Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SHRI ADHIR CHOWDHURY (BERHAMPORE, WEST BENGAL): Sir, just a minute! MR. CHAIRMAN: Please take your seat.  He is not yielding.

SHRI ADHIR CHOWDHURY : Sir, how can he say that it is a deal; whether it is contracted or not?  It is yet to be disposed of.  At this juncture how he is able to define this as a deal? 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please take your seat.

SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA : Sir, the hon. Prime Minister made a statement in this House on 29th of July; then in the month of August and then again in the month of March. What the hon. Prime Minister has stated in his statement that he made on 29th July?  I quote: “I can assure the House that we have never made nor  will we ever make any compromises in so far as our fundamental strategic needs are concerned.  Our inheritance gives us confidence, our experience gives us courage, our belief gives us conviction to assert today that our nation stands on the threshold of an even better future.” These are the concluding remarks of the hon. Prime Minister that he made on 29th July 2005.  After the US President’s visit in the month of March, the two House Committees, one of Senate and the other of the US Congress, deliberated and drafted a Bill.  Sir, when we found that there were a number of departures in both the Bills and these departures are on some of the important issues pertaining to the deal, then we felt that there should be a discussion and concern of the House should also be expressed. 

of State Nicholas Burns and Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran to seal the India-Us nuclear agreement.  He gave an interview to Mr. Omkar Singh.  There are two or three questions, which I want to bring to your notice and seek clarifications on.  I quote the excerpts from the interview:

“Mr. Omkar Singh: Why was no deal struck then with the Vajpayee Government?

Mr. Ashley Tellis: The deal could not be reached because the Vajpayee Government did not offer much to the US in exchange for the agreement.  We got more from the Government of Dr. Manmohan Singh.

Next, this one is again interesting.  The US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 5, 2005 where she said and I quote:

“We have been very clear with the Indians that the permanence of the safeguards is permanence of the safeguards, without condition. ”   I would like to repeat this: “The permanence of the safeguards is permanence of the safeguards, without condition”.  She further says:

“In fact, we reserve the right, should India test, as it has agreed not to, or should India violate in any way IAEA safeguard agreement to which it would be adhering, that the deal from our point of view would at that point be off.”               Finally, Prime Minister, Sir, you have told us many times that the test ban on us is not acceptable to you whereas Madam Rice says that it is.  You may clarify, whom do we  believe.  And also, if what she says is wrong, has India taken it up at official level and contradicted her statement?

MAJ. GEN. (RETD.) B. C. KHANDURI : It was not a condition from USA.  It was a voluntary imposition of the State.  It was our own; we could have changed it any time we wanted.… (Interruptions)

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Please do not interrupt.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI ANAND SHARMA: I think, for the benefit of the Members it is important for me now to refer to this.  Madam, I quote from the speech of respected Vajpayeeji, the then Prime Minister, in the UN General Assembly in September 1998. He said: