SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD.): In all these studies that I quoted, the MIT study, the cost of nuclear power is double the cost of alternative powers. You do not have to go there. You again look at the Working Group of the Planning Commission. It has an annexure on the cost of setting up per megawatt, from different hydro and coal sources, and it costs Rs. two-and-a-half crore which is two-and-a-half to three times that in the case of nuclear power. You have the ready example today of Tarapore units which have been opened, as Dr. Kasturirangan knows. They are supplying power at the rate of Rs.2.70-Rs.2.80 per unit. It is actually nine rupees. You had that subsidised. Very good! You have just had a bid for one Mega Project. ֮ ײ֛ , ֵ 19 . We have been fed the fiction that it is only the capital cost which is higher, and the running cost is much lower.

Sir, please permit me because I feel that there has been a substantial...(Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI): I have no problem if the House is willing to sit.

SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: Sir, ֋, ֯ ߕ ֟֟ , how a myth is created to undermine our self-confidence. Last time also I had asked this. Americans are saying this and Ashley J. Tellis has a wonderful report on Indian nuclear weapons strategy. It is called, 'Atoms for War?' and you can get it from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Website. It says that India has more than enough Uranium, not for 100 or 200 nuclear weapons, but for 2038-2240 nuclear weapons and its power programme. I was told, 'No, we rely on our Planning Commission; we do not rely on outside.' So, I will tell you how the Planning Commission distorts figures. Please listen to it how this scarcity of Uranium is fomented. It says, 'India is poorly endowed with Uranium.' It is at page 35. 'Available Uranium supply can fuel only 10,000 mw of Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors.' If Shobhanaji were here, I would tell her that her Hindustan Times reported this by saying that India has Uranium only for 10,000 reactors. ָ ٙ ׻ , , 'India is extracting Uranium from extremely low grade ores, as low as 0.1 per cent Uranium compared to ores with up to 12-14 per cent in certain resources abroad.' Brindaji just see it. You take our average of 0.1 and you compare it to the highest that they have up to and maybe it will be up to two tonnes.

Sir, do you know -- I am sure you know -- that one half of the production of Uranium comes only from three countries, namely Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan? In Kazakhstan, almost all the ores have it less than 0.1 per cent. In Australia, it is 0.06 per cent. I can give you the documentation on this. It is only in Canada that it is higher than 0.1 per cent. But this myth is created. You have to ask the author, as Anandji said. 'In certain sources abroad' this is so. This myth is created. Therefore, firstly, power which is something we cannot do in terms of reactors, is conjured up and we say that this Deal will do it. (Contd. by RSS/5P)


SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD.): Then, we do not have uranium for the reactors because of our poor uranium. We have no green uranium. Therefore, we have to import uranium. We cannot get it from NSG till the deal is done. This is how this whole thing is going on...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI): I do not want to interrupt you. But how long will you take?

SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: I will just make three points because they will be of assistance, especially because one of the persons for whom...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN : I have been reminded of reminding you about the time.

ק : ִ֕־֤ ֙ և ֯ ׻֋ ...(־֮֬)...

شری شاہد صدیقی : سماج وادی پارٹی کا باقی ٹائم آپ کے لئے ہے ۔۔مداخلت۔۔

ֳ֬ : ִ֕־֤ ֙ և ? ...(־֮֬)...

ק : , ָ ...(־֮֬)... ֮ פ ֵ ...(־֮֬)... ָ 40 ״֮֙ , ׻֋ ...(־֮֬)...

شری شاہد صدیقی : ہاں، سر۔۔مداخلت۔۔ ان کو تو پورا بولنے بھی نہیں دیا گیا تھا ۔۔مداخلت۔۔ ہمارے 40 منٹس ہیں، ان کو دینے کے لئے ۔۔مداخلت۔۔

ֳ֬ : ֤ ִֵ ֟ ֵ But, let me make a pleasant announcement. While you are giving fuel for the mind, hon. Minister of Parliamentary Affairs has organised fuel for the body and the stomach also. At the first floor, the food is ready. Whosoever, including officers, press people, wants to avail of that, are welcome to do so.

SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: I will just deal with three points especially because one of the persons for whom I have developed the highest regard in the 10 years I have been here in Parliament is Shri Pranab Mukherjee. These points are for his assistance. Sir, I really believe that as Mr. Yashwant Sinha pointed out, it is a hoax which has been created, it is a myth on three points, uninterrupted fuel supply, sensitive technologies. Dr. Kasturirangan read out a large number of them from robotics to everything, and on the reprocessing of spent fuel. This is a hoax. I will tell you why. You see, what happened was that in regard to uninterrupted fuel supply, the Prime Minister made a series of statements. Thrice he said that under the July 18th statement, the United States is committed to seeking an agreement from its Congress to amend its domestic laws, and to work with friends and Nuclear Supplies Group, and so on, to assure us of fuel supplies. He repeated this, and then he made before the specific assurance that to further safeguard the disruption of fuel supplies, all this will happen. Now, after the Prime Minister had spoken here in August, the US Congress deliberated on the matter and said that the Prime Minister of India has said this. It is his problem, and we are not going to give them ability to build strategic reserves. That is the Obama Amendment. They said only for reasonable operational requirements. Now, what happened? Therefore, in complete and pointed disregard of the assurances that the Indian Prime Minister had given to the Indian Parliament, they provided the opposite, and they provided further more, that not only will the US limit its fuel supplies only to enable India to tide over, as Mr. Yashwant Sinha quoted saying, fuel due to market failures or similar reasons, they said that the US will ensure that no other country will do this, that is, also in section 102 and 103 of the Hyde Act. Now, what happened after that? The negotiations took place. The US Government has stated on record that we did not budge an inch; we do not have to rely on private information. Therefore, and I have it on good authority that as our competent negotiating team, especially, the atomic energy scientists, they said, then we cannot proceed, and the negotiations were to break down. That is when President Bush intervened and said, 'No, no. See, the Prime Minister is giving some assurance to do something.' So, what was done? Mr. Yashwant Sinha recalled that they just cut the Prime Minister's statement and put it here, which says that the US is committed to seeking agreement from the US Congress to amend its domestic laws. That is all. (contd. by 5q)


SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD.): That the United States is willing to incorporate when the 123 Agreement comes into being. This is the 123 Agreement. So, it was just a face-saving cut-and-paste job. The same thing happened in fuel. If you recall, firstly, I can't understand what is being sought. I read out what the Prime Minister has assured this House, not once but four times, "that it is the complete nuclear fuel cycle". He said, "that all aspects of a complete nuclear fuel cycle". He repeated it four times and he said, "only such cooperation would be in keeping with the July joint statement". You see the US debate. They said, "Yes, the Indian Prime Minister has said this. But he knows, the Government of India knows, our policy and on three points we will not supply technology. We will ensure that no other member of the NSG supplies the technology on these three points, reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water. Why? Because they quoted the speech of President Bush which he had made in February, 2006 in the National Defence University there. It is the main framework under which the US approach is determined. He said, "These three things are not needed for power production. These are needed and used by countries for weapons. Therefore, we will not give". In fact, he went further. He said, "There is a loophole in the NSG guidelines and we will be working with other NSG members to ensure that they also do not give it to a non-NPT, a non-nuclear weapon State. In accordance with that, the whole point was put in the legislation itself. That was done. President Bush said, "the 40 nations of the Nuclear Supply Group should refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technologies to any State that does not already possess the facilities and there are only 16 such facilities. Now, what happens? So, they say, "The Indian Prime Minister has four times given this assurance". ֋? So, they employ what the Prime Minister referred to in his 13th August, 2007 statement in this House. He said, "forward looking language". What is the "forward looking language"?. "When this agreement is amended the US may consider transferring such technologies, but subject to the parties respective applicable laws". Their laws do not allow it. Even then, it is "may", even when it is only when it is amended, when their laws are amended, it is only in consonance with the applicable laws. But we have been led to believe that complete sensitive technologies are coming. There is another programme. ֕ Senator Biden biting comment "Yes, the Indian Prime Minister has said this. But it is a matter of prestige for them. They understand our policy and I am sure that they will find a way to deal with their prestige". Now, we have been just told about reprocessing spent fuel. If you look at Anushakti, your BARC, if you look at the website of the Department of Atomic Energy, you will find that they claim that we are completely self-sufficient in reprocessing technology. I can read out that. On fast breeder you have rightly said that we have done it ourselves. In weapons, we have done it ourselves. In heavy water, we are the leaders in the world. In thorium, just now we have been told ׸ִ ֲ֮ ֋օ ׸ִ ִ օ They are not thorium focussed. It is not because they are less efficient in research, but they are not thorium based. What is it that we are going to get? We don't know. On reprocessing only one thing has been repeated that we have been given the reprocessing right. It is a farcical thing because what we have been given is the right to construct a dedicated reprocessing facility at our cost and to lease it under the IAEA. Everybody is quoting Nicholas Burns here. During his briefing to the Press on 27th July and his interaction with the Council of Foreign Relations, he said, "There are six steps India has to follow".

(Contd. by VK/5R)


SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD): He said, "There are six steps India has to follow." First, set up a dedicated facility. Second, place it under IAEA safeguards. Third, arrangements and procedures for using it will have to be agreed to with us. You will set up the facility, but the agreement on procedures and arrangements for using it with the US, which, that very clause says, shall be bound by its national laws, policies, license requirements. Then he says, "As everybody acquainted with the US law knows, this new agreement, when it is made, shall be submitted to the US Congress". , ֵ

Now, Sir, in one of the briefings a phrase was used, which has been used outside also of greater manoeuvrability. We were told -- these big people are here; I don't want to take the name of the person who said it -- No, no. Arun, you are wrong. Actually, this agreement gives us a greater manoeuvrability regarding our strategic programme. Why? Because we can use our domestic uranium for weapons and imported uranium for power supply.

Now they have, therefore, scotched this from the beginning. What happened was, a very great expert on defence matters, Shri K. Subramaniun, wrote this point in an article in the Times of India. This was then quoted in the US hearings that an Indian expert is saying this, what do you say. They said, "No, we will ensure it". They then emphasised in sections of the Hyde Act and in the reporting requirements that you will ensure and report to us every year and as soon as the information becomes available that your assistance is not helping India directly or indirectly, increase its weapon programme.

More important, you read the humiliating things which they are going to get on uranium. How much uranium you mine in ounces; how much you use; how much you process; how much power you produce. Therefore, they can calculate how much you set apart for your military programme and whether their uranium is helping us to do something else. That is listed there. Now they say, "No, no, the Hyde Act does not apply, 123 agreement applies". 123 Agreement says, "When a party requests the IAEA to get information from another party, that party shall supply that information." So they will not ask for uranium, mining, processing and milling. But IAEA will ask us and we are obliged to give it.

ָ, ָ ӕֲ , as you know, ׮ They will never beg. , ֛ ֤ օ ֮ - ? - , - , ֯, ևԋԋ ...(־֮֬) that you are obliged under the agreement to give it. , , ָ ָ An analysis is to whether imported uranium has affected the rate of production in India of nuclear explosive devices.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI): Arunji, please conclude. (Interruptions). The Samajwadi Party only had 10 minutes and those 10 minutes were multiplied by another 10 minutes.

SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: I am going to make my last point. I am concluding with the last point. This is meant especially for Shri Pranab Mukherjee because he has made a statement on this matter and for my Left friends, who are much concerned about American imperialism. In July, 2007, a person called, Lt. General, Geoffrey Kollar came to India at the invitation of the Indian Government. (Contd. by 5S)


SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (contd.): He is the Director of U.S. Defence Security Cooperation Agency, and he was accompanied by Rear Admiral, Jefferey Veringa. They said, "Yes; we are getting into a Logistics Support Agreement with India." He was asked: What is the purpose for this? He said, "Sometimes, we have joint exercises. So, this will enable us to quickly settle the cash transactions at the end of the year." Now that Agreement should be made only to settle cash between two countries, and that also only on joint exercises. I could not stomach it. I searched to find out what it is that this Logistics Support Agreement is actually doing. Now this has been explained by Douglas Feith, the U.S. Under Secretary of the Defence Policy in the Defence Department, in a speech. This speech was delivered on 3rd December, 2003. it is called 'Transforming the U.S. Global Defence Posture." I will end with this because it has a direct bearing...

