We, the BJP, have been demanding that CTBT should be linked to the elimination of nuclear weapons globally within a specified time frame."
Finally, Sir, all that I want to say is that we have to develop options. We have lost out on options, deliberately, unilaterally and by ourselves. Nobody cares to press buttons whether we explode or we test or we do not. The biggest example of that is, that China has a nuclear explosion and then unilaterally says that `it has declared a moratorium.' Everybody is very happy about the moratorium. Nobody is saying that explosion has taken place, it has been done by a country which is taking part in these negotiations and which is an active nuclear power. Nobody cares about it.
I hope, Sir, you will take notice of our concern and develop an option that we have been talking about all these days. Thank you very much.
(ends)
1632 hrs.
As back as 1954, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, with his vision, had categorically mentioned that total disarmament is essential for the progress and prosperity of the world as a whole and not merely India. Since then, in spite of pursuance of India in various international fora, hundreds of tests were conducted, particularly by the nuclear weapon States, that is, The United States and Russia and of course, if not limited, sizeable tests were conducted by China, the United Kingdom and France.
Now the question arises in the context of the national security as a whole. Our objective of CTBT is to achieve international peace and security through total nuclear disarmament. I do not know whether we will be able to achieve it or not.
I am happy that all the Governments till today have been pursuing the path of disarmament. I remember very well that when I was in a High School, when Panditji, in 1954, had enunciated this total disarmament, we had participated in the debate whether total disarmament is suicidal to the nation or not. At that stage, whatever tests or whatever advancement of exploits in the so-called atom, which was discovered by Dalton, and its emergence of energy from the nucleus of atom were there, today after so many experiments, it is very easy to understand it. It is not a big task. When atom was discovered about two thousand years back, it was lying idle. But today's advancement in science and technology is such that it has created a chaos.
No doubt, cold war has ended. But still, persistence of annihilation of mankind remains. If the civilisation is annihilated, what is the validity 31.07.96 Uncorrected - Not for Publication
)) of the advancement in science and technology and what is the validity of the production of nuclear weapons? For that reason, in 1974 India had conducted a nuclear underground test for peaceful purposes. Since more than twenty years have passed, we have not conducted any more test. But today, what is essentially required is environment. Now, as you know, the position of the five nuclear weapon States is supreme. Of course, Britain and France do not say much because they are allied with the U.S. Now, actually there are only three nuclear weapon States and they are: Russia, U.S. and China.
Sir, I do not know about the various clauses of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But I can understand that this is nothing but an earlier partial ban treaty. This is a partial ban treaty. This is not a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We can say it a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty only when there is inclusion of global total disarmament in a time-bound manner. However, the very interesting fact of reality is this. For example, the main player in the CTBT is the U.S. The U.S. can conduct the test.
My second point is that the ban is on the test in laboratories, not only the ban on the test in laboratories but also on the release of nuclear energy. So, these things are mixed up, camouflaged. But, anyway we have a persistent stand on this Test Ban Treaty or the NPT.
As we know, as far back as 1968, the then Prime Minister, Shrimati Indira Gandhi had told this august House when the Draft Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was under consideration that the nuclear weapon-States would like to have the right to manufacture their nuclear weapons. But others including India should not manufacture a nuclear weapon. How could it be? How can we support the proliferation of nuclear energy? At that time, Shrimati Indira Gandhi had told this august House, while opposing it, that, "We may have to face the difficulties in relation to the assistance and in relation to other help; but we have to make the sacrifice and we have to face the hardship". So, these were the words used by Shrimati Indira Gandhi in this august House in April, 1968.
Sir, now the question arises whether to sign it or not. The Government is very clear about that. Unless and until the promoters of the C.T.B.T. agree for the universal disarmament, there is no question of signing the C.T.B.T. This is the clear stand of the Government of India whether it is the United Front Government or the earlier Congress Government or any other Government including my former Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee's 13-day Government.
Then a question is posed that India will be isolated. I would like to ask from this august House as to how India will be isolated. As far as 180 countries are concerned, they have already signed the N.P.T. We have no interest in nuclear arsenals. Out of these 61 countries which are meeting now how many of them except eight are interested. We are treated as threshold to nuclear countries including Pakistan, China and Israel.
Sir, if we take the whole context into consideration, India is in a different geographical position. India has got its own adversaries including its neighbours. Is it not known to the U.S. Administration that Pakistan possesses a nuclear weapon? The then Chief of the Army Staff of Pakistan, Shri Aslam Beg had declared that they had a bomb. Is it not known to the U.S. Administration that the former Prime Minister, Shri Nawaz Sharief had declared that there was a nuclear weapon with them? Is it not a fact that the Clinton Administration knew while approving the Hank Brown's amendment that the Pakistan was indulging in sponsored terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir? Does it not know? Is it not known to the U.S. Administration that there is an interference in the internal affairs of India by Pakistan? What is that Pakistan is going to lose? Pakistan is like a satellite country to the U.S.A. today.
