Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Lok Sabha Debates

Discussion On The Statement Made By The Hon’Ble Prime Minister On 7.03.2006 ... on 11 March, 2006

an> Title : Discussion on the statement made by the Hon’ble Prime Minister on 7.03.2006 regarding Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation with the United States, in the context of the recent visit of the President of USA.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Now, we will take up item No. 21, namely, discussion under Rule 193. Shri Gurudas Dasgupta.

 

THE MINISTER OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND MINISTER OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING (SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI): Sir, I would like to make a submission before the discussion starts on this issue. Today, this discussion is taking place in response to the desire of a section of the House under an appropriate motion, and our hon. Prime Minister is also very keen to reply to the same. But today is Saturday, and we have to accommodate the hon. Prime Minister to reply in this House as well as in the Rajya Sabha. Therefore, I will request the House to conclude the discussion by 5 o’clock in order to allow me to bring the hon. Prime Minister to this House at 5 o’clock to respond to the debate. I am saying this because he has to go to the Rajya Sabha also. Sir, we should try to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you want the reply of the hon. Prime Minister at 5 o’clock?

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI: Yes, Sir, at 5 o’clock today.

MR. SPEAKER: All right, we shall try to adjust accordingly to start the reply at 5 o’clock.

            Shri Gurudas Dasgupta -- not present             Shri C. K. Chandrappan to initiate the discussion on this issue.  

         

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN (TRICHUR): Sir, I stand to raise a discussion on the Statement made by the hon. Prime Minister on 7.3.2006 regarding the civil nuclear energy cooperation with the United States in the context of the recent visit of the President of the USA.

            Sir, in the statement, the hon. Prime Minister has explained about the various decisions taken by the two Governments during the course of the discussions. It was a nuclear energy agreement, and there were also certain agreements regarding agriculture, knowledge economy, trade and business between the two countries, and arms deal too. These are the main items, which the hon. Prime Minister had included in the course of discussions, and on which they had come to an agreement.          It was agreed upon that the civil and other reactors will be separated, and separation was successfully done according to India’s choice. This is what the hon. Prime Minister had stated.

            Now, the last part of the statement described the two countries as ‘democracies in the world’ which will strive to achieve the common cause of fighting against terrorism, and preserving democracy and democratic institutions in the world.

            Sir, these agreements apparently look very good, and they got such a big publicity that they were termed as historic, unprecedented, etc. I would like to say that there is conspicuous silence in the statement about one issue. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please maintain silence in the House.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : A point was always raised in the recent past with the Heads of visiting States or Governments -- during discussions with the hon. Prime Minister or other important Ministers -- about India’s claim to have a seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). I do not know whether the Government has raised this issue with the hon. President of the USA as there is a conspicuous silence on this issue. Probably, it was not raised or if it was raised, then probably, they did not agree to it. I feel that it is a serious omission with regard to India’s own interest, and its legitimate claim to have a place in the comity of nations. The Congress benches very eloquently spoke about this during the debate on Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, namely, that this is one issue on which we would approach the nations of the world for support[ak7] .

            Probably, your Government did not approach on this issue to have an opinion from the United States of America. Whatever it is, the Joint Communiqué is silent about it.

            About all the other things spoken in the Joint Statement, I have certain things to say. When you look at it historically, it may be very good to speak in terms of civility or talking things in nice terms so that the President of the United States or his supporters might feel very happy about what the Indian Parliament discusses. But I would like to remind you that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, I hope, the Congress benches are still proud of Pandit ji, refused to shake hands with Mussolini when he came to receive Pandit ji at the Airport in Rome. It was a very surprising thing. But Pandit ji told that he would not shake hands with a Fascist. He did uphold the great Indian tradition of our Freedom Movement, and the values it cherished.

            Here, such fanfare was made when Bush came. In this world, as it is today, which is described as a unipolar, he is the President of the mightiest of the mighty States, I do not mind that we spread  red carpet to receive him. I must say that he gave a parting kick when he made his speech in Purana Qila, which is after the agreement was signed, everything was spoken nicely, everything was done nicely, and after so much of toast being raised. The last part of the Joint Communiqué says:

“We should stand together to fight against terrorism, protect democracy.”   What Bush said, I am quoting from his speech.

“India’s leadership is needed in a world that is hungry for freedom. Men and women from North Korea to Rome to Syria to Zimbabwe to Cuba yearn for their liberty. In Iran the proud people is held hostage by a small clerical elite that denies basic liberties, sponsors terrorism and pursues nuclear weapons. Our nations must not pretend that the people of these countries prefer their own enslavement. We must stand with reformers and dissidents, I underline the word ‘dissidents’, and civil society organisations and hasten the day when the people of this nation can determine their own future and choose their own leaders. These people may not gain their liberty overnight, but history is on our side.”   Sir, this speech was made not in Washington, this speech was made not in New York, this speech was made where he was the Chief Guest in Purana Qila where when pleasantries were said, he said, “I am coming here as a friend. Martin Luther King said that he would come to India as a pilgrim. I am coming here as a friend.” And the friend said this!             Mr. E. Ahamed, the Minister  of External Affairs was in Iran. He was in Iran embracing the leaders of that State and came and reported back, when we were discussing Iran issue in Parliament, that the Iranian leaders are happy about the position India takes[R8] .

            Now, here is our guest President Bush, utilising the opportunity we provided to him here, stating that in Iran a minority clerical sect is administering. He called upon India to stand with them to liberate those people. He wanted India to rally with the dissidents. Do we agree with this? A feeble statement was made by the Ministry of External Affairs after he left for Pakistan - I should not say that I have not seen that - that we do not agree with that. That shows the unequal nature of the friendship you are creating today. You are creating a new friendship with a nation which wants to be the Chief International Police today, arrogates itself to positions where it decides which is a rogue country and which is a good country, where democracy is there and where democracy is not there, where regimes have to be destablihsed and where army has to be sent for destabilisation.

They decided to send army to Iraq despite the fact that the United Nations did not agree to that. This House condemned in unequivocal terms sending of army and  stationing of army in Iraq. But the USA did it and it did it with the help of NATO. Their missiles flew over India from that far off island in Indian Ocean the Diego Garcia where they have their military base. Their missiles flew from Europe. One of the ancient civilisations was bombed to rubbles. That civilisation that was there, probably during the period of our Gangetic civilisation, on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris was bombed to rubbles. There was no sanction of the United Nations.

What was the reason they gave? The reason they gave was that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Who said that? CIA did and nobody else said that. The United Nations Inspectors did not say that. They repeatedly said that they could not find any weapons of mass destruction.  There is a Chinese proverb which says that if you want to kill a dog, call it a mad dog and beat and kill it. On the same lines, the CIA said that weapons of mass destruction were there in Iraq and you have beaten and killed Iraq.

Saddam Hussain is in prison. I am no fan of Saddam Hussain. But he was the elected leader of that country. You may not like the elected leaders of many countries, that is a different matter. But in a democratic world, you have to have elements of tolerance and a democratic sense which our new friend President Bush and for that matter the United States do not have. That is my complaint.  There my right doubt also as to what extent they would respect the commitments they have made to this country. They may not honour them. Somebody said, “Oh! President of the USA. They will not honour”. Yes, that is their tradition. I can cite any number of examples about the agreements that they dishonoured, international agreements. I can cite any number of destabilisations they made in the world during half a century.  The destabilisation was made everywhere with a purpose[KMR9] .

 

This has a purpose behind unseating a Government that was progressive.  That necessarily should not be that of the Communists.  In the Fifties, just after the Second World War, when new nations were coming up with new aspirations like India, what happened to the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohd. Mohasseddeq, who nationalised the British oilfields?  I think, you remember that. What happened to him? The Anglo-British combine unseated him using the military power.   Sir, two years later, in the backyards of the United States in Guatemala, a new Government was elected by the people and that Government was not liked by the Multi national companies selling fruits.  They are called the United Fruit Company, a multinational company. They did not like the Government and they wanted the Government to be overthrown.  Then came the United States and bombarded that country and that Government was unseated.  That was in the Fifties.

            Now, we are discussing this in March, 2005. On 16th February, there was an election in Haiti, a small island in the Caribbean.  In Haiti, the Government of Aristidi  was overthrown last year by the United States. His own man with massive majority, inspired the forces of democracy and got elected on 16th February. Thus, probably again facing another destabilisation. 

            We received Mr. Fidel  Castro.  He was made the President of NAM in Delhi. Indira Gandhi handed over the Presidentship to Mr. Fidel Castro.  Mr. Fidel Castro, from day one onwards when he came to power in 1959 till today, he is under US blockade. His life is threatened and he is threatened with war. What right the United States has got to do all these things?  Is it not well known that in the Seventies, the CIA instigated and directly intervened and upset the whole political system of Chile and unseated Mr. Allende, President of Chile. Not only that, he was killed.  That is the history of the United States.  I do not want to narrate further.

 

In the last century, more than 100 destabilisation acts have been done in their own backyards of South America.  Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia  are located 3,000 kilometres away from the United States, which fought for their freedom. You know that probably more than a million US army men were sent there and for years they remained there.  They had used all kinds of weapons, probably, except the nuclear weapons.  What for they were there? Explanation  was given that these countries were hampering the security interests of the United States.

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Chandrappan, I do not wish to interrupt you.  But the discussion is on civil nuclear energy cooperation. You have taken 20 minutes.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN :  I will not take much time.

            I am saying that this is a nuclear treaty we have entered into with a friend whose tradition is such that they never honour.  They never give respect to their partners – big and small. We may be thinking that we are a big country but they care too hoots for all that.  That is the history of that country.  That is why I say that whatever good things are said, they may not come true.

            Secondly, when the President of the United States landed in Delhi, Press lauded his magnanimity[s10] . He came and quietly went to sleep. Everything was left to Condoleezza Rice saying that no hitch should be there tomorrow morning. He woke up and asked whether there was any hitch. Probably there was no hitch or whatever hitch was found, was removed and the Agreement signed. What a wonderful person he is! What a wonderful Agreement it is! The Treasury Benches were in ecstacy but unwillingly India was made to became part of the global strategy of geo-politics that the United States wants to have. They want an alliance desperately. I am not saying this. Their senior leaders including President Bush said it, to contain China. They say, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, after the cold war, they do not want another contender in the world and so, they want to contain China. They want also to see -- Russia is not doing well – that Soviet Union is no more there. They want new friends in Asia. They have Pakistan with them. But Pakistan was always with them. But, they want India to be with them. When, our friends from the BJP, sitting here, were in power, they were trying to take India to the United States’ table. They did not succeed. Now, to my great surprise, this Government have done that. They have taken India to the stable of the United Nations global strategy of containing China, containing Russia and to have an upper hand in politics in this Asiatic region. That is a danger that we see in the Joint Statement. They have bartered their independent foreign policy. That is our complaint. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: For records sake, ‘you’ will mean, ‘the Speaker’.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : I do not mean you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Then say, ‘the Treasury Benches’.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : Sir, the Government has bartered the independent foreign policy, that has been continuing for decades since the time of Independence. This foreign policy of peace, solidarity and the policy of disarmament, that stood against the arms race,  has been bartered for a little nuclear energy and arms which they are sending to us and probably will instigate arms race in this part of the world.

            My third point is this that we have bartered our independent policy of non-alignment, peace and disarmament. We have seen that. When I quoted President Bush, I must say that it is his audacity that after such a grand reception, the nice words and everything, it is almost like a kick on our face. He said that he was inviting us to come with him and stand in the fight against countries who have regimes that he did not like.  They did not like their destabilisation. They want an ally in India. Therefore, my contention is that the Statement speaks good things, but the Statement is silent about India’s place in the Security Council.

            There is another aspect also in the Asiatic region. Our Prime Minister spoke about our extended neighbourhood. He speaks about our enlightened national interest. There is Israel in the extended neighbourhood. Just after Iran and Syria, one comes across Israel and just on the borders of Israel, recently a very important development took place.  Hamas has been elected to office in Palestine[p11] .

            What did Israel say?  The Ministers must have read it.  All of them must have read it.  Israel told the Hamas Prime Minister :  "You might have been elected but our sharp shooters will shoot you down.” It was said about the Head of a State.  Well, we will not feel so surprised because Yasser Arafat was one of the world leaders we honoured. He came to the Central Hall and spoke to this Parliament.  He was given a red carpet welcome.  It is all right.

            In Ramallah in his last days he told that ‘probably he was not a person shedding tears.’  But he said this in such a manner that how the Head of a State was treated by Israel with their tanks surrounding his palace and made him a virtual prisoner. Israel has stockpile of nuclear arms. They are threatening Iran by saying: “If you go ahead with your nuclear programme, we may strike the manner the pre-emptive strike we have done in case of Iraq.”  But  our Government said nothing about it.  Their Joint Statement did not utter a single word of concern about that development in this part of the extended neighbourhood.  So, it is the extended neighbourhood where freedom is being attacked; destabilisation effort is being done  all with the support of the USA.  Without the support of USA,  Israel cannot exist.  It is a surrogate country existing with the support of the USA.  Is it that we are not concerned about it.

             When the BJP people were in power, they tried to  take the policy a little forward India-Israel Axis.  It had all the support of the USA.  Mr. Brajesh Mishra went to Washington to negotiate that. But somehow time was not in their favour.  But I would like to know from the Government whether they are also going to do that after this. I think, it is a dangerous thing and we cannot ignore it.  We may get  nuclear power generation facility.  I do not know whether we will have facilities for re-processing the nuclear wastes.  That depends.  We have kept our fingers crossed. The US Congress is not like our Parliament.  It is all powerful, constitutionally so.

 

MR. SPEAKER: We are also powerful.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : We are not so powerful, Sir, I am sorry; because our Constitution does not say that a Treaty has to be ratified by Parliament.

MR. SPEAKER:  Our Constitution makers did not make that.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : We can make it.

MR. SPEAKER:  But that does not mean that we are not powerful.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : So, I have moved an amendment to the Constitution.  If you kindly permit, we can discuss it.

            Sir, if their Parliament, the US Congress does not approve, everything falls through.  It has happened in the history.  About agreement of any country with USA, when the US Congress disapproves that or refuses to ratify, it falls through.

MR. SPEAKER:  All Constitutions are different. Our Constitution is different.  But that does not mean that our Parliament has no power.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : We have this power that we can discuss it and talk it out.  But their Parliament can decide ‘yes’  or ‘no’.

MR. SPEAKER: Then, do you want to follow that?

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : No. I think, in this regard specially after certain experiences, I would like our Parliament to have such powers so that behind the back of this country things should not happen as the WTO Agreement was signed.  The peasants are perishing. We can only discuss it but there is no ratification.  Now, behind our back, the US Accord is being signed.  We can only discuss it.

            So, I would say that with crossed fingers probably, you are praying that wisdom should dawn on the US Congress so that nothing untoward happens to the Treaty.  With these words, I express these apprehensions about the unequal nature of the Treaty.  They want  a partner who always refuses whatever they do not like; and now dangerously so, they are calling us to go forward with them to fight for destabilisation of the regimes they do not like.  These are our serious apprehensions.  This is why this discussion was raised.

            Thank you very much for your patient hearing.

                                                                                                                                     

12.00 hrs. SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN (BALASORE): Sir, the BJP as the initiator of the process of strategic cooperation with the United States of America, whom the then Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee had termed as India's natural ally, is gratified by the development. This joint statement is an explicit confirmation by the present UPA Government of the continuing validity of BJP, NDA Government's strategic initiative of deepening, broadening and strengthening relations with the United States of America.  This is the direction in which the BJP-NDA Government has set the entire policy. The joint announcement of 2nd March reaffirms the centrality of that policy.   But, Sir, the only yardstick of objectively assessing, evaluating and commenting on this important announcement is India's national interest, very purposively explained by the hon. Prime Minister, the enlightened national interest. Based on this, it is our view that the Government has surrendered on many counts and these are the concerns, though we support this Agreement, which I shall basically express.

            The Prime Minister rests his argument on two bases; availability of nuclear energy and the energy security of this country.  What are his arguments?  His arguments are; coal-base thermal energy is a polluter, gas is more costly but nuclear energy is clean.  These are the three basic points on which he establishes all his arguments. Let us see what is the position of nuclear power in India now.

            The nuclear power energy in India constitutes less than three per cent of the energy basket of this country.  Let us go to the Annual Report of 2004-05, of the Department of Atomic Energy.  It says that the Nuclear Power Corporation of India operates 14 reactors; two boiling water reactors and 12 pressurised heavy water reactors.  What is the total capacity of these 14 reactors?  It is 2,770 megawatt.  In addition to that, India is also going to be engaged in the construction of eight nuclear power reactors with a total capacity of 3,960 megawatts.  So, altogether there are 22 reactors and their total capacity is going to be 6,730 megawatt.  The Government has set to achieve a target of 10,000 megawatt of power generation by 2010 and thereafter to achieve setting up of a few more reactors of 5,40 megawatts each like TAPP III and IV. These TAPP-III and IV projects are the largest indigenously designed and built nuclear power reactors of this country. According to the Annual Report of the Department of Atomic Energy, the gestation period of these reactors is about 50 months and they are one of the bests in the world[R12] .[R13]  This is the strength of our nuclear scientists and the technologists.  It has happened because of the capability of our nuclear scientists.  It is because of them that we have today been described as a responsible State with advanced nuclear technology. But my point here is that even if we achieve 10,000 megawatt of nuclear energy by 2010 or 20,000 megawatt of nuclear energy by 2020, it will at best be a small contribution to the total energy need of India.  It will be not more than 10 per cent of the total need.  Our potential for hydro electricity is huge.  There is also the possibility of having non-conventional energy like wind energy.  So, it is a very wrong premise to say that it is only the nuclear energy which can sort out the problem of India in the next two decades.  We do not believe in this.

            Now another point on which the hon. Prime Minister’s speech rests is that the nuclear energy is clean energy.  It is not like coal.  The United States is the biggest polluter on this planet.  It has not signed the Kyoto Protocol.  Our emission of green house gases is 0.05 per cent of the total US emission.  So we have to think of this.  Who is polluting this world?  It is not us.  It is the United States of America.  The clean coal technology is available elsewhere in the world.  We can adopt it.  It is available in South Africa.  The environmental issue could be taken care of by thermal and also by clean coal technology.  So to say that the clean energy is only available out of the nuclear technology or nuclear power, for me, it is not true.

             

The next point is that we will have nuclear power but at what cost.  What is  its cost? For a target of 40,000 megawatt of installed capacity by 2020, the total additional investment required would be Rs.2,40,000 crore.  Is it a very small sum?  We want electricity but at what cost?  This is a stupendous cost.  This is only the installation cost of the reactor.  What about the cost of the uranium?  Nobody knows what would be the cost of the uranium.  What we have heard is that the cost of uranium has gone up by three times.  So, the capital cost involved in a nuclear project is very high and the fuel cost is also equally high.  As per the Annual Report of the Department of Nuclear Energy, we have not exploited our uranium mining capacity.  There is only one mine in Jadugoda in Jharkhand from where we have our uranium and elsewhere we have never tried.

            As regards thorium, it can also work as fuel for the nuclear reactor.  The two-third of the world’s thorium deposits are available in India.  It is a chance given to the scientists of India to become self-sufficient.  If you utilise the thorium deposits that are available with us and if you utilise the uranium then I think India will be self-sufficient in this field and India will not be critically dependent on any of these nations of the world for its nuclear fuel and energy.

            As per this Agreement, neither India is having energy security nor it is going to be self-reliant in the energy security. It is basically a programme of imported fuel and imported reactors[r14] .

            This is exactly what is going to happen. How can India, on one hand, be perpetually dependent -- that is another problem -- on imported reactors and fuel and also, on the other hand, talk about energy security and self-reliance in this regard? These are two contradictory things. I would like to appeal to the hon. Prime Minister to reply to this point when he replies to the debate. What has been our experience in the past? All of a sudden, just like as it happened in the case of Tarapur power plant of stopping fuel supply, it can happen again in future. This is my apprehension and also the concern of my Party. The hon. Prime Minister should reply to this.

            The next point is, what is India’s standing in the nuclear field? We agree that there are three phases of India’s nuclear development programme. Initially, pre-1974, it was an independent era. We did not have any restrictions on us. We developed our nuclear energy programme independently. We, with the help of other countries, developed it. We had the Apsara reactor with the help of Canada; we had our reactor in Tarapur with the help of USA and we had our reactors in Kundukulam with the help of the then USSR. That was the first phase.

            Now, second phase started when tests for the first time was conducted in 1974 in Rajasthan. The second phase was the era of sanctions. That was the noon of a nuclear winter. That was the time when India was being described as an international pariah. This happened during that time. That was the second phase. But this was also the time when nuclear technology blossomed. The scientists who were denied access to nuclear technology mastered this art of nuclear technology in all fields and we were even using our indigenous nuclear technology for strategic purposes. That was the second phase. The regime of international denial became a source of great strength for India. We became self-reliant and our scientists brought this glory to this nation. I could say that this was the best period with regard to nuclear technology that India had.

            The third phase started post-Pokhran in 1998. We became practically a de-facto nuclear weapon State in 1998. There were more sanctions, more denials, but we faced them. Our situation did not deteriorate. Within two years of this nuclear denial, the then President of the United States of America, Mr. Bill Clinton, after imposing economic and technological sanctions on India, visited India. It so happened because we stood our ground. We gained from our strength and from our foreign policy to have the minimum strategic deterrence.

           

Sir, with regard to NPT, I would like to submit that we have not signed the NPT because we thought that it was discriminatory and so we did not sign that. Take this example. It was signed in 1971, some 34 to 35 years back. It recognised two categories of State, one is the nuclear weapon States and the other category of States that it recognised was the non-nuclear weapon States[snb15] .

In 1998[bru16] , we declared that we are also a Nuclear Weapon State.   Even though we have proved ourselves to be a Nuclear Weapon State, we have not still joined the non-proliferation regime.   Our Prime Minister declared that India is a responsible nuclear power.  I have already mentioned that NPT has divided the world into two categories, namely, Nuclear Weapon States and non-Nuclear Weapon States.  But after we tested our device in 1998, we became the third category.  The world saw the third category State emerging.  This is a non-signatory State to NPT but a Nuclear Weapon State.    By 1998, all the five countries having nuclear weapons were signatories to the NPT.  In 1998, we became the sixth State having nuclear weapons almost officially but we are non-signatory to NPT.  By signing the present agreement, we are doing so without being recognised as a Nuclear Weapon State.   That is our objection.  We are actually a de facto Nuclear Weapon State but in this agreement, we have not been accepted as such.  That is our objection.  We are actually being given a second class status in this agreement. We have been treated as a poor cousin of the United States of America.  Why do I say this?   It is because now we will have to sign the India Specific Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.  We have to sign one India Specific Agreement with the IAEA.  India Specific talks are to be negotiated with the IAEA because we are not a nuclear wapon State.  We will have to sign an agreement which no other five countries having nuclear weapons have done. They do not have an agreement like this.  They have no agreement with the IAEA like the India Specific Agreement. 

   

Now, as per this agreement, what are we going to do?  We have to voluntarily place our civilian nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards.  In future, we have to sign and adhere to an additional protocol with regard to the civilian nuclear facilities.  These are the two things to be considered here.  We will have to sign one India Specific Agreement and voluntarily, we have to separate civilian and military nuclear facilities and we also will have to sign one additional protocol in future with the IAEA.  

Sir, my basic point and the point of my Party is that when there should be an agreement with any other country, it should rest under reciprocity.   This should rest on parity.  It cannot be an agreement with unequals.   It should be an agreement with the equals only.  Now, what happened in this agreement?  In future, we are volunteering to place our civilian nuclear facilities and programmes in a phased manner under the safeguards of the IAEA.

My question here is this.  Has the US made such a separation between its civilian and military nuclear facilities? Has it done that?   They are also Nuclear Weapon States and we are also a Nuclear Weapon State.  Why should we do something which they have not done?  Has the US brought into force the additional protocol signed with the IAEA? Has it done that?  It has merely signed it but has not implemented it.  No nuclear power has separated the military and civilian nuclear facilities in actual practice including the USA.  They have merely signed it. The five countries, namely, USA, Russia, China, France and UK have signed additional protocols with the IAEA. I agree with this.   But neither Russia which has signed it on the 22nd March, 2000 nor the USA which signed it on the 22nd September, 1998 have brought this into force[bru17] .

            Even while signing the Additional Protocol, the United States of America, consistent with the rights of a Nuclear Weapon State, has chosen to limit or deny access to IAEA safeguards.  I would like to emphasise this point.  The United States of America has got the right to deny access or include or exclude any inspection activities on the basis of its national security exclusions.  They have signed this Additional Protocol with the IAEA.  The United States of America says that it has got the right to deny access to any international inspection in future.  But what will we have to do? We will have to voluntarily place them under the international inspection, that too perpetually, for all the times to come.  Is it based on parity? Is it based on the policy of reciprocity? The USA, in particular, will not provide the IAEA information which are of direct national security significance to it; it can deny access to activities and locations which are of direct national security significance to it; and it can exclude inspection activities that are inconsistent with the national security exclusions.  The USA has already told that whenever we think that it is against our national interest, we will refuse it.  They can very well say that the IAEA cannot come and inspect it. 

            The IAEA now applies safeguards at only four US facilities out of the 250 civil nuclear facilities that the US has made eligible for the IAEA safeguards under its Voluntary Offer Agreement with the IAEA. The US is having 250 nuclear facilities.  It has declared that they are all civilians.  But it has allowed inspections only at four facilities. So, for them it is good. But for India it has to be in perpetuity.  This is what the present position is. 

            In more than two decades, the IAEA has conducted inspection only at 17 of these facilities in all these five Nuclear Weapon States combined together.  The IAEA has conducted inspections only in 17 of these facilities.  But in our case it is intrusive, that is, the inspection can be conducted at any time, anywhere.   Whenever they want to conduct an inspection, they can do so. 

            The IAEA inspection is very nominal in the case of the USA, Russia, China, UK and France because they are Nuclear Weapon States and are recognised as such under the NPT.  Will India get the same treatment as a Nuclear Weapon State from the IAEA? 

           

I am very happy that the hon. Prime Minister is present here.  I would expect that a clarification will come when he replies to it at the end. I hope he will address our concerns. It clearly shows that it is a discrimination against India. 

            There is one more point which I would like to point out. Nuclear Weapon States can declare one facility as civilian and in future can change it to military.  They can declare one nuclear facility as civilian and if it does not suit them they can change it to military. For example, the USA can declare one facility as civilian and if it does not suit that country they can change it to military and thereby exclude it from international safeguards.  Can we do so? We have said that we will leave it for inspection in perpetuity[r18] .

My another point is that there is a fixed life for a reactor.  USA has also agreed that it will supply nuclear fuel to these reactors in perpetuity.  But there lies the catch, because every reactor has got a fixed life, around 25 years. So, when it will cease to function after 25 years, since we have placed it under perpetual international safeguards, the IAEA will have the right to intrude and to inspect it even after 25 years. Spent fuel in a nuclear reactor is a precious thing.  So, the safeguards will continue even after the longevity, with the afterlife of spent fuel. That is what I explained.

Now, I would come to the most important point about this deal, where we have a very strong objection also. This deal effectively caps our nuclear weapons capability because out of 22 nuclear facilities, we are handing over 14 as civilian for international safeguards to the IAEA for any intrusive inspection, at any time. In perpetuity, the fissile material available for our strategic work will not be available.  This is where our objection is.

We have already decided that we will close down the CIRUS reactor by 2010. But, we have not declared that we are going to replace it by anything.  We are not bringing in any replacement.  Nuclear reactors cannot be built overnight.  So, we should have come up with another new reactor in place of CIRUS reactor, which we are going to close down by 2010. 

           

Now, Sir, six reactors are going to be imported.  But they will also remain under perpetual safeguards.  So, that is capping our strategic programme; it is going to be restricted. Depending upon our threat perception, we cannot have the independence of determining our minimum credible deterrence.  That is our most important point, and objection too here, that in future we will not be in a position to determine what minimum requirement, strategic requirement, with regard to the nuclear weapons we must have. 

            Now, India will have India-specific commitment with IAEA, which is a multilateral body. Yes, we are having an agreement with the United States of America, but that is a bilateral agreement.  But when we enter into an agreement with IAEA, it is going to be a multilateral one. My point is that if something wrong happens in future, we have said that we can walk out of the agreement with the United States of America because it is a bilateral agreement. Can we do so by walking out of IAEA which is a multilateral agreement?  Will it be possible? I would like a clarification from the hon. Prime Minister on this.

Sir, I have already told that the main deal rests on reciprocity, on parity.  The hon. Prime Minister said that our separation would be voluntary. We can dare say from our party side that we do not think that the separation was voluntary. It was forced on us because they have already discussed with the United States of America.  First, it was discussed with the United States of America and then only we declared that this is our Separation Plan. So, it is discriminatory because it does not recognize India as a nuclear weapons State. Our demand is that no restriction should be put on our nuclear weapons programme.  We very strongly feel and say that in future no restriction should be put.

But, I am very sorry to say you, Sir, the United States of America is trying to impress upon their own Congressmen that they have succeeded in limiting our nuclear capability[mks19] .

 

They are selling this argument to their Congress. They are saying: “Even though India is not a signatory to the NPT, we have been able to limit their nuclear weapons capability.” That is the story they are selling to their countrymen to get it passed through their Congress. That is one of the most frustrating things for India as far as our party is concerned.

            I mean to say that there should be friendship with equality. There should be no subordination or superior relationship. Friendship should be on equal terms. We should not cap our nuclear programme. I would accuse that this UPA Government has gone out of its way to befriend the United States of America which we would not have done. The NDA, the BJP Government would not have done that. We would have agreed to place only three facilities under the international safeguards. We would never have gone beyond this which this Government has done. I will take three or four minutes. I will complete my speech. From our Party only two Members are there to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: I did not say anything.

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :  That is what we would have done. Our point is that it has gone out of its way to appease the United States of America. Take the example of China. Why I am saying is that we must have a credible nuclear deterrence. You take the example of China. We are nowhere near China in missile technology. India’s foreign policy is not Pakistan-centric. We do not simply depend upon what Pakistan does. We have to see somewhere else also. The Europe has already lost the momentum. So, it is China, India and the United States of America which are going to compete in this century to become the world leaders.  As I said, already, the Europe has lost the momentum. It is far behind. So, we should get ready for that eventuality.

            I will now just make the last two points. With regard to NPT, it says that all Nuclear Weapon States should destroy their stockpiles; they should go for total disarmament. It was first signed in 1970. But thirty years have passed. There has been no movement in this regard. So, India is a responsible Nuclear Weapon State. We have already declared that we will have no first use of it; we will have no use of it against any non Nuclear Weapon Country. So, I would appeal to this Government that India should take the lead for the disarmament of the world.  A nuclear weapon free world is what we actually require. So, India should take the lead.  Please take the examples of Japan and Germany. Without even having the nuclear weapon, they have attained greatness and prosperity. So, Sir, I appeal to this Government that it should also take the lead and see that India becomes a leader of disarmament.

            I now come to my last point. I am very much surprised that this Government says  - just like our Government said – that it is a historic occasion by just inviting Mr. George Bush.  It is very much surprising that their own allies, the Leftists were having an agitation. They were having an agitation all over this country. They say that they are supporting this Government but they are just opposing it. I was very much surprised when I saw a photograph which appeared in the newspapers that in Mumbai, when the Leftists were having a rally, there was a banner which said: “We will become the suicide bombers.” … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI :   Are you opposing or supporting it? I am a little bit confused. I can understand what they say.… (Interruptions)

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :  That is what I want to know.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI: If you yield for a moment, I will put a question. Did you advise your concept of nuclear weapons free State in 1998 to the then Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihar Vajpayee?… (Interruptions[R20] )   MR. SPEAKER: No, it is for him to reply.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :  Sir, I have… (Interruptions)

SHRI VIJAYENDRA PAL SINGH (BHILWARA):  Is it right for the Minister to intervene like that?… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: It is because he yielded.

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :  It is a very good thing, Sir.… (Interruptions)

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप बोलिए।

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :  No, I would complete because I have nothing more to say.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: No, I am not stopping you. 

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :  My point is this.  I do not know whether he was present at the time when I just commenced my speech.  I said that the BJP as the initiator of the process of strategic cooperation with the United States of America, whom the then Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee had termed as India’s natural ally, is gratified by the development. This is the first sentence I said, Sir. 

THE MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLGY AND MINISTER OF  OCEAN DEVELOPMENT (SHRI KAPIL SIBAL):  Are you supporting?

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN :  But, I said that we have our concerns as an Opposition Party.  As the principal Opposition Party, these are our concerns because we feel that India has surrendered to United States of America on many counts.  I would like a clarification from the hon. Prime Minister. 

     

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI :  Sir, I would like to appeal through you to the House that this short duration discussion began at 11.30 am and it will be nice if the House agrees, through you, that we skip the lunch hour so that the harmony of the debate continues.  They can conclude by 3.30 pm or 3.45 pm so that the hon. Prime Minister, as I have said has to reply at 5 p.m., can pre-pone his reply.  I have seen the list of the speakers.  

प्रो. विजय कुमार मल्होत्रा (दक्षिण दिल्ली) : रिप्लाई कितने बजे होगा।

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI:  After 3.30 p.m. PROF. VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA (SOUTH DELHI):  Any time?  Fix a time.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI:  Exact 3.30 pm or after that because five or six minutes might be here and there… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Not many speakers are there so it maybe early also.

 

THE MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLGY AND MINISTER OF  OCEAN DEVELOPMENT (SHRI KAPIL SIBAL):  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was listening with rapt attention to both Mr. Chandrappan and Mr. Kharabela Swain.  As far as my good friend Shri Chandrappan is concerned, I thought that the debate was on the statement of the Prime Minister on the 27th of February and the 7th of March in respect of the civil nuclear energy cooperation with the United States of America. Instead we got a conspectus of US foreign policy over the last 55 years.  As that is not the ambit of this debate, I will choose not to respond to all the Statements made by my learned colleague except to say that the Congress Party has always learnt from history and in the dynamics of the present situation, wishes to protect the future of our country.  I was also a bit confused by Mr. Swain’s very valuable contribution this morning because I do not know really where his party stood.  I think it is important for the country to know where the BJP stands.  Where the NDA stands?  Are you for the deal or are you against the deal?  I think it is important for them to have made that clear at the initial intervention that they made.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I just wish to go back in history because I do not think we can understand the entire conspectus of this deal without going back a few years.  I go back to the time when we attained independence.  At that point of time, we were the ones who talked about nuclear non-proliferation.  We were, in fact, the initiators of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1954 itself.  It is because we realised what devastation Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused to the world.  So, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as leader, at that point of time, called upon all countries to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty[a21] .     

            Unfortunately, that never happened and the United States, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had a programme called ‘Atoms for Peace’. They wanted to project to the world that nuclear energy can be used for peaceful purposes also.  In that context through the ‘Atoms for Peace’ programme, they wanted to extend support to the less-developed world and gave us $80 million on soft terms to set up a nuclear reactor at Tarapur, constructed by General Electric.

            Then, we signed and we were the first country to sign the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963.  Thereafter, things changed and the reason why things changed was on account of three events.  Unfortunately Pandit Nehru passed away. He was a firm believer in non-proliferation. Second, in 1962 we were involved in a conflict with a neighbouring country. In 1964, which is a very important date, China conducted nuclear tests and we realised that our security was in danger. Though we were great believers in non-proliferation, we were also great believers in ensuring that nothing should happen which can impact adversely on the security of our country. Therefore, in terms of the Tarapur project, which was a project for peaceful purposes, for civil nuclear energy, we set up a Reprocessing Plant at Tarapur as also the Cirus Research Reactor at Tarapur which enabled us to use reprocessing facilities for the purposes of our security concerns.  That was the beginning of a weapons programme for India.

            Then came the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1967 and, as everybody knows, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty created a regime of nuclear apartheid. You have the 5 nuclear States and the rest of the world as non-nuclear States. The 5 nuclear States perpetuated their nuclear power and I dare say that after 1967 till 1995, 35,000 nuclear tests were conducted by various nuclear powers. That is the extent to which the nuclear powers were, in fact, amassing nuclear weapons.

            In the context of what had happened in 1964 and 1962, we realised that we were at the receiving end of the nuclear apartheid regime and we could not expose our security to a neighbour with nuclear weapons. Therefore, we decided to move forward not to become a nuclear weapon State, but to have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. I am giving this background because that is the background in which we must understand the 1974 tests.

           

We demonstrated to the world that we were not going nuclear because they were referred to as ‘nuclear tests for peaceful purposes.’ If you remember, those were the very significant words used by Mrs. Indira Gandhi. She said: “These are nuclear tests for peaceful purposes.” Therefore, we wanted to tell the world that we have the capacity, but we did not want to become a nuclear weapon State because we were firmly committed to a weapons-free world, we were firmly committed to a non-nuclear world regime. That happened in 1974 and the only consequence of that was that after the 1969 Tarapur Agreement with the United States and Canada, we did not get any fuel supply till the Agreement ended in 1993[k22] .

[r23] We realised that we needed to actually be prepared to protect our security at any given point in time.  So, I give credit to the scientific community of this country, who despite the gravest of odds, prepared our country to have the capability to meet any challenge that came from this part of the world.  I want to stand here today to congratulate the scientific community for having enabled us to do so.

            Mr. Speaker Sir, it is important to remember that despite the nuclear test for peaceful purposes in 1974, India was ready to embrace the nuclear non-proliferation regime.  I would like at this point to comment and to quote what Rajiv Ji said way back on June 9, 1988 at a special session on Disarmament in the United Nations.  That was a very historic speech and this is what he said:

“We are approaching the close of the Twentieth Century.  It has been the most bloodstained century in history. Fifty-eight million perished in two World Wars, 40 million more have died in other conflicts. In the last nine decades, the ravenous machines of war have devoured nearly one hundred million people.  The appetite of this monstrous machines grows on what they feed. Nuclear war will not remain the death of a 100 million people or even a 1000 million people.  It will mean the extinction of 4,000 million.  The end of life, as we know it on our planet Earth, we come to the United Nations to seek your support.  We seek your support to put a stop to this madness.”   I say this because even after the nuclear tests, Rajiv Gandhi was wedded to a non-proliferation regime.

            Let me tell you a very interesting thing, which he said and which really is the heart of the matter that differentiates us and the BJP. In that very Address to the United Nations, he said:

“Corresponding to such commitment by the nuclear weapon States, those nations – and he was referring to India – which are capable of crossing the nuclear weapon threshold must solemnly undertake to restrain themselves.  This must be accompanied by strict measures to end all covert and overt assistance to those seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.”               There was a dual message in this.  The message was that we are at the threshold, we know how to produce nuclear weapons, but we are exercising a policy of self-restraint. But let this not allow other nations to assist some nations in acquiring nuclear weapons.  It was a message to the world that our policy was a policy of restraint and that we still believed in non-proliferation. 

            All that changed in 1998.  The difference between them and us is that we believed in non-proliferation, we still believe in non-proliferation. But they changed the whole paradigm of India’s nuclear policy without understanding the import of the restraint reflected in the words of Rajiv Gandhi. That is where you brought upon India and brought upon the people of India, the sanctions which were the consequence of your act in 1998.

            But much happened after 1998.  In 1995, unfortunately, the 1967 Treaty was extended without any limit[r24] .

So, the nuclear apartheid regime was made limitless, was granted unlimited extension and we realised that India was not in a position to secure its concerns unless India was able to manufacture nuclear weapons.  I remember that on the 11th of May 1998 the kudos that the then NDA Government and the BJP showered on itself as to how they were the ones who were able to actually cross the Rubicon by pushing the button.  I have to say that you may have pushed the button, but everything till the button stage was done by us.  You should have given us credit and given the credit to the scientists of this country for what they did and the leadership of this country for what they did.  You never did so.  That is why, today, for the first time I am placing before this House the historical context in which this agreement has been entered into with the United States of America.

            What was the nature of the sanctions regime and what did we have to go through, I think it is important for us to remember that. You should realise that we were denied cryogenic engines.  I just want to explain as to what is a cryogenic engine.  It is the use of liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen to provide greater lift when you launch a spacecraft.  This denial had a great negative impact on our space programme which is put to multifarious civilian uses.  Today, our space programme through remote sensing can locate water catchments.  Our space programme through remote sensing can tell us the extent of forest cover.  Our space programme is the basis of the communications system that we have in this country.   But we were denied the cryogenic engines because of the policies that you entered into. Though cryogenic engines are not used for launching of missiles because liquid nitrogen is not used for the launch of missiles, yet we were denied this technology.  There were export controls imposed upon us.  Today as the world moves along, huge technological developments are taking place because of high computing capacities of super computers. We were denied all the super computers because of the decision that you took.  Today, the capacity of super computers is in teraflops.  We could not even get into this country, import into this country a low capacity cray’s computer, super computer.  If you look at all the hardware, you look at all the bio-tech sector in this country, the information technology sector in this country, all the hardware is based on super computing.  We could not import any of these into our country.  Not just that, Sir, we could not use these technologies, and many of these are health-related technologies which allow the use of radiation to detect many things.  We could not import PET scans and TEM scans.  These are all nuclear laser technologies which could be put to dual use.  In the area of food processing and agriculture, for safety and security, we could not use these technologies to increase the shelf life of our agricultural produce.  You know that large quantities of agricultural produce go waste.  We could not use spectroscopic techniques for security.  What is it that I am trying to say?  It is because of your decision in 1998, not after 1974, after 1998, that we were subjected to all these restrictions.

SHRI VIJAYENDRA PAL SINGH (BHILWARA): May I ask you one question?

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: No.  I am not yielding.

MR. SPEAKER: He is not yielding. 

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: No. Sorry.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: It will not be recorded.

(Interruptions)* … SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: I am not yielding.… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Vijayendra Pal Singh, he has not yielded.  Sorry.  Please cooperate.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please do not record anything.  Nothing will be recorded.

(Interruptions)* … MR. SPEAKER: He must yield. You know that.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN : It is not a High Court or Supreme Court. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER:  Please do not record anything.

(Interruptions)* … * Not Recorded.

 

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: I never interrupted you.  … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER:  Will you please take your seat?  This is not the way.  A very important discussion is going on.  He has made a very good speech.  Do not spoil his speech.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: Sir, this is one aspect of the matter that we were denied civilian use of technologies over the years, which could have had a very positive impact on the developmental needs of our country.  But there was another imperative that was facing us.  Let me tell you about that imperative.  The other imperative that faces us is this.  I want to give the figures now.  The fact of the matter is that our energy needs by the year 2025 are going to grow exponentially.  At the moment we produce about 1,30,000 megawatt of electricity, if you include captive consumption.  But by the year 2025 we will probably need three to four times that capacity. Where are we going to get that capacity from?  It is very important to understand this issue. 

            As far as the oil producing countries are concerned, I may mention to you, Sir, that five oil producing countries in the world produce 64 per cent of all the oil in the world.  Twenty-five per cent of that 64 per cent is produced by Saudi Arabia alone. Iraq produces 10 per cent.  UAE produces 9.3 per cent.  Kuwait produces 9.2 per cent.  Iran produces 8.6 per cent.  The total is 64 per cent.  This is a limited resource.  Other countries in the world whether it is South America or the Nordic countries or in Siberia, they produce a very small quantity.  This is a limited resource.

            As China and India grow in prosperity and as the bludgeoning middle class increases in numbers, we are going to need more and more energy. Where are we going to get this energy from?  It is not going to be provided by the oil producing countries because their production levels are going to go down and the consumption levels will far outreach the supply levels. So, we will have to look for alternative sources of energy.

If you look at the United States today, if you look at their energy consumption levels, they are also increasing exponentially.  So, their demand will be on the rise.  We will all be competing for the same energy resources in the Middle-East, which, as you know, today is in the midst of all kinds of conflicts and controversies.  So, we cannot get an assured supply of energy. If we cannot get an assured supply of energy, the people of this country cannot progress.  So, energy is at the heart of development. 