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: Have they signed it?

SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: He said, "We are signing it soon." I am coming to it. He says, "He is explaining this Logistic Support Agreement that is being done, and it is explained in these terms. The House should really wake up to what is happening behind our backs. This gentleman says, "The world is spread out; because of trouble arising at many places, we have to have force projection capability. We are already stationing our forces in different parts of the world. But our forces will naturally be stationed where there is no problem. They have to be safe. So, we have to move from there to places where we want to go." Now, he says, "Because our forward deployed forces are unlikely to fight where they are based, our key goal must be to make those forces rapidly deployable to the relevant areas, as events require. We can project power in a rapid manner, whether from the bases in the U.S. or overseas, but it is helpful to have support of infrastructure overseas. We are encouraging allies to establish deployable, truly usable Headquarters and Forces. And, for this purpose, we are doing two things. One is, we are doing joint exercises so that we can see whether their infrastructure is suitable or not. Then, he says, -- that is the last quotation and I will finish after this -- "For this deployability concept to work, the U.S. Forces must be able to move smoothly into, through and out of host nations, which puts a premium on establishing legal and support arrangement with many friendly countries. We are negotiating or planning to negotiate with many countries legal protection for the U.S. personnel through Status of Forces Agreements, and we are putting in place so-called cross servicing agreements so that we can rapidly re-inverse countries for the support they provide to our military operations." Can there be anything more unambiguous? They are stating it clearly. So, my apprehension is this; in fact, the Government has set out a goal of getting into a strategic partnership without a strategy. So, the result is that instead of getting into a strategic partnership, they have ensured a strategic subservience. This is not the route to energy security. This is not the route either to energy, nor is it going to give us the dual use technology. As Dr. Abdul Kalam taught us this for ten years, nobody is going to give you dual use technology. (Continued by 5T)


SHRI ARUN SHOURIE (CONTD.): "You have to stand on your own feet". You people talk of Panditji and others! His whole concept of self-reliance was based on this. But, today, all this faith that technology will come, is throttling us strategically and reducing us to a state of subservience. Secondly, it is not the way to energy; it is not the way to energy security and it is not the way to higher technology. Please, desist from this. Don't lead us into problems which will lie in perpetuity. (Ends)

MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND MINISTER OF EARTH SCIENCES (SHRI KAPIL SIBAL): Sir, I have listened with rapt attention to the erudition that we have witnessed in this House through the interventions of hon. Members of this House, and I have to say that unfortunately, the quality of the debate is based on positions that have been taken already without looking into the larger, macro picture. I do believe, Sir, that as far as energy is concerned, like technology, it should be ideology-neutral, because energy is the lifeblood of a nation. It is the source of all economic activity, just as technology is the lifeblood of the nation. And at the heart of economic progress is the availability of energy. Of course, it must be available at a reasonable and affordable price and, therefore, I don't think that in any debate of this nature, ideology should have a role to play. The approach should be -- what are the sources of energy that might be available to us to provide them to the people of our country; how can we access those sources; what are the needs of a country growing at 8 to 9 per cent; what will be the requirements of energy in 2020, 2030 and how we are going to meet those requirements? But, unfortunately, the debate here has not been ideology-neutral.

My good friend, Shri Sitaram, talked about the pretext, the context, the text and the sub-text. And we understand that and we appreciate that, because the pretext of his opposition is ideological; the position to the text is ideological; the position in the context is also ideological and the sub-text is entirely ideological. So, we understand that and we appreciate it because in the context of access to energy, ideology should have no role to play. But still, we appreciate it because that is the policy of your party....(interruptions).. I would request the hon. Members to kindly listen with rapt attention.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI): Yes, the hon. Members should not interrupt. (Followed by 5u/tdb)


SHRI KAPIL SIBAL (CONTD.): As far as, of course, the BJP is concerned, there is no question of ideological neutrality. Their ideology is, take a position depending on which side of the House you are sitting. And, I will demonstrate it because in the heart of the opposition by the BJP, reflected in the enormous contributions by my good friends, Sinha Saheb and Shourieji, at the heart of all this is, how can India give up its sovereign right to test, how can that happen? I would just like to read -- and I will jog my friends' memories -- a statement made by the then Prime Minister of India on August 4, 1998, and this was a statement made in the House. Shri Vajpayeeji said, and I quote, "The CTBT also gives the same right to every country. We then also announced our willingness to move towards the de-jure formalisation of our voluntary undertaking. Ways and means of doing this are being explored through bilateral discussions with key-interlocutors. These dialogues have been undertaken by satisfying," now this is the key word, "These dialogues have been undertaken after satisfying ourselves that India no longer requires to undertake nuclear explosions." We can maintain credibility of our nuclear deterrent in the future without testing. This is a statement made by the former Prime Minister of India. This was the statement made in 1998. He continued to be the Prime Minister till 2004, and I assume that position continued. So, I would like to ask my learned friends what happened between 2004 and 2007 that despite what Vajpayjeeji said, you have changed your position. The only thing I can think of is that you are not sitting here, but there. You must explain; you must come clean; why is it that Vajpayjeeji in 1998 said that we don't require future testing; we don't need to test; and why has that become central to your opposition? And, if you need to test, please explain to the people of this country, in 2007, why do you need to test, or, in the future why do you need to test? Please explain. The fact of the matter is, Sir, and this was repeated, this was not that this was said only once. Ultimately, Vajpayjeeji and I don't want to repeat that, made a statement in the General Assembly that India is willing to sign the CTBT by September, 1999. In 1999, we would sign the CTBT. It is in that context that conversations took place between Jaswant Singhji and Strobe Talbot, where Strobe Talbot says 'that Jaswant Singhji told him that we have decided, the Prime Minister has decided that we will sign the CTBT and we will sign it by May, 1999." I have got all quotations with me, but I don't want to read them. So, the BJP in 1998 did not find it necessary ever to test. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA: Mr. Kapil Sibal, you are only telling half. ...(Interruptions)... Read the full statement. ...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI): It is not fair. Sinhaji, when Arunji was speaking, there was pin-drop silence. I think courtesy demands that we have pin-drop silence. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI KIPAL SIBAL: I have quoted the statement. If you want, I will place it on the Table of the House. I have no problem in doing that. I will place it. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA: it on the Table of the House. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: Now, Sir, Yashwant Sinhaji talked about credible minimum deterrent. (Contd. by 5w-kgg)


SHRI KAPIL SIBAL (contd.): And he said we are confusing the concept and it is not minimum credible deterrent but credible minimum deterrent. When I was listening to him, I was hoping that through his intervention today he would provide the credible minimum deterrent for our going further. But, unfortunately, his intervention was neither credible; it had the minimum of logic and it certainly did not provide any deterrent.

Sir, what is our requirement today? Today, India is growing at 8-9 per cent. Our total consumption of energy today is 1,36,000 MWs. That is our total energy consumption. If we continue to grow at the rate of 8-9 per cent, by 2020, our requirement for energy would be 4,48,000 MWs. By 2030, our requirement would be anywhere between 8,00,000 to 1 million MWs. Now, Sir, the question that Governments in power must ask themselves is how we provide energy to the people, what the energy sources available are. The sources of energy are limited. We are now importing oil. We are seeing the bottom of the barrel at almost 100 dollars. We are not passing that cost on to the consumer because the consumer in India cannot afford it. Yet, we have to buy and we have no choice.

