If any one of us had read the speech of President Zia in the meeting of Army Officials, they would have come to know what he had meant by `Operation Topac'. He spelt out what Operation Topac meant, in that meeting. Topac is supposed to be a guerilla warfare hero of South America. He undertook the guerilla warfare against the Spaniards who ruled those States there. After his name, this Operation Topac was conceived. What are the elements of this Operation? Operation Topac has three overlapping stages. The first is to raise the level of anti-India feelings among the people of Kashmir; the second is to create militancy and project it as a home-grown Islamic uprising and the third is to bring about a state of collapse in urban as well as rural areas with Srinagar as the centre of gravity for political and religious mobilisation.Sir, I quote what President Zia had said at the Conference:
"In the past, we have opted for hamhanded military operations; and therefore, we failed. We must keep our military options for the moment, as a coup de grace, if and when necessary."
This is what President Zia had told his Army Officials when he unravelled this Operation Topac. We cannot afford to ignore that and we cannot afford to ignore what happened further because shortly after 1971, Pakistan went ahead in the direction of becoming a nuclear power itself.
And I believe that Pakistan's strategy vis-a-vis, Jammu and Kashmir has been two-pronged. On the one hand, to pursue this Operation Topac and on the other hand, to become a nuclear weapons power. And if you become a nuclear weapons power, then, what happens?
Now, here I have a document produced by the US House of Representatives, Washington and this document has been prepared by the Congress, namely, Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. The main author of this article is Mr. Yossef Bodansky. Mr. Bodansky is the Director of this Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. He says:
"The ISI's support for the Islamist insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir is a direct by-product of Pakistan's grand strategy.
And this is the grand strategy. This document says:
"In mid-February, 1995, a Foreign Ministry spokesman of Pakistan warned that "if India carries out another aggression and war breaks out between Pakistan and India, it would not be a war of a thousand years or even a thousand hours but only a few minutes and India should not be oblivious to the potential devastation." (The "thousand year war" is a reference to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's statement of the extent of Pakistan's commitment to a struggle with India.) Other Pakistani officials were quick to clarify the statement. They stressed that the statement "warned India not by implication but in clear terms that the next war will only last a few seconds and will bring inconceivable destruction and devastation. This clearly indicates that the Pakistani Government has bravely displayed its nuclear capability." The officials added that "Pakistan is really in a position to strike a heavy blow against India through its nuclear capability."
Shri Shiv Shankar is not there. I wish he was there. This may be a bravado...(interruptions)...He is there. This may be a thinking in terms of an imaginary misadventure. I was surprised that he used the word `bravado' against Shri Vajpayee and his Government. He used the word `misadventure' against Shri Vajpayee when even the NAM Conference felt that there was no bravado. This is only a kind of protest against nuclear apartheid sought to be imposed on India by the nuclear weapons countries. It was supposed to be a natural thing that India had to do when it was thinking of its security. It is something that has been endorsed by millions in the country. You go to any part of the country. You go to the villages; you go to the towns; you go to the cities. Except for the dissonant voice that was heard in this House yesterday, there will be a very few dissonant voices. It will be the same kind of elation and joy. In fact, people from abroad kept ringing me again and again that for the first time, they feel proud that we are there and till now, no one took notice of us...(interruptions)...
I entirely agree with what Shri Indrajitj Gupta said that bomb by itself cannot provide security. I agree with him. Vietnam did not have a bomb. America had a bomb. Yet, Vietnam withstood their onslaught for years on end. You have to create that kind of patriotism and self-pride. It is an occasion like this which instills that self-pride and create patriotism. But when everything is prevented like there will be sanctions now
,,
there will be a burden that will come which you will have to face when you have no delivery system and nothing to match that, you will have to pay Rs.40,000 crore to the Army and the Armed Forces. Are you trying to instill patriotism? Are you trying to build up the morale of the people? What kind of contribution are we going to make?
I would have no objection to legitimate criticism. But to say that there is no threat at all and everything is hunky-dory, I am sorry, I cannot agree with it. This Government cannot agree with it. This Government has not kept anyone in the dark. From day one, we said that we would do it.