            The 1998, 11th May nuclear blasts did not enable us to secure the energy resources that were necessary.  So, we need to actually secure those resources.  But at the same time, as we secure those resources we need to protect ourselves because there is a security threat that we see around us. So, we cannot give up our military programme and we must compromise on the civilian programme for larger uses of energy.  It is a simple equation. The imperatives of our national interest demand it.  I think, at this point, … (Interruptions) 

Shri Swain, why do you insist? I will explain.  If you listen quietly, you will understand what I am saying. If you interrupt, you may not understand and sometimes, you know, it is difficult.  Get your mind cleared of the cobwebs and you will understand[lh25] .

13.00 hrs. I have great respect and I give great kudos to both the Prime Minister of India and the Head of the UPA, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi for taking this momentous decision. I believe that the ultimate measure of the maturity of a political party is not where it stands in moments of comfort but where it stands in times of challenge and controversy. These are challenging times. These are controversial times. Our Party stands steadfastly for the future of India and for the future of our people, and I congratulate the Prime Minister and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi for that.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is in this context that we must analyse the agreement that has been entered into, our security needs, our civil nuclear energy needs, the future of this country and how we can reach development at their doorsteps of the common man.  Now, what have we done in the separation plan? What we have done is the following. Mr. Kharabela Swain was wrong when he said that he would have given only three nuclear facilities for safeguards. He probably does not know that, as I talk, before this agreement, four nuclear facilities are already under safeguards.

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN : I know that. I have said it also.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: You did not say this. But anyway I am glad you know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Yours is such a scientific speech. We could not follow it.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: You would have given three more or three less. But anyway, that is neither here nor there.

            What have we done? Of the 22 facilities, we say that 14 of them will be allowed to be put under the civilian nuclear safeguards. … (Interruptions) Yes, it is for perpetuity. Do you know what is perpetuity? The nuclear reactor has a limited life. So, perpetuity in this context means the life of the nuclear reactor. If you say I will live in perpetuity, it means till I die.

MR. SPEAKER: You address the Chair.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: So, perpetuity, in this context means the life of the nuclear reactor. I think you should understand that. Under this agreement, what am I entitled to have? I am entitled to have as much stockpile of uranium that I want for the life of the reactor. I can buy as much uranium from anywhere in the world. There is no bar on me. There is no bar on India.

            Secondly, I will have a bilateral agreement with the United States to ensure stockpile of supplies of uranium for the reactors which are put under safeguards. That is number two. If there is any interrupted supply in respect of those stockpiles, I have an assurance in a multilateral agreement with the IAEA that they will arrange for them. Even if that fails, there is going to be a ‘Friends of India’ agreement in terms of which Russia and other countries will ensure that there is no interruption of supplies. Even if that fails, the Prime Minister in his statement has said that we have the sovereign right to do the best that we can for our country. What is it that we have compromised on?

            Now, see the positive side of it. What is the impact of this on our energy requirements? We have a continuous stockpile of uranium. May I just mention that in this country we have 95,000 tonnes of uranium? If you use up all the uranium, 95,000 tonnes, we will be able to produce energy of a total of 12,000 megawatt. That is all. If we use up all our uranium resources, we can produce 12,000 megawatts of energy.

            Now, what are our energy requirements? At the moment, if you include captive consumption, we have 1,30,000 MW. By 2025, it will be 3-4 times of that capacity. The nuclear energy only comprises 2.7 per cent of the total production of energy. Once we get a continuous supply of nuclear fuel, we will be able to use that nuclear fuel for continuous supply[m26] .

We can build many more reactors, put them in the civil-nuclear field and get more resources.  I was very happy to note that John Howard, the hon. Prime Minister of Australia before he departed from Australia, made a particular statement saying that it was not willing to supply.  But when he was in India I saw a very distinct change from the statement that he had made before he departed from Australia.  The Western world is fully cognisant of the importance of this agreement.  … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: How long would you take?

… (Interruptions)

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: Sir, I will conclude within ten minutes. 

MR. SPEAKER: There are another five speakers from your party.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: I will conclude within ten minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: So, you can continue.

 

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: Sir, I will conclude soon. So, we will have continuous supply of energy.  What is it on the military side? What is that we have done on the military side?   That is very important and I think we must explain that. On the military side, it is our prerogative not to include certain facilities in the civil-nuclear energy programme.   So, we can continue our research and development in the manner that we want.  We can continue without capping. We are not testing any more, but we can continue to use the nuclear fuels that we have for our weapons programme without carrying on any nuclear tests.   The United States does not carry on nuclear tests, but they are carrying on with their weapons’ programme.  For any future facilities it is our decision whether we want to put them under the civil-nuclear energy regime or under the military programme. That is our choice.  So, the future is protected. 

Sir, more important than that and this is heart of the matter that we have a three-stage nuclear energy programme.  First is the use of pressurised Heavy Water Reactors by using uranium.  Now, what is this pressurised Heavy Water Reactor and I want to explain this. They are fuelled by natural uranium and they generate electricity and the spent fuel is rich in Plutonium. That is the first phase of our nuclear energy programme.  In the second phase, this plutonium is used as fuel in Fast Breeder Reactors to breed U-233 from thorium.  In other words, the Fast Breeder Reactors use thorium and if you take the fuel which is rich in plutonium and Fast Breeder Reactors, it produces U-233 which is fissile material, which is the second stage of our programme.  

As you know, the Fast Breeder Reactors are outside the civil-nuclear energy regime.  They are outside safeguards.  We will make sure about that.  Then, the third stage of our programme is with the use of Advanced Heavy Water Reactors.  We burn U-233 with thorium and extract --and that is most important – about 75 per cent of the power from thorium, instead of the less than one per cent of the power extracted from U-235 in Light Water Reactors.   In other words, the quantity of power produced in the third phase would be 75 times more which will take care of our energy needs not of today, not 50 years hence, not 100 years hence, but for a long long time to come for future generations.  Why? It is because we have 3,00,000 tonnes of thorium in this country which is one-third of the total supplies in the world; the largest supply is in Australia, the second is in India.  So, what is it that we are doing?  We have protected our civil-nuclear energy programme, we have protected our weapons programme and we are protecting the future generations of this country.  What more do the people of this country want and what more do political parties opposing us want?  We would not want to be slaves of the past, nor do we want to be slaves of the ideologies of the past and we do not want to be slaves of political opportunism, as we see across us. We want that this country moves forward.  We want that the common man in this country gets what he needs for his daily living. We will use all our might, all the technologies in the world to reach him[R27] .

            Sir, just a few words and I have done.

            The civil nuclear energy deal is just a part of what technologies can bring us and the advantages that we can give to our people. It opens up – and I do not say open sim sim – it opens up huge possibilities of transfer of technologies in the field of agriculture, in the field of health, in the industrial field and in the sphere of environment.

            Another agreement that we have entered into is with the Generation-4 Programme and the NEXT-GEN programme. What that means is – zero emission if you use coal. I congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance that he has already set apart 20 billion tonnes of coal for the purposes of using technologies of this nature to have zero emission through the use of these technologies. It is not just a civil nuclear energy deal. The possibility of transfer of technologies opening up for use of the common man will become a reality.

 

            Sir, I want to end by quoting the words of Talleyrand. He said : “The art of statesmanship is to foresee the inevitable and to expedite its occurrence.” We are seeing the inevitable in front of us, the inevitability of making this country a great nation. We want to expedite its occurrence.

   

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL (HOOGHLY): Mr. Speaker, Sir, my eminent colleague Shri Kapil Sibal, towards the end of his speech, mentioned that it was not a simple case of civil nuclear technology deal but a gamut of issues relating to agriculture, research in biotechnology and many more areas as has been mentioned in the hon. Prime Minister’s statement. Our discussions cover the expansion of our in the field of agriculture, economic and trade cooperation, energy security and clean environment, strengthening innovation and the knowledge economy, issues to global safety and security and on deepening democracy.

            There are so many areas. Firstly, let me start with the other areas before I come to the civil nuclear energy deal. As per the discussions that have taken place and in the meetings of the CEOs you find that there are reports about cooperation. The CEO of Walmart, the CEO of Monsanto have been present and some reports have been prepared. It is more or less a roadmap to the future of our agriculture, our agricultural research and how we should move. The apprehension is that agricultural research for a country like India may be moved from the public domain to the private sector. It will be dominated by the multinationals.

            The hon. Prime Minister owes an explanation to this House because no report with regard to the knowledge initiative in respect of agriculture has been placed on the Table of the House. In the meanwhile the Government has started acting. That is the most unfortunate part. Even before the other important part of the negotiations have proceeded, we find that 24 Committees have already been set up at the instance of the hon. Prime Minister by the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission[krr28] .

            Instead of calibrating the developments taking place in the US, we find that we have already started acting, and this House is quite in the dark. The Prime Minister owes an explanation to this House. What is actually the deliberation with regard agricultural research? What could be the outcome of deliberations with the Monsanto Chief, the Wal-Mart Chief and other good number of CEOs of multinational companies on the basis of which the Deputy-Chairman of the Planning Commission has already set up 24 committees?

            There have been some other deals also with regard to our Defence. It is a follow up of the June, 2005 Indo-US Defence Co-operation Agreement. In the meanwhile, there have been joint-exercises, maritime understanding and all these things. We find reports in the papers. I do not know how far they are credible. After so many years, they have agreed to sell F-16 and F-18 fighter aircraft to India, which we have always been denied for the last several decades. Will it not create a new situation? Will it not create an arms race because immediately after visiting India, the US President visited Pakistan? We know their track record and how even conventional weapons were denied to India. They have been strengthening and providing the latest sophisticated weapons to Pakistan. In such a situation, an arms race may build up. The Prime Minister has not spoken about these things, about the knowledge initiative and about the deals.

The most important part of it is that with regard to democracy, there is a mention in the statement that "…… the Government relating to global security and safety and on deepening democracy…." Only yesterday Nicholas Burns has said in a note given to 14 American Congressmen that if required, as it happened in the case of Iraq, their allies must join with them for just implanting the American brand of democracy. At Purana Qila also, the US President had named certain countries and spoken about regime change. The nation wants to be assured about what this means. Nicholas Burns was openly saying only yesterday and you just relate this with the American President's famous observation 'with us or against us'. When Pentagon has made full preparation for military operation in Iran, with the sort of scenario emerging, confrontation is there.

The Russian proposal or diplomatic initiative was nipped in the bud. We have to also see how the NPT is gradually being interpreted according to the whims of the US. Earlier, NPT was discriminatory between the nuclear weapon States and non-nuclear weapon States. Then, the non-nuclear weapon States were again divided with right for full cyle and right for truncated cycle. Then, again, after the Russian proposal in the case of Iran, it is being said that even more does of uranium enrichment for research purposes under the inspection and supervision of IAEA is not permitted. There is a confrontation.

            In such a confrontation, we remember that in the case of Iraq, there had been request for sending troops. There have been denials of the UN and Nicholas Burns has already said that beyond the letter and spirit of the  resolution of UN, our allies must go along with us. What does it mean? It is the same roadmap. We are dragging ourselves into the global game-plan of the US. What will happen to the strategic trilateral alliance among China, Russia and India? What will happen to the confidence-building measures we have already initiated and proceeded with Pakistan, with SAARC countries, our small neighbours, our distant neighbours and BIMSTAC[reporter29] .

What will happen to us? Will the philosophy of ‘with us or against us’ not create suspicion even among our friends that India has aligned totally with the US brand of democracy initiatives?  

 

13.20 hrs.                              (Mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair) I am saying this because India has agreed to join the International Centre for Democratic Transition. We are also aware that Ms. Condoleeza Rice has taken huge amount of funds for change of regime in Iran in the name of restoring democracy. We know that they have particular brand of democracy. They accept if it is military dictatorship, and they accept if it is Shah’s monarchy in Iran. But if it is a democracy, which is a reflection of the wishes of the masses of that country, then it is not considered to be a democracy. We know all that happened with respect to Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, etc.   Some people have been criticising us during Mr. Bush’s visit to India stating that he is a respected guest of this country, but the Left is demonstrating throughout the country. It is no demonstration or protest against any individual. We neither have any particular liking or any disliking for the individual. We are doing it for the very philosophy; for the hegemonistic design; for the imperialist measures that they are adopting to subjugate the country with an eye to the oil resources and with an eye to other natural resources. If you are with us, then it is all right. Otherwise, you are against us, and you are my enemy. This is their philosophy. There was a mention about the regime change even while he was speaking at the Purana Qila. Therefore, the hon. Prime Minister owes an explanation to the nation. Does he conform to the views of the US President? I am asking this because India has already agreed to join the democracy initiative, defence deal purchase, etc.             I was wondering about the main reason for the US going out of the way for agreeing to lift the sanctions, which were prevailing for the last three decades. What could be the reason for it? Firstly, I thought that this strategic alliance is to have a country like India -- on the side of the US -- as the frontal political country to contain China. The word is there that the moment the President had gone, some dignitaries of China have come, and very soon the Chinese leadership will be visiting India. It is high time, after six decades of endeavour that the relationship is normalised. Is it the price that we should pay for an unstable assurance? Though I shall come to this issue later on.

The outcome of this strategic alliance is not only underlining the UPA Government’s departure from the commitment to the nation regarding independent foreign policy, which was so long based on national consensus, but it is also isolating it. We were isolated in Vienna when Malaysia presided and underscored about the role of the non-aligned countries. We did not perform as we should have done. What will happen to our neighbourhood, namely, the SAARC, China, etc.? This is the question, which the hon. Prime Minister owes to explain in this House. He should assure the august House that this is not going to be the price for the same.

            We are very categorical in our relationships, which we have already established with countries like China, the China-Russia-India trilateral, and all the Confidence Building Measures (CBM) that we have started with our neighbouring countries[ak30] .

            Now, this Agreement on Civilian Nuclear Energy will have to be seen in this perspective. On our strategic alliance, the Defence deal, the deal with regard to the agricultural research, science and technology, infrastructure, have we acted in national interest? We do not think so. We have compromised in respect of our foreign policy independence. We have compromised in respect of our nuclear strategic sovereign programme. We need a full-fledged discussion on the agreement that might have been entered into in respect of agriculture, biotechnology and in all such areas.

            Coming to energy security, I do not agree with the undue importance given to nuclear energy security. Till today, the country does not have any nuclear energy security policy. From the website, I was trying to find out whether Government has any. I found very recently an integrated energy security policy has been put there for discussion. Even without any discussion about our energy needs -- how much of hydro we require, how much of thermal we require, about our coal reserves, our non-conventional energy, and from 2.7, how much we can raise in the near future and the distant future -- the Prime Minister is going on saying, ‘energy policy, energy policy’. They have woken up to energy security suddenly. We do not oppose that there should be energy security. India should have its own energy security policy. We do not any disagreement with the policy. This sudden undue importance to nuclear energy raises many questions.

            Now, after this 18th July Agreement, Joint Statement, the Left Parties had cautioned this Government that it should be careful, that India has a sovereign nuclear programme, and our strategic programme should never be opened up for inspections. The Left Parties apprehensions and caution was further strengthened by the caution by the scientific community, even the former Chief of the Atomic Energy Commission, Diplomats and many others who were associated with a whole sort of negotiations in different fora. After that, what has happened because of this caution, pressure, and apprehensions were expressed nation-wide? The Government could withstand the pressures of the US with regard to two areas. Out of 22, 14 have been opened up, I shall come to that in a while, and 8 have been kept in the strategic sector, for example, the Fast Breeder Reactor in Kalpakkam. They have also agreed for CIRUS and Apsara to be removed from the BARC arrangement. It raises two or three things. What is the cost involved in the separation because nowhere in the world we have heard that such separation is an easy thing. What is the cost? Who will pay the cost? Then, there will be difficulties with regard to the movement of our scientists from the strategic programme to the civilian programme because nowhere there is any such separation. The Prime Minister can apprise us about the past experience of the countries about this nuclear separation from the civilian programme and from the strategic nuclear programme[R31] .

We had just recently refurbished the Cyrus. How much would it cost to shift Apsara and Cyrus from the BARC arrangements?

            News has come that just yesterday the Separation Plan has been referred to the US Congress. A list has been prepared. Fourteen representatives belonging to both the Senate and the House of Representatives have been apprised of the details of the Separation Plan and how the US Government looks at the agreement. But we do find that articles have already come in The Economist and The New York Times questioning as to how India-specific arrangements can be made. They say that India-specific arrangements cannot be made going by the spirit, if not letter, of NPT, until all such facilities are brought under the safeguards. It is a dangerous game we have entered into.

Coming to fuel supply, yes, it is reciprocal. We have the experience of Tarapur. What will happen? The previous speaker, Kapil Sibalji, was saying that we can go to Russia, we can go to France, then we can do that if that is not done, etc. I would say that the American President has the authority to declare the agreement null and void. Can the Government of India withdraw from it as in the case of NPT. Can we say, ‘This far and no further?’ We are having difficulties. We have entered into safeguards of perpetuity.

This House has to be convinced about what will happen in the future. We are putting everything in the basket of the US President. We know about the declining popularity of US President. We know what may happen in the US Congress. We have, only two days back, the Dubai World Court’s decision. We have the knowledge of China going to buy shares in a multinational oil company. We know that whenever their own interest comes they will jettison other’s interests. We want to be informed as to what will happen if this list which has been submitted indicates ‘beyond such and such thing’. Such change of goalpost is already there.

Changing the goalpost is very much in their philosophy. It happened in the case of Iraq. It is happening in the case of Iran. One after another they will come out with new arguments and new logic. After that, till you are a client State, they will go on giving you new conditions continuously. 

I am just asking as to what will happen? The US President has said that by May you do it and they say, It is never possible. We can take more time’. Let them take more time.  Then the energy groups are there. Do you think everyone will listen and make it India-specific and do everything? They have their own reading of the situation[KMR32] .

 

            China is observing.  You are deliberately and intentionally distancing yourself and aligning with the USA, in the game plan  in Asia, to contain China. What will happen?  It would cause further isolation from us, isolation from other countries.  These suspicions are there and already there are statements.  It is being said that it is a win-win situation. Fast Breeder Reactors and the strategic programme in regard  to 14 are subject to safeguards  and they are India-specific. What is it?  I do not know what is it.  How can it be?  But still we say that at the wishes of the US President, it will be like that. All the 45 NSG countries will accept that; the US Congress will accept that; and the Committee of Senate and the House of Representatives Committee on the subject would accept that.  Even then, what would happen at the IAEA?  It would come to the 30-Member Committee, which is an autonomous body. In the case of Iran, instead of consensus you go for voting.  If you go for voting in such a situation and because of the whims of the America President, we are putting everything in a single basket. We are paying such a heavy price.  We are going away from our independent foreign policy.

I am happy that hon. Kapil Sibal was making a reference to the historic speech of Rajiv Gandhi on disarmament in the United Nations. We are rest assured that we have the capability.  I was happy because at least some sections of the Congress remember their own legacy but India should have proceeded on the lines and philosophy of total disarmament plan set by Pandit Nehruji and Rajiv Gandhi ji  and was enunciated in the United Nations speech.  He was making a reference to that.  It is an upward down position.  Well, some people say that Iran has done.  We are holding no brief for Iran.  It is a question of sovereignty.  We are in favour of total disarmament.  Hence, we criticized them in 1998, now, as has been criticized by Shri Kapil Sibal ji. 

 

Our nuclear policy was built on national consensus.  Our foreign policy was built on national consensus and now India is aligning itself with the nuclear diplomacy of the USA – minimum credible deterrent.  What is this `minimum’ he has asked? But now America is stating as to what is the `minimum’.  By setting the trap, America is saying that this is the `minimum’.

Today, I was reading about `proliferation’ and that   India has a great record in the NPT. Yes, today only the report has come that the UK Government has provided the technology of nuclear weapons to Israel. Violation is taking place, and imposition of conditions on the non-nuclear States is taking place.  That is the problem.  Now, India is going apart from its own philosophy, its own legacy.

It is being said that in the Atomic Energy Act, 1954, as amended in 1974, Sections 1 to 3, 1 to 8 and 1 to 9 prohibit sale of nuclear technology to countries, which have not signed the NPT.  What will happen when these countries refuse to allow full scope safeguards and develop nuclear weapons in defiance? In this full scope, we have already given the list of eight research bodies which will be under the safeguards[s33] .

The technical difficulties are imposed on the cost involved for separation. Apart from that, we are making ourselves dependent, totally dependent on them. What they will do or what they will not do is a different thing. We have to go for the additional protocol. And the Government thinks that it can go on like that. India is also working with US for conclusion of a Multilateral Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Is it true? It has come out in certain sections of the American Press that India is supporting to prevent the spread of enrichment and re-processing technique regime and control of nuclear supply guidelines. Along with this, this Multilateral Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty is coming. We do not know anything about it. Nothing is mentioned about it in the Statement. What I want to know is that the Prime Minister must assure this House that no further steps would be taken. We must calibrate ourselves to the developments taking place. We must observe what happens in the Congress. We must take note of what happens in the NSG meeting. We must observe how the International Atomic Energy Body is reacting to the proposals of India-specific safeguards. We have said that no step should be taken.

The Prime Minister owes an explanation as to how the development of our research can be protected from the inspection through IAEA power centre. How can it protect. We do not need to give details of integrity. We want to be assured of it. It can be done. We are a buyer of nuclear weapons. Another partnership is growing and it is being said that nuclear fuel will be shared amongst 11 countries including US, UK, France, Japan and Russia . What will happen to this? What will be the cost of the fuel? And I would like to know whether along with the nuclear reactor, used fuel will be given to us with new type of reactors for which they want to enter into commercial deal. These are very important questions. Our scientists are on the verge of achieving certain very significant thing. In such a situation, I would like to know whether this deal is going to affect our strategic nuclear programme or not.