Our coal reserves are huge, but what is our annual coal production? Anywhere around 350MT. Then, we have hydro-power. Now the problem with coal and hydro is the following. If you look at coal, Sir, coal is found in a few provinces in India--Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal. But the energy has to be supplied to the remote corners of this country! A lot of power plants are 1,200 kms. away. We cannot have the power plants at the pithead and supply energy because the transmission losses are huge! We do not have coal reserves all over the country. So, we have to build power plants at 1,000-1,200 kms. away. If you look at hydro power, Sir, most of the rivers are in the North West and yet energy has to be supplied to the vast corners of the country. As far as coal is concerned, Sir, even today, for our thermal plants, we are importing coal, we have no choice, because our levels of production are not that much. Most of the coal production is open surface mining. And production of coal is increasing at a level of 7-8 per cent per annum. Yet, energy demands are increasing at a much higher level.

So, the problem is, we need to find the resources of energy, to deal with the requirement of ordinary people in this country. In that context, nuclear energy is one of the options. Nobody ever said that the nuclear energy is the panacea to solve all the energy problems of the country. The Prime Minister never said so at any stage. Now, the problem with the nuclear energy, let me just put the whole thing in context, is that we are governed by a global regime of which we are not a part. We have only 0.8 per cent of the uranium reserves of the world. Our population is 16 per cent! Willy-nilly, we have to import uranium; that is not available to us. It is not available to us because of the global regime and because of the fact that we are not signatories to the NPT. Whatever help we were given, it was prior to 1974. In 1974, when we tested, the supplier group immediately set up something called the Zanger Committee, which was part of the NSG and they started getting guidelines! If my learned friend will appreciate that, it is only in 1975 that the NSG guidelines were framed, in the context of 1974 tests! There were no guidelines earlier. In 1975 they were framed. (Contd. by kls/5x)


SHRI KAPIL SIBAL (CONTD): These guidelines have two parts to them. The first part is that no technology, no fissile material, no nuclear reactor, no equipment, no reprocessing will be transferred to anybody. The first part came into force in 1978. Part two is even more important. Apart from not transferring fissile material, nuclear technology, nuclear reactors, part 2 says, there shall be no transfer of machine tools and laser and many other kinds of dual use technology.


Now machine tools, lasers, and other dual use technology are not just used for atomic energy. They are used for all kinds of economic activities in this country. But no country would send us that, no country would allow any other country, part of the global regime, to sell us that. Most important of all, in May 2004, just very recently, the NSG members adopted a 'catch on' mechanism by which they could object to any export which was suspected to be destined to be a nuclear weapons programme, even if the export does not appear in one of the control list. This was recently added in 2004. So, what is this regime? This is a regime in which not being a member of the NPT, not having signed the CTBT, who are not allowed access to nuclear fuel, and, if we are not allowed access to nuclear fuel, forget about our weapons programme. Even our civil nuclear programme is in danger because we have nuclear fuel that can serve only the interests of this country for about 10,000 MW and not more than that. So, it is the BJP, which tried to open the door for us. It was the BJP, which tried to open the door for us when they came to power and tried to deal with the Americans and said that lift this embargo, allow us technology, allow us access to fuel, build partnership with us so that we can serve the needs of our country. What has changed since then? What happened between 2000 and 2007 when suddenly you are in Opposition? You have not explained that to the people of this country. I can understand that, Sir, but if you look at the history of the BJP, you will find that when it came to the Patents Bill, they opposed it, they did not allow us to pass the ordinance. When it came again they defeated it and when they came to power, they moved it themselves and we supported it. Shourieji was here, I remember. He was part of the Treasury Benches then. He rose in support of the Patents Bill, I supported the Bill despite the fact that we were in opposition, but we thought in the larger interest of the country that this should happen. But you change your position because you sit in the Opposition today. The same thing you did with the Insurance Act -- the same position. So, you must explain to the country what has changed since Vajpayeeji statement in 1998 and you have not done so. Secondly, fundamentally, please explain to us: Why do you want to test? Why is it that you want to test today? .... (Interruptions)... You should have carried on for another two hours and you should have explained that. You should have done it in your intervention. Why did you not do that because the country wants to know why the BJP which tested in 1998 told the world that it does not need to test, today it says that why should we allow this deal to go through because according to them it does not allow us to test which is also factually incorrect and I will also demonstrate that. Supposing you did not have this deal, would you test? You could. If you did not have the deal, you can test and you will have the consequences. You can have this deal and you can still test, you still have the consequences. (Contd 5y/sss)