We talked of a nuclear deterrent. For anyone to argue how can there be a nuclear weapon for defence, we never used the word `defence' really. We simply said that we had no aggressive intentions for anyone. But `deterrent' is something which has been the principal reason. Even though many powers in the world have had nuclear arsenals which could destroy the world many times, even then, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no one has used them. One reason is deterrence. That is one reason. That is not the only reason. I entirely appreciate it. Therefore, this Government's policy is not confined to simply going in for nuclear explosion and on that basis go on thinking that we are secure.
SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (SIVAGANGA): As long as you were using the word `nuclear deterrent', I did not want to comment. But I want to read from Prime Minister's statement. I was surprised by this phrase. Paragraph 10 of the Prime Minister's statement says:
"We do not intend to use these weapons for aggression or for mounting threats against any country. These are weapons of self-defence."
I wanted to know what you meant by a nuclear weapon for self-defence. That is what I asked yesterday.
SHRI L.K. ADVANI : This is precisely what I would explain. Deterrence itself is defence. After all, when a country has a nuclear weapon, it uses that weapon even for diplomatic coercion. It has used it in the past. Countries have been doing it. We would not like to be subjected to that. It is in this context that the Prime Minister used the word `defence'. It is for us.
Similarly, because you have mentioned this, I would like to say that conscious of what was happening in Kashmir, conscious particularly of the fact that in the last couple of months or three months, the militants and their mentors across the line have decided upon a new strategy in Jammu and Kashmir. Earlier, the focus was on the Valley: attack people in the Valley and kill people in the Valley so that the minorities - the Hindus - in the Valley quit the Valley. And having succeeded in that design, they turned their attention elsewhere and decided: "Let us go to the Jammu region of Jammu and Kashmir State and from there try to drive out the minorities."
Immediately after getting the report about Udhampur, I personally went there and visited those hamlets. So, in that kind of massacre that had taken place in which 26 persons - men, women and children - were killed in cold blood, not one of them was shot with a bullet. But everyone of them was cut into pieces. The purpose was very clear to see that all these people belonging to the Hindu community migrate from there and gradually not only the Kashmir Valley but the adjunct parts of Jammu province, namely, Udhampur district, Rajouri district, Poonch district and Doda district are also ethnically cleansed according to these militants. So, immediately as persons connected with internal security, we decided to convene a high level meeting. I am happy to say that all people concerned attended that meeting. The Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief of Army Staff, representatives from the Prime Minister's Secretariat and the Government of India, the Defence Minister and all of us today came to the conclusion that one of the shortcomings in our approach to militancy in Jammu and Kashmir had, till now, been that we had been reacting to what they did.
So we said that let us try to evolve a policy which is not reactive, but which is pro-active. In case of Udhampur I said that after these incidents have occurred we have arrested a few people. Why did we not flush out these terrorists beforehand? We should have flushed them out beforehand and saved these citizens from this kind of a massacre. That is the context in which I used the word `pro-active'.
In fact, at the Press Conference, some of them asked does `pro-active' means hot pursuit, chasing the enemy across the Line of Control? I said, `no, pro-active means simply pro-active, that we do not react. We should take pre-emptive action'.
Now, I am told by my friends in the Lok Sabha that what I have said is highly objectionable. Accordingly to them, in Defence parlence what I have said means that our Army will go right across the border and go and attack the enemies there. In the other House, today, some Members mentioned that Indian Army has already done that. This is totally baseless.
¸ÉÒ ¨ÉÖ¡iÉÒ ¨ÉÉä½þ¨¨Énù ºÉ<Çnù (+xÉxiÉxÉÉMÉ) : +É{ÉxÉä Eò½þÉ ÊEò {ÉÉÊEòºiÉÉxÉ EòÒ {ÉÉìʱɺÉÒ ¨ÉäÆ EòxɺÉèx]Åä¶ÉxÉ ÊºÉ¡òÇ Eò¶¨ÉÒ®ú {É®ú ®ú½þÉ ½þè* +É{ÉEòÉä ªÉÉnù ½þÉäMÉÉ ÊEò b÷Éäb÷É Êb÷ºÊ]ÅE]õ ¨ÉäÆ Ê½þxnùÚ ¨ÉֺɱɨÉÉxÉ ®ú½þiÉä ½þèÆ* =x½þÉäÆxÉä MÉÉÆ´É-MÉÉÆ´É ¨ÉäÆ VÉÉEò®ú EòÉ¨É ¶ÉÖ¯û ÊEòªÉÉ* ¦ÉÉ®úiÉ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú +Éè®ú ½þ¨ÉÉ®úÒ ÊºÉEªÉÉäÊ®ú]õÒ ¡òÉäʺÉÇVÉ xÉä ´É½þÉÆ =OÉ´ÉÉnù EòÉä ®úÉäEòxÉä EòÒ VÉÉä EòÉäÊ¶É¶É EòÒ =ºÉ¨ÉäÆ ´Éä ʤɱEòÖ±É xÉÉEòɨɪÉÉ¤É ®ú½þä* +É{É ´É½þÉÆ BEò º]Åä]õVÉÒ <´Éɱ´É Eò®úxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉä ½þèÆ* ʺÉEªÉÉäÊ®ú]õÒ ¡òÉäʺÉÇVÉ ÊºÉSÉ´Éä¶ÉxÉ EòÉä b÷Ò±É Eò®ú ®ú½þÒ ½þè* =x½þÉäÆxÉä b÷Éäb÷É ¨ÉäÆ ÊºÉSÉ´Éä¶ÉxÉ EòÉä EòÆ]ÅÉä±É ÊEòªÉÉ* <ºÉʱÉB ªÉ½þ Eò½þxÉÉ ºÉ½þÒ xɽþÒÆ ½þè ÊEò =xÉEòÉ ¡òÉäEòºÉ ʺɡòÇ Eò¶¨ÉÒ®ú lÉÉ +Éè®ú ´Éä +¤É Vɨ¨ÉÚ +ÉxÉä ±ÉMÉä ½þèÆ* =x½þÉäÆxÉä b÷Éäb÷É Êb÷ºÊ]ÅE]õ EòÉä ¨ÉäxɱÉÒ EòƺÉèÆ]Åä]õ ÊEòªÉÉ* b÷Éäb÷É ¨ÉäÆ ÊºÉEªÉÉäÊ®ú]õÒ ¡òÉäʺÉÇVÉ ÊºÉSÉ´Éä¶ÉxÉ EòÉä EòÆ]ÅÉä±É Eò®úxÉä ¨ÉäÆ EòɨɪÉÉ¤É ½þÖ<Ç* <ºÉʱÉB xÉ<Ç {ÉÉʱɺÉÒ EòÒ VÉ°ü®úiÉ xɽþÒÆ ½þè*
¸ÉÒ SɨÉxÉ ±ÉÉ±É MÉÖ{iÉ : ¨ÉÖ¡iÉÒ ºÉɽþ¤É xÉä VÉÉä ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò½þÒ, ½þEòÒEòiÉ ¨ÉäÆ Eò¶¨ÉÒ®ú ´Éè±ÉÒ ºÉä ʽþxnùÖ+ÉäÆ EòÉä ÊxÉEòɱÉxÉä Eòä ¤ÉÉnù =xÉEòÉ +Éì{É®úä¶ÉxÉ b÷Éäb÷É Êb÷ºÊ]ÅE]õ {É®ú lÉÉ ±ÉäÊEòxÉ b÷Éäb÷É Eòä ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ xÉä Ê¨É±É