            Lastly, President Bush has said that India is a wealth-creating democracy and 300 million middle class are eager to buy their washing machine. In such a situation, their eyes are on the Indian market for their military, industrial complex, for producing nuclear reactor companies. Even in the Purana Quila speech, President Bush has made it clear that the Indian market should be opened up for the FDI in the retail market, in insurance and financial sector. Strangely, instead of waiting for this House to discuss it, some of the steps being taken by this Government will be disastrous. It will affect our self-reliance. It will affect our dignity. It will affect our foreign policy. Do they trust that? Our scientists are seeking visa in response to the invitation from a US university. They are being asked whether they are terrorists. One such scientist is Shri G. Mehta. Our dignitaries including even the Indian Union Minister entering US, have to pass through all sorts of similar humiliation[p34] .… (Interruptions)

 

That is a humiliation for the signatories.  Our scientists are suffering when they are seeking visas  … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:  Your party’s time was only 20 minutes and you have already taken more than 30 minutes.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : They are the worst violators of Human Rights.  In such a situation, to depend too much on US, to trust too much US and to allowing a country like India with their strategic alliance, there is a conspiracy in Asia to contain  China and destabilise these countries for hegemonic change.  I think  the Prime Minister owes an explanation. In our system, there is no opportunity for the MPs to discuss important matters.  I demand that there should be a Parliamentary Committee  going to the nitty-gritty of the  discussions of the Agreement including the civilian deal.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:  Do  you think that  this is not the discussion?

… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What do you mean by an elaborate discussion. Could there be more elaborate discussion than this ongoing discussion? It is a full-fledged discussion. 

 

श्री रवि प्रकाश वर्मा (खीरी) : उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, आपने मुझे बहुत ही महत्वपूर्ण चर्चा में भाग लेने का अवसर दिया है। इसके लिए मैं आपको धन्यवाद देना चाहता हूं। आज हिन्दुस्तान में बहुत मंथन चल रहा है और ऐसा लग रहा है कि हम लोग दोराहे पर खड़े हैं। पिछले ५०-५५ वर्षों की जो हमारी लीगेसी रही है, जो एक आत्मनिर्भर रास्ता लेकर चलने की हमारी परम्परा है, उसे बदलने की तरफ इस सरकार ने कदम उठाया है। हमारी जो एक पहचान बनी हुई थी कि हिन्दुस्तान अपने आपको दुनिया के पॉवर ब्लॉक से अलग रखेगा और आत्मनिर्भर होने का प्रयास करेगा, अपने दम पर, अपनी गुटनिर्पेक्षता की नीति के दम पर, अपने महान्् वैज्ञानिकों के दम पर और अपने लोक तंत्र के बल पर, उसे बदलने का प्रयास किया गया है।

महोदय, अमरीका के साथ परमाणु शक्ति का विद्युत के लिए उपयोग करने संबंधी जो एग्रीमेंट हुआ है, उस संबंध में अभी हमने विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्री श्री कपिल सिब्बल जी की बातों को बहुत गौर से सुना। उन्होंने बहुत तरीके से यह जस्टीफाई करने का प्रयास किया है कि हिन्दुस्तान तेजी से आगे बढ़ रहा है, इस पूरे प्रयास में हिन्दुस्तान की ऊर्जा की आवश्यकताएं बढ़ रही हैं और उन्हें पूरा करने के लिए हमें यह परमाणु ऊर्जा शक्ति एग्रीमेंट करना पड़ा। यह लाजमी था। उन्होंने इसकी लाजमीयत पर बहुत जोर दिया क्योंकि इसके बिना कोई दूसरा रास्ता नहीं था। मैं एक बात पूछना चाहता हूं कि उन्होंने जो बहुत सारे डिटेल्स बताए, वे समझ में आए, लेकिन अखबारों में कुछ और ही बातें लिखी हैं। मैं आपकी अनुमति से कहना चाहता हूं कि भारत से एटमी संधि करने के खिलाफ अमेरिका की संसद में बिल लाया गया है। मैसाचुसेट के डैमोक्रेटिक पार्टी के सासंद एडवर्ड मार्क और मशिगन रिपब्लिकन पार्टी के सांसद फ्रेडिप्टोन ने वहां की पार्लियामेंट के अन्दर यह बिल लाया है कि जो ट्रीटी हिन्दुस्तान के साथ हुई है, उसको रद्द किया जाये। ऐसी स्थिति में जो एक्सरसाइज़ हुई है, उसकी सेंक्टिटी क्या है? इसके लिए इतना अखबारों में कहा जा रहा है कि एक महान प्रयास हुआ है, एक महान घटना घटी है, एक बहुत बड़ी डैवलपमेंट हुई है और एक नया आसमान खुल गया है-कहीं यह शेखचिल्लियों का सपना तो नहीं? हमारा पूरा और समग्र प्रयास है कि हमारी अस्मिता, हमारी पहचान, हमारी पूरी लीगेसी दांव पर लगी हुई है।

प्रेसीडेंट बुश यहां आकर एग्रीमेंट करके गये और उसके बाद भी यह चीज सामने आ रही है कि इसे वहां की संसद से एप्रूवल लेना जरूरी है। वह एप्रूवल मिल ही जाये, यह जरूरी नहीं है। ऐसी स्थिति में क्या होगा, इन सपनों का क्या होगा, इस उर्जा आवश्यकता का क्या होगा, आगे जो रास्ता हम लोग लेकर चल रहे हैं, उसका क्या होगा और अब तक हम जिस रास्ते पर चलते रहे हैं, उसका क्या होगा? मेरे पूर्व वक्ता कह रहे थे कि इस संधि के फलस्वरूप साउथ ईस्ट एशिया में जो आशंका का वातावरण पैदा हुआ है, एशिया की जो उभरती हुई महाशक्तियां हैं, हिन्दुस्तान और चीन, उनके जो उभरते हुए रिश्ते हैं, जिस iÉ®ÉÒBÉEä ºÉä ÉÊ®¶iÉä ¤ÉxÉ ®cä lÉä, =xÉàÉå <ºÉxÉä ABÉE +ÉɶÉÆBÉEÉ BÉEÉ àÉÉcÉèãÉ {ÉènÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ cè, =ºÉBÉEÉ BÉDªÉÉ cÉäMÉÉ?[rpm35]  उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, मेरे पास राष्ट्रीय सहारा अखबार की कटिंग है। आपकी अनुमति से मैं उसमें से कोट करना चाहता हूं, इसमें लिखा है - "अमरीका ने भारत को धमकाया, ईरान के खिलाफ वोट दो, वरना परमाणु संधि खत्म "। यह एक कठोर सच्चाई है। जितनी बातें अभी कही जा रही थीं, वे समझ में नहीं आतीं, लेकिन इस अखबार से समझ में आ गयी हैं। हिन्दुस्तान की विदेश नीति पर दबाव बनाकर वोट डलवाया गया है। ईरान हमारा मित्र देश रहा है। वह एक समाजवादी राष्ट्र है। हिन्दुस्तान ने अपनी तमाम परम्पराओं को ताक पर रखते हुए अमरीका के दबाव में वोट डाला। इसलिए वोट डाला कि उसे ऊर्जा की सिक्योरिटी चाहिए थी। क्या यह वाकई ऊर्जा की सिक्योरिटी है, जो हिन्दुस्तान को चाहिए? मेरे पास प्रधानमंत्री जी की स्टेटमेन्ट रखी हुई है। उसके आखिरी पैराग्राफ में कहा गया है - भारत के लोगों की जरूरतें हमारे अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय सहयोग का मुख्य एजेन्डा होनी चाहिए। यहां पर बड़ी अजीब सी स्थिति पैदा हो गयी है। हमारी कौन सी जरूरतें हैं? क्या ईरान हमारी ऊर्जा की जरूरतें पूरी नहीं कर रहा था? कपिल सिब्बल जी ने बताया कि परमाणु से हम केवल २.७५ मेगावाट ऊर्जा जनरेट करते हैं। प्रधानमंत्री जी ने अपनी पिछली स्टेटमेन्ट में कहा था - इस एग्रीमेन्ट से हमको ४० हजार मेगावाट बिजली मिलेगी। मैं कहना चाहता हूं कि इतनी बिजली तो खाली बिहार अपने कोयले से पैदा कर सकता है। इतनी ऊर्जा हिमाचल प्रदेश, उत्तरांचल, जम्मू-कश्मीर तथा अन्य राज्यों के पानी के रिर्सोसिज़ से पैदा हो सकती है। यह खाली ऊर्जा सिक्योरिटी का मामला नहीं है। मुझे लगता है कि जो मंथन इस सदन में हो रहा है, वह पूरे हिन्दुस्तान में भी हो रहा है कि क्या हिन्दुस्तान ने अपना रास्ता बदल तो नहीं दिया है। बिना पूरे देश की सहमति लिए आज अमरीका हमारा दोस्त हो गया है। हमने एक कहावत सुनी है कि कुछ दोस्त ऐसे होते हैं, जिनसे दोस्ती करने पर दुश्मन की जरूरत नहीं रहती है।

महोदय, हमने इतिहास में पढ़ा है कि पूरे साउथ ईस्ट एशिया में जब भी राजनीतिक अस्थिरता हुई है, उसके पीछे कहीं न कहीं अमरीकन इंटरेस्ट रहा है। इस बात पर हमें गौर करना होगा कि इंडियन ओशन ज़ोन एक बहुत ही कन्फलिक्ट का जोन रहा है। अमरीका के कूटनीतिक हित यहां बहुत पहले से काम करते रहे हैं।

        *इसके पीछे कहीं न कहीं अमरीकी कूटनीति छिपी हुई थी। साउथ ईस्ट को डीस्टेबिलाइज़ करना अमरीका की पॉलिसी का बहुत महत्वपूर्ण कम्पोनेन्ट रहा है। आज वही लोग हिन्दुस्तान के दोस्त हो रहे हैं।…( व्यवधान) 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The names of all those persons who are not present in the House should be deleted from the records.

श्री रवि प्रकाश वर्मा : उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, ऊर्जा सिक्योरिटी के नाम पर एक एग्रीमेन्ट हिन्दुस्तान से हुआ है। उस एग्रीमेन्ट के पीछे क्या है, इस बात को बहुत गौर से देखना होगा। ठीक है, इससे थोड़ा सा लाभ हो सकता है, लेकिन सवाल इस बात का है, जैसा मेरे पूर्ववक्ता कह रहे थे कि राष्ट्रपति बुश के साथ वहां की बिजनेस कम्युनिटी के लोग आए हुए थे, क्योंकि दक्षिण-पूर्व एशिया के साथ-साथ हिन्दुस्तान दुनिया का उभरता हुआ बाजार है। हिन्दुस्तान का मार्किट ८०-९० हजार करोड़ रूपये का है, जो १३ प्रतिशत की गति से बढ़ रहा है और यह मल्टी नेशनल माटर्, जैसे वॉलमार्ट आदि के लिए आकर्षण का केन्द्र है[c36] ।

हम भारत सरकार को आगाह करना चाहते हैं कि जितने भी बहुराष्ट्रीय निगम हैं, सुपर स्टोर्स हैं, उन सबके कन्ज्यूमर गुड्स का जो आउट सोर्सिंग होता है, चाहे कपड़े का हो, चाहे खाने के सामान का हो, वह सब लेटिन अमेरीकन कंट्रीज़ से होता है, अगर हिन्दुस्तान में बड़े-बड़े बहुराष्ट्रीय निगम आएंगे और अपने बाजार खोलेंगे, क्या आप इस बात की गारंटी दे पाएंगे कि हिन्दुस्तान के दो लाख ३६ हजार जो गांव बसे हुए हैं, उन गांवों से उनके सारे प्रोडक्ट्स की आउट सोर्सिंग हो। अभी आप सिर्फ सपना ही देख रहे हैं, मुझे लगता है कि सच्चाई बहुत बड़ी है, जो बहुत दूर है। केवल चीन को बैलैंस करने के लिए, एशिया की जो सबसे बड़ी दो उभरती हुई अर्थव्यवस्थाएं - हिन्दुस्तान और चीन - हैं, उन्हें आपस में बैलैंस करने के लिए, आज अमरीका ने हिन्दुस्तान में कदम रखा है और यह जाहिर करने का प्रयास किया है कि आज वह हिन्दुस्तान का दोस्त है, जबकि सच्चाई ऐसी नहीं है।

हम आपके माध्यम से इस सदन और सरकार को अवगत कराना चाहते हैं। हम अखबार में पढ़ते रहे हैं कि अमरीका अपना पर्सनल ट्रेड ज़ोन बना रहा है। जब डब्ल्यूटीओ पर डिबेट चल रही थी, उस वक्त ये बातें प्रकाश में आई थीं और अखबारों में छपा था कि अमरीका विश्व व्यापार प्रणाली से ऊपर जाना चाहता है और इसी आशय के स्लोगन वहां दिए भी गए हैं। वहां की कूटनीति पूरी धरती पर अमरीकन ट्रेड ब्लॉक डैवलप कर रही है। क्या हिन्दुस्तान अमरीका का उपनिवेश बनेगा, आज यह सवाल सामने खड़ा हो गया है, जिनका जवाब सदन को देना बहुत जरूरी है क्योंकि ईरान, इराक और अफगानिस्तान जो वैस्टर्न एशियन * Not Recorded.

कंट्रीज़ थे, उनका जो हाल हमने देखा है, जिस तरीके से तेल के कारोबार पर जोर-जबरदस्ती, बंदूक की ताकत से वहां अमरीका द्वारा कब्जा किया गया है, उससे इस बात से शंका होती है कि अमरीकन डिप्लोमैसी हिन्दुस्तान को किस तरह मजबूर कर रही है या हिन्दुस्तान की सरकार अमरीकन डिप्लोमैसी के आगे इस तरह मजबूर हो गई है, हमारे मूलभूत सिद्धान्तों से समझौता करने के लिए विवश हो गई है और अपने रास्ते में परिवर्तन करते हुए अमरीकन ट्रेड ब्लॉक में एंटर करने जा रही है।…( व्यवधान)   आज इतनी बड़ी दोस्ती हुई है। हमने सुना है कि दोस्ती बराबर के लोगों में होती है।…( व्यवधान) 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Please conclude now.  You have given your name individually.  Your name has not come from your Party.

SHRI RAVI PRAKASH VERMA : Sir, I am the only speaker from my Party.

हिन्दुस्तान अपनी जरूरतों के लिए समझौता कर रहा है या अपनी स्ट्रैन्थ पर समझौता कर रहा है। हिन्दुस्तान की जो जियो-स्ट्रैटजिक लोकेशन है, हिन्द महासागर के ऊपर और हिन्दुस्तान धरती का सबसे बड़ा उभरता हुआ बाजार है, यह हिन्दुस्तान की स्ट्रैन्थ है,। होना यह चाहिए था कि पूरी धरती के जो बड़े मुल्क हैं, वे इस बाजार के लिए आपस में कम्पीटिशन करते और अपनी गरज के लिए हिन्दुस्तान में आते। लेकिन आज परिस्थितियां ऐसी पैदा हो गई हैं कि हिन्दुस्तानियों को अपनी जरूरतों के लिए, जैसे प्रधान मंत्री जी द्वारा कहा गया, उन जरूरतों के लिए, जिनके हमारे पास पहले से ही विकल्प मौजूद हैं, हमें अमरीका के साथ समझौता करना पड़ रहा है, और ऐसा समझौता करना पड़ रहा है जिसका भविष्य अभी तय नहीं है, उसकी हमने तैयारी करनी चालू कर दी है। क्या इस दोस्ती की बदौलत, अगर यह दोस्ती है, हम सिक्युरिटी काउंसिल में मैम्बरशिप ले पाएंगे, क्या अमरीका हमारा साथ दे पाएगा - यह आज अहम सवाल है। क्या इस दोस्ती की बदौलत हिन्दुस्तान की जो परमानैंट समस्याएं हैं, पाकिस्तान के प्रति हमारा जो संघर्ष रहा है, दूसरे मुल्कों से जो परेशानी रही है, उन्हें हम दूर कर पाएंगे? क्या उस रास्ते पर चलने में हमें कहीं माइलेज मिलेगा - आज ये कुछ महत्वपूर्ण सवाल हैं, जो हमारे दिमाग को मथ रहे हैं और जिन्हें हम इस ट्रीटी के संदर्भ में देखना चाहते हैं। हमें आपके माध्यम से सदन को अवगत कराना है और सरकार से कहना है कि बहुत सोच-समझकर आगे बढ़ें। हिन्दुस्तान की आत्मनिर्भरता का सौदा बहुत महंगा साबित होगा, अगर कहीं अमरीका ने वाकई में आगे जाकर हमें धोखा दिया, जैसे पहले उन्होंने मिडल ईस्ट में किया है, फिर हमारी स्टैंडिंग क्या होगी, किस रणनीति के तहत हम आगे बढ़ेंगे और साइथ-ईस्ट एशिया में, जहां हम महत्वपूर्ण स्थान लेकर चल रहे हैं, हमारा क्या स्थान होगा।

 

14.00 hrs. MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav, I would like to inform you that only 11 minutes have been allotted to your party. I think, you would certainly end  your speech within 11 minutes.

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव (झंझारपुर) : उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, हम आपके आदेश का पालन करने की कोशिश करेंगे।

आज लम्बी कवायद के बाद भारत और अमेरिका ने परमाणु समझौते की बुनियाद, जो १८ जुलाई, २००५ के परमाणु समझौते के कार्यान्वयन पर मुहर लगाई गयी थी, उस पर आज दोनों पक्षों की लम्बी बैठक के बाद, भारत और अमेरिका के बीच सहमति बनी है। अमेरिका के राष्ट्रपति जार्ज डब्ल्यू बुश ने अभी घोषणा की कि हम पृथक नागरिक परमाणु संयंत्र योजना को अमेरिकी कांग्रेस से मंजूरी दिलायेंगे। परमाणु ऊर्जा पर बनी संयुक्त समति के मुताबिक भारत २२ में से ८ परमाणु संयंत्रों को सामरिक श्रेणी में रखेगा। कोई भी फॉस्ट ब्रीडर रिएक्टर निगरानी में नहीं होगा। साथ ही भारत अमेरिका को यह मनवाने में भी कामयाब रहा कि भविष्य में यदि कोई रिएक्टर बनाता है तो उसकी जो श्रेणी होगी चाहे नागरिक हो या सामरिक हो, उसे तय करने का अधिकार भारत का होगा। दोनों देशों के बीच इस ऐतिहासिक समझौते के अलावा वभिन्न पक्षों में कई समझौते हुए। कृषि विज्ञान, प्रौद्यगिकी, अंतरिक्ष सुरक्षा, स्वास्थ्य आदि इन सब क्षेत्रों में सहयोग के लिए मध्यकालिक और दीर्घकालिक पहल की गयी। दोनों पक्षों के सीईओ के समूह की रिपोर्ट को भी गंभीरता से लेते हुए व्यापार के क्षेत्र में द्विपक्षीय सहयोग बढ़ाने के लिए एक स्टेटमैंट जारी किया गया जिसमें पृथक्करण योजना के तहत, जैसा मैंने पूर्व में कहा कि २२ में से १४ को नागरिक संयंत्र और ८ को सामरिक संयंत्र में डाला गया है। इस सहमति के तहत किसी भी फॉस्ट ब्रीडर रिएक्टर कोनागरिक संयंत्र की श्रेणी में नहीं रखा गया है। यह भी कहा गया है क निगरानी के दौरान उसमें ईंधन आपूर्ति जारी रहेगी।

उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, मैं बताना चाहता हूं कि इस समझौते में मुख्य बाधा किन बिंदुओं पर थी। जिन बिंदुओं को हल किया गया, उनमें से दो बिन्दु बहुत ही महत्वपूर्ण थे, जिनमें अड़चन और बाधाएं थीं। एक बिंदु यह था कि नागरिक संयंत्र के पृथक्करण और उसकी निगरानी। भारत भविष्य में कोई रिएक्टर बनाता है, तो उसके पृथक्करण का अधिकर किसका होगा? जहां तक बाहर के रिएक्टर आयातित करने का मामला है, उसमें जब तक सेफगार्ड की शर्त नहीं मानी जाती तब तक कोई रिएक्टर नहीं देगा। दूसरा बिंदू था निगरानी के तहत लाने वाले नागरिक परमाणु संयंत्र की भावी ईंधन आपूर्ति। हमारे पास तारापुर संयंत्र का अतीत से अनुभव है। जो वार्ता हुई, उसमें भी दोनों पक्षों की ओर से यह शंका उठायी गयी थी। मैं समझता हूं कि यह शंका आज भी है कि इस बात की क्या गारंटी है कि ईंधन आपूर्ति लगातार बनी रहे ?  इसकी गारंटी कौन देगा ?  इसके लिए वे चाहते थे कि जब तक आपूर्ति है तब तक भारत निगरानी की पाबंदी मानता रहेगा। ईंधन आपूर्ति अधिकार एनएसजी द्वारा बंद की जाती है। वह संशोधनात्मक कदम उठाते हुए उस संयंत्र को निगरानी से हटा लिया। द्विपक्षीय वार्ता में सौदेबाजी के दौरान अमेरिका की तरफ से ईंधन आपूर्ति के आश्वासन के लिए कई तरह की शब्दावली का उपयोग किया गया। शब्दों का बड़ा भारी जाल बुना गया। इन शब्दों से कई तरह की शंकाएं उत्पन्न हो जाती हैं क्योंकि भारत इस मामले में एक फीसदी आशंका के लिए तैयार नहीं lÉÉ[r37] ।

मैं कुछ अड़चन की बात बताना चाहता हूं कि जो समझौता हो रहा था, उसमें कुछ अड़चन थी। इसीलिए मैंने इस बात का जिक्र किया। तब इसमें यह कहा गया और इस पर सहमति बनी कि अगर ऐसा होता है तो गलती सुधार का अधिकार भारत को होगा। कितनी बढि़या शब्दावली के बाद थोड़े से शब्दों को और सुधार दिया गया। इसीलिए मैं इस बात को कहना चाहता हूं, यानी ऐसी स्थिति में संयंत्र की निगरानी सीमाओं से अलग कर सकता है और उस शब्दावली को सुधारने के लिए थोड़ा और एक्सपेंड कर दिया गया। सेंटेंस विन्यास को और सुधार दिया गया और बड़े जोर से, मजबूती से यह कहा गया कि जो ग्लोबल आतंकवाद है, उसके खिलाफ संयुक्त अभियान चलाया जाएगा। यहां तक कि अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय व्यापार में भी कई बढ़ती हुई हिस्सेदारी का जिक्र किया गया और भारत की लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था का भी जिक्र किया गया। यहां तक कि राष्ट्रपति जार्ज बुश के द्वारा प्रेस कांफ्रेंस में एक तरफ जमकर भारत की तारीफ की गई और दूसरी तरफ सुरक्षा परिषद में भारत के स्थायी सदस्यता के सवाल पर चुप्पी लगा दी गई। एक तरफ भारत की पूरी प्रशंसा और सुरक्षा परिषद में भारत की स्थायी सदस्यता के सवाल पर मौन साध लिया गया।…( व्यवधान)   