So, unless India signs it, Pakistan is not going to sign. Now, who is worried about it? The question is that of Israel. You know, Sir, what the relationship between Israel and the USA is. Today, the United States and Israel are developing the Tactical High-energy Laser. When the former Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Perez visited the United States, there was an agreement between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Perez to the tune of $ 100 million. So, what is that they will lose? If tomorrow anything is needed by Israel, the design can be given to it to produce anything and, if necessary, technology also can be given to it. I do not want to put the Government in an embarrassing situation. Our stand is clear. All political parities, whether it is the BJP or the Communist Parties or any other party, have the same stand on CTBT.
You know, Sir, that there are quite a number of controls. Why did these controls come into existence? Who sponsored these controls? All these controls needle towards India. If you take technology, there is a control by the Zangger Committee and there is also the Vassener Accord on Technology Control. If you take the nuclear weapons suppliers' group, there is a committee to control it. If you take biological weapons, there is an Australian group to control them, and if you take chemical weapons, there is an Austrian group to control them. When it comes to missiles, there is a Missiles Technology Control Regime.
If India produces the Prithvi missiles indigenously, US wants and everybody else wants to apply MTCR. If M-11 missiles are supplied by China to Pakistan and if those missiles are deployed, then how are we to see our threat perception? When ring magnets are supplied by China to Pakistan, then nobody objects. But the U.S. administration says: "Do not deploy the Prithvi missiles". How is it justifiable? Either do not have a total control on Pakistan. Their own agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency does not inspect their nuclear plants. So, it is the regional aspect of security that we are worried about.
In the statement, it is very clear that our options are open. Not only in the statement, we too have been mentioning it. But what does `the options are open' mean? One test we had conducted in 1974. `Our options are open' means nuclear option. But if you take the security of the country, then whether nuclear weapons are needed or not, is a question mark. India is a peaceful country. India's contention today is of adding global disarmament in the CTBT because we want international peace and security. When there is international peace and security, automatically there is security and peace in India. This is our approach.
So, now the question of nuclear option comes. It is a question of debate. It is not that merely Mallikarjun telling here in this august House that : `You go for nuclear'; No, it is not like that. India's heritage is such and India's background is such that it is a public debate whether we go for the nuclear option or not. It is a debate between the academicians and scientists. Finally, in gross words, `We must go' is the conclusion by some. That is a different thing. But we are using the word `option'. But we are not eligible to use the word `option' unless and until the following four minimum requirements are met. If they are met then we can say that we have an option nuclear or whatever. They are :
1. The capacity to design, fabricate and guarantee the yield of
nuclear device within designed specification by nuclear
establishment.
Whether we did it or not - as far as my knowledge goes - I do not think so.
2. Design parameters of the device is such that they can be
accommodated for delivery by current and proposed delivery
vehicles including aircraft, missiles and accepted as such by
the Defence Research Department.
3. Reliability and performance of the device as well as that of
the delivery means, both current and proposed, should be
sufficient to satisfy the operational requirement of the Armed
Forces and command their confidence.
4. Availability of such devices should be sufficient for the
Armed Forces to assure the effectiveness of them.
This is what we call as viable nuclear option. So, merely telling about "option', after conducting one nuclear test, is of no use.
Therefore, if we have to be alert in terms of national security, we have to think very seriously about it. Today hundreds of nuclear warheads have been developed and produced by the U.S.A. and Russia. For China it needs a little more time. But the most effecting factor is the nuclear cooperation between China and Pakistan and technology transfer. Tomorrow even if Pakistan signs the C.T.B.T. it will not lose anything because the U.S.A. keeps the option. What is that option? It can supply technology; it can supply the readymade nuclear bombs to any country which she wants and the only binding thing is you sign the C.T.B.T. If we sign it is only to block our option.
Therefore, in the interest of the national security and in the interest of the threat perception and considering the attitudes of our adversaries like Pakistan and China we should not sign the C.T.B.T. We do not know when they may commit aggression. In spite of knowing all about Pakistan, the Brown Amendment itself was a miraculous thing. Shipment of military equipment has started.
Shortly, it is going to be delivered to Pakistan. We are talking about our options, but what about our preparedness in other things? I do not want to go into the details of the operational requirements of our defence forces and our immediate defence preparedness. I do not want to take much time of this House. We are clear on one point and it is about not signing the CTBT.