Eò®ú ®úèÊVɺ]õ ÊEòªÉÉ +Éè®ú JÉÉºÉ iÉÉè®ú {É®ú Eò½þÉ ÊEò ´É½þÉÆ ¤ÉEòɪÉnùÉ Êb÷¡òèÆºÉ Eò¨Éä]õÒ ¤ÉxÉxÉÒ SÉÉʽþB* ´Éä ¤ÉxÉÒÆ* ½þɱÉÉÆÊEò Êb÷¡òäÆºÉ Eò¨Éä]õÒ EòÉä ÊVÉºÉ iÉ®ú½þ EòÒ ºÉ½þÚʱɪÉiÉäÆ Ê¨É±ÉxÉÒ SÉÉʽþBÆ, ´Éä ʤɱEòÖ±É xɽþÒÆ Ê¨É±ÉÒ* <ºÉEòä ¤ÉÉ´ÉVÉÚnù ¦ÉÒ {ÉÖÊ±ÉºÉ Eòä 18 lÉÉxÉä JÉɱÉÒ ½þÉä SÉÖEòä lÉä* VɽþÉÆ-VɽþÉÆ Ê¨ÉʱÉ]õèÆ]ºÉ xÉä {ÉÖÊ±ÉºÉ {É®ú ½þ¨É±ÉÉ ÊEòªÉÉ, ´É½þÉÆ ´Éä JÉɱÉÒ ½þÊlɪÉÉ®ú nùäEò®ú ¦ÉÉMÉ MÉB* ´É½þÉÆ Eòä´É±É ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ xÉä =x½þäÆ ®úèÊVɺ]õ ÊEòªÉÉ* ªÉ½þ ʤɱEòÖ±É ½þEòÒEòiÉ ½þè* +Éb÷´ÉÉhÉÒ xÉä ºÉ½þÒ Eò½þÉ ÊEò <±ÉèE¶ÉxÉ Eòä ¤ÉÉnù =xÉEòÉ vªÉÉxÉ {ÉÚ®úä Eòä {ÉÚ®úä Vɨ¨ÉÚ ®úÒVÉxÉ {É®ú ½þè* ´É½þÉÆ Ê{ÉUô±Éä ÊnùxÉÉäÆ 26 ±ÉÉäMÉ ¨ÉÉ®úä MÉB* ®úVÉÉè®úÒ +Éè®ú {ÉÖÆUô ¨ÉäÆ Ê{ÉUô±Éä xÉÉè ´É¹ÉÉäÇÆ ¨ÉäÆ BEò ¦ÉÒ PÉ]õxÉÉ xɽþÒÆ ½þÖ<Ç lÉÒ* +ÉVÉ ®úVÉÉè®úÒ +Éè®ú {ÉÖÆUô {ÉÚ®úÒ iÉ®ú½þ ʨÉʱÉ]õèÆ]ºÉ EòÉ +dÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ ½þÖ+É ½þè* ¨Éä®úÉ ªÉ½þ Eò½þxÉÉ ½þè ÊEò =xÉEòÉ ºÉÉ®úÉ mɺ]õ Vɨ¨ÉÚ ®úÒVÉxÉ {É®ú ½þè*
¸ÉÒ ±ÉÉ±É EÞò¹hÉ +Éb÷´ÉÉhÉÒ : ¨ÉèÆ SɨÉxÉ ±ÉÉ±É VÉÒ EòÉä Eò½þxÉÉ SÉɽþÚÆMÉÉ ÊEò ªÉ½þ ºÉÉäSÉxÉÉ ÊEò Eò¶¨ÉÒ®ú ´Éè±ÉÒ Ê¤É±EòÖ±É ºÉÆEò]õ ºÉä ¨ÉÖEiÉ ½þÉä MÉ<Ç ½þè, BäºÉÉ xɽþÒÆ ½þè* =xÉEòÉä VÉèºÉÉ ºÉÚ]õ Eò®úäMÉÉ, ´Éä ´ÉèºÉÉ Eò®úiÉä ®ú½þäÆMÉä* ½þ¨ÉäÆ Eò¶¨ÉÒ®ú ´Éè±ÉÒ +Éè®ú Vɨ¨ÉÚ ®úÒVÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ ºÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉÒ ¤É®úiÉxÉÒ ½þè* =xÉEòÉ +Éì{É®úä¶ÉxÉ ]õÉä{ÉèEò EòÉ ±ÉIÉªÉ ¦É±Éä ½þÒ Vɨ¨ÉÚ-Eò¶¨ÉÒ®ú ½þÉä ±ÉäÊEòxÉ EòÖ±É Ê¨É±ÉÉ Eò®ú {ÉÉÊEòºiÉÉxÉ xÉä +hÉÖ ¶ÉÊEiÉ ¤ÉxÉxÉä EòÉ ÊxÉhÉÇªÉ ÊEòªÉÉ iÉÉä ½þ¨ÉÉ®úÒ ÊSÉxiÉÉ +hÉÖ ¶ÉÊEiÉ ¤ÉxÉiÉä ½þÖB {ÉÚ®úÒ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ EòÒ ½þè +Éè®ú ʴɶ´É ¦É®ú ¨ÉäÆ +{ÉxÉÉ ªÉÉäMªÉ ºlÉÉxÉ {ÉÉxÉä EòÒ ½þè* ºÉÉlÉ-ºÉÉlÉ Ê´É¶´É ¦É®ú ¨ÉäÆ xªÉÚÊE±ÉªÉ®ú +{ÉÉÊlÉÇb÷ EòÒ {ÉÉʱɺÉÒ EòÖUô nùä¶É SɱÉÉ ®ú½þä ½þèÆ, =xÉEòä |ÉÊiÉ Ê´É®úÉävÉ |ÉEò]õ Eò®úxÉä EòÒ ½þè*
Pakistan's nuclear policy is India-specific. It is directed towards India and that too Jammu Kashmir-specific.
½þ¨ÉäÆ <ºÉ¨ÉäÆ §É¨É +Éè®ú MɱÉiÉÒ xɽþÒÆ ½þÉäxÉÒ SÉÉʽþB*
VɽþÉÆ iÉEò ªÉÖr EòÉ ºÉ´ÉÉ±É ½þè, iÉÒxÉ-iÉÒxÉ +Éè®ú SÉÉ®ú-SÉÉ®ú ªÉÖr ½þÖB ½þèÆ ÊVÉxÉ EòÉ Eò<Ç ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ xÉä ÊVÉFò ÊEòªÉÉ* 1947-48 Eòä ªÉÖr ¨ÉäÆ 200 ±ÉÉäMÉ ¨É®úä lÉä, 1965 ¨ÉäÆ 3800 ±ÉÉäMÉ ¨É®úä lÉä, 1971 ¨ÉäÆ 4600 ±ÉÉäMÉ ¨É®úä lÉä* <ºÉ iÉ®ú½þ ±ÉMɦÉMÉ nùºÉ ½þVÉÉ®ú ±ÉÉäMÉ ¨É®úä lÉä*
uÉ®úÉ VÉÉ®úÒ
MÞɽþ ¨ÉÆjÉÒ
cd
±ÉäÊEòxÉ +Eòä±Éä Eò¶¨ÉÒ®ú ¨ÉäÆ ¶ÉɪÉnù 18000 ±ÉÉäMÉ ¨É®úä ½þèÆ* ªÉä ºÉÉ®úä |ÉÉèEºÉÒ ´ÉÉ®ú ½þèÆ +Éè®ú =ºÉEòä ¤ÉÉnù ½þ¨É Eò½þäÆ ÊEò Eò½þÉÆ |ÉÉèEºÉÒ ´ÉÉ®ú ½þè, |ÉÉèEºÉÒ ´ÉÉ®ú EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò®úxÉä ´ÉɱÉä,
They are hawks. This is a hawkish statement. I have heard this criticism.
