0 ֮ (֟): ׸ , ָ ׮ָ ߅ ֮֮ߵ Ϭ֮ ӡ there is no reason for the American scientists or the American agents to roam about it, but ߬-߬ ֕֟ ֋, ֌ ֋ ֟ ִ Ӥ ָ ֻ , וִ ׸ ߔ , 1970 ֕ ׸ ֵ֮ ׸ִ ֻ֕ ֟ ו֋, ׮ִֵ Û ֻ֕ , ו ֟ ֟ , ִ ׸ 1970 ׸ ֵ֮ It not only formalizes India's status as a non-nuclear-weapons State, but it also mandates that New Delhi signs with the IAEA a highly intrusive Additional Protocol of the type applicable to non-nuclear nations. ָ-ָ ֵ ָ־ Ù ֜օ ֵ ײֻ ׌ֵָ ֮ Ù ߅ ױ ֤ Ϭ֮ ӡ ִ ӿ֮ non-nuclear ֟ , Û ׌ֵָ ֻ֕ ֻ Ù , Ӥ ֟ , ׌ֵָ ֮ Ù ׻֋ , ׌ֵָ ֻ֕ Û ָ ׻֋ It seeks to compel New Delhi to unilaterally adhere to US-led cartels formed without UN sanction that continue to exclude and target India -- the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group and Wassenaar Arrangement. In addition, the Act seeks India's "full participation" in the controversial US-promoted Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Well, the Act, perpetually, hangs the sword of Damocles of waiver or termination over India's head.

֯ ִ֮ ֮ ִ֟ß , ֟ ׮ֻ֮, ׻֋ ֮ ו , ׌ֵָ ֮ ״ֻ, ֮ ִ פ, ױ ־֮ ָ וֿ֮ ֋ It aims to bring India forcibly through the backdoor into a pact rejected by the US Senate -- the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It seeks both to build pressure on India to halt all fissile-material production and continually shine a spotlight on the Indian nuclear-weapons programme. It widens and toughens a stipulation that India actively and fully assist US efforts to discipline and isolate Iran and also to follow policies congruent to the policy of the United States.

ãן , ָ ֟ , ֮֮ߵ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֤ ֱ ָ , ָ , ߮-߮ ָ ֤ , ָ-ָ ß ֲ ֟ ߅ ֲ Hyde Act , ׸ִ , ׸ִ ֮֓, ־֕ ָ ׾֮֫ ֌ ֟ ִ , non-mandatory , ָ ָ binding ֛ ׾ד֡ ֟ ֮ ß֮ ׻֋ ֮ ׸ ׻֋ ֵ֮ ׸ interpretation , ֟ , ־ֻ interpretation , ܵ ? ָ ׻֋ , ָָ ָ ï™ ֋, ָָ ָ ֟ ï™ ֮ ׸ ו֛ ׻֋ binding ? ־ֻ ֵ ֵօ ֕ ֵ ֵօ ֲ ֮֮ ָ ןֲӬ non-binding , ׸ ו֛ ָ ? ݮ ? ִ , parameters have been well defined.

֙ ֮ פ ֵ ָ ֟ ֲ ֟ ׮֟ , Atomic Energy Act, 1954 , ֮ 123 , ִ ָ ߕ ׮ ֮ ָ , ֤־ Everything which follows on that Act ָ ָ ߕ binding 1954 , ֲ ָ ָ օ ֯ non-binding ָ Atomic Energy Act, 1954 , ֮ 123 ֮ ֻ֮ ֮ ׻֋ ߕ ֟ ׻ և (3w ָ ָ)