SHRI KAPIL SIBAL (CONTD.): So what is the difference? That is No. 1. Secondly, the issue that I want to raise is, Sir, is with reference to the 123 Agreement in the Hyde Act. It is very interesting that Mr. Shourie throughout talked about proceedings in the committees, statements by Condoleezza Rice and sought to interpret the 123 Agreement in the context of those statements. I fail to understand what is the logic behind this. We have an international agreement which is not yet in force. We have an understanding that 123 Agreement had certain provisions. This 123 Agreement is not yet law. We will have to go to the IAEA, get India-specific safeguards and after the India-specific safeguards, we will have to go to the Nuclear Suppliers Group. After going to the Nuclear Suppliers Group the matter will go back to Congress. President Bush will have to send a determination to Congress in terms of Section 104, which will be a one-time determination, and thereafter Congress will vote on it. It is then that it will become a law. The Congress will vote on it on its own terms knowing full well what the Hyde Act says. The Hyde Act was passed in December 2006 and once the Congress votes on the 123 Agreement, the Congress which is voting on the 123 is fully aware that it had itself passed the Hyde Act. So, naturally, if there is any conflict between the Hyde Act and the 123, 123 will prevail because that very Congress which passed the Hyde Act passed the 123 later knowing full well what the Hyde Act said. This is not something that is legally complicated. A later determination over-rides the former determination. It is as simple as that and I don't have to go through judgements of the Supreme Court. We don't have to go to any of them. I have a number of them. But it is not necessary. I will just state what a very important Constitution expert has said and this was written way back in 1988. Nobody knew if the deal would go through or not. It is not written for the purposes of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. This is by Lawrence H. Tribe, Constitution Law expert of Harvard University. I will just read what he says. "The Supreme Court, treating acts of Congress and treaties as legal equivalents has held that when a conflict arises between a valid treaty and a valid act of Congress, the last expression of the sovereign will must control." What is the last expression of the sovereign will? It is when the 123 Agreement is ratified by Congress, not the Hyde Act. And so, what will control? It is the 123 Agreement and not the Hyde Act. It is very simple. There is no legal sophistry in it and I am not saying it and it was said way back in 1988. (Interruptions) Mr. Shourie, I will answer all your questions, all your queries, and all your worries. If you had deep-freezed the Prime Minister in 1998, you would not have done what he was doing. I wish you had done that. The point is, you are a master at obfuscation.

SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: Are you talking about yourself?

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: No, no, I am telling you the reality because you don't want to see the cold print. 123 is an international treaty ratified by Congress. It will govern India in the US. Now, he says Hyde Act will govern us and Mr. Shourie says what about the information that is sought. Under the Hyde Act there are several provisions which say this information shall be given to the Congress, that information shall be given to the Congress. (Contd. by NBR/5Z)


SHRI KAPIL SIBAL (CONTD.): But, who are party to the Hyde Act? India is not a party to the Hyde Act. India is not to supply any information. You gave the impression as if India will have to give information because of the Hyde Act to the US President so that he can transmit it to the Congress. It is shocking. There is no information requirement under the 123 Agreement. Of course, they can; just as we can collect information about any other country. They can collect. They are free to collect. You collect a lot of information about us. Don't you? You are fee. The question is, it is not legally binding. I do not want to enter into discourse with you. So, let us be clear on one thing. As far as the conflict between the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement is concerned, the 123 Agreement is the last expression of the sovereign will and will prevail. Now, look at what have you people done? The Hyde Act says and the explanatory statement says that we will not allow India to have a strategic reserve. Well, let me just refer to you the provision of the 123 Agreement. And, I refer Article 5, Clause 6(b), it says, 'To further guard against disruption, the US is prepared to take the following additional steps. (3) The US will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of the Indian reactors.' Here is a provision for strategic reserves in the 123 Agreement. But, you say the Hyde Act does not allow it. But the Hyde Act cannot override the 123. The hon. Member does not know that under Article 6 of the US Constitution this is called the supreme law. The point is, if you are willing...

