DR. V. MAITREYAN: Sir, how can an Independent Member speak for nearly one hour? (Interruptions) How is it possible? (Interruptions)

ֳ֯ן : ֲ (־֮֬) I will call the next speaker. (Interruptions) That is what I can do. (Interruptions) I will call the next speaker. (Interruptions) Please conclude, Mr. Jethmalani. (Interruptions) Please conclude. (Interruptions) I am appealing to you to please conclude. (Interruptions)

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Sir, the last point that I want to make is this. (Interruptions) A criticism was levelled that we have refused to enter into the natural gas deal with Iran because of the influence of Americans. It is not so. (Interruptions) Americans have nothing to do with it. (Interruptions) We will enter into arrangements, on which our economic development stands, only when there is peace restored and normalcy restored in that part of the world. (Interruptions) We will not trade with those Members of the United Nations who want to destroy another Member. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Dr. Bimal Jalan, do you want to say something? (Interruptions)

DR. BIMAL JALAN: Sir, will you permit me to just make a very simple point and with a heavy heart? I thought that there were certain rules in the House when time is divided for parties which all of us accept. Even if we want to say something, we wait. In this particular case, I feel, Mr. Ram Jethmalani is, of course, a very distinguished lawyer, a great speaker, much better than us. But from what I have understood, his name was much lower down on the list of Nominated Members than mine and I was not called. (Interruptions) Therefore, I want to withdraw my name. (Interruptions) I want to withdraw my name. (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Dr. Bimal Jalan, I will tell you. (Interruptions)

DR. BIMAL JALAN: I want to withdraw my name. (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please. (Interruptions)

DR. BIMAL JALAN: I want to withdraw my name and I assure you that I will never put my name again on this list. (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No. (Interruptions) Please, Dr. Bimal Jalan, I want to make it very clear. (Interruptions) It was RJD's turn. They came and said that in their turn, he would speak. Otherwise, he has not been given any preference. (Interruptions)

0 ִ ӛָ : ָ, פݾוֵ ִ ߔ օ.......(־֮֬)

ֳ֯ן : ָ ׮֋, ӛָ , ֯ ך........(־֮֬) I will tell you. If I need your assistance, I will take it. Please, ך (־֮֬) I agree that he should have adhered to the time-limit. (Interruptions)

SHRI AMAR SINGH: Why Mr. Sitaram Yechury...(Interruptions).. Then why were we interrupted? (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amar Singh, please sit down. RJD requested that their time ...(Interruptions).. Please cooperate. RJD requested that in Mr. Mangani Lal's place, he should be given time. Otherwise, there is no preference. I deviated only when the Member requested. Mr. Digvijay Singh had requested and Mr. Amar Singh agreed to it. Then only we allowed it. Sometimes it happens. Please cooperate. Let us go with the business. (Interruptions)

SHRI AMAR SINGH: When did not I cooperate? (Interruptions) Did I ever disrupt the House? (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Did I say that? (Interruptions)

SHRI AMAR SINGH: Why was I stopped today by the Chair? ֵ, ָ֬ օ (־֮֬)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I was not there. But ֟ ߅ (־֮֬)

SHRI AMAR SINGH: I want to know. (Interruptions) Am I not a Member of this House? I need your protection. (Interruptions)

ֳ֯ן : ߟִָ և פ ֮........(־֮֬)

ָ : פօ......(־֮֬)

ߟִָ : ֮֯ ә ֕և ߅........(־֮֬)

ֳ֯ן : ә ֕֋ ִ , ֯ 36 ״֮֙ פ .......(־֮֬) Mr. Manohar Joshi.

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: Sir, my party's turn is there.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: One is from Independent and one is from party. Your party's turn will come. Next is Mr. M.V. Mysura Reddy. (Interruptions) Now it is becoming impossible for the Presiding Officer. (Interruptions) Everybody starts questioning. (Interruptions) Order is being followed. (Interruptions) (Contd. by RSS/4C)


MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (CONTD.): I cannot go on explaining all this... (Interruptions)... When we complete the first line, then we go to the Independent... (Interruptions)...

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: Sir, if there is any discrimination, it is not my duty to point out the same?... (Interruptions)...

We are six Members. You are ignoring us...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: When the first line is completed, we take the Independent... (Interruptions)...

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: We are not Independents. We have six Members. How can you ignore us?... (Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: As a group, they have more time. We take one from them. , ..(־֮֬)..

