SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SULE (CONTD.): Even further, there is taken into account the negative consequences of termination on the on-going projects and contracts. At the same time, we will ensure that we are compensated at fair market value and cost incurred, if termination occurs at any level.
Lastly, Sir, on safeguards, it is pertinent to say that safeguards are undertaken under the aegis of the IAEA. We have, fortunately, had very healthy relationship with the IAEA, and we have many reactors which are already under the IAEA safeguards. In article 5.6, there is the guideline of continuous supply of fuel, which I have mentioned earlier, and it is negotiated with the India-specific safeguards with the IAEA. I would like to quote here, "Providing for safeguards to guard against withdrawal of safeguards for nuclear material for civilian use at any time as well as providing for correcting measures that India may take to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies. Taking this into account, India will place the civilian nuclear facilities under India-specific safeguards in perpetuity and negotiate an appropriate safeguards agreement to this end with the IAEA." It is only if "the IAEA decides the application of the IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, will the supplier and the recipient consult and agree on an appropriate verification measures."
Sir, all deals, treaties and agreements of such immense importance always carry a certain degree of challenge. But, at the same time, they always have great benefits and rewards. The Government has done all it can to make sure that the sovereignty of this nation is protected and that both the nations benefit from this.
Sir, the last point I would like to make is this. It is only with the element of trust that the Agreement has been negotiated with the US under the laws, and it is the same trust that makes us believe that it will be implemented in good faith. The provisions of this have clearly been made in article 16 of the Agreement, which brings out the reaction between the domestic and international laws, which Dr. Abhishek Singhvi has clearly explained. Sir, I think the time has come where we appreciate Dr. Kasturirangan as a scientist, who really knows about it. They have all given their lives. Starting from Dr. Homi Bhabha right up to Dr. Kakodkar, they have always looked for an independent nuclear policy for our country. When it comes to the question of strategic weapons programme, issues of further testing, we must go by the judgment of our renowned scientists who have given their lives and commitments to all our nuclear issues. Dr. Kakodkar has shown great satisfaction in this deal. Sir, under the stewardship of our Prime Minister and Shri Mukherjee, we have laid the foundation stone of this great Agreement. It is not only about energy that we are talking about. This Agreement has many other benefits. About eight of them which I have highlighted are; biological research, medicines, agriculture, industry, environment, climate change, fusion technology and bilateral-multilateral programmes. Research and Development provides enormous opportunities to our entire scientific community which has been deprived of exchanging ideas with other nations. So, I thank the Government for negotiating this deal. I think generations ahead are going to thank them for taking the lead in this field. As the hon. Prime Minister rightly said in his speech, history will decide and let it be. Sir, generations will be grateful for all the initiatives that this Government has taken. Sir, the Nationalist Congress Party is totally committed and support this deal wholeheartedly. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)
SHRIMATI SHOBHANA BHARTIA (NOMINATED): Sir, the Civil-Nuclear Deal cannot be held hostage at the altar of partisan politics. Sir, I think, it is time to take a step back and review the deal purely from the objective point of view of the interests of India. Sir, I am convinced that when it comes to the interests of our nation, there are no issues that cannot be resolved through a process of discussion and debate. Sir, it is strange...(Interruptions)...
SHRI PRIYARANJAN DASMUNSI: Sir, the sense of the women in Parliament is in favour of the deal. ...(Interruptions)...
SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: You thank the women for this. ...(Interruptions)...
SHRIMATI SHOBHANA BHARTIA: Sir, it is strange that our nuclear energy options are being sought to be closed under the bogie of a strategic compromise by some of our colleagues. Sir, it is no secret that the BJP is the parent of the current Civil-Nuclear Deal. The stakes are very high for India and our standing abroad, and we cannot afford to waste all the efforts that have gone into this deal since 2005.
(Contd. by 5c-kgg)
SHRIMATI SHOBHANA BHARTIA (contd.): We cannot fritter away these gains, Sir, and lose the standing that we have achieved in the international community. How can we meaningfully engage with the IAEA or the NSG when we are a divided house at home? Surely, my colleagues know that such conducive circumstances, like what currently prevail, may or may not come our way over the next few months or the next few years. A supportive American administration and on-board IAEA leadership and the tremendous momentum generated by our diplomacy make it extremely relevant and a very nice period for us to try and achieve this initiative at this point.
More importantly, Sir, we have to make it abundantly clear to the rest of the world that India's foreign policy is not going to change just because of a single nuclear deal with the U.S. In my view, the draft 123 agreement will bury the ghost of Tarapore once and for all. Tarapore has haunted us since 1974 but, I think, this deal will ensure uninterrupted access to nuclear technology, nuclear fuel and, more importantly, the right to reprocess spent fuel.
Sir, with this agreement, we have also sought to ensure that the U.S. would support us in helping us build a strategic reserve of fuel and also help us negotiate with the IAEA, an India-specific agreement. This deal, Sir, will also help us solve the enriched uranium shortage which has already plagued our power plants for the past many decades. India, which has successfully completed the full nuclear cycle, was quite adamant, Sir, that we were not going to have a deal without the right to reprocess. We have been reprocessing spent fuel for many, many years. So, significantly, this right to reprocess has been granted to us right upfront in the agreement. And such a right has not even been granted to China with whom the U.S. entered into a bilateral agreement in 1985.