SHRI SHAHEED SIDDIQUI: Sir, the point is...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Siddiqui, why argument? When your term comes, you say whatever you want to say.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: His time is over, because he has given his time to him.

Sir, even under the US Constitution, this is the supreme law of the land. That is why Article 6 is called the 'supremacy clause' of the Constitution. Therefore, what? Therefore, the US is committing that it will support us to develop strategic reserves of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply.

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA: What is the 'strategic reserve?' That is what we have been demanding. What is the definition of 'strategic reserve?' ֯ ָ

ׯֻ ֲֻ : օ ֯ ֳ ֵә ־ֲ ֟ ֯ ִ֮ ֱ ߅ ß-ß ֱ ֯ ׮֋ ߅ ֮ ֯ ָ , ֯ disturb օ ֯ ׮֋, ֵ֤ ֯ ָ֮ ״ֻ ֋

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We should cultivate to listen to others.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: Look at it this way.

There is another thing. It is very interesting here. In fact, Mr. Nicholas Burns himself made an important statement saying that we do not want to interfere in the nuclear programme of India at all under the 123 Agreement. It is a part of the Agreement itself and let me read that to you. I am reading Article 2, Sub-Clause 4. I would not read the whole of it. The last part of this Agreement shall be implemented in a manner so as not to hinder or otherwise interfere with any other activities involving the use of nuclear material, non-nuclear material equipment, components, information or technology and military nuclear facilities produced, acquired or developed by them independent of this Agreement for their own purposes.




SHRI KAPIL SIBAL (CONTD.): So, in other words, our nuclear facilities developed by us, information regarding that, technology regarding that, non-nuclear material, equipment, components etc., they have no stake in it. This is part of the 123 Agreement. And, you are talking about the Hyde Act to say that through the Hyde Act they will interfere in our nuclear programme knowing full well that under the 123 Agreement, there is a solemn assurance that they will not interfere. Now, you can decide to build whatever ghosts you want in your mind and tell the people of this country. But the cold print is before you. The reality is before you. And, remember this, why are they having this Agreement with us? They can tell all the countries in the world, why does not India do exactly what others are doing? Why don't we sign the NPT? After all, there are only three countries that have not signed it. So, why should India be given any special treatment? There is no reason. We said to them, we are not willing to have an agreement with you because we want to retain our strategic interests. We want to retain our weapons programme. We will not compromise with our security. And, I congratulate the Prime Minister for that. That he stuck to it and we got an agreement that no other Government could have got. Otherwise, all our nuclear facilities would have been under safeguards. The BJP has said to the people of this country that when they come to power, -- I pray to God that thing happens -- we will renegotiate. I think, this country must be told what they will renegotiate. They have never spelt that out. What is it that they want to renegotiate? Do they want the Americans, through a treaty to tell them that we allow India to have as many tests in the future? Do you want that? Then, say so. Or, do you want to tell the Americans, we can have as many tests as we like, and you will not be entitled to object to them? Then, say so. But, they don't tell us that because they know that nobody could have got a better agreement than this. And, Ms. Shobhana was right when she said that they opposed it because they want to be part of it. And they are hoping for the day when it happens.

So, now, I go back. The Prime Minister said, "I am not going to negotiate with you. I need to protect my strategic reserves. I need to protect my weapons programme. And, tomorrow, for any reason, whatsoever, I put my nuclear reactors under safeguards and you stop fuel supplies, what will happen? I am not willing to accede to that. You also give me an assurance under the 123 Agreement, not with IAEA. You give me an assurance under the 123 Agreement that I will have nuclear fuel supplies for the lifetime of the reactors. I am not talking about strategic reserves now; but uninterrupted power supply." What did they do? I go back to 5.6. The United States will join India in seeking to negotiate with the IAEA an India-specific fuel supply agreement. If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the U.S. and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries like Russia, France and the U.K. to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India. It is part of the 123 Agreement. It is not part of the Hyde Act. And, so, what are we going to tell the IAEA? "Look, we have these reactors; 14 of them which are under safeguards. (Contd. By pk/6B)