0 ֮ (֟) : 123 ָ ֯ և 123 ָ ӟԟ ֵ֮ ֵ , Ӥ , ָ ֳ פ ָ և ֟ ִ֟ ׾֮֫ ׬־֌ ָ և ׾ָ֓ ָָ ֟ ָ և ׾ָ֓ 'և ' ֕ ָ֋ , ָ ™ן ןֲ׬֟ , ָ , ߙ , ? ָ ִ֟ , ׸ Ù כߕ̮ ֻ ־֮֬ , þָ , ֮ פ , ֮ ָ ֯ ִ ֻ ™ן ß֟ פ, ֮ ֟ ֮߅ ָ ױ և և? ™ן ֮֯ ׬ָ פ? , , ֯ և פև 'և ' ײ ִ ָ֋ ֵ֮ ֵ ֵ֮ ֵ ֲֻ֟ ? ָ և؛ ־ֻ ֻ ׾ֿ ֮ ָ ױ , ™ן , ֯ ֮ , ™ן ֤ ֮ , , ָ և, פև ֲ ָ ָ 껵֮ , ֲ ֮ ֮, ֲ ִ ֮ ֋օ ..(ִֵ ә).. ָ ֟ ָ ֿ ֮, ־ã ָ ִ֣ ָ, þ֬߮֟ ָ ֮ ֟ ֣-֣ ָ Ùו ִ , ָ ׳ߵ ֵ ִ֯ ֟ ִ ֟ ָ ָ ׳ߵ ׾ñ ָ ִ ֋, ָ ֮ ו֮֟ ָ ֮ , ֟ ֋, ֙ ֋օ ֮ ֯ ׾ñ , ֻ ? ׸..(ִֵ ә).. ָ, ֱ ו֋, ֯ ׾ֵ ֮ ִֵ ָ ֌ օ ָ, ֮ ֟ ֵ֟ ֋ ãן ? ָ ׸ ֲֻ , ֲ ״ֻ ״ֻ ? ̸ - ֋ ? ׳ߵ ֵ ֯ ִ֯ , ֯ credible minimum deterrence ־ֻ , ֲֵ , ֯ ݻֻ ֓㋿֮ ֤ , ָ ָ בָ ãן ֮ ׳ߵ Ùו ֵ ֤־ ? ָ ׻֋ ׸ ֕֟ , ֟ ? ָ כ ӛ, ָ ӛ, ָ ׻ ӛ, ָ ׻ ӛ - ? ָ ֮ ? ִ ֯ ֟։ ׮ ָ ֮֮ߵ Ϭִ֮ӡ ֡ ׻ , ̸ ָ ו֋ - Ù , ׻ ִ "In the context of our August 2006 meeting with the Prime Minister, we have summarised below our views on the Hyde Act, and our recommendations to the Parliamentarians on the action required from them". ? ֨ ִ ߓ ßָ ֻ - Dr. H.N. Sethna, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. M.R. Srinivasan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. P. K. Iyengar, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Dr. A.N. Prasad, former Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Dr. Y.S.R. Prasad, former Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Dr. Placid Rodriguez, former Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research. ִ֮ ׮ ֟ ֤ ֮ ו֋

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Please, conclude.

0 ֮ : ֳ֬ , ֯ ֟ , ٻִֵ׸ ߻ full cooperation in civilian nuclear energy has been denied to India: (a) US unwillingness to cooperate in the areas of spent fuel reprocessing and Uranium enrichment related to the full nuclear fuel cycle. (b) Denial of the nuclear fuel supply assurances and alternative supply arrangements mutually agreed upon earlier.

(Contd. by 3x)


DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI (CONTD.): (c) Limits cooperation in the GNEP programme. India will not be permitted to join as a technology developer but as a recipient State. ֯ recipient ֯ ֻ ׸߾ , ֯ fuel ׸߾ , ֯ ӕ ׸߾ , ֯ recipient

(b)            India asked to participate in the international effort on nuclear non-proliferation, with a policy congruent to that of United States.

(c)             Impact on our Strategic Defence Progamme: In responding to the concerns earlier expressed by us, the Prime Minister stated in the Rajya Sabha on August 17, 2006 that "We are fully conscious of the changing complexity of the international political system. Nuclear weapons are an integral part of our national security and will remain so, pending the global elimination of all nuclear weapons and universal non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. Our freedom of action with regard to our strategic programmes remains unrestricted. The nuclear agreement will not be allowed to be used as a backdoor method of introducing NPT type restrictions on India." And yet, this Act totally negates the above assurances of the Prime Minister.


DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI: Then he referred, 'The Act makes it explicit that if India conducts such tests, the nuclear cooperation will be terminated.' ױ "Unfortunately, the Act is totally silent on the US working with India to move towards universal nuclear disarmament, but it eloquently covers all aspects of non-proliferation controls of US priority, into which they want to draw India into committing."

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Your time is over. ..(Interruptions)..

DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI: Then ױ India's unending programme in nuclear will be ..(Interruptions)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Your time was fifteen minutes. Now you have taken twenty-six minutes. ..(Interruptions).. Please wind up. ..(Interruptions)..