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ : ָ, ߛ߯ ֤ ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֯ן : Ӳָ ֤ Others get more time...(Interruptions)...

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: What is the priority? Just because we are opposing the deal, we are discriminated... (Interruptions)...

SHRI AMAR SINGH: If you tell us to leave the House, we will go. We will boycott... (Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry... (Interruptions)... I am very sorry to say that this debate is not going on properly. Every Member has started challenging the Chair...(Interruptions)... Dr. Maitreyan, no rules. Don't quote rules. We are following a certain procedure... (Interruptions)...

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: When the procedure is not followed, when there is discrimination, it is bound to be there...(Interruptions)...Even the procedure is not followed... (Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You come and tell this thing in the Chamber.


MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You charge me. I don't bother. All right. I have called him. I will ask him to speak... (Interruptions)... Yes, you can protest...(Interruptions)...

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: It is dictation. We are not school students to get any dictation. It is unfair. It is arbitrary.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is your view. I respect your view. Now, Shri Manohar Joshi.




* Pp 532 Onwards will be issued as a Supplement.


SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI (MAHARASHTRA): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, the question of Indo-US Nuclear Deal has been discussed in the Lok Sabha, and now, it is being discussed in the Rajya Sabha. I want to state that the discussion has taken a long time to commence, but still, the discussion is going on time. The hon. Prime Minister had agreed that a broad national consensus would be taken into consideration before the agreement is signed. The only way to assess the broad national consensus is to get the sense of the Parliament...(Interruptions)... Sir, it would have been better if the sense of the Parliament had been taken much earlier. But the Indo-US Nuclear Deal Agreement was discussed in the media and everywhere, and now, it is the time when the Parliament has got an opportunity to discuss this issue. Sir, as a matter of fact, if this issue had been discussed first in the Parliament, the Prime Minister would have been able to get the exact opinion of the Parliamentarians. But, now also. I think, it is not too late. I would like to be brief and to the point. According to me, the question before us is whether we want nuclear energy; whether we are ourselves able to generate maximum electricity, and if we want this nuclear energy, at what cost we want it. Do we want it at the cost of self-respect? Sir, I heard the other hon. Members when they were speaking. I think, the question before us is very simple. The first question is, do we want to make this country economically strong? If we want to make this country economically strong, the next question is, at what cost? If we find an exact reply to this question, the matter will be easy for us. A number of hon. Members have already reminded that the nuclear explosion was done during the time of Shrimati Indira Gandhi and Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee because the priority of both these former Prime Ministers was the security of this country. They did not want to compromise on the issue of security. When we discuss this nuclear deal, I personally feel that the only way out is to decide what we exactly want. (contd. by 4d)


SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI (CONTD.): The question of the sense of the House has been discussed a lot and, today, I find from the discussion that two-thirds of the Members are of the view that if we want to do nuclear agreement, the self-respect of our country should be maintained. Generally, the House has no objection in going ahead with the deal, provided....

SHRIMATI JAYA BACHCHAN: You speak about your party, not other parties.

SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: I am talking about the sense of the House.

ֳ֯ן : ֵ , ֯ ֮ ו֋

SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: The sense of the House is that if it is done without compromising the self-respect of the country, there is no objection in doing it. Therefore, I went through the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act in detail, and also the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House. I felt that the Americans had given us just promises; whereas India had made commitments to the US. Therefore, it is necessary to read this Agreement carefully. We have to see whether it is in the interest of our country; and if it is not in the interest of the country, according to Members, the Prime Minister should have an open mind to reconsider the whole issue. Article 2 of the 123 Agreement clearly says:

"The parties shall cooperate in use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Each party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and licence requirements concerning the use of Nuclear Energy for peaceful purposes".

According to the 123 Agreement:

"For USA, the relevant national laws include the original Atomic Energy Act, 1954, the Nuclear Cooperation Proliferation Treaty Act and the Hyde Act of December, 2006."

Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1954 reads as under:

"...should any nuclear device be detonated for any reason whatsoever, not only shall all nuclear commerce be halted with the country, the USA shall have the right to demand the return of any nuclear materials and equipments transferred pursuant to the Agreement for cooperation as well as any special nuclear material produced through the use thereof..."

It is clear from the clause, which I have read, that the USA will be able to take away the material which is used and also the material which is supplied by the USA.