पत्रकार सम्मेलन में राष्ट्रपति जार्ज बुश ने यह भी साफ किया कि भारत के साथ द्विपक्षीय संबंध भारत के ही हित में नहीं हैं बल्कि अमरीका के भी हित में हैं। पूरे देश के सभी नेशनल न्यूज पेपर्स में यह कहा गया।लेकिन अमरीका के लोग यह समझ रहे हैं कि भारत से दोस्ती उनके हक में हैं और यदि उनके हित में है तो मैं एक बात कहना चाहूंगा कि यदि भारत के व्यापक हित में है तो हमारे विद्वान कपिल साहब ने बहुत अच्छी तरह से इस विषय को रखा था। परमाणु समझौता जो हुआ, इस सदन में माननीय रुपचंद पाल जी और माननीय सदस्य वर्मा जी ने कुछ सवाल उठाए थे, कुछ शंकाएं सदन में उठी थीं। मैं सरकार को अपनी एक राय देना चाहता हूं कि अमेरिकी कांग्रेस से जब तक इस समझौते पर मंजूरी नहीं मिल जाती है, तब तक भारत सरकार इस दिशा में कोई कदम न उठाए। चूंकि अमेरिका का अतीत का जो अनुभव है, उनका मुकरने का इतिहास है कि वह वादा करके मुकर जाते हैं। समझौता होता है लेकिन फिर अमेरिका अपने हिसाब से ग्लोबल विश्व में अपने आधिपत्य के लिए क्योंकि साम्राज्यवादी देश की दूसरे देशों पर दबाव बढ़ाने की अपनी एक मानसिकता होती है और कई घटनाओं में इस बात का जिक्र हुआ, चाहे इराक का उदाहरण ले लीजिए, सब जगह इस बात का आपको उदाहरण मिल जाएगा। यूएनओ में प्रस्ताव के बिना ही उन्होंने अपनी रणनीति बना ली थी और इसी सदन में एक प्रस्ताव भी पास हुआ था जब इराक पर हमला हुआ था। उनका अपना जो मन होता है, उसी के अनुसार वे काम करते हैं।

इसीलिए हमारा निवेदन है कि अमेरिका के साथ जो भी परमाणु समझौता हुआ है, उसके अनुरूप तुरत-फुरत भारत को कदम उठाने की जरूरत नहीं है। जार्ज बुश ने यहां साफ कहा था कि अमेरिकी कांग्रेस में पहले हम इसकी मंजूरी दिलाएंगे। इसलिए पहले वह अमेरिकी कांग्रेस से मंजूरी दिला ले तो भारत इस दिशा में कदम उठा सकता है। विश्व भर में उनका यह अनुभव रहा है कि वह अपनी बात से मुकर जाते हैं। इसीलिए हम कैसे उनकी बात का भरोसा कर सकते हैं कि अमरीकी कांग्रेस की स्वीकृति के बिना हम तुरंत त्वरित गति से इस पर आगे कदम बढ़ाएं चाहे न्यूक्लिअर तकनीक का मामला हो, चाहे बिना रूकावट के भारत को ऊर्जा प्राप्त हो, उसकी गारंटी भी होनी चाहिए। जो अमरीका है, वह हमारी उंगली पकड़कर दोस्ती तो कर लेगा लेकिन वह हमारी पीठ भी पकड़ सकता है। इसीलिए मैं अपनी शंका व्यक्त कर रहा हूं कि भारत ने जो छोड़ा है, उसमें अभी एक्सपेंड करने की जरूरत नहीं है जब तक कि अमेरिकी कांग्रेस से इसका एप्रूवल न हो जाए[R38] ।

एग्रीकल्चर के विषय में मैं कहना चाहता हूं कि यह जो समझौता हुआ है, उसमें यह कहा गया है कि डबल्यूटीओ ने व्याख्या की थी और उसमें जिस शब्दावली का उपयोग किया गया था कि जो हमारा एमएसपी है, उस एमएसपी को डिस्टॉर्टिंग सपोर्ट प्राइस कहा गया था, जिस एमएसपी के कारण हजारों किसान आत्महत्या की स्थिति में पहुंच गये हैं क्योंकि यदि किसानों को लाभकारी मूल्य अगर नहीं मिलेगा, खासकर आन्ध्रा प्रदेश से लेकर आप देख लीजिए कि किसान आत्महत्या कर रहा है। किसानों को उनका लाभकारी मूल्य मिलना चाहिए। यदि एमएसपी की परिभाषा जो डल्ब्यूटीओ के समझौते में कही जा रही है तो मैं कहूंगा कि इस पर विस्तार से बात हो जानी चाहिए। जो हमारी सब्सिडी है, किसानों के लिए जो एमएसपी है, उसे ट्रेड डिस्टॉर्टिंग सपोर्ट प्राइस कहा जा रहा है कि ट्रेड में बाधा है और वह कह रहे हैं कि इसे खत्म करो। यानी किसान के एमएसपी को धीरे-धीरे खत्म करो, एमएसपी रिडयूस करो। यदि एमएसपी खत्म हो जाएगा तो इससे किसान की क्या हालत होगी?  हिन्दुस्तान विदेशी कृषि उत्पाद का डम्िंपग ग्राउंड बन जाएगा। मैं यह कहना चाहता हूं, यह मेरी शंका है। कम से कम विदेशी कृषि उत्पादन का डम्िंपग ग्राउंड हिन्दुस्तान को नहीं बनने दिया जाए।

दूसरी बात जो विज्ञान के मामले में है। मल्टी नेशनल कंपनी जो‘मोनसान्टो’ है, यह सीड्स के बारे में है। कृषि के क्षेत्र में जो विज्ञान और अनुसंधान होगा, उसमें यह जो ‘मोनसांटो’ है, हम उसके साथ समझौता कर रहे हैं। गवर्नमेंट टू गवर्नमेंट समझौता है। हमने जो समझौता किया है, क्या हमने प्राइवेट सैक्टर को, मल्टी नेशनल के बाजार को चमकाने के लिए किया है ? यह हमारा इंटरेस्ट नहीं है। कृषि, विज्ञान और अनुसंधान के क्षेत्र में डबल्यूटीओ, खासकर मल्टी नेशनल कंपनी को फायदा पहुंचे,. उनके बाजार को चमकाने के लिए हम यह समझौता नहीं कर रहे हैं। इसीलिए हमने यह निवेदन किया है। यह बात मल्टी नेशनल एजेंडा तय करेगा। हमारी इस शंका को निर्मूल करना चाहिए। Focus from public domain, signs to the private sector. क्या मल्टी नेशनल एजेंडा इसे तय करेगा ?  इसे कौन तय करेगा ? इस शंका को निर्मूल करना चाहिए।

अमरीका अपनी समझ के अनुसार काम कर रहा है और हमें अपनी समझ के अनुसार काम करना है। हमारी जो विदेश नीति है, वह स्वतंत्र विदेश नीति है क्योंकि हम यूपीए के न्यूनतम साझा कार्यक्रम से भी बंधे हुए हैं। इसीलिए आगे विकास, उन्नति करने के लिए, प्रदूषण ठीक करने के लिए, ग्लोबल आतंकवाद को खत्म करने के लिए, विज्ञान के क्षेत्र में, ऊर्जा और परमाणु के क्षेत्र में यानी सभी क्षेत्र में देश उन्नति करे, इसके लिए अमेरिका के साथ हमारा समझौता हो, इसके लिए सब लोग सहमत होंगे। लेकिन इस पर राष्ट्रीय सहमति भी बननी चाहिए। सदन में जो वॉयस उठ रही है, राष्ट्रीय सहमति उससे ज्यादा जरूरी है। अमरीका की सहमति से कहीं ज्यादा महत्वपूर्ण हमारी राष्ट्रीय सहमति है, मैं यह कहना चाहता हूं। हमारा जो नेशनल कंसेंसस है, वह कम महत्वपूर्ण नहीं है। सदन में एक वॉइस होनी चाहिए, इस विषय पर दो तरह की राय नहीं होनी चाहिए। हम इसमें कपिल साहब से बिल्कुल सहमत हैं कि विकास के क्षेत्र में हमें दलों से ऊपर उठकर काम करना चाहिए। हम इस बात से सहमत हैं। लेकिन हम इतना ही निवेदन करेंगे कि इस प्रश्न पर अमरीका से जितनी सहमति बनी है, उससे ज्यादा इस विषय पर राष्ट्रीय सहमति का बनना भी बहुत जरूरी है। जहां तक हमारे उस बैंच के मित्र का सवाल है, मैं उस सवाल को नहीं उठाना चाहता था क्योंकि हमारा सौ करोड़ लोगों का देश है और सौ करोड़ से ऊपर लोगों वाले देश की सहमति राष्ट्रीय सहमति होगी। यह हमारे लिए महत्वपूर्ण होगी। उस बैंच पर बैठे हुए हमारे तत्कालीन प्रधान मंत्री श्री वाजपेयी जी के समय में भारत और यू.एस. समझौते की बुनियाद रखी गई थी[R39] , इससे इन्कार नहीं किया जा सकता, इसीलिए बीजेपी के हमारे दोस्त समझते हैं कि इसकी बुनियाद पहले रखी गयी है। इसीलिए मैं राष्ट्रीय सहमति की बात कही है क्योंकि बुनियाद रखने का मतलब पीछे-पीछे चलना नहीं है। यही तो इनकी हार का कारण बना।इन्होंने नीति तो बनाई लेकिन उसे अंजाम तक नहीं पहुंचा सके। अब उसे कपिल सिब्बल साहब और हमारे प्रधानमंत्री जी अंजाम तक पहुंचाने में लगे हैं।…( व्यवधान) 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:  Shri Yadav, you are going beyond your limits.

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : इस देश की संस्कृति जनवाद की तरफ रही है।

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Yadav, again you are going beyond your limits. You have to address the Chair and not the individual Members.

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : मैं यहां की संस्कृति की बात कह रहा हूँ। आप लोग साम्राज्यवादी प्रवत्ति और उसकी मानसिकता को बढ़ावा देने का काम मत कीजिए। साम्राज्यवादी देश अपने हित में काम करता है, लेकिन हमें अपने देश के व्यापक हितों के लिए काम करना है। देश के हितों पर किसी तरह की आंच नहीं आनी चाहिए और उस दिशा में जो भी समझौता होगा, हम लोग उसका समर्थन करेंगे। यही कारण है कि आज यह परिस्थिति बनी है और यह समझौता हमारे सामने आया है। इसके साथ ही सुरक्षा परिषद में हमारी स्थायी सदस्यता का जो मुद्दा है, उस पर भी हमें जोर देना चाहिए। आज इसको लेकर तीसरी दुनिया के सभी देश हमारे साथ हैं चाहे वह वेनुजुएला हो या अन्य तीसरी दुनिया के देश, लेकिन यह विषय सामने आने पर यूएस चुप हो जाता है। इसीलिए मैं कहना चाहता हूँ कि इस दोस्ती की ओर हमें फूंक-फूंककर कदम रखना चाहिए।

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You have to address the Chair. Please conclude.

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव : महोदय, अपने देश की जो स्वतंत्र विदेश नीति है, हमें उस पर कायम रहने के लिए एक कठोर संकल्प लेना चाहिए।

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:  Now, I would like to request Shri Braja Kishore Tripathy to speak.

… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:  Nothing should be recorded except Shri Tripathy’s speech. Shri Tripathy, your party’s time is only five minutes. Please be brief.

(Interruptions)* … SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY (PURI):  Sir, I will try to limit myself to the time limit though a lot of things are there.

            Hon. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, we are discussing the statement made by the hon. Prime Minister on 7th March, 2006 regarding civil nuclear energy cooperation with the United States of America. The hon. Prime Minister’s Statement is quite disappointing. It creates suspicion in the minds of the people. The hon. Prime Minister lays stress on energy security. Yes, the country needs energy security but it should not be at the cost of national security. Now, the suspicion is that the Government is compromising with the national security. That is the suspicion in the minds of the people.

            What is the hidden agenda behind this? The country wants to know about it. We trust our hon. Prime Minister but we must be clarified regarding the real position. To become a nuclear power, the people of this country have sacrificed their lot. They are now suffering from hunger, unemployment and poverty. We have neglected the social sector and development. Our compulsion was to spend more money on Defence because of the threat perception from our neighbours. We have also been compelled to spend a major chunk of money from our Budget on Defence. The people have sacrificed their lot. But what are they getting?

            I just want to take this House to the background of the nuclear policy. On 1st July, 1968, the five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council formalised a system of nuclear apartheid by opening for signature the   * Not Recorded.

 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), restricted possession of nuclear weapons to the Permanent Five Members.

It gave signatories the rights of the peaceful use of nuclear technology.  The Treaty recognised the P-5, the Permanent Five, as permanent nuclear weapons States and did not provide adequate security guarantees to other countries.  That is the reason, India did not signed this NPT.  This is the background why we have not signed the NPT because there was no security for other countries, those who were not capable of nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Of course, it has brought many difficulties to the nation. Since 4 decades, no Indian Government has deviated from that line and maintained distance from NPT.  In 1974, India conducted first nuclear test with peaceful nuclear explosion.  It took India another 24 years to try and force another entry.  This time it was more bold and persistent with serial nuclear tests in 1998 when Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayeeji was the Prime Minister.  We had witnessed the outrage of the US and other countries. Even then US had been compelled to accept us as a nuclear power.  It had recognised India’s indigenous nuclear capability.  But in India, the nuclear market was not opened up.  So, this is the hidden agenda to open up the Indian nuclear market.  Everything was opened up in this country except the Defence and nuclear market. This is the hidden agenda to open the nuclear market and now the US, France and other countries are sure to rush. Now, we have the greatest market of the world for the nuclear materials.  Hence, this is definitely a big deal for the interested parties. Now, India would open up 14 of its 24 nuclear reactors to IAEA safeguards.  The Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) will now deal with India.  NSG comprising of 45 nuclear supplier States including US have an agreement to coordinate its export control governing transfer of civil and nuclear materials and nuclear related equipments and technology to non-Nuclear Weapon States.  So, when in 1998 the world has accepted us as a nuclear power, with this agreement we have converted ourselves to a non-Nuclear Weapon State. Otherwise, there will be no agreement. These 45 countries, NSG and US, will not supply any material to us.  We have no hope but take dreams to be secured in energy though we will not get supplies.  We shall have to convert ourselves to a non-Nuclear Weapon State.  Hence, India will now convert to a position of a non-Nuclear Weapon country and we shall have to accept this position.  What have we achieved during the past years, will go away due to lack of foresight of this UPA Government.  The key objectives of this agreement, stated in the statement of the hon. Prime Minister, are to separate India’s military and civilian nuclear installations so that it would be opened for international inspections.  But, this separation is difficult for India.  Other Members have already stated that the same reactors produce electricity as well as fissile material for the weapon’s programme. So, now from where will we get money for this separation of civilian and military installations and are our scientists equipped with all these things?  Now, the Prime Minister stated that it will be effected after 10 years. In 2014, it will come into effect[a40] .   

            But within these 10 years, what amount of money that will be required for this separation? Where will the money come from? This has not been elaborately clarified in the Prime Minister’s statement made to this House.

            Sir, our future programme is more important. I would like to know whether our country has the right to have more reactors in future or will continue with these reactors. This has also not been clarified. Rather, the Prime Minister stated in his statement:

“India has decided to place under safeguards all future civilian thermal power reactors and civilian breeder reactors.”   So, we are also not hopeful for our future programme. He has also stated:

“We have agreed, however, that the future civilian thermal power reactors and civilian fast breeder reactors would be placed under safeguards…”   So, the entire civilian programme for energy purposes and for military purposes will remain under safeguards. That is what the hon. Prime Minister has stated in his statement.

            Sir, I would like to make another very important point about fast breeder reactors. The scientists of our country are mostly worried about the opening up of these reactors for inspection which will affect our indigenous programme. What will be the result of this agreement? Our scientists are very much in a suspicious mood about this agreement. Whatever we have achieved indigenously for the last so many years will go away now. The Prime Minister should clarify this when he replies to this debate.

            Sir, our foreign policy is independent and there is a national consensus on it. When the Prime Minister discussed this matter with the United States of America in July last year, he had not taken the Opposition into confidence and he had never discussed this matter with the Opposition. Even before this agreement was signed, the Opposition was not consulted. So, whatever we have achieved on the basis of national consensus on our foreign policy will now go away.  This Government is unilaterally deciding everything without consulting the Opposition or without taking the Opposition into confidence. This is not good both for our foreign policy and nuclear policy. In both the matters, the Opposition is not consulted and the Opposition is not taken into confidence. When the Prime Minister replies to this debate, he should also reply as to why the Opposition was not consulted on this matter.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Please conclude.

SHRI BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY Sir, I will conclude in one minute.

            Sir, we are self-reliant so far as nuclear weapons are concerned. We have achieved this with a lot of effort, with a lot of labour. I must congratulate our scientists for this because it is due to their effort and the sacrifice of our people, we have achieved this position. Now, after this agreement, our self-reliance will go away. We will be completely dependent on other countries for fuel, uranium and other things and we will be critically dependent on others because there is no guarantee that we would get all these things in future. So, for all times to come, we will be critically dependent on others for fuel, uranium and other things. How can India be perpetually dependent on others for fuel and uranium? The Prime Minister should reply as to whether our self-reliance will go away due to this agreement. This is a departure from our independent foreign policy and also from our nuclear policy which is based on national consensus. This Government is unilaterally deciding everything without consulting anybody and without taking people into confidence[k41] .

When [r42] the hon. Prime Minister replies to all these things, he should also tell the country what is the real hidden agenda about this Agreement.  I would like to know whether we can sacrifice our national security for the sake of energy security.  We are self-sufficient.  Our natural resources are sufficient. We have not tapped hydro energy and even we have not tapped our carbon energy to the full extent so far.  India is sufficient in its natural resources and we can tap them.  Nobody can preach us in this regard, by raising environmental matters and other issues and ask us to divert to atomic energy.  This way, we will depart from our natural resources and depart from the generation of our natural source of energy.  So, let us tap our resources first.

            At the moment, we are getting only three per cent from Atomic Energy Sources.  We can go beyond that, if you want to tap the atomic energy and create more energy from the atomic resources.  As far as uranium is concerned, we have not got sufficient deposits.  But as far as thorium is concerned, we have got one-third of the world’s deposits.  We have not exploited that and we have not taken steps to exploit thorium.  That is why, we must first try, see and explore all these things.  Then we can go beyond all these things.  We should not be dependent on anybody.  That is why, my request to the Government is that they should first tap our natural resources, try our own deposits of thorium and then we can go beyond that.

 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No other hon. Member from your Party will be given the chance to speak on this debate.

SHRI UDAY SINGH (PURNEA): Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak.  I could not hear the speech of hon. Shri Kapil Sibal and all I can say is that his tenor and his convoluted logic precludes any possibility of a bi-partisan cooperation in this important agreement. 

            They are the people who cannot take the Parliament together. They are the people who cannot keep their own allies together and then to come here and start blaming the principal Opposition Party for all that has gone wrong, I think is very wrong.  For him to have said that because of 1998 Pokhran Blast India lost, I think, Shri Sibal is displaying zero understanding of what that one blast did for India in getting for the stature that India today has globally.  Therefore, Shri Kapil Sibal needs to be censured on trying to say this.

            I was quite surprised to hear from hon. Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi when he asked my party colleague whether he was with the agreement or against the agreement.  Shri Dasmunsi is too experienced to understand that this is a very important and complicated agreement and there is no way that a person can either be for it or against it.  It is not a clear cut black and grey.

            We agree, the NDA agrees, the BJP agrees that it initiated this cooperation with the United States.  We agree that there is need for an agreement.  But we have certain difficulties with this agreement.  I think, it should have been the UPA Government’s responsibility to have taken the entire Parliament into confidence, to have worked with its allies, to have worked with the principal Opposition Party, with the other Opposition Parties and tried to get a unanimous resolution of Parliament backing the Government’s move for the agreement as important as this.

 

            I am surprised that legal conventions or legalities are quoted that the Government is not obliged to come to Parliament for an approval. I think, it is wrong.  I think, we must have legislation in place.  Very important agreements like this, especially, of a nature which will have a long-term impact on India’s national security, on India’s energy security, on India’s economic security that the issue must be debated threadbare in Parliament and the voice of the Parliament taken before the Government can move ahead and enter into agreements like this[r43] .

Coming to the Agreement itself, who has trivialized this agreement?  The motivated leagues by the Government about how the Prime Minister spoke to Condoleezza Rice, how the Prime Minister was steadfast, how the President Bush whispered what into the ears of his own Secretary of State, what the President of the United States whispered into the ears of our Prime Minister; this is all trivializing this very important Agreement. We are seeing another dangerous trend that has emerged.  We are seeing for the first time that diplomacy is being communalised. There is no other explanation that we have for the Alliance partners of the UPA holding a demonstration when a guest of the Government, of the people of India was here. The composition of the entire demonstrators was made up in a manner to convey a particular message.  And then comes the Prime Minister’s reported statement that after the Parliament Session he will speak to the Muslim leaders.  Is it an agreement concerning the Muslims, or is it an agreement concerning India’s energy needs?  India’s agreement with USA has ramifications beyond just the energy needs.  So, we do not understand why pathological weakness for playing the minority card shows up in everything.  In an agreement with the United States, the Prime Minister has to speak to the Muslim leaders!  Then we will insist that he speaks to the Hindu leaders as well.  The only leaders he needs to speak to were the leaders present in the Parliament and that he refused to do.  That he did only by way of two suo motu statements.  Parliament is not a rubber stamp.  Parliament is not a place which just needs to be informed.  Parliament is a place which needs to deliberate on these issues before the Government arrives at a decision.  Post-decision, informing parliament is no big deal.  We would have otherwise read in the newspapers. We would have otherwise collected information from various national and internal media.  So, this suo motu statement of the Prime Minister is in bad taste.  The Prime Minister must in his reply mention that in future when the Government decides to undertake such important agreements, Parliament will be taken into account, taken into confidence before the decisions have been arrived at.  This is imperative.  Otherwise India will move into dangerous zones where it will be difficult for us to extricate ourselves.   I am glad that Shri Kapil Sibal is back here.  I would say that if there is any bipartisan cooperation… (Interruptions)  Do you want me to yield?  Sure.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI :  My distinguished colleague was talking about accountability part.  I can cite several examples of the past, previous Lok Sabhas since 1971 when I joined this House.  The Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, has many times appeared before both the Houses of Parliament through statements, through discussions and through replies.  It is unprecedented in the records of the Parliament.