. ֮ : ֟ þָ ָ ִ ֮֯ ׻ֵ, ָ Ӭ֮ , ָ ן ִֻ , ָ ֮ Ӭ֮ ָ ֟׮ֳԸ ֮ , ׯ֔ ָ ׮ ו þֵ֢֟, ו ָָ , ןֲ׬֟ ֋߅ ֯ ו֮֟ ָ֮ , ָ ָ֮ ׻֋ ׸ ֮ ß ׮ֻ օ ָ ֕ Ӭ֮ ֵ , ָ ָ և ֋, ָ֟ ִ֟ , ׾֮ ׾֪֣ ֻ ׾֮ ֵ֜ ׾ִ֮ϟ ָ ãן և, ֕ ָ ןš ֮ , ָ ׮ ָ ֕ ִ֮ , ֲ ™ ֋օ ָ ֮ ֛ , ִϳ ֓֋ ֮ , ׯ֔ -ֻ ֻ ãן , ִ֯ ֋߅ ָ ևә Ù ֮֮ ָ ֜ ֋, recipient ֮֟ ׾ִ֮ϟ ׻֋, ׻֋, ׾ ׻֋ ֟-׮ֳԸ ִϳ ֓֋ ֮ ׻֋ ָ Ϭ֮ ӡ ï™ ֮֟ ֟ ָ, ִߙ ָ ָ ִ ֟ օ You must be very forthright and say ָ ָ 18 և, 2005 letter and spirit , ָ ֯ , ֱ ו֋, ֺ ֮ , ֻ ֤ ָ ֻ , ֟ , ֋ ִ֮ ׸ãןֵ ָ Ϭ֮ ӡ ־ֻ ִ֮ ֋ ֟׮ֳԸ ֮֮ ִֻ , ִֻ ִֻ ִ֮ , ָ ֤ , ֤ , ֺ ֟-ִ֮ ֣ ֛ , ֟-׮ֳԸ ׻֋ ֛ , ׻֋ ֛ , ִϳ ׻֋ ֛ (ִ֯)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Hon. Members, there are ten more speakers. If you don't stick to the time limit, then the discussion will go on beyond 7.00 p.m. So, please stick to time limit. Shrimati Jaya Bachchan.

ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ (ָ Ϥ) : ָ ֮֯ ֤ ִֵ ֟ և, ׿ֿ ߅ Sir, we heard so many great speakers here. So, I am going to ..(Interruptions)..

ֳ֬: ׻֋....׻֋

ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ : , ֮֯ ̟֕ ߅ Sir, I am not going into the details and technical details because they have been spoken so many times and by great speakers before me. (Contd. by 3y/SK)


SHRIMATI JAYA BACHCHAN (CONTD.): I am going to tell you what the 'ִ ֤' is saying, after reading what he is reading or after seeing he is seeing on the television or in the newspapers. Sir, we have been committed to the policy of Non Alignment since independence. There were two blocs, the Russians and the Americans. India was the leader of the non-aligned countries. But, after disintegration of the Russian bloc, it was the responsibility of India as the leader of the non-aligned countries to balance the unasked, unwanted and self-imposed supremacy of America. Instead, we are doing just the opposite. Today, all small countries of these non-aligned countries are disappointed and our non-aligned image is tarnished. Sir, the way we have been functioning, I say 'the way' because we are supporting this Government from our side, it is very clear with the kind of policies that we are bringing to this House and to the country that we have forsaken socialism and policies of the welfare of the people.

Sir, since May 2004, for each and every thing, foreign treaties are quoted and subservience to foreign directives has been the order of the day. All these are working against India's sovereignty. With regard to any treaty or proposed to be concluded with any foreign country, a full-scale discussion has to compulsorily take place in Parliament, and only after both Houses have given their approval, the treaty should come into force for implementation. But, I am afraid, in spite of it is not what the majority number is saying. I agree that the voice vote is very important. But, it is also very important to know what the Members are trying to say repeatedly by asking for discussion on every point. ָ ֟ ֲ ִֻ ֟ , ֟ ֟ ֻֻ ֟ Sir, the moment this Indo-US nuclear deal comes into force, all information concerning our atomic plants, their research data, particulars of operation, production and their functioning and the waste from the atomic plants will be in the hands of the US. It will no longer be possible to maintain secrecy. The deal has been formulated to prevent India from becoming a nuclear weapon state. These are very obvious things. But, I am talking about what the 'ִ ֤' is talking about and discussing.

Sir, as on date, the Government, at the Centre, has not answered the question as to what is compelling and what is so necessary for them to sacrifice India's sovereignty. I have a few questions. May I know why the Government of India is hiding from the people the truth that our Indian scientists have crossed the stage of Uranium-based atomic plants and are doing advanced research on generating electricity in much greater quantum through thorium technology. Other speakers have also spoken about this. But, I am asking again. The Indian scientists are engaged in plasma research too for setting up atomic plants which can bear the tremendous heat generated while producing electricity. Why is the Government going all the way to support the efforts of this and trying to prevent India from becoming a super power? What is India going to gain by throwing to the winds the policies nurtured with so much care from the time of Shri Jawaharlal Nehru. (Contd. by 3z)


SHRIMATI JAYA BACHCHAN (CONTD.): Sir, what is our compulsion? Our country, which has been so rich, is still very rich in its resources. As has been stated, the growth rate is very good, it is fantastic, and it is going to take our country very forward. We are going to be one of the richest and the wealthiest countries in every possible way. Then why are we getting into this Treaty? We are making the same mistake that was made generations ago. We allowed the British to come to this country, plunder this country, take all our goods away, and leave us back again struggling and trying to stand on our feet. I think we are repeating the same mistake.