Sir, the preamble to the agreement also makes it abundantly clear that this is an agreement entered into between two equal nations and the text of the agreement says, "U.S. and India are venturing into the field of civil nuclear cooperation on the basis of mutual respect for sovereignty, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality, mutual benefit and reciprocity and with due respect for each other's nuclear programmes." This should blunt any criticism that this deal is between two non-equal States. The draft of the agreement clearly brings out that they are entering into this on the basis of respect for each other. This is, Sir, also contrary to what some Members have been saying that India has been reduced to a 'junior partner'.
Sir, we have also ensured that we will not go beyond the voluntary commitment made in May 1998 that we will not test a nuclear device again. In spite of considerable pressure, New Delhi, has not given in to the U.S. demand to sign any bilateral agreement on this front. India's strategic autonomy has been more than preserved by the Prime Minister and his very able team of negotiators. The fact is, Sir, whilst the cost of a test will be very high, the right to test, in principle, remains unfettered.
In fact, Sir, it was the BJP-led NDA Government which wanted to turn India's de facto moratorium on nuclear testing into a de jure one. One only needs to look at what Prime Minister Vajpayee said in the U.N. Assembly and I do not want to repeat the quote because it has been repeated often enough. At that time, the BJP did not think in terms of a discussion in Parliament; there was no sense of the House; it was executive feat all the way. Today, the party has adopted altogether different standards forgetting conveniently what the Prime Minister or rather our Prime Minister told the U.N. then. Not only was the BJP willing to forgo any further tests, but they were ready to sign the CTBT, Sir, which all previous Governments had steadfastly refused to do. If the U.S. Senate had ratified the CTBT in 1999, India would have become party to CTBT and the right to test would have become history. Sir, there is also no reason to believe that the concerns of the Department of Atomic Energy have not been fully addressed. (Contd. by kls/5d)
SHRIMATI SHOBHANA BHARTIA (CONTD): Senior people from the Department of Atomic Energy were present throughout the discussions and according to media reports, two of their key demands were met, -- the right to reprocess and assurance of fuel supply. In another major gain, India has also ensured that the US would consider the attenuating circumstances in the event of it being forced to conduct a nuclear test. Very cleverly skirting the issue of referring to a Indian nuclear test, the draft says that they will take into account and I quote: "They will agree to consider carefully the circumstance that may lead to termination or cessation of cooperation under this agreement." What does this allude to? This alludes to a possible test by India in reaction to a changed security environment, in reaction to a test by China or by Pakistan. Under such circumstances, the US will take into account the changed security environment before taking any action. We have also obtained a year's time between the notice and the actual termination of the agreement, which in the first instance will be valid for a period of 40 years. Multi-layer consultations will take place before any decision is taken, and, then, if we are to return the equipment, a fair market value would be paid to us, and the compensation would come to us in the form of cash. This also, Sir, need to allay the fears that all the commitments are only on the side of India because the US will have to pay us the cash compensation in the eventuality that they want a return of their equipment. What is important to understand, Sir, is that the Hyde Act is divided into the binding and non-binding sections. A lot of the fluff arising out of the US domestic politics finds its way in the non-binding section, which is not enforceable and cannot become law. Almost all the parts that most of our colleagues are referring to are mentioned in the non-binding sections. Quite apart from this, it is quite sad and quite alarming to see the complete lack of confidence, not just in this Government but in future Governments also if we believe that we are going to allow the Act to be interpreted only to meet the requirements of the Hyde Act. Under the international law, Sir, a nation cannot invoke a domestic law to wriggle out of a treaty obligation. Thus for India the operating document is the 123 and not the Hyde Act itself. Also as my colleague Abhishek Singhvi said, the last expression or the last treaty is the one that prevails. Of course, we could have got more, Sir, -- more sourcing, more reprocessing, more enrichment, but then no agreement is perfect. It is give and take in a given situation. Sir, in a world that is becoming increasingly fearful of the impact of carbon emission led global warming, nuclear energy is once again being seen as a very viable option. The IAEA said, Sir, there are 437 reactors today which are operating over 30 countries supplying about 15 per cent of world's energy. Reflecting on the changing pattern, they mentioned that out of the 30 reactors that have now been ordered, 16 are going to come up in developing nations with a focus squarely on Asia. Sir, if India wants to remain part of the Asian growth story, we cannot remain a power hungry nation. We have to ensure the use of nuclear power in our energy mix and for this our long winter of nuclear apartheid must end. At the end of the day, Sir, our Government has negotiated a good deal for us. We now need to take the next step like negotiating for India Specific IAEA Agreement and negotiating with the NSG so that this promise of civil nuclear cooperation can turn into a reality. We have already delayed the next step and put in peril what is clearly a very good deal for us. But the time now is to bury our differences and put up a united face to the world, at least, on key issues like foreign policy. If this deal goes through, Sir, in one stroke it could put us on par with China, if it does not, then nobody will be happier than Pakistan and China. I urge my colleagues to come together as this is something, which our future generation will thank us for. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)
(Followed by 5E/sss)
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (UTTAR PRADESH): Sir, many points have been made and there have been moments of excitement also. I will deal, Sir, with specific myths by which this Agreement is being peddled. I have had the benefit of listening to many persons but I also have had the benefit of attending the briefing, which the Prime Minister organised at which all these good people who have been cited here, including Dr. Kakodkar, were present and they briefed us and I have had subsequently the benefit of a two-hour briefing and tutorial by Dr. Kakodkar himself. Dr. Kasturirangan knows well the evolution of Dr. Kakodkar's views on these matters. I don't want to use another word because you will then start asking me to prove what he told me in private. Private means that he was obviously sent by the Government. He took two hours of his time and if, I quote certain sentences of his, my dear friend Shobhna would be alarmed. I don't want to do that.