SHRI UDAY SINGH : I accept what the hon. Minister has said.  I did not have the privilege to have been a Member of the time that he is referring to. But I would say that if something wrong has been done in the past it need not be taken into future. Important agreements must come to Parliament.  The Parliament must discuss it. The Parliament must tell the Government what it thinks on a particular agreement, before the Government goes through. I know that there are no legal provisions for us but we have what the US negotiators are saying.  The US negotiators are saying that they will take it to the Congress; they will take it to all the influential groups in the United States before they move the resolution in the Congress.  I do not know why our Parliament should be treated indifferently. … (Interruptions).  It is extremely sorry that Members of Parliament themselves want to dilute your own powers.  I am not saying something for myself.  It does not affect me alone; it affects the whole House.  All that I am saying is that this is not the only Government that is going to stay, there will be other Governments.  There have been other Governments.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Uday Singh, address the Chair.

SHRIMATI TEJASWINI SEERAMESH (KANAKAPURA): Did Shrimati Gandhi yield to any power in the world when she first tested the nuclear weapons?

SHRI UDAY SINGH : Sir, do you want me to respond to that or you want me to go on?

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Nothing is going on record.

(Interruptions)* … SHRI UDAY SINGH : We have two basic problems.  Our first problem is that there are too many nuclear plants that have been put under perpetual safeguards.  This is a question to which there can be no clear-cut answers.  The BJP Government say six were enough; the UPA Government will say, no, 14 were requited.  This is exactly what I mean that this should have been discussed threadbare in Parliament before the separation plan was drawn up.[r44]              Sir, discussing it now and voicing reservations, I know, is not going to have any meaning.  They cannot go back to the United States and say: “14 is not acceptable.  Now we make it 12.”  This should have been done before the Agreement was entered into.

            Our second problem is that India has not been given a Nuclear Weapons State category because in a Nuclear Weapons State category, all safeguards are voluntary.  They are not put under safeguard in perpetuity. 

I am thankful to Shri Kapil Sibal for having educated us that ‘in perpetuity’ means for the life of the nuclear reactor.  We knew that but we are thankful to him   * Not Recorded.

all the same. To put something in perpetuity, in safeguards, I think, is not serving the national interests and not serving the national interests well at all. 

Secondly, the over-dependence on nuclear energy is without any basis.  We have the world’s largest reserves of coal. We have excellent sites which can yield tremendous amounts of thermal coal.  Why are we not wanting to exploit all those?  Why are we wanting to depend on something where we will never be       self-reliant?  Even with the separation plan in operation, even with the nuclear energy co-operation with the US in operation, we will always be dependent on fuel from abroad.  We will always be dependent on other countries wanting to give us that fuel. So, we would like to know why this over-dependence on nuclear energy.  The Government should come forward with a reply.

            We heard about how many megawatts, how many kilowatts of electricity would be required.  We understand that.  The other forms of energy are available here and without depending either on fossil fuel or on nuclear fuel we can generate that kind of electricity.  So, the Government must come out clean as to the need for entering into this Agreement. एक कहावत है क " एक झूठ छुपाने के लिए सौ झूठ बोलने पड़ते हैं।" I think, the Government has been caught up in this.  We needed to remove our outcaste status which is what the NDA had been saying, had initiated and was propagating.  To that extent we are supporting the Agreement and say: “Yes, it will rid India of its outcaste status, it will open up for India other avenues with the West, with the US, with the western world and with the other countries of the world. 

            To say that this particular Agreement, the way it has been cast is a national interest is not correct.  Therefore, we would like the Government to reconsider how our doubts can be assuaged, how they can discuss with us, how they can tell us that the doubts that we have are not well-founded and that there are enough escape routes for India to get out of a locked-in situation  and that India’s long-term national security interests will not be compromised.

            This is all that I have to say.                                                 

 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:  Now, Shri Nikhil Kumar.

श्री प्रिय रंजन दासमुंशी : बीजेपी के श्री उदय सिंह के बोलने के बाद उन्हीं के जीजा जी, श्री नखिल कुमार हमारी तरफ से बोलेंगे।

SHRI UDAY SINGH : This is a good strategy.  I cannot oppose what he is saying. … (Interruptions)

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Hopefully it is the most temperate language befitting the status of this House. … (Interruptions)

गृह मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री (श्री श्रीप्रकाश जायसवाल) : आपने कुछ सोच-समझ कर चयन किया है।

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Nikhil Kumar, please speak only for seven minutes.

 

श्री नखिल कुमार (औरंगाबाद, बिहार) : उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, इसके पहले कि मैं कुछ बोलूं, ऑनरेबल मनिस्टर साहब ने जो कहा है, उसकी वजह से मेरे ऊपर बड़ी बेइंसाफी हुई है क्योंकि मुझे मालूम है कि सारी खुदाई एक तरफ है और वह साहब, जो दूसरी तरफ बैठे हैं, मैं कैसे उनका मुकाबला कर सकता हूं?

उपाध्यक्ष महोदय: उनको सुनना भी जरूरी है।

SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR : Sir, there are leaders and there are statesmen. Statesmen have a sense of history. They are in a position to know what are the factors operating in history.  It is statesmen who realise that there is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood leads on to greatness.  It was just such a tide, Sir, when the Congress Government took office in 1991 that the then Finance Minister took us to greatness by his economic policies[lh45] .

            It was his laid down Economic Policy that has been followed by the Governments that have succeeded thereafter. It is only to show that when there is a statesman, he forgets what happened in the antiquated past because the critics of that policy said that this policy would sell out India. They forgot that India is progressing, that India will progress and that India will enter the new millennium. Doctrines of the Eighteenth Century were outdated and antiquated. We have to move with the times and in moving with the times, we have entered the information age. Nobody can deny this.

It was because of the farsightedness of the statesmen like the Finance Minister in the Government from 1991 to 1996, that he could liberate the Indian economy. He abolished the licence and control raj and took us into a totally new atmosphere, a new environment and it is because of that that today India is being seen as an emerging global power. When the President of the United States was here last week, he described India as a global power. Not only he, but the entire world today is seized of the fact that India is taking rapid strides and it is fast emerging as a global power. Once again, therefore, this tide came to us last week and our leaders seized it. It was seized by our Prime Minister. It was seized by the Chairperson of the UPA and it led to the signing of the Indo-US Agreement which seeks to expand our co-operation in various fields, co-operation between them and us in economic fields, in security, in defence and what not.

But the most important thing was the separation plan that was signed between them and us. It is this separation plan that was the subject of the Prime Minister’s suo motu statement and that is now under discussion today. This separation plan, for the first time, separates civilian nuclear facilities from military nuclear facilities and to that extent.  This is a major achievement. It is for the first time after the Pokhran-I in 1974 under the valiant leadership of Indiraji when we had then given notice to the entire world that we are emerging as a nuclear power. Let this House understand this and accept it. The policies laid down by Indiraji in the 60s’, about which the hon. Minister, Shri Kapil Sibal gave an excellent presentation which was actually an education for all of us, were considered to be in national interest and which have been followed by the succeeding Governments, whether they belong to the Congress Party or to any other Party. It is these policies which have been the cornerstones of not only India’s internal policy but also the foreign policy. It is in pursuance of that, this tide came to us last week and we then signed this separation plan.

Sir, I would just read out to you some salient features of the plan. It will answer many of the questions that our friends from the other side have raised. I am not going into the details of the entire plan. Sir, you have given me only seven or eight minutes’ time, and I do not intend to exceed the time. But it is important that I read out to you from this separation plan some salient features. It says:

“To further guard against any disruption of fuel supply, the United States is prepared to take the following additional steps:-

            The US is willing to incorporate assurances regarding fuel supply in the bilateral US-India Agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear energy under their own law”—and that would be submitted, of course, to the US Congress. “It will join India in seeking to negotiate with the IAEA”—kindly note this—“an India-Specific Fuel Supply Agreement[m46] .”     What more can anyone ask for than an-India specific fuel supply agreement?

            (iii) The United States will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India’s reactors. 

            Against this background, if you are giving, it was giving away a lifetime safeguard to the IAEA.  What is wrong with it?  There is nothing wrong.  It is in our own interest. 

            (iv) If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India.  

            In the light of the above understandings with the United States -- again, kindly note -- an India-specific safeguards agreement will be negotiated between India and the IAEA providing for safeguards to guard against withdrawal of safeguarded nuclear material from civilian use. Please note that there is no mention here of the strategic reactors.  The mention is only of the civilian-nuclear facilities and, therefore, there could not have been a more self-respecting agreement than this that was signed between India and the United States last week.  There should have been no question or any squabbling over it. There should have been no question of any kind of apprehension over this. 

This is for the first time in the history, at least, of the 20th Century that a Nation has stood up to a Super Power and who incidentally happens to be the sole super power. When there is an agreement signed with a Super Power, the general impression is that the other signatory will cow down to the Super Power, will do what the Super Power says and carry out its little bidding.  This did not happen in this case.  As to why it has not happened is because India has been emerging as a global power. Its emerging economic might is known to all. The President of United States made a reference to it, not only during his visit to India but also in the United States and to the United States media.  It confirms that India is emerging as a global power.  And there is a saying, if you cannot beat them, join them. 

The United States for many years now has been having a rather unfriendly attitude towards India.  It saw that it is no use now persisting with that.  That is why, it has made an exception in this world of nuclear non-proliferation.  India is the only one country which has not signed the NPT and still it has been signalled out for this singular agreement with the United States.  It is because the United States has seen the writing on the wall. It knows that this is history.   The dynamics of time, the change in perspective and the change in, above all, of India’s economic prospects cannot be taken lightly.  It has to be given its due place in the world’s scheme of things.  That is why, the United States has agreed to sign this agreement. It is an agreement which is on equal terms; it is totally on the same footing and the United States realises that it will not do to ignore India and the amount of the safeguards that I just read out are indication of plenty that the United States has acknowledged the fact that India is going to be a super power and therefore, it is good to be on its side. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Sir, you have taken 12 minutes.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR : Sir, there is one more point.  There was a reference to the power position in India.   It was said that the nuclear power today, which is used to generate electricity, is just under three per cent of total India’s requirement.   The total nuclear capacity is 1,16,000 megawatt, against that we are turning out only 2600 megawatt. Can you imagine that by 2010, in another four years, this will rise to 10,000 megawatt[R47]? 

 

            There was a reference to our making use of the coal reserves. It must be understood that even now we are importing coal because our coal is second grade. Not only does it lead to importing coal but also it does not produce the type of good quality power that a good quality coal would have produced. We are in the position of importing coal. That import of coal will stop.  We will be self-dependent.

            The other thing is about oil, the other catalyst for producing power. Today, a barrel of oil costs 60 dollars and we are importing 17 million tonnes of oil at this rate of 60 dollars per barrel.  It is very likely that the price will rise to 100 dollars in the next one or two years. What will be the mind-boggling expenditure that we shall then be incurring for importing oil?

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER : Thank you. Please conclude now.

SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR : It will all go if there is a nuclear power to us and we will be able to generate the type of energy that we require.

            Sir, because you have asked me to stop, I am concluding.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER : I am requesting you to conclude your speech.

SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR : Every nation finds some time to dream. That time to dream had come to India now. We will dream of the future. We will dream of not only this millennium but others. Our succeeding generations will then think about what has been done between the 2nd and the 5th of March, 2006 and will then say that it is because of that that India is where it is now. It is not only a pipe dream. It will come to a reality.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER : I have to call the next speaker. Please conclude now.

SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR : This will then be a tribute to our leaders beginning with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and it will come to our Chairperson Shrimati Sonia Gandhi, and our hon. Prime Minister Sardar Manmohan Singhji. I wish them all the best.

   

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER : Ms. Mehbooba Mufti to speak now only for five minutes.

SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR : Finally, all this would not have been possible had it not been for our community of scientists led by Homi Bhabha, Vikram Sarabhai and the illustrious band of their successors. Most importantly, this very important deal that has been signed is because of the very hard bargain.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER : I have called the next speaker. Please sit down now.

SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR : It is because of them that we achieved this. Thank you very much.

SHRI UDAY SINGH : Sir, do I have the time to give a reply to him? … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER : It is between you and him.

… (Interruptions)

सुश्री महबूबा मुफ़्ती (अनंतनाग) : माननीय उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, कोई भी डील या ट्रीटी हो, अगर वह मुल्क के नैशनल इंटरस्ट में है तो हम बिलकुल सौ फीसदी उसके साथ हैं। अभी हाल ही में जो ट्रीटी साइन हुई है, उसके बारे में हमने वहां से श्री खारबेल स्वाईं जी और इधर से श्री कपिल सिब्बल जी के व्यूज़ सुने हैं। हम इसमें कोई एक्सपर्ट ओपनियन नहीं दे सकते हैं, क्योंकि एक ले-मैन इस चीज को इतना अंडरस्टैंड नहीं करता, परन्तु मेरा कंसर्न है कि जिस सिचुएशन में इस डील को साइन किया गया, उसने हमारी सोसायटी और कंट्री को फरदर पोलोराइज़ किया।

उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, मीडिया के जरिए एक राय बनाई गई है कि जो अभी हाल ही में डील साइन की गई है, (न्यूक्लियर डील) यह नेशनल इंटरस्ट में है और जो माइनोरिटीज़ बाहर डेमोनस्ट्रेट कर रहे हैं, शायद वे इस डील के खिलाफ हैं। मैं यहां कुछ क्लेरीफाई करना चाहती हूं कि प्रेसीडेंट बुश के खिलाफ सिर्फ मुस्लिम कंट्रीज़ ही नहीं हैं, उसकी अपनी कन्ट्रीज में उनकी रेटिंग्स क्या हैं, वे सब जानते हैं। वे वहां सिर्फ माइनोरिटीज़ की राय नहीं हैं और जब वे यहां आए तो हमारे यहां इराक की वजह से, अबुगारीब हम देखते हैं कि जेल में क्या हालत है। वही कंट्रीज़, जो हयूमन राइट्स वायोलेशन पर हमें सबक सिखाते हैं, बताते हैं, उनके वहां क्या हो रहा है।

उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, अभी श्री कपिल सिब्बल जी ने बहुत अच्छा कहा कि जब हम १९७४ में न्यूक्लियर वेपंसपीसफुल परपसेस के लिए बना रहे थे, तब श्रीमती इंदिरा गांधी जी थीं, तब भी उन्होंने हमें रोकने की बहुत कोशिश की, परन्तु हम आगे बढ़ते गए। हमने सोचा यह तजुरबे पीसफुल परपसेस के लिए किए जा रहे है। आज ईरान वही बात दोहरा रहा है। जब हम तब नहीं रुके थे तो क्या आज ईरान को आप रोक पाएंगे? मुझे नहीं लगता है कि ऐसा होगा। अमेरिका ने हमेशा कोशिश की है कि दुनिया उनके लिए पूडल्स बनी रहे जैसे टोनी ब्लेयर उनकी गोद में है। वे कुछ कंट्रीस को लेकर चलना चाहते हैं और बाकी सारी दुनिया को वे अपने नीचे रखना चाहते हैं, जिसकी वजह से रिसेंटमेंट है। इसलिए डेनिश कार्टून से ये सारी रिसेंटमेंट इकट्ठी होकर, सामने आ गयी। जो माइनोरिटीस डेमोनस्ट्रेट कर रहे थे, वे बुश के खिलाफ, हमारी ट्रीटी के खिलाफ डेमोनस्ट्रेट कर रहे थे, परन्तु मैं समझती हूं, जानती हूं कि ऐसे हालात में हमारे वज़ीरेआज़म बहुत सुलझे हुए हैं, वे इकोनोमिक के माहिर cé[R48] ।

15.00 hrs. He is the fountainhead of economic revolution in our country.  और उन्होंने जो डील साईन की होगी, वह मुल्क के मफाद को सामने रखकर की होगी। हमें यह बात नहीं भूलनी चाहिये कि इस मुल्क में १५-२० करोड़ माइनौरटीज के लोग रहते हैं। कभी-कभी हालात को देखकर किसी फैसले को कुछ देर तक रोकना बेहतर होता है क्योंकि जिस माहौल में यह डील साईन की गई है, मेरा ख्याल है कि हमारी सोसायटी को और ज्यादा पोलोराइज़ किया गया था। मेरा यह भी कहना है क We, the minorities, are equal shareholders of this country. इसमें हमारा फ्युचर भी इस कंट्री में उतना ही जुड़ा हुआ है जितना किसी और का है इसलिये जब कभी कोई फैसला होगा, हम उसके साथ होंगे, इस बात का हमेशा ध्यान रखना चाहिये। मैं पिछले कुछ दिनों से देख रही हूं कि माइनौरटीज वर्सेस मेजॉरिटीज के तहत कोई इंसीडेंट हो गई तो चन्द लोग यह कहेंगे कि चूंकि यू.पी.ए. की अपीज़मेंट पौलिसी टू माइनौरटीज है, इसलिये यह हो गई। मुझे डर है और मैं जो कुछ पिछले कुछ दिनों से देख रही हूं। खुदा-न-खास्ता हमारे पूरे मुल्क में एक प्री-पार्टिशन जैसी चीज polarisation की जा रही है। हमारी जमीन तो बट गई है तो क्या अब हम लोगों को बांटेंगे? यह बहुत ही खतरनाक होगा मुल्क का बटवारा जिसे हम लोग पिछले ५८ साल से सह रहे हैं। हम यह भी देख रहे हैं कि कितनी मुसीबतें हैं। जम्मू कश्मीर की प्राब्लम उसी का नतीजा है। और अब We cannot afford to divide people. इसलिये यू.पी.ए. गवर्नमेंट और अपोज़ीशन से मेरी गुज़ारिश है कि अपनी पौलटिक्स में माइनौरटीज वर्सेस मेजॉरिटीज का इश्यु मत लाइये। जो देश के लिये अच्छा है, वह माइनौरटीज के लिये भी अच्छा है। Please take care of the sensitivities of the minority communities.

 

SHRI TAPIR GAO (ARUNACHAL EAST): Hon. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, our learned and senior politicians in this august House have expressed their views on this agreement in lot of detail and they are all talking about future generations of the country. I, being the future generation of this country, would like to take part in the discussion on this matter.

            At the very outset, I would say that senior leader, hon. Minister Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi has stated one line that the seeds of this Indo-US agreement were sown by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Here, I would like to mention that the blueprint or draft of what Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee had sown in Indo-US relations has been over-drafted by the UPA Government. Here, I would like to mention that the Indo-US friendship should be truly a friendship, not a submissive friendship. By what Dr. Manmohan Singh has done, it is a submissive friendship, and this reflects the country in the world.

            In the South Asia, India was the leader. Right from the days of Nehru till this agreement, countries in our Subcontinent were looking towards us. After this agreement, the South Asian countries, like our neighbours, are now looking towards India as a non-aligned leader with submissiveness to USA.

Even prior to the US President's visit to India, they had got disagreement with their Ministers.  Our hon. Minister, Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar was strong enough to establish Indo-Iran gas pipeline and apprehending that his ability to establish Indo-Iran gas pipleine could have a mark on the US President Bush's visit to India, before his arrival in India, the portfolio of Shri Aiyar had been changed. Why are we talking about power generation? Why are we separating nuclear and military reactors? Shri Nikhil Kumar was citing that the coal deposits of this country are second grade. Why can not our Power Minister, Shri Sushil Kumar Shinde, say that we have got the capacity of generating hydro-electric power that is required in the country today[reporter49] ? In the North-East region we can generate the requirement of power of this country.

            Sir, we are disarming our armed forces in front of the world by this agreement. We are making our armed forces to stand without arms in the eyes of the people of this world.

Our party supports this agreement, but we have designed the blueprint for the Indo-US relations. The UPA Government has replaced the blueprint laid-down by the NDA Government. This is an agreement between Dr. Manmohan Singh and Mr. George Bush only. I am saying this because Mr. George Bush has not taken the US Congress into confidence with regard to this matter, and Dr. Manmohan Singh has also not taken the Indian Parliament into confidence with regard to this issue. Therefore, we cannot trust the future of this agreement.

What is Dr. Manmohan Singh going to do with regard to this nuclear agreement? The UPA Government has changed our blueprint for the Indo-US relations. Therefore, our request to the UPA Government is to make our blueprint in the right perspective.

 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Next speaker is Shri Vijayendra Pal Singh. Mr. Singh, I will be able to give you only five minutes to speak on this issue. It is my humble request to please conclude within five minutes.

SHRI VIJAYENDRA PAL SINGH (BHILWARA): Sir, will I be given only five minutes to speak?

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am sorry, but I can give you only five minutes.

 

SHRI VIJAYENDRA PAL SINGH (BHILWARA): Sir, I stand to speak on the debate under Rule 193. Let me not waste time on the peripheries as a lot has been said from both sides of the House. I will come to the specifics of this issue.

            The hon. Minister had asked us : “Are we for this agreement or not?” It is very difficult to answer in only ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on this issue. But I will say this much that the needs of the country for energy, especially, electricity are tremendous. Today, we have a capability of about 1,35,000 MW, but with the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyut Yojana, the demand is set to go up. The assessment is not there for it, but my assessment is that the requirement, in another five years, is going to be between 3,00,000 MW and 4,00,000 MW. We do not have coal, and we do not have the capability of importing coal because it is a very expensive energy. We also do not have gas and oil. Where are we going to meet the demand? I am asking this because the gap is going to get more and more.