Sir, I have been listening to a lot of people. Being an actor by profession, I do understand a lot about body language. The body language of our colleagues shows that they have realised that they have a slip somewhere. (Interruptions) Comment later; hear me out.


SHRIMATI JAYA BACHCHAN: I patiently listened to you while you all spoke.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Don't be distracted by them.

ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ : ָ և , ֮ ֋ ִ ֤ ׾ֵ ָ ֣ ִ ֤״ֵ , ֕ , ִ ֤ representative

֕߾ ㌻ : ֟ ... (־֮֬)

ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ : ֵָ ... (־֮֬) ָ, ֕߾ ㌻ ֟ ֯ disrupt , ֯ Ӥ , ֯ - ו֋ ... (־֮֬)

֕߾ ㌻ : ָ߱

ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ : ֯ ָ߱ , ָ߱ ֯ ֈ - ֟ ו֋ ... (־֮֬)

. סֵ : ֯ ߓ ֟ ... (־֮֬)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Alkaji, please. (Interruptions) Please. (Interruptions) ߕ ֮ ו֋, כ ... (־֮֬)

ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ : ֯ ֤ ׮֋ ... (־֮֬) ֯ ֟ ֤ և , ֲ ֲ י ... (־֮֬)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P. J. KURIEN): Please continue and try to conclude.

ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ : , ֮֓ ׾֟ , ֈ, ִ ֋ ָ Ϥ ֛ ֮ , ׾ ֋, ֌ á ӟ օ ִ֙ ִ , -

"և, ֟ Ϭִ֮ӡ ?

- ֲ?

- Ϭִ֮ӡ

- ֻ, ָ Contractor

֤־ևԠ , "

ִ ֤ ָ֮ ִ ֤ ִ ֲ ֕ ן , ָ ֳ ָ ֮֬ , ßֻ ױ subjugation ֻ level ָ ? ׾ָ֓ ׸, ִ ֤ ָ ד֋, ֯ ָ ֮־֤


THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Shrimati Bachchan for adhering to the time. Thank you very much. Now, Shrimati Shobhana Bhartia.

SHRIMATI SHOBHANA BHARTIA (NOMINATED): Thank you, Sir. Sir, I welcome the progress that has been made in the civilian nuclear energy cooperation and in normalising the relationship between the United States of America and India.

Sir, the popularly known Hyde US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Co-operation Act has received overwhelming vote and support from the House of U.S. representatives, and its unanimous passage in the Senate shows the overwhelming support it has got and the bipartisan support that this move has received. I only wish, Sir, that we could have also extended similar bipartisan support to a move that will not only transform our relationship with the United States, but with majority of the developed world. And more importantly, Sir, it will lay a strong foundation for our nuclear energy security.

ק : ָ, ֕߾ ㌻ כÙ


THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P. J. KURIEN): Siddiquiji, please. (Interruptions) You please continue; don't get distracted.

SHRIMATI SHOBHANA BHARTIA: Sir, the report of the Expert Committee on Integrated Energy Policy, which was also accepted by the National Development Council, points out that the per capita electricity consumption in India as of 2003 was 435 units. (Contd. by VKK/4A)


SHRIMATI SHOBHANA BHARTIYA (CONTD.): Sir, contrast this with the per capita electricity in countries like Brazil, where it is almost two thousand units; China, where it is one thousand units; Japan, where it is eight thousand units; and the United States, where it is over thirteen thousand units. Sir, you will see from this report that it's a very stark table showing the challenges that the country confronts in terms of our energy security. It's nobody's case and I am not trying to say that nuclear energy alone will bridge that gap. In fact, we have a long way to go. But, Sir, it will be one of the very important components. Besides, it is in the interest of every nation to have a healthy mix of energy sources. The running cost is inexpensive contrary to what certain Members have been saying in the House that the cost is very high. Sir, there are a number of reports and, in fact, my friend, Shri Sitaram Yechury, said that the running cost is very high. I can show several reports which show that the cost is comparable, if not cheaper. But, you have to take into account the carbon factor as well. The carbon factor is going to be a very important component in costing. If you look at that, it is carbon-free; it will not lead to global warming. Besides, as of today, we produce only 3,500 megawatts in the country which is very close to how much we generate from wind sources. If we have to achieve our target of 50,000 megawatts by the year 2020, then, we have to have this judicious mix. There is no way for us, but to augment this.

Sir, I would like to compliment our scientists for the uphill task and for the tremendous progress that we have made on the nuclear front in spite of the US-led embargos for the past thirty years. But, Sir, if India has to take a leap forward, it is this deal that holds the key for us to access sensitive technologies, sensitive equipments in the field such as pharmaceutical, space, defence and you can name any other field. Besides that, it will also allow us to join the mainstream of collaborative research and development, which is the mainstay of the global power industry. So far, India has been precluded from collaborative research and development.

Sir, critics of the US legislation have been quick to grab on to the non-binding declarative portions of the Bill. To my mind, they are missing the woods for the trees. Sir, to my mind, the most significant aspect of this Bill is that it seeks to provide a waiver to the US's own laws. It seeks to amend certain laws to give India a de facto status as a nuclear weapon state. Sir, as you know, only those countries that had tested nuclear weapons before 1st January, 1967 could be part of the NPT. The US cannot change that. You need all the 188 signatories to bring about any change. But they have done the next best thing which is to provide a set of waivers, thereby allowing India facilities which no other country has received.

Sir, under the US legislation, the US could not interact or could not have civil nuclear cooperation with the State, if it had not signed the NPT, if it did not have full-scope safeguards in the nuclear installations, if it had -- despite being classified as a non-nuclear weapon state -- carried out nuclear explosions and if they were continuing to produce nuclear weapons. Under the Hyde Act, Sir, all these conditions have been waived. We are the sole exception. This has not been done for any other country in the world. It has not been done for Israel. It has not been done for Pakistan. So, we have to realise that this is only an indication of India's standing in the global arena and, therefore, we have this US legislation today in the form that we see it. Sir, critics also say that the need for annual certification has made this less than a permanent deal. Under pressure from India, the US Congress has changed this annual certification to assessment. But many critics are saying that it's one and the same thing. But, that is simply not true. Unlike certification, assessment does not impede on the continuation of contract. You will recall, in 1991, the lack of certification in the Pressler amendment, led to the termination of US's military cooperation with Pakistan. So, there is a world of difference. Taking our concerns into account, the US has amended this. Sir, the agreement so far, the Hyde Act, is an important step, but much remains to be done before both the countries pen the 123 Agreement. But, I am sure, looking at the way in which we have cooperated, this too will not be difficult. Sir, just two more minutes. There are two or three issues. Somebody mentioned that the US has said that we cannot reprocess the fuel. (Contd. by RSS/4b)


SHRIMATI SHOBHANA BHARTIA (CONTD.): The US's position is well-known. But, I have to point out that they have not said that we cannot. They have remained silent on this. I believe, we have asked them for an exception for permanent entitlement which the US has granted on a case-by-case basis to certain countries. So, I hope that the 123 agreements will be able to capture this. Also, Sir, given our experience with Tarapore in the 1980's, fuel supply has been a major issue for us. So, the Prime Minister's March 7th statement has said that the US will help India create a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel. If despite this, there is a problem, then the US will jointly convene a group of friendly countries to try and restore fuel supply to India. I understand that section 103 of the Hyde Act, which is a statement of policy, speaks of a fuel reserve, commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements, whereas, a portion of section 102 expresses a sense of the Congress that the US should not encourage any exports to India by any other party. I understand that this clearly points, perhaps, to some sort of confusion. But the latter is meant to be non-binding on the former, and the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice has already told us that this infringes on the constitutional authority of the Congress. I hope this too gets resolved. Finally, Sir, after the agreement, the NSG is bound to give us the waiver. Some of the important countries like China, France and U.K. have already said that they are willing to start civil nuclear cooperation with India. Sir, it is not a US conspiracy, as many people allege, but it is a hand of friendship that is being extended by the major powers of the world, and I think, India would be foolish if we were to do anything but to accept it. Thank you. (Ends)

SHRI RAHUL BAJAJ (MAHARASHTRA): Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chairman. We have heard a lot of speeches, and everybody has spoken in national interest. I also intend obviously to speak in national interest. But, there is a slight difference. Barring, maybe, a couple of persons, I could, at least, feel rightly or wrongly, that everybody has spoken, keeping in mind that the person concerned belongs to a party. So, a little partisan approach has come in either to support the deal or not to fully support the deal. We know we do not have to vote on this deal. It is not a Bill which is being brought before the House, but a discussion to get the feelings of the representatives of the people about this deal, about the Hyde Act. I literally do not want to repeat what others have said about Iran's ability to test, about thorium thing, about reprocessing thing, about our ability to get indefinitely uranium. These things can be argued, and ultimately, will be negotiated; especially, as Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi said about the binding thing in section 106 about testing is something we will negotiate for 123 agreement. If we do not succeed, we can get away from the deal, walk away from the deal. We are not bound to sign the deal. The question is, the perception of the US Government about the deal definitely to me appears to be different from our perception about the deal. For us, it is a nuclear energy receiving deal, and that is what matters, apart from building our relationships, as my sister, Shrimati Shobhana Bhartia said, with the super powers. Some do not want to build the relationships, some want to build it. I am amongst those who would like to build that relationship. But they look at it primarily as a non-proliferation exercise. Go through the letter and spirit of the Hyde Act. Everywhere, it is non-proliferation. The first 5 clauses are non-proliferation clauses. Fine. They have a right to see that their needs are met, and we should reasonably try to see that their needs are met. But to get what we need in terms of energy, is the main issue. I am not getting into hydro electric, coal, clean coal technology and hydro electric power from Nepal. As of now, I would say, under the 5,000 megawatts, 10,000 metawatts, 20,000 megawatts in the next 5,10 or 20 years, figures were given by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, starting from 65 per cent of France to 20 per cent of Spain, we will have 5 per cent or 10 per cent. But, as an industry man, may I say, power at any cost in terms of price is better than no power at all. This country cannot grow at the rate of 10 per cent GDP growth rate a year if we are short of power. The villages of Maharashtra do not have power for 10 hours a day, 12 hours a day. Since Pune does not get full power, we need power. The price does not matter. But, what matters is, we have to keep in mind two things.