I urge upon the hon. Speaker and the Government to cooperate in passing a unanimous resolution in both Houses of Parliament about India's stand on CTBT and, if it fits in, about its options also. I do not want to go into the unnecessary details, but in a nutshell what I want to say is that India should not sign the CTBT. India will face the consequences; India has that will power and conviction to face the consequences and, as had already been mentioned by Shrimati Indira Gandhi, we have to face it and we have to sacrifice for tomorrow. Let us not fall into the trap of this CTBT. Let us pass a unanimous resolution on this. Let all the political parties and the people of India stand in the defence of our national security and in the defence of our motherland. Thank you very much.
(ends)
1657 hours
1657 hours (Mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair)
We are happy to note that the firm stand taken by the Government in the continuing negotiations, so far, reflects the national consensus. Through a rare agreement amongst the political parties of the country, we have come to a decision and to ask the Government that India should take such a firm stand. It is a consistent stand. Some people may say that we, the Indians, who have been advocating the cause of world peace since decades are now speaking in a different voice. No, Sir, it is not so.
In a different world today, in the post Cold War era, the stand being taken by some other countries at this point of time is different because of the developments they have achieved in their own area or the progress they have made in nuclear tests and other things. I would like to remind this House that till 1993, the United States had been taking a totally different stand. They have been opposing whatever proposals that were coming towards global disarmament or comprehensive disarmament leading to the goal of nuclear weapons-free world.
I am refraining from making any mention at this point of time because the world likes us to stand united in spite of differences in our perceptions.
Of course, there had been some dilution in 1983 when the joint declaration was made by our own Government vis-a-vis in the United Nations General Assembly and since then we noticed a different attitude in the United. States. There had been confusion. It may be out of context that even in March, some very important MEA official had been delinking our national
security perception from our nuclear option. I am not just overemphasising it, but such things had happened and so we are happy to know that this United Front Government which has a commitment in its Common Minimum Programme to take a firm stand vis-a-vis CTBT has continued to reflect the aspirations of our countrymen.
Too much pressure is being mounted daily and there is coercion. It has been rightly stated in the Statement made by the hon. Minister today that nowhere in any international treaty such coercion has taken place as we do notice in Article 14 Entry into Force. It is unprecedented. It never happened in any international treaty in the past. Such coercions are continuing . This country is capable of withstanding it, a thing to be appreciated by all of us. Our treaty is discriminatory, unequal and also inadequate. It does not fulfil the task. It does not lead us to our genuine goal of total disarmament within a timeframe.
So, we are not agreeing to sign. Even the nuclear weapon states have their own differences. China has serious reservations. Even after the latest bloc, they are saying now it is latest in the series and now we can join. Russia has its reservation because they do not have that computer simulation technology for a blast. Only verticle proliferation will not stop. France and the United States are taking one stand. Russia thinks that they can drag its feet. India is taking a particular stand on the pretext that they can drag their feet. These 21 countries do have serious differences among themselves. So, there is a concerted move to project India as a spoiler of the treaty. Here lies the crux of the problem. There is no contradiction that India being one of the advocates and champions of world peace is taking a different stand. No. Our failure is there. We are failing to be up to the mark in the new world situation. We are failing to take the diplomatic offensive. Why should we not inform the whole world that there are serious loopholes in the CTBT? That is not going to serve any purpose. It is a concerted move attempted by a small number of countries to misguide others, to take a pretext so that their own contradiction and conflict may not come to the fore. We have failed in this diplomatic offensive. I am not referring to any particular State, any particular officer or any particular political executive at any point of time.
It is so because this is not the right time to say so. Let us take a united stand that whatever dilution might have taken place earlier in a certain context, we are desisting from that. The Government of India has taken a particular stand. Our problem is this. We should see that we do not suffer any isolation.
Sir, I am happy to note that in the latest statement made by the hon. Minister about the experience in Jakarta, not only Indonesia but some other countries also have been very seriously listening to our viewpoints. As we are following the steps being taken by our Envoys there at the negotiating table, the latest move is that we are neither disengaging nor blocking its adoption. Our only demand is that our viewpoint will have to be incorporated. Our opposition is not to CTBT as such. But our objection is to this particular, present form of the draft where we are being neglected and certain particular interests are being upheld. This particular viewpoint, to my mind, is not being adequately projected throughout the world.
Our media has a role to play in this regard. I will be happy to find our media play a more effective role to project our view point in the correct perspective. But it is not being done. While I support the stand taken by the Government, I would just caution this Government on two counts. One is: There may be people who may be trying to take political mileage of a particular situation. But domestically taking a political mileage of a particular situation does not help the nation. It has happened in the past. I am not mentioning the name of any particular party or a particular group of people taking a particular stand. But trying to take political mileage relating to such sensitive national issues is a dangerous game. No serious political party should play this game.
[NEXT PAGE]
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
