In fact, we have every right to safeguard our national interests. We must not sign any Treaty which will affect our national interest and sovereign right.
So, I support the stand of the Government of India and through you, Madam, urge the Government of India and the Minister of External Affairs to realise the feelings of the House that irrespective of the political differences we are speaking in one voice for the interest of our country, for the security and safeguarding the sovereignty of our country. I think our good Minister of External Affairs will realise and appreciate the feelings of the House and will not surrender to pressure of the American imperialism and other big powers.
Thank you.
(ends)
1535 hours
Madam, let us see what the Chief Negotiator of America in Geneva declared on April 24. This is a very significant statement. I quote: "The United States will not sign a document that has the effect of imposing or attempting to impose legally binding commitment to do nuclear weapon stockpile reductions."
I think it is very clear that they will not accept anything which binds legally the United States of America for the nuclear stockpile reduction.
I want to state clearly and very briefly about India's position in this case. India wants that the CTBT must be a comprehensive one to ban all forms of testing. It must be a part and parcel of the disarmament package and anchored in a reasonable time frame. These three elements are very clear. These three elements are very important and are of significance. The first element is comprehensiveness. The present CTBT is not adequately comprehensive. Therefore, we oppose it; we should oppose it. The second element is the linkage with disarmament. They are not going to accept this linkage of CTBT with disarmament. But we are very much committed to the disarmament concept. Disarmament not only refers to the nuclear, but to all kinds of other disarmament. The third element is the time frame.
MR. CHAIRMAN (PROF. RITA VERMA): Please conclude now.
SHRI CHITTA BASU: These three elements are very important. They are of great significance and pivotal importance. So, we have to either give up these objectives, our stances, our commitment for disarmament and adhere to this Declaration or we have to meet the consequences for the conviction for which we are ready to fight.
Madam, in this case, it is not only a question of national prestige, but it also is very much a question of national security. No country having a modicum of sovereignty can agree to a position where national security is compromised. Therefore, it is not only a question of prestige of this Government or that Government, but it also involves the supreme interests of the nation, which demands that India should stand firm on this nationally accepted ideology.
I know, what might be the consequences. The United States of America would try to mount pressure. In this case, I want to remind or I want to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister of External Affairs, the former hon. Prime Minister and the former hon. Minister of External Affairs the example of Cuba. The United States of America put all the pressures -- economic blockade, military intervention, intelligence intervention, sabotage and counter revolution -- and, yet, the people of Cuba and the Government of Cuba withstood those pressures.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please conclude now. There are some more hon. Members who want to speak on this.
SHRI CHITTA BASU: If India is ideologically convinced, if we are convinced that it is our goal, then we shall have to be prepared to meet the consequences. I know, our countrymen are prepared to meet all the consequences provided the leadership is given by the Government and leadership is given by the political parties of this country.
Therefore, I urge upon the Government not to flag away, not to depart from the positive position, the firm position, that the Government had already taken and should continue to fight against the imperialist pressures so that the prestige, national security and sovereignty of the country is protected and preserved. Thank you.
(ends)
1544 hours
Madam, the entire question hinges upon one point: What issue should be on our national agenda? The question is whether our national security should be there on our national agenda or being coerced to sign a Treaty, should we sign a CTBT in this form. That is all the question that is before all of us today. We can never be coerced to sign a Treaty like this. This is going to have a lot of impact as far as our national security is concerned as also on either side. The point is this. Instead of delivering a long speech on the subject, what I feel is that we should all stand united. Of course, we heard very illuminating speeches particularly of Shri George Fernandes and also our senior hon. Member who initiated the debate on CTBT. I must thank them along with the other hon. Members of this august House who have thrown a lot of light on the subject. What I feel is that irrespective of the political parties we belong to, we will have to show, in future, that we are united even to face any eventuality in case we do not sign the CTBT in the present form. The same text has now been put forward before all of us to sign. If we reject this, what will happen?