            If we have to achieve between 8 per cent and 10 per cent GDP growth rate, then the issue of electricity is the most important. If the BJP Government and the NDA Government had the choice, then we also wanted to have nuclear fuel and technology for our plants. I am saying this because today nuclear fuel is the cheapest internationally. But as we showed interest in it, most of the countries realised that they cannot do away with nuclear energy to that extent. Therefore, we agreed to this agreement.

15.09 hrs.                                          (Mr. Speaker in the Chair)             I think that it is a historic agreement for the energy sector, but there are other issues also. One cannot just say that this is it. We have thorium, which is one of the largest in the world, but we need the Fast Breeder Reactors and the technology to do it. If we do not sign this, then I think that we would not be able to achieve what we will be able to achieve for another 30 years or 40 years[ak50] .

   

            But there are problems and I will come to that. How are you going to separate the civilian and the military nuclear programme? That is one issue. The other big issue is that tomorrow IAEA may find some fault and make … (Interruptions)

            Sir, please do not go on and on. … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: We should remember that we should not interrupt each other.

SHRI VIJAYENDRA PAL SINGH : Sir, he is making a running commentary. I am wanting to raise some good points, but he is disturbing me. I have got only five minutes to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: You should remember this when we do that ourselves. I am not encouraging him, but everybody should remember that it is not a good habit.

SHRI VIJAYENDRA PAL SINGH : My request to them is to keep quiet and let me complete my speech.

            If they find some fault and they make us a guinea-pig like Iran and Iraq and they stop our nuclear fuel also, where is the guarantee? Even if we are not at fault and they do it, where is the guarantee? I want the Prime Minister to reply to this. Otherwise, I feel it is a great and historic agreement to that extent.

            Again, I will categorically say that this must be spelled out. If everybody had been taken into confidence, if the Leader of the Opposition has been taken into confidence, and then if it this has been done, I think, we would have had a better deal than the deal that has been stuck.

   

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (SHRI ANAND SHARMA): This debate in the House today is on a subject of great national import for the people of India and for the people of the world as such. It is but natural that it has generated a lot of interest and heat. This debate also results from the suo motu statements made by the Prime Minister first on the 27th of February and then on the 7th of March on the understanding reached between India and the United States of America on Civilian Nuclear Energy Cooperation. I would say that this is also a fulfillment of the assurance given by the Prime Minister and the Government that whatever will be done, will be done in a transparent manner and through the House, through the Parliament, the people of India shall be taken into confidence. There have been references by many hon. Members that the Parliament and the people have not been taken into confidence. That is not correct. This debate amply proves, and the previous twosuo motu statements of our Prime Minister, that this Government had nothing to hide, this Government believes in the essence of democracy that any issue which is of concern to our people, to our nation, must be discussed in a fair manner.

            This is also an opportunity to inform the country at large as to what are the contours of this Agreement and how will it be in the interest of India and the society in general. It will also help in removing certain misapprehensions and misgivings. It is natural for people to have reservations. There has been criticism, some of which bona fide, some of which has been based on speculative reports, but there has also been motivated opposition to create misgivings and confusion amongst the people in general. I hope, through this debate, which was initiated this morning from our side and many other learned Members, those misapprehensions would be dispelled. The Indo-US relations have undergone a qualitative change in recent years. There has been a long period prior to that of drift, distrust, and suspicion.

   

            Today, the two largest democracies of the world are engaged in a multi-dimensional relationship.  One aspect of which is being discussed here and the others which have been referred to were the Knowledge Commission on Agriculture and the cooperation in the field of science and technology.  So, when we talk of relations between the two nations, the sovereign States, they can never be frozen in a given time zone. India in the past has played its role, which was expected of this country and safeguarded its interests.  Governments after Government, ever since Independence, Pandit Nehru, along with Dr. Homi Bhaba, the guide, the mentor and the father of the India’s atomic energy programme safeguarded the interests of the country.  Since then many claims have been made.  Let me point out that it was in 1948 that India’s  Atomic Energy Act was first adopted.  From 1948, we started the journey.  Nuclear Policy Energy Cooperation was incorporated in 1954. Many Members of this House were not even born when the Act was first enacted.  Even I was not born.  Today, we can go back, reiterate and see what the achievements have been in a very difficult background, over the last five decades and more.

            Some doubts have been expressed about the new understanding which has been reached. Have we compromised with the national security? Have we compromised with our sovereign decision-making processes? Have we retracted in any manner from our policy decisions with regard to the IAEA or the NPT?  Why India-specific agreement has to be negotiated with the IAEA?

            I would first of all say that India’s interests have been safeguarded in every respect, they have not been compromised and any insinuation to that effect would be incorrect and unwarranted and hurtful.  Hurtful for one reason that this is the UPA Government, a coalition Government, led by the Congress Prime Minister, who is himself known for his integrity and credentials.  So, the Congress Party and its leaders as I was referring earlier as to how we have traversed this path, this long and arduous journey.  It was way back in 1974 when India first made a very loud announcement of its nuclear capability, the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi had the courage to take that decision not only to explode the atom but also making it clear that it was for peaceful use. Today, when I hear the claims that something was done eight years ago to make India nuclear capable, Sir, I can only feel sorry for those who make themselves believe  that the statements and the claims which they make are true because the facts and history make a different statement. 

Here, we must compliment, we must salute our scientists, the nuclear establishment which actually worked in a regime of denial, discrimination, in isolation, literally reinventing the wheel, they mastered completely fuel cycle to make India nuclear capable.  There should not be any doubt on that.  Implicit in July 18 Agreement is the recognition of that technology, recognition of India being a responsible nation State with advanced nuclear technology[s51] .

They talk that there is no recognition. As my learned friend Shri Swain was saying that recognition of India as a nuclear State, is implicit in that very Agreement. When that recognition is accepted that India as a civilian nuclear programme and India also as a strategic nuclear programme, that is where the talk of separation comes. If the recognition was not there, nobody will tell us to separate the two. But when it comes to separation, it is a sovereign determination, it is the India’s decision as to which facility will be civilian and which facility will be the military one or the strategic one. The Prime Minister had said that in his three Statements before this House and the other House in July last year, February and again on the 7th of March. What is the Agreement that has been reached? It is transparent; it reiterates what we had stated throughout that ‘India shall only determine’. What our requirements will be, which facilities our nuclear establishments concur with to put in the civilian list for the IAEA safeguards and which facilities should remain in the strategic list.

           

Before the visit of the US President took place and before the Agreement was reached, there were many speculative reports and debates generated about India’s fast breeder reactors, proto-type fast breeder reactors as to whether we are going to compromise on that. Now, the Prime Minister and the Agreement makes it very clear that if they are kept out for one reason that our scientists are working in a very important area of research, this is also important from the strategic perspective. So, it is we who have taken this sovereign decision. There is no capping for the production of the fissile material. There is no cap on building future reactors. Even about future reactors, it will be our determination which one should be in the civilian list and which one should be in the strategic list. Where has India’s interest been compromised? India’s interest has been better served. We are trying to unlock the NSG through this Agreement. Once it meets the endorsement of the US Congress, the unlocking of the Nuclear Supply Group (NSG) would lead access to the technology, duel use technology and also India joining the rest of the world. The top nuclear scientists of the world will benefit from the knowledge and experience of the Indian nuclear scientists who have already been invited for the IATA Programme and Futuregen Programme. When it comes to deterrence, my friend Shri Swain was saying that we had compromised on deterrence. The Prime Minister’s statement makes it amply clear that it is India that shall determine what its requirements are. The deterrence will be determined by us. Nobody is telling us what should be our deterrent. We should have no doubts on that count.

            With regard to India-specific safeguard, which Shri Swain was referring to here, a clarification is required. It is India-specific because India belongs to a unique category. India is a non-signatory of the NPT. We did not sign the NPT. That was the principal decision to safeguard India’s interest. India felt and rightly so that that Treaty was discriminatory, that was unequal. The Prime Minister Shrimati Indira Gandhi saw a long-term interest of India. Shrimati Indira Gandhi then decided and the subsequent Congress Governments adhered to it that unless and until India is given equal treatment and respect for recognition for its nuclear capabilities, India will not sign the NPT. That is why, IAEA safeguard would be India-specific. That does not mean that the interest of the country is being compromised[p52] .

            Sir, if I may just quickly point out, on this issue, the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA is being negotiated.  It will not be similar to that of a Nuclear Weapon State, that was being said, or Non-Nuclear Weapon State. Mr. Swain is right there, and I have explained to him why it will be different; why it will be India-specific.

            But, Sir, the Prime Minister’s Statement has categorically mentioned this.  If you go through the Statement carefully, through this Agreement, it is recognised that India will have the same advantages and benefits, which any other Nuclear State has.  At the same time, we commit ourselves to the same responsibilities and the same obligations, which other Nuclear States have.

            Now, the question is about certain other charges which have been made with regard to, firstly, about the need, the justification of having the nuclear energy at all; then, on what is quantum of generation in other countries; what is quantum of generation in India; the projected 10,000 by the year 2000 have not been reached.  It is merely 2.7 per cent, under three per cent of our power generation.  But the issue here is of a fuel mixed clean energy and energy securities.  The fossil fuels are depleted.  If we have the capability, then surely, India should benefit from the technology, which it has accomplished to generate nuclear energy in large quantities because we grow, our requirements will be huge.  About our energy needs, on the amount, which we are importing, the spiralling oil prices have been a matter of concern.  So, if we do not take these steps now, we will be failing the future generations, and also compromising with India’s growth and India’s strength.

 

            Sir, there was some confusion created about the thorium reserves and the thorium cycles that whether India has moved away from that through this Agreement and by subjecting itself to international safeguards. Mr. Swain is very knowledgeable.  I would say that there, three-stage nuclear development plan was conceived by the father of our nuclear establishment, Dr. Homi Bhabha.  Stage-I was about uranium and heavy water leading to plutonium, making uranium fuelled reactors.  The Stage-II of fast breeder reactors is plutonium and thorium. The Stage-III is the fast breeder reactor when uranium 2.3.3 would be used along with thorium. That is why the fast breeder reactors, the prototype reactors remain out and the research continues.

            So, Sir, since the hon. Prime Minister has to reply to this debate, I would only say that all the misconceptions which were there, some of that is because of their frozen mind, some is routed in a history of suspicion, and some of that is purely motivated. I would only submit with all humility to this House that the Agreements, which this Government has reached, have taken care of not only the present security interest of the country but also the long-term energy needs and security needs.  There should not be any doubt in any one’s mind that this Government can ever compromise or negotiate with India’s national security, India’s honour, India’s sovereign decision-making and also  taking decisions on various other related matters. Many hon. Members had referred to certain decisions, which India takes, are being influenced because of these Agreements or a growing understanding.  That is incorrect[KD53] .  I can say, in sincerity, that India takes decisions on international issues, matters of international importance on its independent judgement, on merits and India shall continue to play the role in the coming years and decades.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It was decided that the hon. Prime Minister would reply at 1530 hours.  It is just 1530 hours now but I have received request from two Members. I can allow them if they can restrict to three minutes each.  If Members are agreeable, I will call Shri Mahtab.

SHRI MADHUSUDAN MISTRY (SABARKANTHA): Sir, those who have written speeches, they can lay them on the Table of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, they are welcome to do so.

            Shri Mahtab, you may mention just two or three points. Your Leader has spoken very elaborately.

SHRI B. MAHTAB (CUTTACK): Thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion.  We know, in this world there are three types of people; people who do not know what happens, people know when something happens and people make things happen.  I would like to come to the point.

            The key to the understanding of Indo-US deal, it is termed, is the acceptance by the US and other major powers that India is to be treated as an exception to the Non Proliferation Treaty.  This is the general impression that is going around. I would also like to mention, the discussion which has been going on inside this House and outside, seems to be conditioned by 60 years of cold war mindset.  I would refer to the statement which an Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Mr. Nicholas Bern has made in Washington.  He has stated:

“India has a strategic programme. The US and other countries have not recognised that programme.”   These are the statements which are made to convince the American Congress.  He said:

“The deal would bring India into the non-proliferation mainstream.  The Pact will allow India for the first time in life of its nuclear programme to be able to submit itself in a transparent way for international inspection.  We think (Mr. Bern and his associates think) that this is a major gain for non-proliferation community. ”   Mr. Bern has further said:

“All civilian reactors built by India in future would come under international safeguards.  ”   I would like to know from the Prime Minister how he view this comment of US.  Has US recognised India as a nuclear weapon State?  Has US recognised India's strategic programme? Does the Pact bring India into the NPT mainstream?  Lastly, whether all reactors built by India in future would come under international safeguards?

            I would remind this House, especially when a statement has come from Beijing that India to abandon all nuclear weapons.  This type of advice to dismantle nuclear weapons should be to persuade allies in Islamabad.  This is not there from China.  But the strategy here should change; what I understand from my knowledge. My contention would be and I request the Prime Minister, is that now, we are in a different stage.  Should not India strive along with US to bring China under the same regime that we have entered into?  Already, the NPT regime which was there earlier is now a thing of the past.  We have entered a new regime. Should not we strive along with US to bring China and other nuclear weapon States to come under that regime?

                         

SHRIMATI TEJASWINI SEERAMESH (KANAKAPURA): Respected Sir, I rise to support the Government stand on India’s nuclear separation plan which took place during the visit of hon. President of the United States, Mr. George W. Bush recently to India.

            I heard many debates from the respected principal Opposition Party leaders.  They were trying to draw the attention of the nation regarding pressure politics from the US.

            Sir, let me convince my opponent speakers here that they need not suspect the UPA Government’s commitment to safeguard the interests of Indian Government’s independent Foreign Policy or national security.  Our Party, the Indian National Congress historically proved it.   Mrs.Indira Gandhi’s leadership during 1974, she took the bold decision and successfully tested India’s first ever-nuclear test for the peaceful purpose.

            One can see the then leadership’s apprehension about India’s security during cold war period.  Mrs. Indira Gandhiji never yielded to any super power at that time. She never compromised India’s independent decision making sovereign power.  In fact, she made India proud and self-secure.  I feel this highest House must salute such greatest leaders of India who rose above party lines.

            Today, we are living in a different global situation. World has become global village. Every part of the globe was exposed to scientific and technical advancement.  We are using our scientific knowledge to prosper this society. In this context, we must see the recent US President’s visit to India and agreement on civil nuclear energy.

            Today, energy is the most needy thing in the world.  Majority of the world is depending on the Middle East for the fuel.  India’s energy demand is growing day-by-day.  We cannot let down our people from development and progress. It is   * The speech was laid on the Table.

our duty as a responsible democratic nation to take care of their need.  Let us accept the realities and act in this direction.  Recent agreement on civil nuclear energy is a step ahead in this direction.

            According to the hon. Prime Minister’s suo motu Statement in this House on March 7, 2006, he made many things clear as follows.  At present, there are 22 thermal reactors in operation or currently under construction in the country.  Fourteen of these will be placed under safeguards by 2014 in a phased manner. These reactors will raise the energy production from 19 per cent to 65 per cent.  But the separation of these nuclear reactors – civil or military – will be absolutely an Indian decision.  What else do we need?  No one can suspect country’s determination of self-rule.  To guard the sovereignty of the nation, I believe my Government will take the principal opponent party into confidence.  So, to take the country on the path of the progress, let us go together with this decision also as one nation.

            From 1959 to 2006, five U.S. Presidents visited India in different political situations.  Today, world is changing and like wise we too must change.  Terrorism is the most major threat to the humanity on the Earth. So all of us must come nearer to curb this menace.  Peace and prosperity should be our motive to achieve.  We must exhibit the world unity in diversity while maintaining the different cultures as also religions and languages.  The United States, a superpower, at last realised its vulnerability to the terrorism, the day when WTC, New York was attacked by suicide bombers. In this new political perspective, let us understand and believe United States’ concern towards curbing terrorism.

            Let us come to the issue how India will be benefited due to this nuclear deal.  India would be recognised as a de facto nuclear weapon power, something it had been demanding ever since it exploded a nuclear device in 1974.  That would allow it benefits such as importing nuclear technology and fuel from any of the countries that are members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.  It will be able to import giant reactors of over 1000 megawatt from France and Russia.  The deal would ensure that it had access to fuel for its existing plants. With assured fuel supply and technology, our Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singhji has announced that we would like to see the nuclear power sector generate over 40,000 megawatt within a decade.

            The US President, Mr. George W. Bush visited India with new approach.  The US Administration sees India as a major strategic partner and ally in global affairs.  That is why, it understood that energy is critical for India’s needs apart from access to high technology in other areas.  The former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Shri R. Chidambaram points out that the US could make use of India’s superior know-how on nuke power technology for its energy initiatives elsewhere.  For India, getting rid of the nuclear albatross would give it substantially more clout to demand a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

            The United States President’s successful visit to India ensured India that it can achieve second Green Revolution which is the need of the hour today.  Not only that, even though Mr. Bush visited Pakistan after India, he respected India’s leadership and sovereignty by not referring to Kashmir issue, about which Pakistan always mislead the United States.  After 1998 Pokharan series nuclear tests, the US was very much hostile towards India. But today due to our sincere and honest efforts, the US understood our commitment towards peace, brotherhood and prosperity.  It is, no doubt, an historical achievement for both the countries.

            Let us take forward the world by better understanding and mutual trust as also respect for each other.  In my view, governments may change in India, but our principles, values and commitment cannot change.  With this great development, we can hope for better India and secured India.  I would like to congratulate my proud Prime Minister and the UPA Chairperson, Madam Soniaji for this great achievement.  Our Party sacrificed great lives for the country’s sovereignty.

SHRI FRANCIS FANTHOME (NOMINATED):Sir, President Bush,s visit is historic in terms of the relationship between the two countries not only for the bonding it generated but for the broad avenues it addressed on which a strong, reliable, and mutually beneficial friendship can be built in terms of the global order prevailing in the context of the knowledge economy.  The world no longer operates on the priniciples of ‘exclusion’ and egalitarian idealism.  As we reaize ourselves that global relationships are a matter of individual participative inputs and not based on blocs where collectivism directs outcomes. The competitive world of the 21st Century requires nations to think global but act local each one safeguarding its own interest.

            It is a world of paradoxes and contradictions it appears to be chaotic but not without a system.  In a world of complexities sophistication is the transactional mode.  The new Indo-US agreement is a judicious balance between India’s long term energy and security interests and America’s expectation that Indian nuclear capability be firewalled from potential military applications.

The Prime Minster has our highest appreciation for safeguarding national interest to the extent desirable, for the nation’s security and reducing suspicion nd speculation in the international community.

To me the ‘Deal’ provides for the creation of a participative platform safeguarding the interests as well as creating an inclusive platform in the international community.  The Prime Minister’s suo-moto statement on civil nuclear energy cooperation with the United States dated 7 March 2006 for implementation of the Separation Plan states that the meeting provided an opportunity to review progress in developing a ‘strategic partnership’ A strategic partnership by its thrusts is purpose driven and requires the creation of an appreciation that mutuality requires a shared platform where stake holding brings risks and benefits to both partners.  This strategic partnership covered the expansion of ties in the fields of agriculture,   * The speech was laid on the Table.            

economic and trade cooperation, energy security and clean environment, strengthening innovation and the knowledge economy, issues related to global safety and security and on strengthening democracy.  Each of these areas is of significant importance to the nation.

            The Prime Minister has our highest appreciation for including a broad spectrum of spheres, crucially important for the nation. With soft disposition shaping a firm handshake, he has given to the country a shared partnership integrating economic, security, and social objectives on which the future of the nation’s progress can be placed.  It is the nation’s aspiration that ‘ending India’s nuclear isolation’ should not be at the expense of sharing information regarding national security.  The nation has defended its ideology, its borders, its economic strength and its beliefs and practices and God willing we will continue to safeguard our special identity in the community of nations.

The Prime Minister has the trust of all sections of the people that he will not surrender on this score the ‘peoples pride in themselves’ despite the prevailing pressures.  While the nation is prepared for strategic partnership it shall not surrender before ‘insolent might’.

I wish to conclude by complementing the Prime Minister for his steady resolve to uphold the nation’s interest in the global community.  What some people consider ‘bartering ‘ national interests must see the outcomes, invitation to join the ‘table’ does not mean that invitations have been accepted and bargains executed.

The Tribune 3 March 2006 in its editorial with minor modification stated “In a world of cynics, skeptics and petty politicians Prime Minister Manmohan Singh chose to be a statesman, looking ahead to building a new relationship for the 21st Century”.  I commend him for this foresightful treaty.                                             

MR. SPEAKER: Md. Salim, you can speak if you can finish your speech in three minutes, otherwise, I am sorry.

 

MD. SALIM (CALCUTTA  – NORTH EAST): It is difficult to sum up in three minutes but I will not repeat the arguments which have already been made by my colleague, Shri Rupchand Pal and other colleagues[R54] .

I am not very optimistic.  I must congratulate them also unexpectedly because the concern expressed by the Left Parties, a large section of the scientific community and the people in regard to the Indo-US Agreement have been taken care of.  We have seen that some of the points have been taken care of. We are told about separation, long term policy, phasing out, etc.  I am not going to repeat that but this has been taken into consideration.

            Having said that, Mr. Kapil Sibal was quoting Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s speech.  That is good and I appreciate that.  Shri Anand Sharma told from 1948 to till date about the development and the role of Indian National Congress and the Government of India.  I do appreciate that.  But only speeches or quotations will not suffice.

 हमारे देश में यह भ्रम पैदा होता है और हम किसी को देवता के आसन पर बैठा देते हैं चाहे महात्मा गांधी हो या कोई भी महंत हो। उसके बाद हम अपनी तरह से काम करते हैं। हम उनको केवल छू देते हैं। ऐसा करने से नहीं चलेगा। राजीव गांधी की स्पीच के साथ एक प्लान ऑफ एक्शन भी था। आप उस प्लान ऑफ एक्शन को भूल गये। हम यह कह रहे हैं कि आप उस प्लान ऑफ एक्शन को क्यों नहीं कोट करते,  उसको भी देखा जाये। मैं यह नहीं मानता हूं, श्री नखिल कुमार कह रहे हैं कि समाज में, देश में, विश्व में परिवर्तन हो रहा है और उसके अनुसार हमें चलना पड़ेगा। हम कुछ छोड़कर आयेंगे। मैं पूछना चाहता हूं क यह परिवर्तन कैसे-कैसे होता है ?  अचानक हम एनर्जी सिक्योरिटी की बात करने लगे। हमने १९८४ में फैसला किया था कि १० हजार मैगावाट न्यूक्लियर एनर्जी होनी चाहिए। अभी २.३५ परसेंट की स्थिति है।

MR. SPEAKER: You do not address him.