In this connection, it may be stated that the Joint Conference of the two Houses of the US Congress had an occasion to make it clear that "for any reason whatsoever" shall include "for peaceful purposes" also. Therefore, I find that the US has been very careful to safeguard their interests. If that is not done by the Indian Government also, I am sure, the future generation will suffer.

Section 106 of the Hyde Act re-emphasises the provisions of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. In section 106 of the Act, it is stated:

"A determination and any waiver made under section 104 of the Hyde Act shall cease to be effective, if the President determines that India has detonated a nuclear explosive device after the date of enactment of this Act."

Sir, it was made clear by hon. Member, Shri Yashwant Sinha, that this is a very dangerous provision. This provision gives a superpower to the President of America to cancel the Agreement made so far, and it means that America will have its sovereignty over India.(Contd. by VK/4E)


SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI (CONTD): The Prime Minister has said in his statement on 13th August, "As I have said, this is an agreement for cooperation between India and the US on peaceful use of nuclear agency. The genesis is the shared perception between India and the US that both the countries need to address their energy challenges." Sir, we can understand that our country requires energy. But it does not mean that both the countries' interests are the same. Therefore, the question is whether America is looking at this deal from the point of view of energy. No, it is certainly not looking for nuclear energy as a major option. We are, no doubt, concerned about the nuclear energy, but the United States is not concerned. Their concern is all around strategic. This is exactly what one should understand that their interest is different and our interest is different. Therefore, this agreement cannot be arrived at on equal footing. The US has the right to demand the return of any nuclear material and equipments transferred pursuant to the agreement for cooperation as well as any special nuclear material produced through the use thereof. Sir, such type of agreement when made with China was different and when made with India is different. The conditions that America has put on us, they never put such conditions on China. Therefore, we are being treated as junior partners in the agreement and we are not being given the status, which China was given.

Furthermore, right of end-use verification means, American inspectors freely roaming around India's nuclear installations. This clause, according to me, is very serious. Therefore, whenever the Prime Minister spoke in this House, he never referred to the Hyde Act. I would not say that he was purposefully hiding the Hyde Act, but it is clear that the provisions of the Hyde Act are really detrimental to the interest of our country.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please conclude.

SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: I am concluding. I will not take much time, as Shri Ram Jethmalani took. What are the difficulties in signing this agreement? To me, the deal will impact India's ability to produce the requisite fissile material as all nuclear facilities will be civilian in nature. Secondly, the Prime Minister had assured the House that the reprocessing rights are permanent in nature, but it is not reflected in the 123 Agreement. Therefore, I said that whatever we have said are the commitments, and whatever America has said are not commitments, but they are promises made by them. There would be IAEA safeguard/surveillance in perpetuity even after the termination of the 123 Agreement, as long as any imported equipment or its by-products remain on the Indian soil. Right of return also seems to be risky in this agreement. By this agreement, the US has gained two absolute rights. Firstly, the right to unilaterally terminate cooperation with India at will, without arranging for alternative suppliers and secondly, the right to take back all supplied items and materials. I don't think these types of conditions are put on the United States by us at all. Sir, the cost of separation also involves heavy expenditure because separation of nuclear facilities into civil and military is not only costly but difficult to do. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention on the cost of separation of India's military and civilian nuclear power. (Contd. by 4F)


SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI (contd.): Sir, it is true that our nuclear power and military power is unified. While it is difficult to separate it, the cost of separation will also be too high.

About the question of Iran, people have referred to it. I would not like to go into it. Again, it is true that Iran-Pakistan-India Gas Pipeline will clearly have go into the cold storage. Therefore, I find from the Agreement that the sovereignty of the country is in danger. I also find that we will not be able to go ahead with our nuclear programmes in future. All these show that this Agreement is an assault on our nuclear sovereignty and foreign policy. Even the CTBT, which we have been resisting for a long time, would presume to be accepted if this Agreement is signed. I would request the hon. Prime Minister that he takes the entire House into confidence, and if he finds that most of the Members are opposed to the Agreement, then, he should not go ahead with this type of Agreement.