Now, the point is this. We are committed to total disarmament. It is our national policy. We have made clear not only here but also at the international level and at so many meetings the stand taken by us ever since the time of our great leader the late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. The question now arises is whether we can be coerced to sign this. If we sign this Treaty in the present form, then, we are not only going to fail to tackle our national security but we are also going to leave a lot of impact on the future of our country itself. The stand taken by our hon. Minister in Jakarta, when he went there to attend the ASEAN Meet, is certainly a welcome one. The point is that when the Conference on Disarmament was going on at Geneva, the same day morning an underground test was conducted by China. What does this show? This is the main question. More over, so many tests were conducted by others. Nearly 500 tests have been conducted by America; 300 or 400 tests were conducted by Russia; about 40 and odd were conducted each by China and Britain. Like-wise, several tests have been conducted by the other countries also. We have conducted a test about 22 years ago. After that, we have not at all conducted any kind of such a test.
Pakistan has been receiving all the support from a nuclear-weapon power in the Asian region, that is, from China. They have not only supplied the nuclear technology but they are also capable of supplying the spare parts to Pakistan and the M11 nuclear missle. They have supplied all these things. If this is the case and nobody is there to check all these kinds of tests that are going on all around us, what will happen to our security position?
Shri George Fernandes said something about the other countries that are around us. One Island is there about 40 km. from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. That Island is under the control of China. Myanmar is there which is having all the latest arms supplied by China.
Pakistan is there well armed and China is there on the other side. If this were to be the position, we should not be subdued in this form, to sign the CTBT in this forum.
I now want to draw your attention to one more thing. Mr. Minister, you have gone through a statement made by the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of Senate of America Mr. Benjamin - I have forgotten his full name who had made the statement some ten or twelve days back. That had appeared in the Press. He says: "The only ray of hope for peace in the Asian region is India. And all around India, things are not that much good. India should not subdue itself to sign the CTBT in this form." That is what he has said. Of course, we need not draw any conclusion from that statement made by such persons. But we will also have to keep that fact in our mind. When Mr. Warren Christopher, the US Secretary of State is trying to put sword on all of us, we should not give up our stand at any cost.
MR. CHAIRMAN (PROF. RITA VERMA): Please conclude.
SHRI S. BANGARAPPA: Madam, I am concluding.
Another thing is, when we discuss the disarmament question, what exactly is the position of the chemical disarmament? Many of our friends who have already spoken, have mentioned that the tests that are going on in the laboratories for supply of these things, they are going on by the side of the big powers. And when they have got that much of pile up of nuclear arsenal at their command, we should not keep quiet. Therefore, we have to always keep our options open to meet any eventuality, keeping in view the national security interest. It is the best national agenda before all of us. Thank you very much.
(ends)
1553 hours
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be brief.
SHRI PRAMOTHES MUKHERJEE: I will conclude within three minutes.
Let me appreciate the hon. Speaker's role in this regard. He has been kind enough to extend the time for discussion on such an important matter which relates to both the Defence Policy and the Foreign Policy of India.
I appreciate the suo motu statement given by the hon. Minister for External Affairs on this occasion. We are aware of the features and consequences of CTBT and its bindings on India. It will be disastrous on the part of India and on the part of developing countries to sign the CTBT. It is highly discriminatory. We demanded nuclear disarmament; we demanded complete ban on the production of nuclear weapons, not at the cost of our national security. It is my suggestion that India must not submit to the threats of nuclear weapons State. India must not surrender its national sovereignty and security to the diktats of Euro-American imperialism for having their sophisticated nuclear weapons in their possession. This is the imperialistic device to put pressure on India to put its signature on CTBT. We must oppose it; we must refuse it. What did we see in the past in the post Second World War scenario? We saw that Russia appeared as a very powerful State on the theatre of world politics. With the emergence of Russia as parallel to America in respect of nuclear weapons in their possession, the whole world turned into a bipolar world. This bipolar division of world power is the root cause of cold war tensions, arms race and arms competition. The US Administration at that time allowed the production of sufficient arms and nuclear weapons in their possession. India at that time did not associate itself with any wing of the bipolar world nor did it join in the arms race or arms competition. We declared our policy of non-alignment; we declared our commitment to nuclear disarmament which is only for the security of the children all over the world. Today, I urge upon the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to uphold the same tradition of our foreign policy.
