As a matter of fact, my friends who are sitting there on that side criticised me. And Shrimati Sushma Swaraj particularly did that. I hope that she holds a different view now. I told them that we will sign any treaty which meets our needs and we will observe it. We have observed it. We have also observed the biological weapons treaty. We are also willing to observe this.I would like to say one thing more. With great deal of difficulty, with great deal of effort, with great deal of sacrifice, we have built a neighbourhood policy. Shrimati Sushma Swaraj had just gone to two such countries. She has seen the benefits of those policies. She has seen how Dhaka responds; she has seen how Sri Lanka responds. For God's sake, do not dismiss it because some people, without my consent, have given it my name. You can take the name also but please sustain the policy, sustain the policy of building good neighbourliness and good neighbourliness rules out war.
Pakistan has offered that they are willing to talk to us. Pakistan has said that they are willing to talk about a non-aggression pact. They want something more but we do not want to cut our size to their size. We do not have any ambition on Pakistani territory nor on Pakistan polity. Within the framework of Simla Agreement, we are willing to talk about Kashmir also. I had said it and I had committed that with the consent of Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee. Please continue that so that the entire issue remains confined to the bilateral framework. If you do not do it and if Shri Jag Mohan is your advisor, then God help you because then Kashmir will go to the United Nations and then you will have to go to New York. It will not stay in this Sub-continent.
At that time, when we made an agreement with Shri Nawaz Sharif in Male, we had identified eight items. He said that we will talk on these eight items. And when I met him last, in Dhaka, in January this year, both of us agreed - I repeat - Shri Nawaz Sharif and I agreed that future discussions between our Foreign Secretaries will be on the basis that all the eight issues will be taken up together in one venue, in one place and in one building. We both together gave these instructions to our respective Foreign Secretaries. This should be sustained. Before I sit down, I hope that my friends sitting on that side for whom I have great respect and for some of whom I have great love do not mind it and do not blush it....
ºÉÚSÉxÉÉ +Éè®ú |ɺÉÉ®úhÉ ¨ÉÆjÉÒ iÉlÉÉ ºÉÆSÉÉ®ú ¨ÉÆjÉÒ (¸ÉÒ¨ÉiÉÒ ºÉֹɨÉÉ º´É®úÉVÉ): +SUôä {Éc÷ÉäºÉÒ
¤ÉÊxɪÉä ªÉ½þÉÆ ¦ÉÒ*
SHRI INDER KUMAR GUJRAL (JALANDHAR): I would only say that contingency plan should be worked out. I would repeat that the contingency plan should have a defined objective. The objective is peace; the objective is good neighbourliness; the objective is not entering into a nuclear weapons race and the objective is preservation of a situation. That task has been made easier by my friend, the hon. Finance Minister. He can definitely come heavy on us tomorrow. He can definitely do anything and the country will cooperate. But why, have, that situation, if it can possibly be examined? I would only say this that I wish all that happened yesterday - though was expected - had not happened. I also hope, that is not something which is unfortunate but let us not turn into a calamity.
With this appeal, I conclude.
(ends)
SHRI MURASOLI MARAN (MADRAS CENTRAL): Sir, after listening to the speech of the former Prime Minister, Shri I.K. Gujral, I am compelled to think that the tests and the counter tests are dangerous and foolish in equal proportions because Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the nation, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki disaster, had described nuclear weapons as the most diabolic inventions of science. They are abhorrent weapons. But at the same time, I want to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the nuclear scientists and engineers who made the Pokhran-II possible.
A lot of verbosity - sometimes jingoistic and sometimes partisan - was used to describe the bomb. Shri Singhal of Vishwa Hindu Parishad has described it as Hindu bomb. But Shri Sharad Pawar has immediately commented that it is a complete nonsense.
Who are the scientists who contributed to the Pokhran-II? Bharat Ratna Dr. Abdul Kalam, Scientific Adviser to the Minister of Defence, Dr. R. Chidambaram, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission and Dr. K. Santhanam, Senior Scientist of DRDO are all Tamilians. So, in a lighter vein, if they say that it is a Hindu bomb, I would say that it is a Tamilian bomb or a Tamil bomb because it would be appropriate.