(contd. by 4c)


SHRI RAHUL BAJAJ (CONTD.): What price are we paying? We are talking of sovereignty; we are talking of national security. At what price are we going to get nuclear energy? Then, I have my questions. I don't know, ultimately, whether 123 Agreement is governed by the Hyde Act. I don't know. I do agree with Arunji. I don't think it is away from the Hyde Act. Abhishekji has said that nothing is written in law. It can change. They may change it. I don't know. But we must change it. There are certain things which I don't want to repeat about Iran. Talking of civil nuclear deal, what has it to do with Iran? I don't want Iran to be armed with nuclear weapons. I am not in favour of Israel, as somebody has said. But I want the right to deal with that as I want two years down the line or five years down the line. Similar is the case with testing. Similar is the case with supply of uranium, reprocessing units of fissile material, etc., etc. I would request the hon. Prime Minister, through you, Sir--I have no doubt that he has the capability and the competence; I see our Foreign Secretary, Mr.Shivshankar Menon sitting there--to negotiate hard. As a businessman, I have experience in negotiating with all kinds of foreigners, including the United States. They just don't give in. They don't give in, whether it is WTO or whatever it be. They shoved your subsidy on agriculture. They just want what they want. We should be hard and say that on such and such things we shall not give in. Otherwise, we will walk away from the deal. If they have given in on those things, I am in favour of this deal.

Finally, this is my impression. You know much more than I do. My friend talked about the US. The US needs this deal very badly, whether it is to supply the technology, the equipment and material, the reactors worth 30 million dollars or whatever it be. They need it badly. That is one of the reasons for this thunderous approval on their terms and not on our terms. So, they need it badly. If we walk away from the deal--I am not saying that you should--I am not sure, 6-12 months they will come back and in some way or the other sign the deal. Thank you. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P. J. KURIEN): Dr. Barun Mukherjee.

DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (WEST BENGAL): Thank you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: You please conclude within five minutes.

DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE: Okay, Sir. I think we are discussing this very important issue in the backdrop of some recent international happenings. Very recently we have seen how America and President George W. Bush have acted in Iraq on some serious charges and making some serious allegations that Saddam Hussein is possessing a lot of Weapons of Mass Destruction. But those serious allegations have never been proved. In spite of many independent inspections over Iraq, that could not be substantiated. Still on that plea, America under the leadership of President Bush invaded Iraq and ruthlessly destroyed that country, that old civilisation. The whole world was looking with a shocked feeling. We must keep it in mind before finalising any deal with America.

It appears that after the recent changes and amendments, the deal in the shape it finally comes will do more harm to our interests than give benefits to our country. It appears that there is an apprehension that we may have to compromise on many areas of our sovereignty or independent foreign policy. As we all know, India has a pride of place in the world being the leader of non-aligned countries. But they are afraid that once we sign this deal with America, India may misuse this priced position of the leader of non-aligned countries. (Contd. by VK/4D)


DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (CONTD): There is an apprehension in the mind of the people that due to this deal there will be a lot of hurdles in the progress of India in the field of nuclear research. America will have free access to our resources and that may prove to be dangerous for our further development in the field of nuclear research. We need not finalise this deal in a hurry. We should think over it. Of course, a ray of hope is there. We are thankful that a very threadbare discussion has been allowed on this important issue. This issue was discussed once before and it is being discussed today also. There is a lot of scope for further discussion in the matter. I do join my other colleagues to say that we are for the national interest. We should be given more opportunities to discuss an issue of national interest in greater detail. We would like to have more opportunities to discuss this deal in detail before it is finalised. Thank you. (Ends)