+¦ÉÒ Eò±É ½þÒ Eòä ¦ÉɹÉhÉ ¨ÉèÆ ÊxÉEòɱÉEò®ú ¤ÉiÉÉ ºÉEòiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊVɺɨÉäÆ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ VÉÒ EòÉä Eò½þiÉä ½þèÆ ÊEò ªÉ½þ +É{ÉEòÒ {ÉÉèʱɺÉÒ xɽþÒÆ ½þè, ªÉ½þ iÉÉä +Éb÷´ÉÉhÉÒ b÷ÉE]ÅÒxÉ ½þè*
In this case I would give all credit to Shri Vajpayee. He has executed this entire programme in a manner in which it ought to have been executed. I am not aware of it but you have said that he gave clearance to the scientists on the 8th of April. It may have been reported in the Press. I would not even ask him but I do know that even the Raksha Mantri or myself, or those who came to know of it came to know only when it was necessary for him to communicate it and approximately at the same time he was even looking for Shri Sharad Pawar to communicate to him this decision of the Government. So, I would say that he has conducted this entire exercise in an exemplary manner; in a manner in which the Prime Minister of a country ought to have done it. Therefore, today we can be proud of the fact,
ÊEò ʽþxnùÖºiÉÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ <iÉxÉÉ ¤Éc÷É EòÉ¨É ½þÖ+É +Éè®ú EòÉä<Ç Ê¤ÉEòÉ>ð +Énù¨ÉÒ xɽþÒÆ ÊxÉEò±ÉÉ -- {ÉÉäJÉ®úxÉ ¨ÉäÆ ½þÉä, SÉɽþä ½þ¨ÉÉ®úÒ ºÉäxÉÉ ¨ÉäÆ ½þÉä, SÉɽþä ´ÉèYÉÉÊxÉEò ½þÉäÆ, EòÉä<Ç Ê¤ÉEòÉ>ð +Énù¨ÉÒ xɽþÒÆ ÊxÉEò±ÉÉ* BäºÉÉ xɽþÒÆ ½þÖ+É ÊEò ½þ¨ÉEòÉä VÉÉÆSÉ Eò®úxÉÒ {Éc÷Ò ÊEò EòèºÉä {ÉiÉÉ ±ÉMÉ MɪÉÉ ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ EòÉä* +¤É VÉÉÆSÉ =xÉEòÉä Eò®úxÉÒ {Éc÷iÉÒ ½þè ÊEò ½þ¨ÉEòÉä EòèºÉä {ÉiÉÉ xɽþÒÆ ±ÉMÉÉ* ªÉä ºÉÉ®úÒ SÉÒVÉäÆ <iÉxÉä MÉ´ÉÇ EòÒ ½þèÆ ÊVÉxÉ {É®ú ¨ÉèÆ ºÉ¨ÉZÉiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò ½þ®úäEò EòÉä |ɺÉxxÉiÉÉ ½þÉäxÉÒ SÉÉʽþB +Éè®ú ½þ®úäEò EòÉä ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ VÉÒ EòÒ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú EòÉä ¤É½þÖiÉ-¤É½þÖiÉ ºÉÉvÉÖ´ÉÉnù nùäxÉÉ SÉÉʽþB* ½þÉÆ, +É{ÉEòä VÉÉä ºÉ´ÉÉ±É ½þèÆ, =xÉ ºÉ´ÉɱÉÉäÆ Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ WÉ°ü®ú ªÉ½þ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú ºÉÉäSÉäMÉÒ ÊEò +ÉMÉä Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ EªÉÉ ½þè* |ÉÊiÉ®úIÉÉ ¨ÉÆjÉÉ±ÉªÉ ºÉÉäSÉäMÉÉ ÊEò +ÉMÉä Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ EªÉÉ ½þè, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ ¨ÉèÆ Eò½þ ºÉEòiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò +ÉVÉ VɽþÉÆ nùä¶É Eòä VÉxÉ-VÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ <ºÉEòä EòÉ®úhÉ =±±ÉÉºÉ ½þè, ´É½þÒÆ ºÉäxÉÉ ¨ÉäÆ, ´ÉèYÉÉÊxÉEòÉäÆ ¨ÉäÆ, ¨ÉÖZÉä ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ ÊEò EòÖUô ´ÉèYÉÉÊxÉEòÉäÆ EòÒ ºÉÚSÉÒ ½þè, EòÖUô ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ xÉä +ɱÉÉäSÉxÉÉ EòÒ ½þè ±ÉäÊEòxÉ Eò<Ç ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ xÉä ¨ÉÖZÉä =ºÉ¨ÉäÆ xÉÉ¨É ¤ÉiÉÉB ÊEò ÊVÉxÉEòÉ Ê´ÉYÉÉxÉ ºÉä ÊEòºÉÒ iÉ®ú½þ EòÉ ºÉƤÉÆvÉ xɽþÒÆ* ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉÉ ½þè ¨ÉèÆ ¦ÉÒ VÉÉxÉiÉÉ ½þÚÆ, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ EòÉä<Ç ´ÉèYÉÉÊxÉEò ½þè iÉÉä ¨ÉèÆ Eò½þ ºÉEòiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò =ºÉ¨ÉäÆ EòÉä<Ç ÊnùEEòiÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ xɽþÒÆ, ¨ÉiɦÉänù ®úJÉxÉÉ +SUôÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ½þè, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ ¤ÉäʺÉEò±ÉÒ ¨ÉèÆ ºÉ¨ÉZÉiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò +ÉVÉ VÉÉä EòÉ¨É ¦ÉÉ®úiÉ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú xÉä ÊEòªÉÉ ½þè, =ºÉxÉä VÉxÉ-VÉxÉ EòÒ <SUôÉ EòÒ {ÉÚÊiÉÇ EòÒ ½þè +Éè®ú ºÉÉlÉ-ºÉÉlÉ nùä¶É EòÒ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ EòÉä vªÉÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ ®úJÉEò®ú =x½þÉäÆxÉä BEò ºÉ½þÒ ÊxÉhÉÇªÉ ÊEòªÉÉ ½þè ÊVɺÉEòä ʱÉB ¨ÉèÆ =x½þäÆ ºÉÉvÉÖ´ÉÉnù nùäiÉÉ ½þÚÆ*