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: It is not fair.
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: That is right. But you people are all invoking such persons.
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: Sir, casting aspersion is not fair for whatever transpired there. Somebody who cannot speak for himself in the House I think, you should not do that. That is most unfair. Even a reference is unfair. (Interruptions)
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: Anand, when somebody is invoked in favour of the deal you have no objection. Sir, I will proceed on the next point. Sir, I will take up myth by myth what is being peddled. I remember, on the last occasion when I had to speak in the House on this matter, I had said that before the day is out, the ruling party representative and the External Affairs Minister, he was the Defence Minister at that time, Dr. Pranab Mukherjee will be reading the following statement of President Bush which has been very conveniently sent to every Indian correspondent in Washington to be immediately despatched to India and sure enough, Abhishek read that statement and Mr. Pranab Mukherjee read the same statement. Since then, the External Affairs Minister has had occasion to read it not once but twice in the other House and it was today referred to both by Sitaram Yechury and by Abhishek Singhvi and the External Affairs Minister has been putting it as if Bush is saying that the Hyde Act will not apply and his interpretations of the Hyde Act will apply. The fact of the matter is, that this is by completely relying on the confidence that actually nobody would have read Bush's statement. In the Statement, firstly, the law is the 'Acts' and it is not just the Hyde Act as has been emphasised earlier also. It is the 1954 Act. After all, when you say 123 Agreement, what is 123? It is the section of the 1954 Act. Then, Mrs, Gandhi with her great initiative and strength, in response to the coming of the seventh and probably the eleventh fleet at that time in Bangladesh, when she went ahead with Pokhran-I, then they passed a Non-Proliferation Act. Then, after that they passed the Non-Proliferation Treaty Act. Then, there is the Hyde Act and please remember, all of you who are going on saying that India is a China and China is at par and we are actually better off. There is no specific Act regarding China. Secondly, in this, there is a big difference. In the Agreement with China, it specifically states in the very beginning that this is an agreement between two nuclear weapon states. Therefore, for instance, no bilateral safeguards will be required. Please read the evidence, please read the Act, please read the concluding parts of 123 Agreement, what Condoleezza Rice called, "Fall back safeguards have been provided," and I will give you the significance of that. They said in the hearings and in the debate in regard to the Act, this IAEA is not competent to carry out inspections to our satisfaction at all times.
(Contd. by NBR/5F)
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD.): So, Ms. Condoleezza Rice said, 'precisely, that is why we have told the Indians we will have fall-back safeguards. In case we are dissatisfied with the IAEA safeguards, we will be able to institute our own.' And, the point that was put forth was, 'Look here, the Safeguards Budget of the IAEA is only a US $ 100 million a year. And, that is the pay roll of Washington Red Skin's Football Team. Therefore, we must have the fall-back safeguards and they are provided for.' If anybody dispute with that, I will read it.
So, the first point is not what Mr. Bush says as the hon. External Affairs Minister implied in this House last time and as Abhishek implied today. And, rightly, Sitaram was alleging us to that. The law is what the law has been passed, not something that Mr. Bush says while he is signing this statement. What did he say in the US while signing this statement? He did not say that the Act does not apply. He praised the Act. He thanked the Congress for the Act. It is a very short statement, not even 3 paragraphs or half-a-page. You just now see as to how it has been twisted. He says in that and I quote, "I will treat it as advisory." Not the Act. Not these provisions of the Act. But, three points only and they concern only one matter. Everybody who knows the US Constitutional history -- my friend, Kapil and others -- they know that there has been a tussle since the founding of the Republic whether the Executive has the power to determine foreign policy or the Executive and the Legislature has it. As you know, all these people who keep citing treaties, obligations and trusting the US, because they have entered into an agreement, President Wilson was one of the initiators of the lead of nations and the Senate killed. Mr. Clinton bulldozed 33 countries to sign the CTBT and the Senate rejected the CTBT. So, all the people who are giving us these delusions on relying on the US are, probably, keeping from our eyes the reality of the US Constitution and the political structure. So, Mr. Bush said, there are three points on which I will take this as advises. What are those three points? Please see. The first one is the conduct of foreign policy. That is a reference, for instance, to provisions on Iran. It is very interesting that this Government relies on Mr. Bush in regard to Iran, rather than on the US Congress which is much more moderate. And, you are relying on Bush! You are stating his statements. You said that he has liberated us from the Hyde Act. You are going into the deeper well.