AN HON. MEMBER: A Tamilian is also a Hindu.
MR. CHAIRMAN (SHRI K. YERRANNAIDU): Do not interfere.
SHRI MURASOLI MARAN (MADRAS CENTRAL): I am saying it in a lighter vein. It is not a Hindu bomb. ... (Interruptions) We are Tamilians also.
SHRI VAIKO (SIVAKASI): As Tamilians, we are proud of it. I agree with you.
SHRI MURASOLI MARAN (MADRAS CENTRAL): Thank you. For once, we are agreeing.
I have to congratulate the hon. Prime Minister for his magnanimity with which he traced the historic background of our nuclear programme. It was Shri Jawaharlal Nehru who laid the foundation for our nuclear option. He passed away before China's first nuclear explosion in 1964. That set off India's nuclear weapon debate. Then, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri ordered India's nuclear explosion in 1965 but he did not survive long enough. Finally, it was Shrimati Indira Gandhi and the successors of Dr. Homi Bhabha who conducted the first Indian explosion in 1974. Even though Shrimati Gandhi called it a peaceful nuclear explosion, India became from that day a potential nuclear weapon capability State. Then, Shri Rajiv Gandhi - even though he campaigned for global disarmament - was pursuing this option. Then came Shri V.P. Singh and Shri Chandra Shekhar who all gave strong support to this programme. Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao took it close to a nuclear test in 1995. He strengthened the capacity to test at a short notice. So, the credit goes to him. Then, thanks to that effort, now we have camouflaged it. The CIA could not detect it.
Then, came Shri H.D. Devegowda and Shri Inder Kumar Gujral. They did not test it. It was possible for them. It was within their reach to issue a command to test but retained the option to do so by not signing the CTBT.
It is like a long relay race. Shri Atal Bihar Vajpayee ran the last lap getting the baton from one Prime Minister to another Prime Minister, thus making India an overt nuclear weapon power. So, what Shri Vajpayee has done is like this. What nine previous Governments have not done since Shrimati Gandhi detonated its first nuclear device 24 years ago, has been done by Shri Vajpayee.
But the question is why has it been at this time. I share the perception of Shri Gujral. There is no security compulsion. There is no security challenge. That is why an economist of England says that it is a brilliant diversion. Another comment is that it is a violent political coup. It looks like that. It looks more political. So, what is the new security rationale behind Pokhran-II? It has to be explained to us. But there seems to be none because the RSS Secretary, Shri Sudarshan, has let the secret out. He has said, "Even during the 13-day tenure of BJP regime in 1996, they wanted to do it. Because the time was short, they did not do it. There is no security concern. They wanted to do it. They did it. How does the world look at us? That is a pity. You have done it at a time when a lot of denuclearisation is taking place all over the world. This happened at a time when they have denuclearised six nuclear weapon potential States, namely, Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
Twenty thousand nuclear weapons were decommissioned at that time. The other countries, for example, Taiwan to Iraq were all waiting to do this kind of nuclear explosions. Saddam Hussain and the mullahs of Teheran might go in for nuclear explosions. At this point of time we have done this. So, there is a feeling that we have revived the menace of a nuclear war.
Sir, here is a comment made by the Financial Times of London which says and I quote:
"The end to the Cold War has removed the menace of a nuclear war and therefore, the momentum to nuclear disarmament".
Sir, we are guilty of reviving the menace of a nuclear war. What have we done? What has happened because of Pokhran II? The Government has reversed the time tested policy of our nuclear strength which was supported by a national consensus. India's nuclear policy prior to 11 May was anything but a policy of nuclear sustenance and it has been blown off into pieces.
The South Asian region has changed after Pokhran II. India has changed. What has happened to the Gujral's doctrine? Shri Gujral had shown some letters from the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair and other dignitaries of the foreign countries wherein they have appreciated the benefits that we derived from out of the Gujral's doctrine. They have mentioned the name of the `Gujral doctrine'. I saw the letter written by Mr. Tony Blair to Shri Gujral. Bangladesh was happy; other smaller countries were happy; Sri Lanka was happy. Even our Secretary level talks with Pakistan were going on as per schedule. A hot line was established between the Prime Ministers of these two countries. So, there was a thaw; everything was cooling down. But why did the Government choose to do it at this point of time? That is the question.
