Having said all this, I do not want to go into that controversy now whether we should or should not have performed the test. It is behind us. The only thing I would say and I think I am speaking with a full sense of responsibility having held the high offices, that there was no security compulsion for doing the test. I am saying this because I was the Prime Minister. I am saying this because I knew everything. I am saying this because in this country, only the Prime Minister is privy to certain secrets which nobody else is. And I say that with a sense of responsibility that there was no security compulsion for performing the test.There may be another consideration. There may be political considerations. There may be partisan considerations. But security consideration was definitely not there. When I handed over the country on the 19th of March, there was no security challenge before us. Why was it not there? It was not there because ever since 1987, a new situation had arisen before us. In 1987, what was the situation that had arisen? By 1987, we came to know -- very credibly, very definitely, Shri Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister -- that nuclear weaponry technology had been transferred to Pakistan. We know it for certainty that America was looking aside. It is now on the documents of the Congress America that America, on Gen. Zia's time, had tried to look the other way primarily because Afghanistan situation was there. Gen. Zia was willing to accommodate the American intervention in Afghanistan through Pakistan on two conditions. One, that America will not demand democratization of the country and secondly, that America will not interfere in the nuclear programme of Pakistan. That is why, from that day onwards 1993, Presslar Amendment was not enforced. But I must give it to the credit of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. He was a committed man to the denuclearisation of the world. He believed in it. And, I think, in that, he represented the spirit of India.
From Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi onwards, every Prime Minister -- if I may say, in my humble opinion, upto me -- we were committed to denuclearisation of the world. We feel that every country in the world will be more secure if there is denuclearisation. But at that time, Rajiv Gandhi had performed another duty also. And, that duty was the duty of the Prime Minister. He performed it very well. And, without letting any secret outside to which I am sure, I would only say that Shri Rajiv Gandhi initiated the process and that process has been well taken care of by all his successors and, that is, that the Indian security is very safe, that the Indian nuclear deterrent is absolutely in the form that you did not do nuclear tests. We wanted to have a deterrent all the time.
In this House also, it has been discussed and I want to say it again, that nuclear weapon is not a weapon of war. Nuclear weapon has never been used. Nuclear weapon can never be used and particularly by India. With one nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, what happened? With one nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, what happened? Millions and millions of people died. We, the country with a tradition, we the country with civilisation, we the country with the great names to refer to, cannot possibly have a bomb which kills, in one block, a thousand people, 10,000 people or a million people. We cannot do it. Nobody has done it.
I have lived in the Soviet Union for five years as Ambassador of India. I have seen them keeping nuclear weapons. A stage had come by 1979 when Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee was the Foreign Minister. We were visiting Moscow. We were discussing the Nuclear Policy and we both had come to the conclusion that the Soviet Union had enough arsenal to kill the whole world nine times. The only difference was that America by that time could kill the whole world 13 times.
Do you want to kill the whole whole nine times ? Do you want to kill the whole world 13 times? And, how can you kill a person second time? This was the irony which ultimately destroyed the Soviet Union. Once you enter into the nuclear war race, do not be under any wrong impression, Sir, and all slogans that we have been patriotic and the zeal you might raise, no country has been able to keep pace. The Soviet Union would not have been destroyed; that civilisation and that `ism' would not have gone, had they not joined this race. I was the Ambassador there and I saw to it when 25 to 30 per cent of their budget was being spent on the nuclear race.
America was able to destroy them because they pushed them into this race. "Your friends", both internal and external, have pushed you in this race. For God's sake, do not deceive yourself. This is not valour, this is not bravery, this is only self-destruction. Once you go into that race, I do not know how you can possibly get out of it. I can see the tragic consequences of the race.
The Prime Minister has said that we are a nuclear weapon State. I do not know. I have taken it exactly at the face value because weapon has a certain meaning. If by that he meant that we have a reliable deterrent, I accept it. If by that he meant that the word is used in the sense that we have whatever we have, it is enough to take care of our security, I accept it. But, for God's sake, draw a distinction between weaponisation and militarisation. There is a great deal of difference between the two.
I have a newspaper here of two days back where my friend and a learned man, the Defence Minister had said that the weapons have already been handed over to the Army. I do not know what he is talking. If that has been done, God help us. I ask the Prime Minister to assure us here that weaponisation does not mean militarisation. I want the Prime Minister to give me an assurance and give an assurance to this House and to the country that we are not joining the nuclear weapons race. Countries in despair can do it. Pakistan can be desperate. It is no democracy like we are. It has no civilizational commitment that we have. It does not have a commitment to peace that we have.