The second point he said is, 'In the Act it was provided that in case the NSG guidelines prohibit the export of a particular item to India, then the US shall not send it.' The US also been desisted from exporting. I will tell you the reason for this. The Congress has bound India in a particular way by using the NSG. They want the US Executive to do that. But, they said, 'to bind further, if the NSG decides, you will not send a particular component to India, then, nobody will send it, including the US.' And, Mr. Bush said, 'No, no. This will mean that I will be abdicating the conduct of the US Foreign Policy to an international organisation and I am not prepared to do that.' It is because the US Constitution says that the President has the power to conduct the foreign policy
And, the third one is very interesting. I had pointed sometime ago to the enormous reporting requirements that the Hyde Act has built in. There are almost about ten pages of reports which have to be submitted, as Mr. Yashwant Sinha said, not just yearly. But, the moment that information becomes available to the Executive, you must submit it to the Congress. So, Mr. Bush said, 'No. I will collect that information, because I often have to rely on intelligence and other agencies to get the Executive rely on many sources to get information..."
(CONTD. BY VP "5G")
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD.): I will decide whether to disclose it or not." How is it of great comfort to India? But the statement continues to be cited again and again as if he has exempted us from the provisions of the Hyde Act. Sir, today also we have been told that these great sophistication clauses are not binding. Since the beginning, we have requested please give us a list of which are binding clauses and which are non-binding clauses. Not just the Government, Sir, but, I have been tutored by three persons from the American Embassy also, including one of the architects of this deal. He himself proclaims it and he is one of best defence analysts. All of us who work on security matters regard him in very high esteem. And he happens to be of Indian origin. He is Ashley Tellies. Tellies, the first Secretary (political) of the American Embassy and some other officers were sent to me. There was two and a half hours of education. I said, "Will you give me a list of non-binding?" They said, "How can we give any such list of non-binding? There is no such list." In the end, they had to admit that no U.S. President can say what is binding and what is non-binding. I said, "But, our Government is saying this." He said, "That is their problem, not ours." I noted this because I have a principle, Sir. I do not regard any conversation on public issues as a private matter. But, again, we are being told the same thing. Why don't you publish a list by putting an asterix on what is binding and what is not binding? Similarly, if these things were non-binding, then, as Mr. Yashwant Sinha who took us through a series of statements of the Prime Minister, not in one statement, but over an entire one and a half year statements he made saying that even if the things are non-binding, they are matters of concern to us. And, I can supplement that list of his by a few more quotations. If these are all non-binding, if Bush' interpretation is prevailing, then, what is this point of Prime Minister's concern? Why is he so concerned? Did he not know and was he not educated by his legal luminaries like Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi by saying, "No, no. Why are you worried on this Act? When the 123 Agreement comes, only that will bind us." How was, then, he concerned about those Acts? Why did he say that if these provisions remain, then, it will not be possible for India to go ahead? There was no reason for him to say this. Sir, I will tell you how it applies, and what are the consequences. Suppose, you take this situation that we test. Test is only one of the many points by which they are going to bind us in regard to our strategic programme, and, I thoroughly disagree with Dr. Kasturirangan's assessment in spite of his great eminence as a scientist. Supposing, we go for test. Nobody, today, disputes that then the consequences will follow and that there will be a cessation of all cooperation. But, there are three aspects which have been missed by Members. First is, please remember, and as everybody has just now said, it is impractical for the Americans to pluck away and dismantle and take away the reactors. So, it is non-operational. The reactor will remain there as a shabby. You will just not get fuel for it. You will just not get components for it. That is the purpose. And, this right remains. Article 16 of the Agreement was just cited by Ms. Shobhana. It is very surprising, Sir. What does the article 16 say? It says, "Notwithstanding the termination or expiration of this Agreement or the withdrawal of a party from this Agreement, all those clauses shall continue to apply so long as any component, any material, anything remains in India." Contd. By PK 5H)
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD.): So, you can withdraw; they can terminate. The Agreement can expire, but their rights in regard to fuel components, everything, remains. But there is a very much more important thing. We are being told about the NSG, and I will just come to the Russian business. Sir, the law now provides --kindly see what the law provides -- a very clever thing as if we can be very clever. Cleverness never pays. What was the cleverness which was suggested? It has been suggested to us in briefings also. 'No, no, we will get this Agreement with the US'; then, 'go and get clearances from the NSG'; then, 'we can negotiate with Russia and France.' You think we are that innocent! So, what have they provided? They have provided, " the US Administration is mandated to strengthen the NSG guidelines and decisions concerning consultations by Members regarding violations of supplier and recipient understandings by instituting the practice of a timely and coordinated response by NSG members to all such violations, including termination of nuclear transfers to an involved recipient, that discourages individual NSG members from continuing cooperation with such recipient until such time as a consensus regarding the coordinated response has been achieved."
Secondly, they say "the US Administration shall seek to prevent the transfer to a country of nuclear equipment materials or technology from other participating Governments in the NSG or from any other source if nuclear transfers to that country are suspended, or terminated pursuant to this title, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or any other US law." †Öî¸ü †Ö¯Ö ÛúÆüŸÖê ÆüÖê ×Ûú Æü´Ö “ÖŸÖã¸üÖ‡Ô ÃÖê manoeuvre Ûú¸ü »ÖëÝÖê… There are six such clauses.
SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: From which section are you reading?
