

SHRI SYED AZEEZ PASHA (Contd.): So, it is nothing but a negation of our independent foreign policy.

Lastly, before concluding my speech, I would like to request the Prime Minister to please take into consideration all the apprehensions which were expressed by the Left Parties and try to clarify them and take the whole House and the nation into confidence. Thank you.

(Ends)

׸ ־ָ (ָ™) : ֳ֯ן , ן ָ ׾֤ ן þ֟ӡ ֟ ֓ ֤ ָ ֤֕ ֤ כ ־ ֻ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֮ ָָ ֮, ָ ׾֤ ן , ™ߵ , ™ߵ ֮ ֮ ֲ ֮ ׾֤ ן ֮և , ֮ ™ߵ ֮ ׻֋ ֕ ֲ ׸ ֣ ִ , ִ ָ ™ߵ ָ , ֲ ׯ֔ פ ׾ֵ֟ ׿ֵ , ִֵ ֮ ֣ כ ߙ , ֮ ֣ ָ ߙߕ , ִֵ ֟ ׿ֵ֮ , ֓և , , ׻ ִֵ ָ ֺ ߅ ָ ™ ֟ ִֵ ׾ֵ֟ ׿ֵ ֣ ֮ ִ֮ ָ ֕ ׮ֵ ֻ֟ ֤ , ִ ֮ ֕ ٣ ׾ ֛և ֛ ֟ ׿ֿ ٣ ֲ֕ , ִ ָ ֣ ִ֮ , ֣ ֻ ֮֮ , ָ ٣ ׾

ֳ֯ן , ִ֟ Ϭ֮ ӡ -ִ ׸ ֣ ׸ ָ ֟ , ִ֟ ֟ ï™ 27 ָ ֮ ֌־ ֟ ָ 000, ֕ 7 8 ןֿ֟ , 10 ןֿ֟ ָ ֮ ׻֋ ־ֿ ײ֮ ָ ׾, ָ ן , ֜ ִ ֟ ï™

֮֮ ִ ï™ ֣ ָ ִ , ִ ָ , ֟ ָ Ϭ֮ ӡ 0 ִ֮ ֛ ߓ 18 և ֵ , ׸׬ ָ ֟ ֵ ߅ ֟ ߅ ֮ , ִ ֟ ï™ ֤, ָָ , Ϭ֮ ӡ , ֳ ï™ ֤, ָ-ָ ֱֻ֟ ׿ֿ , ִ֟ ד֟ ㌟ ֕͸ ֮ ִ ™ߵ ָ ֟ , ָ ײָ ־֟ ֮ , ߔ , ֮ ָ ֕ ָ --, ָ ֟ , ָ օ ֲ Ϭ֮ ӡ þֵ ֟ 18 և ָ ֛ ߓ ֟ , ׸׬ ֟ , ֲ ֵ , ױ ־ֻ, Ͽ ֵ ? ָ ׸ִ ֮֬ ֟ ևԅ ָ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֮ ֌־ ï™ ָ ֮ ׾ֻֿ ׸ִ ֮֬ ßֻ סßָߵ ָ ֵ ֮֋ ָ լ֮ ׬ י ׾׿™ ֻ օ (4 և/000 ָ ֿ:)

4Y/klg-kls/6.50

׸ ־ָ (֟) : ׸ִþֺ ָ ׸ Ùו ֵ, ָ Ԭ֮ ׾ßָ ֣ ָïָ ָ ֟ ï™ և ָ ָ ֵ ֻ , ִ ָ ־֙ ֋߅ ָ, ㌻ߵָ ֵ֯ , ו ֤õ 45 וִ ָ, , ״ֻ , ִ ָ ֓׸ ־ã ֵ , ִ ֤ ֟ ߤ , ֿ ִ֣Ԯ ״ֻօ

, ָ ֟ ׸ Ùו ֵ - ןֲ֨ ָ Ϭִ֮ӡ ֟և ֟ ™ߵ ִ , ֻ֮ әÙ ֮ ߋ ָָ, ָָ , ֟ ֮ ֟ ߴ֟ ָ ™ߵ ֟ ֮ ֟

, ֕ , ִ ֮ ָ ֣ ֌ֆ ֣ ֮ ־֮ֆ Ϭִ֮ӡ ֬և , ָ ׾ ֮ , ָ ٣ ן ֮ ִ ϵ ִ ָ ֮֟ ֤ ֣ , ֟ ׾ֿ פ֮ ֮־֤

(ִ֯)