Peace, may I say, is not only a slogan, it is a policy. A policy framework has to be built on the peace. Only then can you possibly think in terms of that. I would only like to say that I am not talking in a voice of panicky. Nobody can tell me, nor need you tell me that all those who differ are panicky and all brave men sit on one side. Nobody need tell us that we who had participated in the freedom struggle are panicky and those who never participated in the freedom struggle are brave. Nobody need tell us that those of us who have run this country with great deal of zeal, commitment, enthusiasm and responsibility do not understand the country and they do. Nobody need teach us that lesson. Nobody need tell us that basically they understand. Please understand this. I beseech you to understand that nuclear weapons race, as I said and I repeat, has destroyed countries. Nuclear weapons race has destroyed civilizations. I call them civilizations because in my perception Soviet Union was a civilization of a new type. You may differ with it, you may agree with it. But it was a civilizational approach. We have also seen that super powers have been destroyed by this race. We are no super power as yet.
Therefore, let us be not deceiving ourselves because we must understand one thing. God forbid, and I say thrice God forbid, if ever a nuclear war comes, there can be no winner, there can be no loser. Never give nuclear weapons. That is why heaps have been destroyed. That is why all the SALT Treaties and SARC Treaties have been signed. Why are they being signed? They spent billions of dollars on building them. Even this is not to our satisfaction. We wanted them to be destroyed more speedily. All the same, some people are doing it. Therefore, I would only say this thing. I urge the Prime Minister, when he addresses us to kindly respond to me. I hope he would respond and tell me, tell you, tell all of us and tell the entire country that under no circumstances will India enter the nuclear weapons race.
It is not a question of prestige; it is not a question of glory; but it is a question of a sense of responsibility; it is a question of commitment to the future of the nation; it is a question of commitment to our children and the future generations that are to come.
I would like to add another point. You will kindly recall - you were a part of my Government - that for two years we made a gigantic effort to give a new twist to our foreign policy. That new twist was that India's foreign policy must not continue to be Pakistan-centred. That is why, there was not a chance that we started any polemic war with Pakistan. Unilaterally, we stopped responding to any of their provocative statements. I did not even respond to Nawaz Sharif's speech in the United Nations. It was not because we could not draft a speech; it was not because we could not use any harder words; it was not because we did not have the rhetoric at our disposal. It was primarily because, I thought and I believed - and this House believed, because it supported me at that time - that India has a role to play in the world and since India has a role to play in the world, its policies must never be Pakistan-centric. These tests and counter-tests are making you Pakistan-centric once again because the House discusses it. Some hon. Members say, `We are more powerful than Pakistan; we are more courageous than Pakistan'. What is Pakistan? Pakistan may or may not be anything. I am not entering into that controversy. But India definitely must not, in the 50th year of its freedom, remain Pakistan-centric. Kindly understand this.
There is some sort of a latent controversy - call it, rivalry - going on between America and China. Please do not let anybody play the China card on you. I do not know who in the Prime Minister's Office drafted that letter. I know, the Ministry of External Affairs did not draft it and I am very sorry that it did not because we have very competent members of the Indian Foreign Service in the Ministry of External Affairs. I do not know how on earth they wrote to President Clinton and talked about China, playing into their hands, playing into a trap. For, persistently, when I was in-charge of the foreign policy, I have seen to it that we did not play the China card and that nobody played the China card on us. We gave no one else the chance to play the China card for us. We have done it now. We have annoyed China on one side. On the other, we have given a glee to people in Washington and we do not know which way to go. My dear friend, Dr. Subramanian Swamy is sitting here. He understands China more than I do. I hope he has not forgotten China by now as he is too much interested in the AIADMK. I think, when he talks, that is if he does, he will tell us how dangerous it can be and how dangerous this trap can be. Therefore, when you make your foreign policy formulations, please understand this: Do not let others play this card on us. This will do immense damage to us.
With China, we have been carrying on a sort of a slow process, but a process which was showing some way out. There is no use talking bravado. In 1962, something happened. Today, are we more of warriors because we have tested? They have tested 45 times. Does it make them more powerful? Can they use the nuclear weapon on you? Can you use your nuclear weapon on them? That issue does not arise. Why are you inviting a war again. No wise country invites a war. But here, I find that some sort of a jingoistic environment has been created. We are competing with each other whose language is more irrational, whose rhetoric is more forceful and thus create for ourselves a mess.
Kindly understand that weaponisation is a very serious game. It needs several things. My dear friend, Shri P. Chidambaram had initiated and spelt out several things. He understands finance much better than I do. Therefore, I will not try to tell you how much money it will cost you to do this.
But I would like to tell you a thing. It is the surest way of derailing yourself from the economic progress. The Economic Survey that was placed yesterday made all of us think as to how to get away from the problems that are staring at our face. The problems such as the impact of negotiations; the impact of Europe talking in another language; the impact of World Bank talking in different language; and the impact of Japan talking in another language. Bravery is a very good word. But josh without hosh is dangerous. That is what I would like to say. We must be very clear in what we want to do. I hope the hon. Prime Minister understands the difference between weaponisation and militarisation. I hope, as he understands, he would put his foot down. I do not know if a contingency plan has been worked out. If that has been worked out I would like him to discuss about it with us. I am not saying that he should make it public. But I definitely want him to discuss it with us. What is his contingency plan? What is his plan regarding diplomacy? It is because may be we can help him. What is his contingency plan regarding the economy? What is his contingency plan regarding strategy? What is his contingency plan for dealing with neighbours? What is his contingency plan for dealing with the major powers?