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: I am reading section 1 itself. It is in the Preamble. Inside, if you see, on the termination, you will see other clauses in this regard. If you have the same copy, then, it is on pages 5 and 6.
Now, Sir, I am just on the point of what happens if we test. It was said, no, no, we are better off than China. I will tell you there is a point that has been missed. In article 2 of this 123 Agreement, it says, "each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective (1) applicable treaties." The applicable treaties are not 123. It is defined there as an obligation of the US under article 1 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That the US shall ensure that nothing it does with India will directly or indirectly, that is emphasised in italics in the Joint Explanatory Memorandum, should not help the Nuclear Weapons Programme. That is the applicable treaty.
Thirdly, I come to national laws. What are those laws? I will enumerate just four or five. And the contrast is with the Agreement of China. In China, they say, this is an Agreement between two nuclear weapon States. And in the implementation of this Agreement, the principle of international law shall apply that neither Party shall use its domestic laws to dilute its obligations under this Agreement. In our case, it is the opposite. And, we are being told, no, no, their laws do not apply. Sir, actually, I think, there is a very important point in this regard, which again should be remembered by our House and I appeal to the Treasury Benches. I know Mr. Antony, Dr. Karan Singh and Mr. Kapil, they all are dedicated to our national security.(Contd. by 5J/SKC)
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD.): I have read Priyaranjan's speeches of those days and Dr. Karan Singh's speeches when he was the Health Minister of that time under Mrs. Gandhi, for whom they had admiration. What was Mrs. Gandhi's test and what did she say about it? She had said that it was for peaceful purposes. Do you know what they have provided now? We were just now being told by one of our most charming Members that it was a great achievement that detonation and testing had not been mentioned in the 123 Agreement. But just see what they have provided in Section 103A(2). It says, "Even if the country tests for what it calls 'peaceful purposes', all the consequences shall follow". And this point has been emphasised; I will just read to you one passage. In the vyakhya of this Clause, what did the Joint Committee say? ...(Interruptions)... No, Sir, if you want me to read from the Act, it is Section 103A(2). The point was that some non-NPT Members were using the thing called "develop, research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes to detonate". So, that quashed it by that! And this meaning is explained by the Joint Explanatory Memorandum, a copy of which I am sure, Mr. Anand has got, but, in any case, I can supply it to him, "...as further clarified in this section-by-analysis included in this report. The conferees believe that there should be no ambiguity regarding the legal and policy consequences of any future Indian test of a nuclear explosive device. In that event, the President must terminate all export and re-export of US origin nuclear materials, nuclear equipment and sensitive nuclear technology to India. The conferees expect the President to make full and immediate use of US rights to demand the return of all nuclear-related items, materials and sensitive nuclear technology that have exported and re-exported in India. If India were to test or detonate or otherwise cause the test or detonation of a nuclear explosive device for any reason including such instances in which India describes its actions as being for peaceful purposes". ‡ÃÖ´Öë ÛúÖê‡Ô ¿ÖÛú Æîü? ¤æüÃÖ¸üß “Öß•Ö, ˆ®ÖÛúß Ã™Òêü™ü•Öß ¤êü×ÜÖ‹ Ûú¸ü®Öê Ûúß ŒµÖÖ Æîü, †Ö¯ÖÛúÖê ™êüÃ™ü Ûú¸ü®Öê ÛúÖ ÆüÛú Æîü… ¯ÖÏ¬ÖÖ®Ö ´ÖÓ¡Öß Æü´Öê¿ÖÖ ÛúÆüŸÖê Æïü, "we have the sovereign right to test". But they know how to prevent that. And they are very candid, Sir. Condoleesa Rice says, "We expect that there would be irresistible political pressure on NSG participants to terminate any transfer of nuclear material and technology to India, should India detonate a nuclear explosive device. We have made it clear to the Government of India." Just see, they are candid but we are not told what has gone on in the conversations. It is really about the way the Parliament is being treated and the Leader of the Opposition was saying in the morning about it. It has been the consistent pattern for two years now. Yes, there are debates, but we learn of all these things indirectly. Just see what they say. Condoleesa Rice says, "We have made it clear to the Government of India that this civil nuclear cooperation initiative relies on India's commitment to continue its unilateral nuclear testing moratorium. This gives India clear economic and energy incentives not to test.". That is the idea. The idea is that with only 325 megawatts being produced from Tarapore, when fuel was stoped, how much pressure has been put on successive Governments, from Mrs. Gandhi's time, "×Ûú †¸êü µÖÖ¸ü, ŸÖÖ¸üÖ¯Öã¸ü ÛúÖ ŒµÖÖ ÆüÖê •ÖÖ‹ÝÖÖ, ‹êÃÖÖ ÆüÖê •ÖÖ‹ÝÖÖ, µÖÆü ÆüÖê •ÖÖ‹ÝÖÖ, ¾ÖÆü ÆüÖê •ÖÖ‹ÝÖÖ"… If the pipe-dream of producing 3500 megawatts comes true depending on imported reactors, imported technology, imported components, imported fuel, imagine the economic incentives for you not to test. (Contd. by 5j/hk)
ÁÖß †¹ýÞÖ ¿ÖÖî¸üß (ÛÎú´ÖÖÝÖŸÖ) : ¤êü×ÜÖ‹, ¾Öê ŒµÖÖ ÛúÆüŸÖê Æïü… •Ö²Ö ¾Öê ×›ü²Öê™ü ÛúÖê ‡Ó™ÒüÖê›ü¶æÃÖ Ûú¸üŸÖê Æïü ŸÖÖê ÛúÆüŸÖê Æïü ×Ûú "The objective of the Bill is to provide a lasting incentive for India to abstain from further nuclear weapons test and cooperate closely with the United States in stopping proliferation." Then they say, "An Agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation with India, approved by the Congress according to the procedures and conditions prescribed here, would be a powerful incentive for India to cooperate more closely in stopping proliferation and to abstain from further nuclear weapons test." µÖÖ®Öß “ÖÖ¸ü ²ÖÖ¸ü ˆ®ÆüÖë®Öê ÛúÆüÖ Æîü, "that it would provide a powerful incentive to India."
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: Where are you quoting from?
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: How may times I have to tell you? It is a Joint Explanatory Statement.
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: We will have to respond later. Is it reflected in the Agreement?
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: Yes.
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: Which document? We have to respond. ..(Interruptions)..
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: Don't interrupt me. ..(Interruptions)..
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: When we will respond ..(Interruptions)..
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: It is absolutely reflected. The Prime Minister has admitted it. ..(Interruptions).. Please sit down. ..(Interruptions)..
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: I am only asking, from which document. ..(Interruptions)..
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: I am not yielding.
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI): Mr. Sharma, he is not yielding...(Interruptions)..
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: If we have to respond as a Government, we would like to know from where he is quoting. ..(Interruptions)..
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: It is in the Hyde Act and it is in the Joint Explanatory Statement.
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: This is not in the Hyde Act.
ÁÖß †¹ýÞÖ ¿ÖÖî¸üß : ÆüÖ‡›ü ‹Œ™ü ´Öë Æîü… This is the explanation of the Explanatory Statement. ..(Interruptions)..
THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: They just want to know where are you quoting from. If you kindly disclose that, then ..(Interruptions)..
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: It is in the Joint Explanatory Statement, and the provision which even my friend, Abhishek, acknowledges. Section 104 of the Hyde Act says, "That all civil cooperation will terminate and this waiver will terminate the moment India detonates." And, it is the testimony in the House Committee of Condoleezza Rice itself. So, first is, no test; second is, test even for peaceful purposes and third is, we will create such incentive that they will, on their own, not test. Fourth point is, actually with the very important intervention of the Prime Minister this morning, when Mr. Yashwant Sinha was speaking, he has confirmed this in a very important way, and it is very interesting. Today the Prime Minister said, it was always understood that the four reactors with Russia will not be brought into being till we get clearances both from IAEA and NSG. Now, Sir, just see his statement. Mr. Anand Sharma, this time, I am quoting from the Prime Minister's Press Statement in the Joint Press Conference of the Prime Minister and President Putin, in New Delhi on 25th January, 2007. I have just downloaded it from his website. †Ö•Ö ŸÖÖê Æü¾ÖÖ»ÖÖ ×¤üµÖÖ •ÖÖ ¸üÆüÖ Æîü ×Ûú Æü´Öë Œ»ÖßµÖ¸ëüÃÖ ®ÖÆüßÓ ¤üß ÝÖµÖß, •Ö®Ö¾Ö¸üß ´Öë ŒµÖÖ ÛúÆü ¸üÆêü £Öê †ÖÝÖê ¤êü×ÜÖ‹ He says, "We appreciate Russia's support in lifting international restrictions on nuclear cooperation with India and in assisting us in expansion of our nuclear energy sector. We have today signed a Joint Statement of Cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of atomic energy. Our growing cooperation is manifest in the Memorandum of Intent. We have signed on the construction of four additional units in Kundankulam." Therefore, the point that is being made is that there is an apprehension. Mr. Anand Sharma will scold me if I tell you what I was told in private by persons who are concerned with this matter.