Again, what we did we see in the late eighties or in the beginning of nineties? We saw the fall of the Soviet Union. With the fall and disintegration of Soviet State into different smaller States, bipolar world turned into a unipolar world. Today, the Clinton Administration is trying to achieve the supremacy of this unipolar world with the nuclear weapons in their possession.
We must oppose this. They are trying to find out a permanent market for sale of their arms in the developing country of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Today I suggest and I propose that we must oppose this tendency of the pseudo American imperialist forces. We must not allow our garden to be used by them for the sale of arms. These imperialist forces design to impose upon ourselves a nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is India which opposed it, refused it and rejected it because it was discriminatory.
Today the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is nothing but the second instalment of that Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We must oppose it. It is discriminatory. We must oppose it, we must refuse it and we must reject it. This is my suggestion.
Madam, I will finish within a minute.
It is my suggestion that the Government of India should take the initiative to form a united opinion in the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, and raise the voice that `not the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty' but the `Comprehensive Arms Sale Ban Treaty' should be imposed. If we control the sale of arms then the Treaty will be exposed to the people of the world.
Madam, I have the statistics in my hand but I cannot show it here due to time constraint. Today five or six joint stock companies in USA have produced sufficient arms and nuclear weapons in their hands.
MR. CHAIRMAN (PROF. RITA VERMA): Shri Pramothes Mukherjee, you said, you would finish within three minutes but it is already more than five minutes.
SHRI PRAMOTHES MUKHERJEE: Madam, I am just concluding. Only one minute, please.
This is their industry and this is their business. This is what I want to say that the making of bomb is not the solution of bomb culture. To play with the bomb is not the solution of the bomb culture. So, I want to say that we must prepare ourselves, we must be concerned with our national security. But the national security primarily depends upon the economic security. If the economic security of the people is given to the countrymen, then the national security is automatically obtained. And the, half of the battle is won over.
So, I would urge upon the hon. External Affairs Minister and the Government of India to pay their attention both to the national security and to the economic security. We must not encourage business of bomb, the industry of bomb, the culture of bomb. But at the same time, we would urge upon the Government to raise its voice that we should avoid the bomb culture, we should restrict it and we should fight it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please conclude now.
SHRI PRAMOTHES MUKHERJEE: Just I will conclude.
I have said so many words. I have heard many more valuable words from my hon. friends. But the words cannot judge the merits of the situation, the merits of the policy. Only the deeds can judge the merits of the situation, merits of the policy.
I would urge upon the hon. External Affairs Minister to act accordingly and to raise the voice and to echo the unified voice of this House to send a message to the people of India and to the people of the world that we are not coward, that we can fight against the imperialist forces. So, we must not sign this CTBT.
With these words, I conclude. Thank you very much.
(ends)
1600 hours
This year is the election year for Mr. Bill Clinton in the United States. CTBT is one of the items on his election agenda. In his Congressional speech this year in January he has stated that:
"The START II Treaty with Russia will cut our nuclear stockpiles by another 25 per cent. I urge the Senate to ratify it - now. We must end the race to create new nuclear weapons by signing a truly comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty - this year."
This is precisely his election agenda in the United States. I know their seriousness to get the countries to sign it. I thank the hon. Minister of External Affairs for making his contribution at the Jakarta Meet to gear up the External Affairs Ministry for the Geneva Meet. But at the same time, with all my regards to the External Affairs Ministry officials, I would humbly submit that for the first time I express my displeasure at the manner in which the desk of the Foreign Ministry has performed to keep their documentation ready as to what we mean by our approach in the entire document and to identify its faults and lacunae. For that reason I do not hold Shri Gujral responsible at this moment. I do share that when our Government was in office it did not take the approach in the way it should have been taken.
The address that was delivered by Shri Rajiv Gandhi in 1988 to the Third Special Session at the United Nations had contained an approach with four categorical pointed decisions which had seen the very threats that are coming now. If we had consistently and persistently pursued those measures throughout the globe without any interruption, today in so far as the campaigning part is concerned, the whole nation would have known the intention of all of us. We need not have gone to everyone to explain that we are not opposing it, we are simply seeking clarifications and that is why we are not signing it. I think the office of the Ministry of External Affairs did not play that part of the role as desired.
[NEXT PAGE]
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