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (NOMINATED): Sir, this matter is of great importance. It raises questions about our history so far as nuclear weapons are concerned; it raises some questions of international law; it raises some questions of American Constitutional Law and it also raises some questions relating to our own internal system. These complex issues, unfortunately, cannot be resolved by raising one's voice or by generating heat or by making menacing gestures. These have to be rationally considered. The first question which we have to ask ourselves is: When we entered into negotiations for this deal, against whom were we pitted? It is unfortunate that the impression is being given that we were pitted against the USA. No, the truth is that we were pitted against the rest of the world, minus four or five States. Practically, the whole world, minus four or five States, had signed the NPT. It is that policy of all these countries together which we have to contend with before we get the supplies which we want. Sir, we have, first of all, the group called the NSG. It is the London Club, as they call it. They started it in 1975. At the same time, we have the powerful Australia Group, another big group and the third is the Wassenaar Arrangement, as they call it. All these States are in a position to supply us things which we want. But they have created a regime under which we are disqualified from even buying it at their cost and at their settled prices. The questions is, today America has taken an initiative not only in joining us in solving our problem which is the problem which we face, as I said, against practically the whole world, not only that the Americans are relaxing today in our favour, but the Americans have also agreed that they will induce all the nuclear supplier groups, all these nations, that they will join in relaxing their export requirements and their export laws and supply us what we badly want. (Contd. by 4E)


SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (contd.): Sir, there is, in this country, a long history of anti-Americanism, a part of which, at some time, was justified. The Americans have acted against our interests at some time. But that, fortunately, is a thing of the past. Sir, now, the first thing is our historical attitude to nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that those who were influenced by Mahatma Gandhi had permanently set their face against the production of nuclear weapons in this country. Nehruji learnt at the feet of Mahatma Gandhi, and he too was vehemently opposed to the production of nuclear weapons in this country. But, Sir, after the Gandhian influence became a little weaker with the unfortunate death of Gandhiji, under the magnetic influence of Homi Bhabha, -- the man was a towering personality, a towering scientist; he was a very pleasant mannered man -- Nehruji reluctantly relented, and he allowed some kind of a rudimentary research to go on in this country. Bhabha was such a great scientist, and also the group that worked with him, and they, undoubtedly, produced the thorium technology, rudimentary, though it is, and not of a great magnitude, but it is all the same a very useful technology which India can make use of in a small scale, but not to the extent to which the other technologies work. So, we are grateful to our scientists. But, on the other hand, it is false to say, as has been repeatedly said by many people, that the scientific community today is against this deal. Most of the scientists are not; some of the scientists are in favour of this deal. But, Sir, if I have today sat here for the whole day to make a 10 or 15 minutes' speech to you, it is because I am terribly provoked by one scientist, Mr. Gopalakrishnan, who, in the Asian Age of the 14th December, had written an article which deserves to be commented upon and which deserves to be absolutely torn to the bits because if that kind of an impression goes around,...(Interruptions)

SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: Sir, I hear no objection from that side to the hon. Member naming a person who is not a Member of this House.

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (SHRI ANAND SHARMA): The rule is about not naming civil servants and Government officials. He is only quoting an article...(Interruptions)

SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: He has denounced all scientists...(Interruptions)

SHRI ANAND SHARMA: He is quoting an article. It is in the public domain...(Interruptions)

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: I have requested Shri Ram Jethmalani to yield for a minute.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: I have yielded to him many times.

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: Yes, we both are Rams, and there is one Ram there too, Jairam. Now, with no offence meant, I am requesting Shri Ram Jethmalani that the scientist, that he is naming, belongs to one of the high priests of our nuclear scientists. Mr. Ram has full authority and right; we respect that right, and we should grant him that right to attack an argument. But let us not bring in individuals because they have all contributed to our country's nuclear status. I would only request Mr. Ram to attack an argument.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): You speak about the article, not about the person.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: He says in this article that the leaders of the current Government, that is, our Prime Minister and his Cabinet, have never been supporters of India's weaponisation programme.

(Contd. by 4F)


SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (CONTD.): Sir, he is right to that extent because we produced one bomb in 1974, ten years after China had exploded its bomb in 1964. After 24 years, in 1998, we produced one more bomb. So, Sir, our whole arsenal consists of two bombs which we have manufactured.

Sir, I don't know whether you consider this a very good achievement. Even the second bomb is followed by a voluntary moratorium on further tests. But, I want to remind the House of some very important facts. In the Times of India dated 9th June 1996, this is what was said, "A nuclear scientist from our own establishment told the Times of India that since 1975, the developed countries have stopped giving us that vital technology, thus, affecting our nuclear power generation, which, at the moment, is pitiably low at 17oo megawatts". Sir, at the time when this article had appeared, and this statement was made, China had deepened the Indian frustration by conducting its 44th nuclear weapon test, exactly two days earlier, on June 7th, 1996. Now, Sir, again, after one year, The Telegraph of August 20, 1997, in an editorial, claimed that India's entire nuclear power programme deserves evisceration -- Sir, it is a very strong word which really means, destruction and elimination -- because it cost the Earth, but provides us not even a dream, accounting for subsidies, land costs, financing and other costs, India's reactors have taken far more out of the economy than they have put in.