Sir, I would like to make a few demands before the hon. Minister on this Agreement. Firstly, put this Agreement on hold for some time. My second request to all of us is that in respect of such an important Agreement, where our sovereignty is involved, we must first discuss it in the House and, thereafter, the Government has a right to sign it. The Government can think of bringing a Constitution Amendment to this effect. Thirdly, for this particular Agreement, an All party Joint Parliamentary Committee, which we have been insisting right from the beginning, has to be constituted to look into each and every clause of the Agreement, and thereafter, the further procedure of signing the Agreement should be done. Sir, the question we have to ask is: Do we really need energy at this cost? Only when we are not able to do it within our own country, -- our resources have to be checked first -- should we go in for such a deal. Whatever my friend, Shri Ram Jethmalani has said, the experience of the U.S. is so far not good. Leave alone our own country, but even with other countries, their experience is that they start with petty things, and then they try to manoeuvre things. If people forget it, God alone can save them. The best way to delay the 123 Agreement is to come to the people of our country on this issue in the next General Elections and seek the mandate of the people of our country. I am sure the mandate of the people of our country would never be to go ahead with such type of agreements, which amounts to losing our supremacy and interests of our country. Therefore, if this Agreement is seen on merits, I don't think my party, Shiv Sena, is in a position to support it at all. Shri Thackarey, the Chief of the Party, has made it clear that under no circumstances would we support this Agreement. Therefore, on behalf of my party, I would request the hon. Prime Minister to back away, and not go ahead with the Agreement unless a consensus is arrived at.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now, please conclude.

SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: Sir, it is a wrong thing if they do not agree with the Opposition. We want our country to be ruled by Parliament and by the ruling party. I don't think that this particular type of Agreement will be in the interest of the nation. I hope this Government will become wise after the present experience and, in future, will see to it that the consensus of Parliament is first obtained, and thereafter, the Agreement is signed. (Ends)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Shri M.V. Mysura Reddy...

THE MINISTER OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (SHRI PRIYARANJAN DASMUNSI): Sir, I have a submission to make. Looking at the intense level of discussion that is taking place, it deserves full attention of the hon. Minister of External Affairs. We were looking at the List of Business for tomorrow, and it seemed difficult to continue the discussion tomorrow. We have two options before us. One is, to finish the debate tonight. Members, who have to speak on this, can speak, and the hon. Minister can give an exhaustive reply tomorrow. (Continued by 4G)


MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I think we can conclude the debate today and the reply can be given tomorrow.

SHRI PRIYARANJAN DASMUNSI: No, no. The debate cannot continue tomorrow. The debate will conclude today and the reply will be tomorrow. And, on the debate also, my appeal, Sir, through you, to the House is that I understand there are another 24 speakers to speak. I do not want to question any speaker's right to be taken away. But, at the same time, I want to make a request. The main parties have spoken. They also have two or three speakers still left to speak. They should certainly be allowed. But if the parties feel, we should field out of the four only two, or, out of three only two; then, I think, we can accommodate the smaller parties and the Independents who want to speak so that this full-fledged debate could be concluded.

Again, Sir, on behalf of the Government, I want to say that we do not control the House; the House is controlled by the Chair; if there is any ill-feeling in the minds of the Samajwadi Party leader and the leader of the CPM that they are not allowed to speak as much as they could, you can regulate the time, Sir, there are other speakers also who want to take part in the debate in a proper way and they should also get the time. I do feel, Sir, that everybody should speak. Another problem that I need to convey to the Opposition that since you all desire that in a debate the Prime Minister should be present to hear most of the points, therefore, the Prime Minister also has a lot of commitments tomorrow. That is why I am not taking the debate to tomorrow. The debate will be concluded today and, if you desire, the hon. Foreign Minister can reply exhausitively tomorrow with all the points. Or, if you desire that it has to be tonight itself, we do not mind.

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ : ֳ֯ן , ׾ֵ ָ ֤ פ ֓ ׾ֵ ӟ ֯ ָ ӟ ֯ ֓ ־ֿ Ӕߵ֟ כ פ ֟ , ׻֋ פ 000 פ ֓ ֋ ָ ֯ ,  , 24 ï ֮ ֻ ֓ Short duration discussion ֺ , Short duration discussion ָ և ә ֓ ִ֯ ֻ 0 ֮ 5 ï ә ֓ ״֮֙ ִֵ ׻ֵօ ״׮ִִ 8 ә ֓ ־ֿ ָ 8 ә ֲ և כÙ߲ ֵ֤ ָ ߮ ָ ו ָ օ ׻֋ ו֮֟ և ״ֻ, 4 5 ִֵ ־י ׻֋ ֯ ָ ײֻ ׸ ֮ , 12 ֕ immediately after question hour ײֻ ײֻ ׻֋ ֻ ә allot ֵ ӓ skip - ֕ ߲ ִ reply Ϭ֮ ӡ ־ֻ , ָ ӱ ײ֕ , intervene ֓ ֟ , ֲ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֓ ־ֲ ֲ ֕ , ׾֤ ӡ , 24 ָ ֯ ֕ ֋, ֟ 12 ֕ ֟ 12 ֕ ֣ ֓ ֋߅ ׻֋ ָ , ָָ ײֻ accommodate , 12 ֕ ֯ JIPMER ײֻ ו֋ ײֻ ׸ ֳ ֮ , פ ֤ߵ ֵ ӡ ֟և ֕ ֓ ִ reply Ϭ֮ ӡ intervene , ֲ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֮ ֤ ֟ ֓ ָ