DR. FAROOQ ABDULLAH (JAMMU & KASHMIR): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I heard this debate with great interest. We do not want to weaken the Prime Minister or the Government of India. We have never had that feeling. I sit in the Opposition but we all in the Opposition think of one thing, that is, nation. If nation does not survive, none of us will survive, those in the Opposition or in the Government. But let us not forget the past. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of this country, was a great friend of Panchsheel. And I have also been one of those students with the flag Hindi-Chini bhai bhai. Did we not have an understanding with Chinese that we were their friends, yet they marched on our borders, and they could have taken India over within very short time? We were not ready. Our factories were making percolators rather than guns. We thought that diplomacy would work. Did it work?

(MR. CHAIRMAN IN THE CHAIR)

Mr. Chairman, Sir, I remember when Blackwell, the famous Ambassador came to my house before attacking Iraq with all his colleagues in the embassy of importance. I begged of him with folded hands, I said, "Do not attack Iraq. Whatever Saddam Hussain may be, there is a problem of those people. Do not do it, for one the Muslims of the world would feel it is the fight of the Christians against Islam and it is the old fight that has been going on. Do not do it. You will upset the world order." Today where is Iraq? Instead of one country, it is divided into Islam's three sections, Shiaism area, Sunnism area, and then Khurdish area-- one nation divided into three. I do not want India to become a stooge of any country. I would rather die than become subservient to anyone. But one thing is absolutely right that we are not wrong here. (Contd by 4Z)

-KLS-SSS/4Z/6.55

DR. FAROOQ ABDULLAH (CONTD.): What we say, 'please look into it'. We are not binding your hands. At no stage are we interested in binding the hands of the Prime Minister. But, we warn him that these are our difficulties, the way we understand, that this is where we have pitfalls. Look into that. If the Resolution had come, as one Member from there said that Resolution binds the Prime Minister's hands, it is incorrect. The Resolution really strengthens the Prime Minister's hands that tomorrow he can stand and say, "I stand for India and India stands behind me." We are not binding his hands. We are strengthening his hands. If tomorrow Bush tells him, "my Congress and my Senate is pushing me in this direction", he says, "Please forgive me." My House also tells me that this is where we hold and that is why we want to do. We want to strengthen his hands. I am not going to go into the nitty gritties of what my friends here or my friends there said. But I would like to say; you have yourself said you are not going to bend in front of anyone. No country can defeat you. No man is born who can show India the door. But I also say, when Mrs. Indira Gandhi's first Pokharan test took place, the very next morning I was in Islamabad and the first question the journalist asked me, "Is this to beat Pakistan"? I said, "No, India believes in friendship, but not friendship of being cowed down. It has the nuclear weapon to show that, 'look, this is a deterrent. We are not weak. It is with strength that we speak and it is with strength we want friendship.' I remember the words of our Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, when at the borders of Pakistan in my State, he said, "We can change friends, we cannot change neighbours and if we live with them with peace we will both develop". And I say, "Congratulations to this Government." That was the past and congratulations to you for having carried friendship forward with all countries, with all nations and even America." I may have hundred differences on certain issues but India has to be friend of everyone for its own good. But we say, 'please look into the points that we have raised.' I would have loved to listen to you, the ex-Foreign Minister, Mr. Natwar Singh. Unfortunately, we did not have that chance. I think, in a democracy we should have allowed him, really allowed him. I would have felt proud that my India is so big that it has got a big heart and that it can listen to a person who may even oppose. But that is my India. My India has the guts to speak.

SHRI NATWAR SINGH: I did not oppose.

DR. FAROOQ ABDULLAH: Whether you opposed or not, I don't know because you didn't speak. I would have loved to hear you but you will not be cowed down. I hope that you will stand on your feet for you represent a big party. You represent Congress, and to the dying day, you will die as a Congressman. Those who think on this side that you will ever change, you will die but you will not change. Therefore, I say to you, I would have loved to listen to you. But to the Prime Minister I will say, 'don't take our comments as something that are binding you, that are pushing you. But they are only to strengthen your hands for the future of this nation.' But those of us who have lived a major part of their lives want to leave this world with a hope that our nation will never be cowed down and that we will not become poodles of any country and neither do we want those countries to be our poodles. Thank you. (Ends) (Followed by NBR/5A)

PREVIOUS PAGE
MAIN
NEX PAGE