SHRI INDRAJIT GUPTA (MIDNAPORE): I would like to get some clarification on one point. As far as I could understand it, the entire speech of the Minister of Home Affairs was aimed at showing that the main threat to our security is coming from Pakistan. The whole thing has been analysed on the basis of a threat from Pakistan, whereas the Defence Minister was shouting against China all the time saying that the whole threat is coming from China. This is why I have said that the Government should learn not to speak in different voices but if possible, in one voice.
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I have said that insofar as Pakistan is concerned, it impinges not only on external security but also on internal security. I have not made any comment on foreign policy or Defence in general.
SHRI K. NATWAR SINGH : Do you need an atomic bomb to fight a proxy war? Let us know this.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE: Mr. Chairman, Sir, yesterday the intervention by the Defence Minister was more defensive about maintaining his position in the Government. He was very very defensive in his speech. It was not the usual George Fernandes' performance. The performance of Shri Advani just now clearly shows the confusion that is there in this Government.
They are groping in the dark to find out a justification now, specially so after the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday. I think, Mr. Chidambaram was right in asking that question on the difference between the approach of the Prime Minister and the approach of the Home Minister. Following his clarification, that question becomes much more pertinent.
The main theme of Mr. Advani's speech, apart from what this country apprehends from Pakistan, is that to rouse a sense of pride amongst the people of this country this was necessary; that it is the greatest achievement and the people of this country feel proud of it; that there is jubilation all around; and that now there is acknowledgement of the role of the BJP Government under the leadership of Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee. This is the only real achievement of this exercise.
Sir, we yield to none in accepting the signal contribution made by the scientists and engineers in this respect. It is not the monopoly of that side to express their views of support and acclamation, we also do that. But the question is, this achievement is now sought to be utilised for objectives with political overtones.
I recall the Special Session of Parliament held in celebration of the Fiftieth year of our Independence when we spent hours and hours for several days to discuss the situation prevailing in this country, things ailing this country, apart from the achievements we have been able to make. The present Prime Minister was then the Leader of Opposition, incidentally. I think, that role suits him much better. He made an eloquent speech then. But never did we hear of any reservation expressed by him about our security perception or of the threat this country was supposedly facing. When we were covering the entire gamut of the economy and other aspects of this country, he never advocated any change in our well-established and long-standing nuclear policy.
[NEXT PAGE]
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