SHRI PRIYARANJAN DASMUNSI: Sir, I would like to very sincerely convey to the House that at no point of time, when the BAC met, I agreed or the Government agreed...

SHRIMATI SUSHMA SWARAJ: You did not agree.

SHRI PRIYARANJAN DASMUNSI: Just a minute. At no point of time, the Government agreed that the debate should continue for two days. That is number one. Number two, I did not agree at any point of time that the reply will be given by somebody else, other than the Foreign Minister. I did not agree at any point of time that the Prime Minister should be expected to intervene. It is up to him whether he wants to intervene or not. These are the facts I want to make clear. Then, Sir, today, the Chair got my letter. Just to dedicate exclusively for the debate, we did not bring any Government Business today. The Lok Sabha, the other day -- although I do not want to compare; a 545 Member House - also did the same thing, devoted the whole day and completed the debate on the same day. So, therefore, dragging the debate to tomorrow will not be possible for the Government. The debate can be concluded tonight. Even if it goes up to one of the clock, from the Treasury Benches, we are prepared to sit; it is our duty. If you agree, the Minister can reply tomorrow exhaustively. But I cannot guarantee a debate tomorrow. It is not possible because we have other commitments. Anything may happen.

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ : possible ?

ׯϵָ֮ ӿ : ֕ ֈ day dedicate ֯ ָ ߸ ָ ֮, ïֻ ֮ ֋, ...(־֮֬)...

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ : פ ...(־֮֬).. 12 ֕ ӓ ...(־֮֬)...

ׯϵָ֮ ӿ : ׻֋ ֕

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ : ָ, ֕ ו֤ possible ?

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You see, it is only by agreement... (Interruptions) (Followed by 4h/tdb)


SHRI PRASANTA CHATTERJEE: Sir, as far as the JIPMER Bill is concerned, we request you not to take it up. ...(Interruptions)...

ֳ֯ן : ׻֋, how can it be decided here? ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI PRIYARANJAN DASMUNSI: It cannot be decided all of a sudden in the course of the debate. ...(Interruptions)... I am sorry.

ֳ֯ן : ߕ ֯ ֮ , .. (־֮֬).. כߕ֮ ? ..(־֮֬).. Now, the debate will conclude today. Now, Shri Mysura Reddy.

SHRI M.V. MYSURA REDDY (ANDHRA PRADESH): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, my senior colleagues, Shri Yashwant Sinhaji and Shri Sitaram Yechuryji have expressed their objections to the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act. Sir, I am concurring with their objections, because the time at my disposal is short. Sir, I would like to say one thing -- I don't want to repeat all those things -- that the 123 Agreement is a fig- leaf to the Hyde Act. Sir, apart from energy, this Agreement will make inroads into our country's Foreign Policy, the sensitive areas of military and the future economy of our country. That is why I am opposing this Agreement, on behalf of my party. Sir, some of our younger colleagues and other Members while expressing their views said that it is a path-breaking Agreement and we have got distinct advantages over China. Sir, it is not true. Sir, during the Cold-War days, the US tried to have some strategic partnership with China. China also, for various reasons, is willing to wound but afraid to strike. But, because of their military and economic strength, they were unable to enter into partnership. Like that, the US also, because of their domestic opposition and because of their allies in that region, were prevented from making forward moves there. Sir, anyhow, after a sea-saw debate in their administrations, they entered into some agreement. Sir, it is not my view. Sir, it is not out of context to quote a paper titling 'The Limits to US - China Strategic Cooperation by Lasater based on Archived Document. It says, "The PRC was placed in export control category 'IV', a category that includes only friendly allied nations. Hence, dual-use technology, which can be applied to civilian or military purposes, now will be sold automatically to Beijing." Sir, it happened in mid-1983, during the Reagan Administration. Sir, even in 1960s also, the US Administration tried for neutralising the Chinese-nuclear capability by dispersing nuclear weapons to US allies and other potential cooperating countries in that region including India also. This is not my view, Sir. This is based on a statement in a Memorandum by Dy. Chief of Staff, Plans & Programmes, US Air Force to the US Air Force Chief, which states, "Encourage Japan, India, Taiwan, and possibly Korea, Pakistan and the Philippines to arm themselves with US offensive nuclear missile system provided through sales or grants." Sir, I have quoted this from the achived document. (Contd. by 4j-kgg)