मोहम्मद सलीम : हम एजुकेटकिसके द्वारा होते हैं। I know Karl Marx.  I have also heard Rebecca Marc. इसी सदन में, इसी देश में जब फॉस्ट ट्रैक पावर प्लांट, कोजेंटि्रक्स से लेकर एनरॉन तक आ रहे थे, उस वक्त रिबेका मार्क कह रही थी कि हम एजुकेट करेंगे। पोलटिशन और मीडिया सैक्शन को भी एजुकेट कर रहे थे। एनरॉन ने थ्रट भी दिखाया था। सब लोग उस वक्त कह रहे थे कि हमारे देश में पावर सप्लाई की जो समस्या है, वह सब हल हो जायेगी। एक बार काउंटर गारंटी दे देंगे औरजो जो कंडीशन वे मांग रहे हैं, हम मान लें। आज हम किस स्थिति में हैं ?  मुम्बई में साइन बोर्ड है लेकिन आप जला नहीं सकते। अभी रिबेका मार्क एजुकेट नहीं कर रही लेकिन कोई तो एजुकेट कर रहा होगा ? मैं सवाल पूछ रहा हूं कि अभी कौन एजुकेट कर रहा है ?

Why are we not getting educated from our Standing Committee’s Report?  The Standing Committee on Energy. पिछले पांच साल से कहते आ रहे हैं, मैं कोट नहीं कर रहा क्योंकि समय की कमी है। अगर हम उसको पढ़ लेते तो अच्छा होता। इसमें एक ही लाइन है कि हम टारगेट फुलफिल नहीं कर पाये because of lack of fund.   यह हमें स्टैंडिंग कमेटी कह रही है। अचानक यह हजारों करोड़ों रुपये कहां से आयेंगे। टेक्नोलॉजी होने के बाद हम उसे नहीं कर पा रहे हैं।

I pay tribute to our scientific community for what we have achieved. मैं कोट नहीं कर रहा हूं लेकिन मै यह कह रहा हूं कि जब हम एनटीपी की बात कर रहे हैं, अभी तो बहुत बात हो रही है। हम प्रोलीफ्रेशन के खिलाफ हैं, यह देश साबित कर चुका है। हम होरिजेंटल प्रौसेस की बात करते हैं, एक देश से दूसरे देश में नहीं जाना चाहिए, किसी टैरेरिस्ट ग्रुप्स के पास नहीं जाना चाहिए, तो वर्टिकल एनटीपी के बारे में हम अमेरिका को कहें, जो स्पेस तक न्यूक्लियर वैपन्स ले जा रहे हैं। बराबर देश के साथ जो समझौता हो रहा है, वह जब होरिजेंटल एनटीपी की बात करते हैं, लेकिन स्पेस में ले जाकर न्यूक्लियर स्टैक कर रहे हैं, मिसाइल डिफेंस की बात कर रहे हैं, हम उसके बारे में क्या बोलते हैं ?  प्लान ऑफ एक्शन में था कि वर्टिकल एक्सपेंशन नहीं होना चाहिए। मैं यह भी कहना चाहता हूं कि इसी एग्रीमैंट में, मैं एग्रीमैंट के बाहर नहीं जा रहा हूं।

MR. SPEAKER: If you have a written speech, you can lay it.

मोहम्मद सलीम : एग्रीमैंट के पेज ८ में हवाला दिया गया है। मैं जैन हवाला की बात नहीं कर रहा हूं। इसमें लिखा है :-

 

“The United States is willing to incorporate assurances regarding fuel supply in the bilateral US-Indo Agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear energy under Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act.  It would be submitted to the US Congress.”   सैक्शन १,२,३ यूएस एक्ट के तहत कह रहे हैं। सैक्शन १,२,३ क्या कह रही है ?

“No cooperation with any nation, group of nations or regional defence organisations pursuant to Sections 53, 54…shall be undertaken until…”    मैं एक ही पढूंगा।

“In the case of non-nuclear weapon State, our requirement as a condition of continued United States nuclear supply under the Agreement for cooperation with IAEA safeguards be maintained with respect to all nuclear materials in a peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State under its jurisdiction or carried out under its control anywhere.”   हम जो आजादी की बात कर रहे हैं, हम ऑटोनॉमी की बात कर रहे हैं, हम सम्प्रभुता की बात कर रहे हैं, एक्ट में यह कहा गया है। ये तो हमारी शंकाएं हैं। मैं डिटेल में नहीं जाना चाहूंगा।…( व्यवधान) 

अध्यक्ष महोदय : अब आप अपनी बात समाप्त करिए।

मोहम्मद सलीम : यह जो स्ट्रैटेजी की हम बात कर रहे हैं।…( व्यवधान) 

MR. SPEAKER:  Give your best remaining points, if any.

मोहम्मद सलीम : महोदय, मैं अपना लास्ट प्वाइंट कह रहा हूं। यह जो डैमोक्रेसी की बात कही जा रही है, मैं सिर्फ एग्रीमेंट को रैफर करूंगा। सर, आप घंटी बजाते हैं तो मैं और हड़बड़ा जाता हूं। मैं घबरा जाता हूं।…( व्यवधान)  Paragraph 12 of Page 6 says:  “…must be acceptable to Parliament and public opinion.” आपके पास यह हथियार है। आप एग्रीमेंट कर रहे हैं। जब अमेरिकी प्रेसीडेंट कह रहे हैं कि उनकी कांग्रेस जब इसकी मंजूरी देगी, तब उनका कानून इसकी मंजूरी देगा तो हमें भी ऐसा करना चाहिए। …( व्यवधान) 

अध्यक्ष महोदय :  कृपया अब आप समाप्त कीजिए।

मोहम्मद सलीम : सर, पूरे विश्व भर में जब डैमोक्रेसी एक्सपेंड करने के लिए हम यू.एस. के पार्टनर बनेंगे तो हमारे देश के अंदर पार्लियामेंट का जो डैमोक्रेटिक हक हमें मिला है, उसे आप इस्तेमाल करें क्योंकि यू.एस. के बारे में यह मशहूर है कि यदि आप उन्हें उंगली पकड़ने देंगे तो वह पौंचा पकड़ने के लिए तैयार हो जाएंगे। इसलिए हमारा पौंचा न पकड़ा जा सके, इसके लिए आप संसद का इस्तेमाल कीजिए।…( व्यवधान)  I demand a parliamentary forum in this regard.

MR. SPEAKER:  You bring a Constitution (Amendment) Bill.  Parliament is discussing this for the last few hours.

मोहम्मद सलीम : हमारे देश में भी कैपेबल लोग हैं, उनसे हम बात करें और हमने क्या दिया है और हमें बदले में क्या मिला है, यह भी हमें मालूम होना चाहिए।…( व्यवधान)   आप प्रधान मंत्री जी और राज्य सभा के चेयरमैन से बात कर लीजिए।…( व्यवधान)  यह कोई लैफ्ट का मामला नहीं है।…( व्यवधान)   यह डिप्लोमेटिक मामला भी नहीं है।…( व्यवधान)   मैं समाप्त ही कर रहा हूं।…( व्यवधान) 

Sir, the statement says “….democracy and meeting international challenges.”… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Brevity is a virtue.  I would request you to please take your seat.

 

THE PRIME MINISTER (DR. MANMOHAN SINGH): Sir, we are dealing with an issue which is of great importance to the future of our country. I had promised the hon. House that we will come before Parliament, to share with Parliament and through Parliament, with the public opinion at large, the pros and cons of this nuclear and other related issues which figure in the joint statement issued after the visit of President Bush.

            Sir, on three occasions, I have made statements in this House as well as in the other House.  They were on 29th July last year, 27th February this year and on the 7th March this year.  That is a measure of our commitment to proper accountability and transparency in dealing with a very sensitive and important issue in our country.  I have listened carefully to the views of the hon. Members of this august House on discussions with the US on civilian nuclear energy in the larger context of Indo-US relations.  I thank the hon. Members for their views on this very important subject. 

            Sir, one important comment made by Shri C.K. Chandrappan and Shri Rupchand Pal was an expression of fear. Their fear was that, by entering into this arrangement with the United States of America, are we losing a sense of focus and direction in pursuit of an independent foreign policy[bru55] ?

            Sir, I have said on more than one occasion that our Foreign Policy which is rooted in our civilisational heritage and also in pursuit of our enlightened national interest is what guides us in dealing with various countries.  The United States of America is a global power.  Their interests do not all the time converge with India's interests. But there are opportunities, there are occasions when our interests do converge and I believe that it is the duty of any Government of India to take advantage of all those opportunities which widen the development options that become available to us.  That is precisely what we have done in dealing with the United States of America. 

 

I wish to assure the hon. House that while we have been working towards strengthening our relations with the United States of America, we have not forgotten our traditional strategic partners. For example, today our relations with Russia are warmer and stronger than ever before; our relations with France today are stronger and warmer; today our relations with China are stronger and warmer.  Even today while the House is meeting, our two Special Representatives are discussing the issues of boundary settlement.  We have used the space that is open to us to increase our engagements with the countries of South-East Asia, with Japan and Korea. That is how it should be. 

I can assure this hon. House that pursuit of India's enlightened national interest is the dominating concern and it is this concern which has guided us in dealing with the United States.

It is certainly true that although an important component of this Agreement with the United States deals with the civilian nuclear energy, there are also other important initiatives listed in the Joint Statement.  There is the knowledge initiative in the field of agriculture.  What does it involve? It involves the use of technical knowledge, experience and expertise available in the United States of America to upgrade the quality of agricultural research and extension services in our country, particularly through the medium of various agricultural universities and agricultural research institutes.  I do not know why there should be any objection to that. 

It is a fact that when the first Green Revolution came to our country, it was the work essentially of great American scientists, like Norman Borlaug, which helped us. The United States, particularly the Land Grant Colleges of the United States of America played a major role in helping us to set up major agricultural universities and that is how the Green Revolution came about in our country.  For the last many years our agricultural productivity has reached a plateau.  We need a second Green Revolution and we need new technologies to upgrade and enhance our agricultural productivity.  If there is, in the United States, knowledge which can help us in that process, I do not see any harm in making use of that.  Cooperation in science and technology in globalised world is becoming increasingly a necessary tool of widening our development options[r56] .  If we are serious about dealing with the productivity stagnation in Indian  agriculture, then, I am certainly prepared to look at wherever facilities or technologies exist which can upgrade our technology skills. I do not see we are doing anything which hurts the interests of our country.

            One a reference has been made about the CEOs meeting. It is certainly true that when I met President Bush in July, we had a discussion about increased requirements of India for capital from abroad. He said to me: “Well, we are not in the business of giving aid. But there is a lot of private capital.” I would like the US influence to be so exercised that they do recognise the importance of India as a major recipient of these capital flows. He said: “Maybe, we should set up a small group of five people from the United States, five people from India. Let them work out a strategy which will ensure that the private sector in both the countries would become more aware of the possibilities of mutually beneficial cooperation.”   Out of that came a report. That report is now a public document. I have no hesitation, in due course of time, in placing it on the Table of the House.  There are various suggestions. We will examine them. If there is any action which is required to implement any of those suggestions, that action will be taken taking full advantage of the laws, procedures that we have in this country. But I have no hesitation in making that report available to the House and I will do that. Some of those suggestions are like this.  For example, there is a suggestion  about Mumbai becoming a major international financial centre. I think, I myself, when I was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, floated this idea way back in the early 1980s. It has not become a reality. I do believe that there is a lot of merit in that proposal now, particularly when we have removed most of the exchange controls while our requirements of capital are increasing day by day.  This is one of the suggestions  coming from the CEOs’ group. We will examine them in accordance with our rules, in accordance with our procedure and in accordance with our laws. Therefore, there should be no reason for anyone to doubt that anything will be done at the back of Parliament or that we will do anything which would hurt the interests of the country as a whole.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I now come to the civilian nuclear energy cooperation. What is the background of what we have done? Our economy is now growing at the rate of 7 to 8 per cent per annum. It is our ambition to ensure that we grow at the rate of 8 to 10 per cent. I do believe that the savings and the investment profile of our country point to 10 per cent growth rate becoming a feasible proposition.… (Interruptions)  But it is one thing to have savings; it is another to have energy security. I have calculated  - and this is corroborated by expert advice - that if our economy grows by one per cent, we need the additional supply of commercial energy of one per cent. If our economy has to grow at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, we need the supply of commercial energy also to increase at 10 per cent per annum.

            We are today excessively dependent on import of hydrocarbons from the Middle-East, from West Asia to meet our requirements of commercial energy. We consume normally about 110 million tonnes of oil and we produce no more than 30 million tonnes. This dependence on the outside world is going to increase. There are obvious uncertainties both with regard to supply as well as with regard to prices of hydrocarbons in the world market to which I do not have to go right now[R57] .

We have, of course, plentiful reserves of coal but our coal has high ash content and excessive use of coal also runs into the problems of environmental hazards with the growing concerns about Co2 emissions and the global warming concerns that are now on the horizon.  In this background, I think it is to our advantage that we should have additional options with regard to meeting our needs of commercial energy.  Nuclear energy offers one such option.  It increases our elbow room to manage our quest for our energy security.  There are problems with regard to increasing energy consumption via the nuclear route. When I was Secretary in the Ministry of Finance some thirty years ago, I was a member of the Atomic Energy Commission. It was at that time the Atomic Energy Commission had set before the country a target of 10,000 megawatts production capacity.  We are today in the year 2006.  Our installed capacity is probably 3,000 megawatts.  This is not because our scientists are not capable.  They are exceedingly well-motivated.  They operate on the frontiers of knowledge. They have given a very good account of themselves under very difficult conditions of nuclear apartheid and we all feel very proud of their attainment.  But, there are certain harsh facts.  We have run into problems with regard to the availability of raw materials.  We have run into problems because since 1974 the world community, the dominant countries have erected a regime, which restricts our options in meeting the requirements of our atomic energy, whether in reactors or fuels or by way of inputs. This has hurt our energy programme and that is why in spite of the ambitions that we have had to add to nuclear capacity, we have not been able to do so. 

I am not saying that imports are the only route.  But, the availability of import, the removal of restrictive international trading regimes which restrict our options with regard to trade in nuclear materials and nuclear technologies, will certainly increase the maneuverability of our country in meeting the challenge of energy security.  That is why when President Bush and I discussed this matter, he told me that this is one area where he recognised India needs a reversal of the attitude of the United States.  But, he also said to me that the United States and other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group are not going to help us build nuclear bombs.  I said that is perfectly reasonable, I do not expect the world to do so.  So, that is how this idea of separation of the civilian sector and the strategic sector was evolved.  What we have done with the United States is not an agenda for dealing with strategic cooperation.  It is basically a quest to promote cooperation between India and the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in meeting India’s requirements of commercial energy[a58] . 

16.00 hrs.             What I do claim as a plus point for our Government is that while doing this deal to increase our options with regard to meeting all the commercial energy requirements of our country, we have not compromised our autonomy with regard to our strategic programme. This has not been discussed with the United States. We have not agreed to any formula or any proposal which would amount to a cap on our nuclear programme. I have taken full care about it. I had the advice of our atomic scientists and I had the advice of our Armed Forces in working out India’s requirement of what would constitute a critical minimum deterrent. We have made sure that we have taken care of India’s present requirements and future requirements, as far as possible humanly. Therefore, the country should have the assurance that we have not compromised in any way, when it comes to India’s strategic nuclear programme. We have not accepted a cap on that nuclear programme. That decision will have to be made by the Government of India, taking into account the security concerns of our nation and we are alone competent to judge what is desirable and what is not desirable. This is the essence of the arrangement that we have made with the United States of America.

            Sir, several issues have been raised with regard to the nuclear agreement. Shri Kharabela Swain mentioned that we have accepted a cap on our strategic nuclear capabilities. I have already mentioned that that is not the case. We have been asked if we have ensured availability of sufficient fissile material and other inputs for our strategic programme. Let me reassure this House that the Separation Plan has been drawn up in such a manner that it will not adversely affect our strategic programme. There is no question of India accepting a cap on our deterrent potential. Based on assessment of threat scenario, Government have ensured that there would be adequate availability of fissile material and other inputs to meet both current and future requirements of our strategic programme.

           

The Separation Plan does not, in any way, undermine the integrity of our Nuclear Doctrine. This Doctrine stipulates a credible minimum deterrent based on a policy of ‘no-first-use’ and the assured capability of inflicting unacceptable damage on an adversary indulging in a nuclear first strike. The Separation Plan will not limit our options either now or in the future to address evolving threat scenarios with appropriate responses consistent with our nuclear policy of restraint and responsibility.

            Sir, questions have also been raised regarding safeguards in perpetuity. I believe Shri Swain referred to it and he also said that assurances for supply have been given by the United States bilaterally while safeguards will be with the International Atomic Energy Agency multilaterally. So, he asked as to how we reconcile and ensure that India’s interests are effectively protected. Under the last year’s July Statement, India agreed to identify and separate civilian and military facilities and put civilian nuclear facilities under safeguards. The Separation Plan provides for an India-specific safeguards agreement to be negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency[k59] .

People [r60] ask, why is it India specific safeguard?  Because it is certainly true that we are not a member of the NPT nuclear powers so we are not in those P5. But we are also not in this other category, that is, non-Nuclear Weapon States.  We have a nuclear weapon programme of our own and there is today an implicit recognition of that reality on the part of the rest of the world. Therefore, it is certainly true when we go to sign safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency, our safeguards agreement cannot be a carbon copy of either Model I or Model II. It has to be a unique safeguards agreement, which we will work to negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

I wish to assure the House that India will not accept the safeguard agreements signed by non-Nuclear Weapon States under the NPT, otherwise called Comprehensive Safeguards.  This is precisely because our military facilities will remain outside the purview of safeguards like those of other Nuclear Weapon States.  Each of the Nuclear Weapon States has concluded separate safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency, listing specific facilities offered for safeguards. Similarly, we too will include in an India Specific Safeguards Agreement a list of facilities offered for International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. 

Sir, such an India specific safeguard agreement is yet to be negotiated.  It will be difficult to predict the contents and details. However, it will contain protection against withdrawal of safeguarded nuclear material for a civilian use at any time.  It will be negotiated so that India will be permitted to take corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of our civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies.

Sir, on the subject of fuel supplies, I must underline that the United States has provided a number of assurances of uninterrupted supplies of fuel.  These must be read with the assurance of India’s right to take corrective measures in the event   fuel supplies are interrupted.  Even after these assurances, if all measures fail and supplies to our safeguarded reactors are disrupted, India retains the sovereign right to take all appropriate measures to fully safeguard its interests.  Thus safeguards in perpetuity must be seen in this overall context of being backed up by credible assurances about uninterrupted supply.

The third issue relates to measures announced by the Government with regard to CIRUS and Apsara Research Reactors, both of which are located at BARC.  As I explained in my last suo motu statement, we have decided to permanently shut down the CIRUS Reactor in 2010 and to shift the foreign-sourced fuel core of the Apsara Reactor outside BARC.  Questions are being asked, why are we doing it? The fuel core will then be available for safeguards in 2010.  Let me clarify that only the fuel core will be shifted and not the Reactor.  We have decided to take these two steps because the BARC complex is of high national security importance and we will not allow any international inspection in   this area.  Now, while the CIRUS Reactor was refurbished recently, the associated cost will be more than recovered by the Isotopes produced and the research that we will be conducting before it is closed.  Both CIRUS and Apsara are not related to our strategic programme and therefore, our scientists have assured me that these steps announced in the separation plan will  have no impact on our strategic programme[r61] .

Some Members also expressed concern whether these steps will hinder ongoing research and development.  Through this august House, I assure the nation and, in particular, the scientific community that we will take all possible steps to ensure that there is no adverse fallout on research and development.  Our scientists will have state-of-the-art facilities to expand the frontiers of knowledge.  One of the main criteria motivating us in drawing up the separation plan has been our determination to safeguard the autonomy of our research and development programme. This will be ensured in full measure. 

            Finally, some Members have also expressed concern whether the confidentiality of the strategic programme was fully preserved during the negotiations with the United States.  I can assure hon. Members that our  discussions with the United States pertained only to those facilities that are being offered for safeguards between 2006 and 2014.  The discussion did not cover our strategic programme. Confidential information on our national security and the strategic programme has been and will remain fully protected.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I believe that it is the sentiment of the House that the decisions we have taken will lead to welcome resumption of international cooperation.  Our understandings will open the doors for cooperation and the development of our civilian nuclear energy sector not only with the United States but also with other key international partners like Russia, United Kingdom and France.  At the same time, we will also be able to internationally share our recognised capabilities in the field of civilian nuclear technologies.  In this context some Members spoke of the global nuclear energy partnership which is a separate issue from our bilateral discussions with the United States on civil nuclear cooperation.  Our comprehensive capabilities across the spectrum and mastery over all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle are well established and widely recognised.  Our possible association with any such international initiative, therefore, can be only on the basis of participation of India as an equal partner with other founding members and as a supplier nation.  I would like to emphasise this point.  We will not forgo the three-stage Programme which will enable us to utilise our vast thorium reserves in future.

            Mr. Speaker, Sir, I believe I have covered most of the points that have been made in this debate. And I repeat what we have done is to widen our development options with regard to ensuring adequate energy security for our country.  We have, at the same time, taken full care that our strategic programme is protected. We have, at the same time, taken care that the research and development opportunities in this vital area of national endeavour are not in any way adversely affected by this Agreement.  So what we have done, I believe, is a step forward in taking our country on to a higher growth and development trajectory.

     

MR. SPEAKER: There are three matters which had not been disposed of during earlier period. Shri Sita Ram Singh.