(Contd. by 5L/KSK)
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD): So, I won't do it; he is shaking his head. But, my point is another one. Firstly, what the Prime Minister was saying at that time; that Russia is enabling us to break out of international restrictions. Now, he is saying that till the international restrictions are lifted, I can't ask anything from Russia. But the other point is important. Supposing we take the Prime Minister's word at its face value that Russia could not proceed because NSG had not yet given the clearance, that just proves what I was saying that the NSG works as a club and this whole delusion, which is being created. µÖÆü ÃÖ²•Ö ²ÖÖÝÖ •ÖÖê ×¤üÜÖÖµÖÖ •ÖÖ ¸üÆüÖ Æîü ×Ûú †´Öê×¸üÛúÖ ÃÖê ‹ÝÖÏß´Öë™ü Ûú¸üÖ‹ÓÝÖê, ‹®Ö0‹ÃÖ0•Öß0 ÃÖê ×»Ö°™ü Ûú¸ü¾ÖÖ‹ÓÝÖê, ˆÃÖÛêú ²ÖÖ¤ü ×ÛúÃÖß Ûêú ³Öß ¯ÖÖÃÖ •ÖÖ ÃÖÛúŸÖê Æïü…
Then, I come to my second point, and it has been a matter of very great distress to me that instead of saying that this is a step in strategic partnership, maybe because of the sensibilities of the people who hold up the Government -- Krishan Bhagwan holding up Govardhan ¾Öê ÆüÖ£Ö Æü™üÖ »ÖëÝÖê ŸÖÖê ×ÝÖ¸êüÝÖÖ, ŸÖÖê ‡®ÖÛêú ×»Ö‹ µÖÆü ®ÖÆüà ÛúÆüÖ ÝÖµÖÖ because this is a step in partnership and I will come to what the implications of strategic partnership actually are, which are happening as you support the Government today. But, I want to deal with it. How was energy sold? Today also, Dr. Kasturirangan and all other friends have talked about energy. Do you know this Government's main emphasis? It is very amusing. As the need to justify the deal has swelled, so has the contribution of atomic energy of India swelled. In the Approach Paper to the Eleventh Plan, I did a Word search. 'Nuclear' occurs only twice. First time, as 'nuclear families' in justifying the need for more housing, they say that there is growing numbers of nuclear families, therefore, more houses are required. Second time, 'nuclear' occurs is in the context that they say, "policies should be adopted for the more expeditious execution of both hydro and nuclear energy". But, deal has to be justified. So, the Planning Commission integrated energy policy. This is the main document of the Government. Now, Sir, I have it. You would not like me to name the persons? ®ÖÖ´Ö ˆ®ÖÛêú ×»ÖÜÖê Æãü‹ Æïü, ´Öê¸êü ÃÖÖ£Ö ˆ®ÆüÖë®Öê ¯ÖÃÖÔ®Ö»Öß ÛúÖ´Ö Ûú¸ü ¸üÜÖÖ Æîü… The forecasts that have been quoted are page 37, table 3.6. †²Ö ‡ÃÖÛúÖ “Öã™üÛ »ÖÖ ¤êü×ÜÖ‹ I They say, "Today, it is 3900 MWs that we are producing after 60 years of nuclear energy." If you see the report of the Working Group of the Planning Commission on power, reporting in February, 2007, they say, "The total addition during the Eleventh Plan, which is starting now, is going to be 3160." So, that is nothing. So, in the Twelfth Plan, they say -- Because the further the date, the more daring you can become in forecast -- that while in the Eleventh Plan, we will be able to add only 3160 MWs; in the Twelfth Plan, we can add 13500 MWs. So, I tried to do some investigative journalism ×Ûú µÖÆü 13,500 MW figure ÛúÆüÖÓ ÃÖê †Ö ÝÖ‡Ô… ŸÖÖê ÛúÖî®Ö ÃÖê ¯»ÖÖÓ™ü Æïü, ÛúÖî®Ö ÃÖê ‹ÝÖÏß´Öë™ü Æïü… ŸÖÖê ´ÖãôÖê ²ÖŸÖ»ÖÖµÖÖ ÝÖµÖÖ ×Ûú ÃÖÖÆü²Ö, ®ÖÆüà, If you ask the Department of Atomic Energy, then almost as a reflex, they say, "†³Öß-†³Öß ×±úÝÖ¸ü ÛúÖê™ü Æãü†Ö £ÖÖ, 2020 ŸÖÛú ™ãü¾Öë™üß £ÖÖˆ•Öë›ü ÆüÖê •ÖÖ‹ÝÖÖ… †³Öß 4000 MW Æîü…"
(continued by 5m - gsp/asc)
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD.): That is the great estimate. But further, just see, now comes the absolute manipulation. There are two scenarios. Because the authors were not agreeing to the figures, they said, okay, give us the optimistic scenario and the pessimistic scenario. So, now, the optimistic scenario for 2020, still it is 21,000 MW but in the pessimistic scenario, it comes to 29,000 MW. There is some improvement. But the interesting point is from 2020 to 2030; we go from 29,000 MW to 63,000 MW. How do you get this 33,000 MW extra MW? Sir, Dr. Kasturirangan was just now reminding us that today our fast breeder reactors give 500 MW, and, you said, it could be 1000 MW. Sir, if you are going to get 33,000 MW in ten years, you require, at least, sixty reactors, if it is 500 MW, and, thirty reactors, if it is 1000 MW. So, if it takes 120 months, you have to have 60 reactors. This is one reactor per three months. This is what you just cannot have. You are not going to be able to construct at a speed that every two months you get a new reactor into operation. But even worse is the fact that you have to have a reactor every one and a half month, if it is 500 MW, and, every three months, if it is 1000 MW. Sir, I tell you the interesting point. See, what these "heavily pressurised" authors were saying. About the heavy water reactors, what they said, they added something to the table. They gave these figures which alone justify the deal, and, then added these assumptions; first, that the fast breeder reactor technology is successfully demonstrated in the 