SHRI M.V. MYSURA REDDY (contd.): This was mentioned in Gal Breth's book, it is available in the library. I am not quoting anything extraneous. By seeing this, some of our American friends here are arguing on behalf of America. Sir, our Gram Pradhan also cannot adopt this predatory tactics. When the entire world knows that India is a responsible nuclear nation, unlike the rogue nations, then why all these conditions and provisions for supplying civil nuclear energy? They can supply it easily. But they are putting all diktats, 'You do this thing, you do not do this thing, you do not support Iran, do not take gas from Iran, take part in naval exercise......' Some diktat or the other. This is just like a strategic partnership.

I am quoting from Burns, and he says, "It is part and parcel of a new effort to try and elevate India-U.S. relations to a strategic partnership. We are confident that the deal would go forward.' It is not my statement, it is Nicholas Burns' statement regarding Indo-U.S. strategic partnership. At this juncture, I want to recapitulate to the memory of our External Affairs Minister the statement regarding the NPT. He said, 'It is a fraud treaty, it is discriminating, it creates haves and have-nots, two groups in this world. That is why we did not sign this treaty, NPT.' Okay, good. Our Father of the Nation envisaged global disarmament and it was supported by Jawaharlal Nehru, which was also supported by Rajiv Gandhi in the Third U.N. Special Session for global disarmament. But what are you doing now? Are you not compromising with the U.S. which is having the nuclear arsenal? Are you fighting for the global nuclear disarmament? No, you are compromising on that.

As in the past, Sir, even today, our neighbours are not friendly. The security environment is the same. Because of the security environment, we are seeing some explosions occurring everyday throughout the length and breadth of country. Even on our Parliament terrorists attacked! Our Home Minister says that we have given money to the States for modernisation of equipments to control this crime, and he would pass on vague intelligence reports and information to the States and he would wash his hands off! Our Defence Minister says that it is not border incursions and that it is a misunderstanding in the border discussions. We lost even the life of our Prime Minister, who was killed in our country by the terrorists. This is the situation all around as far as our neighbours are concerned. When the situation is like this, I want to remind to you, Sir, during 1965 war, it is known to everybody that Russians pressurised to have a ceasefire. Even in 1971 war -- it was not known publicly, but known in diplomatic circles -- even though there was a treaty, though we were in a commanding position, we were pressurised to stop that war. That is why I am saying, why do we have to depend on our strategic relations with some other countries?

(Contd. by 4k/kls)


SHRI M.V. MYSURA REDDY (CONTD): We have to have our own self-strategic deterrent. This is what I want to know from the Minister. One thing, which the Minister has mentioned in the other House, is that if we want we can test. Yes, Sir, with the country's supreme importance in mind, we can have the nuclear test. But everybody knows in international treaties either side can cancel the agreement. Once 123 Agreement is cancelled and only Hyde Act remains, then we have to pay the price. So, that is why I am asking and insisting for an assurance from the Minister or the Prime Minister himself that our Nuclear Energy Act will not be silent on our strategic programme and regarding other aspects also. Can you bring an amendment to the Indian Atomic Energy Act? It should be in black and white. It should not be done only by telling. Today somebody will be there; tomorrow you may be there, day after tomorrow somebody else will be there, that is why an amendment should be brought in order to keep our nation secure. Sir, we have seen that naval exercises up to NATO level have been undertaken. China and Pakistan protested against these exercises. Is it not encouraging arms race with China and Pakistan? Sir, I have one thing to say that there was a letter from the Atomic Energy Corporation. It says, 'the undersigned is directed to convey the approval of the Government of India for securing a nuclear power station in the following sites." This letter was written in 2005, Sir. In this two plants have been mentioned at Kudamkulam. Sir, environmental aspect was looked into by the Collector of the Trichy or by the Collector of Tirunelvelli. It happened in 2005. When it took place in 2005, without knowing all these things, he has stopped this agreement. If IAEA is the problem or the NSG Agreement is the problem, if IAEA safeguard is the problem, why all these are not seen? Why was this addressed to the Nuclear Corporation in 2005? For all these things you may be saying that we have to see our energy security. Sir, we are having lots of thorium deposits, but because of our sarkari research it has not commercialised its production. (Time-bell) Only two minutes. I will conclude. ...(Interruptions)... Sir, where is the guarantee that these imported reactors will improve the technology all of a sudden? Our same scientists will be there. Sir, it may be increased to 6 per cent by 2030 which is just a meagre increase. In our energy requirement it is like tail is wagging the dog. That is the situation. The only thing is, who will purchase this atomic power. The cost of a thermal plant is Rs.3.7 crore per MW, for nuclear domestic power it is Rs.8.1 crore per MW, and for an imported nuclear it will be Rs.12 crores per MW. This means that each 1000 MW imported reactor costs Rs.4000 crores extra than the domestic nuclear plant and why to have a petticoat of a waning super country, Sir. (Contd by 4L/sss)