The Minister of Finance is sitting here. Please understand one thing. I am not so much afraid of sanctions. But I am afraid of one thing. We are all seeing the financial crisis in South-East Asia. It is not yet over. We are seeing how the crisis can be manipulated. We are seeing how fiscal arrangements can be disturbed. I went to Indonesia two years ago and I have gone there after ten years. It was doing wonderfully well. I went to Malaysia. It was doing extremely well. But what happened suddenly? They have got the switch. These people who control the Brettonwoods organisations and institutions can make you derail. God forbid, the rupee slides down further, God forbid, our rupee also slides down like the Indonesian rupaiah, those are bigger dangers than the sanctions. Some measures have to be taken to see that it does not happen. Many things have been said here which, I think, are very important for us to keep in mind. Think of a total strategy. The strategy papers or contingency papers should be shared with all of us. For God's sake do one thing. I appeal to you in the name of the country, for God's sake do not hype jingoism; and for God's sake do not raise passions. For God's sake do not create a problem for ourselves. We do not want a war. We want peaceful development. We want this country to catch up with those countries whose rate of growth is eleven to twelve per cent. I think the Minister of Finance would be much happier to present a Budget which can promise ten to twelve per cent rate of growth rather than presenting a Budget which is trying to tighten our belts. I hope the day will come and it can come subject to our wisdom. Another danger is there. In our relations with Pakistan we had succeeded in bringing Kashmir down to bilateral levels of negotiations. Our progress is very slow. We might not have succeeded as yet. But there is every danger of its internationalisation again. I do not know what the diplomatic contingency plan says about it. I do not know what my worthy Prime Minister who is also the External Affairs Minister has thought about it; and I do not know what kind of initiative he is thinking of taking.
I was very surprised and confused when the Prime Minister said yesterday that his stand had been vindicated. I am very confused. Pakistan has tested and he says like this.
This afternoon, before coming here I saw the television in which the CNN quoting the Foreign Minister of Pakistan said that Pakistan may test once more. It said that Pakistan `may' test once more. If that is the vindication, then he would be doubly vindicated tomorrow. If they do the testing again, then obviously he will be more vindicated! And if they do it for the third time, he would be vindicated thrice! What is the vindication about and what is this vindication for? He has taken this entire subcontinent into this race. What is this vindication for? He has undertaken the test purely for political reasons and not for security reasons and I say this with a great deal of conviction.
The Prime Minister also said that we are a nuclear weapons State. He must explain the details. What does he mean by a nuclear weapons State? This word means several things to several people. That is why it is very important for us to understand the meaning of this word; then only we can possibly work out a detailed policy responses.
Now I come to what we can do and what should be done because I do not think it is the duty only of the Prime Minister. We are also a part of the system; we also want this country to survive; we also want this country to prosper; and we also want to attempt in getting out of this rut that you have got us in. I would also suggest at the same time - I think, it might be helpful, unless the Prime Minister has reasons to believe otherwise - you to unilaterally declare no-first-use of nuclear weapons. We have to unilaterally declare that we will never use a nuclear weapon against any power which does not have nuclear weapons.
He has also talked about moratorium. You may repeat it again and say it unilaterally. He also has to declare, as a part of our declared policy, that we do not believe in proliferation. This brings me to CTBT. I talk about CTBT at a later part of this address this afternoon because as this House knows, I have something to do with the CTBT policy. I presented to this House that policy, when I was making it. My approach added one dimension to our CTBT approach. We were talking all the time about denuclearisation as an ideology. I added the national security dimension to it.
When I was discussing this with Mr. Clinton in September last year in New York, I asked Mr. Clinton to put himself to my issues. I was Prime Minister at that time, not sitting here. I asked him to look at the map of India and around us. I would not spell out the details here. But I only wished that that should have been the scenario presented in the letter that the Prime Minister wrote. After listening to me for a while, Mr. Clinton said, "I understand".
That was the approach that I have had when President Chirac came here. My friend, the then Finance Minister was also with me. I had the same approach with the Prime Minister of Britain. They were all coming around and seeing our point of view. For God's sake, use your diplomatic skills to present your case well. We have a case; it is not that we do not have a case; it only needs doing well.
Here I say this to all of us, including myself: "Let the voice of sanity prevail; let us talk of peace." This has been our commitment from the first day when we became free. We have Nehru's `Tryst with destiny'. We have a reputation for peace-loving nations. For God's sake, preserve it; preserve the reputation. At the same time, we must also revive our strength and our commitment to denuclearisation. The world must be told that we want denuclearisation because then only every country will be secure and that India will also join them. `You denuclearise, so shall we'. We have done it in the case of the chemical weapons. Nobody knew that we had chemical weapons when we signed the Treaty.
[NEXT PAGE]
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