Sir, even to support my case, as an argument, I wish to exercise tremendous restraint because we cannot expose our weaknesses, to the whole world. Sir, take it from me, that our nuclear programme, and our nuclear energy programme was in an extremely bad shape and it is we who went to the United States and said, "Help us to get out of this difficulty"; it is not that the Americans were waiting there and they tried to come and conquer India economically and otherwise! This is an unfair criticism of a great democracy, which has committed mistakes in the past, but is now prepared to correct its mistakes. It has corrected its mistakes by declaring in this very Act two things; that India is a most responsible nuclear power; it is not a nuclear weapon State in the technical sense, but it possesses the nuclear capability; it has certainly a small nuclear arsenal, which may, perhaps, be good enough to face Pakistan, but certainly, is not big enough to face the combined unclear might of Pakistan and China if the two were to collage together in an armed aggression against India. Now, Sir, we go to the Americans and the Americans now, having realised, that the world democracies must come together, the world democracies must fight the forces of obscurantism, the forces of fundamentalism, the forces of totalitarianism together. Till now, I regret to say, that the American democracy often went wrong and for reasons of expediency which America should not have succumbed to, it entered into alliances with totalitarian powers of all kinds and went to the extent of supporting some of our real, real enemies who wanted to destroy us. But, Sir, it is a matter of great satisfaction that the Congress of the United States has now declared in the opening part of this legislation that India is a responsible power.

(Contd. by 4G)


SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (CONTD.): It has never, never misused its nuclear power and nuclear energy. It is not guilty of any international aggression, and it has a complete faith in supporting democracy and maintaining the democratic apparatus intact.

Sir, the enemies of this country see the advantages of this deal. The advantage of this deal is not merely that we will get nuclear supplies. The advantages of this deal are that today the mightiest democracy and the most populous democracy in the world have come together and they will put forth their strengths, moral, spiritual, financial, fiscal and economic for fighting the forces which seek to destroy civilisation in this country. Sir, I am not impressed by this talk of sovereignty. What would have happened, if all the oil-producing States said 'we are not going to give oil to India?' Sir, our economy will dwindle like this. It happened in 1973. They raised their prices and we suffered an economic setback. We would have to go with a begging bowl, with our head down and succumb to any kind of terms and conditions which they were to impose upon us, if that situation ever arose. Sir, nothing of the kind has arisen. Today, the most powerful democracy of the world says that India is a country worth cultivating, that its nuclear force, its nuclear energy will be for the good of the whole world. This is the recital in the Act, that this is going to be for the whole good of the entire humanity that India should become prosperous.

Sir, what is more than something more to be read into this Act, something more, that is, hereafter India and the United States shall cooperate in the economic field. Sir, those are advantages which any country would envy. So, our Prime Minister has not got merely supplies for producing nuclear energy in this country. He has won the support, and the ever-lasting support and friendship of America, a powerful country, and what is more, that powerful country has worked as our broker. They have undertaken that they will go round to all the nuclear suppliers of the world and they will see to it that they all relax their export control laws. Sir, this is the achievement. I think, Sir, Manmohan has been a great friend, but I have never been such a great admirer of his, as I am today, because he has brought in the history of this country a total, total change of Foreign Policy of the two countries. The people may not acknowledge it, but I do; that today, democracies will stand together and fight all the totalitarian forces in the world.

Sir, my friend, Shahid is here. I have such great respect, and more than that affection for them all. He mentioned Iran. (Time-bell) Sir, I have whole of the RJD's time, apart from my own time. Sir, they have assigned their whole time to me.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Fifteen minutes are over. Please conclude.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Sir, I won't take long. ...(Interruptions)... Sir, he mentioned Iran. Sir, India and Indians will ever remain the friends of the Iranian people. Sir, we have historical ties with them, and, Sir, these pre-date even the birth of Islam. With Iran, I have so much affection, Sir, my families have lived there; I myself have lived in Iran. But, today, if Iran proclaims that they will wipe off a member of the United Nations, a brother nation, with which we have friendly relations, from the map of the earth, Sir, let it not be denied, let us not elude ourselves that the whole Shia militancy in the world is concentrated on the Hizbul-Mujahideen of Iran. They are the most powerful terrorists of the world. They are breeding the terrorist movement. The Sunni movement is elsewhere. The Shia movement is Hizbul-Mujahideen. Sir, what are they doing today? ...(Interruptions)... (Followed by 4h-kgg)