500 MW prototype fast breeder reactor, currently under construction; second, the new uranium mines are opened for providing fuel for setting up additional pressurised heavy water reactors, and, we were just told about the shortage of uranium; third, that India succeeds in assimilating light water reactor technology through import; and, fourth, develops the advanced heavy water reactors for utilising thorium by 2020. Dr. Kasturirangan was just telling us that it was far, far away. Now, if you do all this, what do you get? That is mentioned at another place in this very report. Anybody who is familiar with the Government, bureaucracy, knows what the poor scepticism the authors are trying to convey. Dr. Saheb will appreciate. It is in the starting, in the overview. It says, even if a twenty-fold increase takes place in India's nuclear power capacity by 2031-32, the contribution of nuclear energy to India's energy is, at best, expected to be 4 to 6.4 per cent. Sitaram Yechuryji also mentioned it. For this small amount, you are mortgaging the security of the country. Just see, what is the alternative that is being suggested by them? If you read this report, at page 81, it says -- we are efficient but not very efficient in the use of our energy -- demand side management alone will ensure a saving now of fifteen per cent, not 2031-32. Today, you can generate what they call not megawatt but 'negawatt'. (Contd. by sk-5n)
SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD.): Every watt saved is a watt generated. ¾ÖÆü ÃÖ²Ö Ûú¸ü®Öê Ûêú ²ÖÖ¤ü, †´Öê×¸üÛúÖ Ûêú tutelage ´ÖÖ®Ö®Öê Ûêú ²ÖÖ¤ü, 4-6 ¯Ö¸üÃÖë™ü †Öî¸ü †Ö•Ö †Ö¯Ö demand side management ¯Ö¸ü, and they list four pages of steps which can be taken 15 per cent. And then, they pointed out to me that actually even that is a very conservative estimate because they say that, at page 44 to 50, we have indicated the difference. What they call is, this figure of 15 per cent is only if we save and become more efficient on end use appliances. But, if we actually do something more regarding energy use, then, the difference between the energy efficient and inefficient scenario is not 15 per cent, but 19 to 22 per cent. µÖÆü ‹Ûú alternative Æîü… ¤æüÃÖ¸üÖ alternative ´Öï †Ö¯ÖÛúÖê ²ÖŸÖ»ÖÖŸÖÖ ÆæÑü… ®ÖÖò£ÖÔ-‡ÔÃ™ü ´Öë ¯»ÖÖØ®ÖÝÖ Ûú´Öß¿Ö®Ö Ûúß ÜÖã¤ü Ûúß Working Group on Power Æîü, they say that in the North East, including Sikkim, there is an untapped potential of 58,000 megawatts, and not this pollution business of sending carbon to the air through coal; it is hydro power. Many friends, including Digvijay Singh, mentioned about Nepal. But, Sir, the figure is very interesting. The conservative estimate today on the cost of reactors in American literature -- I have seen the MIT study, I have seen the University of Chicago study, I have seen the Council on Foreign Relations study -- is 2.6 billion dollars per reactor. Okay. Now, if you are going to get those, you have to go to even 35,000 megawatts, which the Prime Minister has mentioned, you will be spending 91 billion dollars on that. And, if you want to go to 63,000 megawatts, you will be spending 158 billion dollars at present cost. Now, do you know the Nepal's Budget? It is 1.6 billion dollars. Total Budget of the Government of Nepal is 1.6 billion dollars. So, if you tell Nepal, "Look here, we are friends. We will underwrite your Budget for 60 years, totally". In one case, or, if it is 63,000 megawatts, "We will underwrite your Budget for a full 100 years. Let us partner and build hydro stations". We can together raise the money from the market. We can be partners. We would have got a friend. We would have energy from a renewable, perpetual source. We would have saved UP and Bihar from floods. †ÖÝÖê ¤êü×ÜÖ‹… µÖÆü ›üÖ. ÛúÃŸÖæ¸üß¸ÓüÝÖ®Ö ÛúÆü ¸üÆêü £Öê ×Ûú capital cost high Æîü, running cost Ûú´Ö Æîü… That is not the case. Oil price ÛúÖê ÛúÖê™ü ×ÛúµÖÖ ÝÖµÖÖ £ÖÖ… ×²Ö»Ûãú»Ö šüßÛú Æîü… I believe that that is one of the best things that is happening to the world because it is forcing the world to think of alternatives. But, Sir, look at the price of Uranium. Ten years ago, it was 7 dollars a pound and today it is 138 dollars a pound. But, Uranium is a small part. The important part is the cost of construction of the reactor. And, the very American sources which are being set, you please read the reports, just now, we have been told that there is a renaissance in American reactor technology. Dr. Kasturirangan has just now said that they are now going to build reactors. He obscured the fact. Actually speaking, the last order for the American reactor in America was in 1978. That order was cancelled. The last built reactor was ordered in 1970 and was not constructed for 26 years till 1996. ÃÖ¸ü, actually µÖÆü ²Ö›Íêü ¸üÖ•Ö Ûúß ²ÖÖŸÖ Æîü ×Ûú ×ÃÖ±Ôú “ÖÖ¸ü American Vendors Æïü… •Ö²Ö ‡®Ö ÃÖ²Ö “Öß•ÖÌÖë Ûúß history ×»ÖÜÖß •ÖÖ‹ÝÖß, †Ö¯Ö ˆ®ÖÛúÖ ¸üÖê»Ö ¤êü×ÜÖ‹ÝÖÖ… Strategic role, Æü´ÖÖ¸üß education. ´ÖÝÖ¸ü ‡ÃÖ ÃÖ´ÖµÖ ´Öï †Ö¯ÖÛúÖê ‹Ûú “Öß•ÖÌ ²ÖŸÖ»ÖÖŸÖÖ ÆæÑü…
(Contd. by 5o-ysr)