SHRI M. V. MYSURA REDDY (CONTD.): Because of this thing, this Rs. 4000 crore is there in every nuclear reactor. There will be some gol mal. I don't suspect the integrity of the Prime Minister but there are kickbacks for this junk industry because America and Europe are also declaring their dependence on nuclear energy but we want to increase. Because of these kickbacks, only these people are going for this deal. Lastly, I am opposing this Bill by stating one thing, Nehruvian, socialistic economies were demolished for the sake of economic reforms. My learned friend, my bench mate used to say all these things and for the sake of nuclear energy NAM which is the brain child of Nehru is going to be buried by the hon. Prime Minister under the Congress flag. I am leaving it to be good wisdom of the Congress. Thank you. (Ends)

SHRI AMBETH RAJAN (UTTAR PRADESH): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, on behalf of the Bahujan Samaj Party, I rise to put my views on the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. The Nuclear Agreement between India and the US called as Agreement No. 123 is an important issue because the agreement is connected with the future of our country. In this regard, BSP feels that before finalizing such an important agreement which is going to have far reaching effects, the Central Government should have first taken the public into confidence and removed several doubts arising in their minds regarding this agreement. It is correct that electricity is one of our essential requirements for speeding up the process of development, but I ask whether it would have been wrong to take the leaders of all parties into confidence before finalizing the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement. Besides this, doubts are spreading in peoples' minds that the Indo-US Agreement would deny us freedom in framing our foreign and nuclear policy. These doubts should first be cleared. Our party believes that the entire country should be in agreement on important issues such as national security and integrity. We believe that this is basically the responsibility of the Central Government to ensure that the entire nation agrees and supports the agreement. Furthermore, the opinions of our nuclear scientists regarding this nuclear agreement should be made public. The American officials have said that this nuclear deal is beneficial for America, but they have constantly been linking this agreement with the Iran gas pipeline agreement. The Central Government needs to pay attention to this. The Central Government should ask America that if it is really wanting to strengthen goodwill and friendship with India, then it should first get us a permanent seat in UN with veto powers. In this way, it can win the confidence of the people of India. Our party suggests that the Central Government should take into confidence the leaders of all parties by calling an all party meeting updating them with full details of the nuclear deal so that all parties may know the true intention of the Central Government behind this nuclear deal and the losses and gains which will be borne by our country. We must also know the future of our Nuclear Programme because we do not want to lose our freedom in our nuclear policy. Furthermore, instead of becoming a part of some strategic military alliance, BSP feels that we should have an independent foreign policy and present ourselves to the world as a model non-aligned nation. With all this in mind, our party believes that if the Congress led UPA Government does not agree with our suggestions, we will be free to choose our own course of action, depending on the situation and circumstances. Our party has already given the right to make all decisions that will be needed to be made in this regard to our party President and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Kumari Mayawatiji. Thank you. (Ends)

(Followed by NBR/4M)


SHRI D. RAJA (TAMIL NADU): Thank you, Sir.

While initiating the debate on this crucial issue, my colleague from the CPM, had explained the position of the Left. After listening to several speeches, I would like to reiterate certain things on behalf of the CPI as well as the Left.

Sir, we are a democracy. We have a vibrant and sovereign Parliament. It is imperative that the Government takes the Parliament and the people into confidence. The Government takes the political parties into confidence. I could hear some speeches in defence of the deal made by two eminent lawyers. But, I understand, the defence was so weak and they could not defend the deal. But, they raised certain issues which need to be explained. As far as the Left is concerned, on 7th August, we came out with a statement in which we have asked the Government not to proceed further to operationalise the deal. There is no change in the position of the Left. Our position on 123 Agreement remains the same. Having said this, I must make it clear that we have taken the stand based on our own understanding. It is not something from a position some people tried to say that the Left has an obsession of anti-Americanism. It is not so. We oppose the deal from our own understanding and we are not anti-American that way. We have a great respect for the American people. Sir, Walt Whitman is a favourite writer of ours. We all admire the writings of Martine. It is not that anybody oppose for the sake of being Americanism. It is not the position of the Left. Having said that, I must also say, some people referred that we are doing it for China. It is not so. In fact, the US has an agenda. It is open as well as hidden. The US has got a great grand design on Asia. It has been acknowledged by many American scholars and ideologists. The US is striving for a grand design on Asia and the US wants India to be its military ally. Sir, the US wants that India to be a very dependable strategic partner. The US has various objectives for this. That is one reason why the US is more pro-active in getting this deal clinched. In fact, I would like to take a minute to quote what the US Secretary of State, Ms. Condoleezza Rice has said. While appearing before the Senate and the House Committees in April, 2006, she said, "This deal would benefit security by bringing India into the non-proliferation mainstream.

(2) The deal will benefit the US consumers by reducing the pressures on global energy markets, especially carbon-based fuels.

(3) The deal will benefit the environment by reducing carbon emission green house gases..." (CONTD. BY VP "4N")


SHRI D. RAJA (CONTD.): The fourth point is the most important thing. This deal will benefit U.S. business interests through sales to India of nuclear reactors, fuel and support services etc. And, fifthly, it goes on to talk about global partnership between India and the U.S. The same thing has been confirmed by Mr. Nicholas Burns when he said that this agreement will deepen the strategic partnership, create new opportunities for U.S. business in India, enhance global energy security and reduce India's carbon emissions. I again quote Mr. Nicholas Burns. He said this and it is on record, "It will also send a powerful message to nuclear outlaws such as Iran. If you play by the rules as India has, you will be rewarded. If you do not, you will face sanctions and isolation." This is the grand design of the U.S. on Asia. And, in fact, the U.S. wants India to be on its side, and some people think it is convergence of democracies. Even Mr. Ram Jethmalani was commenting upon it. It is convergence or union of two democracies and India should always align with the U.S. After all, when the democracy initiative was taken, when our Government contributed ten million dollars, if I remember correctly, to the Promotion of Democracy Fund, we did not agree with that. We criticised that. India and the U.S. cannot share the same perspective of economic freedom or political freedom. It is the U.S., which has attacked Iraq. I do not want to get into those details. But, what the U.S. is trying is, it is trying to drag India into this global strategy. That is why, the U.S. wants India to be its military ally. The U.S. wants India to play the role of, say, a kind of Israel in South Asia. The U. S. wants India to be part of a kind of Asian NATO.

I think, the Left was correct, when it decided to oppose the joint Naval exercise which was carried out in the Bay of Bengal along with Australia, Japan, the United States of America and Singapore. It was a joint exercise along with the U.S. military allies. We are not a military ally of the U.S. Why should India join such an ally? This is an important issue. The other issue, definitely, it has some impact on our foreign policy position. I must quote the CMP because the hon. Prime Minister and the External Affairs Minister are present here. It says, "Even as it pursues closer engagement in relations with the USA, the UPA Government will maintain the independence of India's foreign policy position on all regional and global issues. The UPA Government is committed to deepening its ties with Russia and Europe as well." This is what has been said in the CMP. But what happened in reality, I do not know. Iran was prepared for India-Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. I think, we cannot find fault with Iran for this gas pipeline not coming up. It was, again, Condoleezza Rice, who openly challenged this gas pipeline project. It was an outright interference from the United States of America. Why should India succumb to it? I cannot find any evidence to accuse Iran for this gas pipeline not coming. I find that it has something to do with our understanding of the U.S. ties. Did we come under pressure from the U.S? That is one thing to think over. Not only this, there is the question of Russian reactors. The hon. Prime Minister did intervene in the morning and tried to explain the position.

(Continued by 4O/PK)