Our foreign policy has completely changed. It has been over-turned. What has happened to the Simla Agreement? The Gujral doctrine seems to have been thrown into the dustbin of history. I do not know whether we are still sticking to the Simla Agreement or not. I think, it is for the Prime Minister to give a reply.
Sir, our relations with Pakistan is at its worse since the `Operation Bluestar'. Shri Vajpayee went to China in 1979 for normalisation of relations with China. Now, our relations with China are arguably at its worse since the 1960s. What I would like hon. Prime Minister to do is to re-define the foreign policy of India after the war with Pakistan and Pokhran II.
Sir, Pakistan's action was not unexpected. We were flexing our nuclear muscles and they were doing it. The Newton's law has worked - every action will have a reaction, opposite and equal. They have done it. But we knew since 1987 that they have got a bomb and they have openly agreed about it. But now, what have they done? They have given the last turn to the screw-driver. They have got all the materials. We know from where they have got the materials. The James weekly has made it very clear - part is acquired; part is clandestine and part is developed. So, by begging, borrowing and stealing they have made a bomb. It is the culmination of a clandestine programme. What is the result?
I would like to quote from, what is called, a very conservative newspaper, The Hindu. It says and I quote:
"With Pakistan's detonation of five nuclear devices yesterday, indicating an inevitable succumbing to the pressure of the arms race initiated by India under the stewardship of the Vajpayee administration. It is painfully clear that the region is heading for a period of grave crisis. There is little doubt that the provocative and the chauvinistic attitudes struck by the Vajpayee Government have brought the country to the edge of a precipice".
This is what a conservative paper like The Hindu has written.
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY (MADURAI): It is a Tamil paper.
SHRI MURASOLI MARAN (MADRAS CENTRAL): No, it is not a Tamil paper. It is a paper closer to Dr. Subramanian Swamy.
Sir, I am not going into the sanctions. We may say that the sanctions may affect Pakistan strongly and it may not affect us. But that is not the point. Of course, Pakistan is a small country, it is small basket cake. They have got one billion dollar of foreign exchange which is equivalent to one month's imports. They may suffer a lot. It is a different matter.
They are raking up some kind of a mania, national hysteria. They have declared some kind of an emergency. They are in a different direction. We cannot compare it.
There are many war doctrines. The Prime Minister's statement says that we do not intend to engage in arms race. Consciously or unconsciously, we are responsible for an arms race; not an ordinary arms race but a nuclear arms race. It is taking place. We have triggered it. It has started and we do not know when will it end. As Shri Chidambaram has said, it is not stockpiling alone. It is not just preparing a bomb and putting it under the basement. How many bombs do we have under the basement, it is not that calculation. For every bomb there is a thing called Triton which may go on after some time. We have to renew it every time.
Not only that, the high priests of cold war have created a doctrine called MAD, that is the Mutual Assured Destruction. Unless one reaches that level, one cannot stop producing it. So, we should have enough material to destroy the enemies and the enemies also should have enough to destroy us. Till both will get that kind of perception, we will not stop producing further bomb. There are several war doctrines. This is one of the doctrines. Are we going to follow that MAD doctrine?
Nobody would wish to see a South Asian equivalent of the Cuban missile crisis. We saw the cold war. There is all round insecurity borne out of uncertainty that we saw in the early days of East-West cold war. It took some time to keep nuclear weapons under lock and key and to learn for the Western countries like America and the then Soviet Union as to how to communicate in a crisis. But here, our Defence Minister says it has been weaponised. Our former Prime Minister has asked a clarification; if so, who is having the command, who is having the control. Is it the military General, Prime Minister or the Cabinet, we do not know. What is the decision making time? There is no buffer between India and our neighbours. We do not have early warning system. According to our Home Minister, we are having proxy war. There is terrorism. People are coming here and shooting our people. We should look at it in this context. Minor skirmishes can be contained but if mis-calculations take place, the ultimate consequence can be devastating. I would like to quote what a Pakistani Professor feels about the nuclear bomb. He is an Associate Professor of Physics in Islamabad University. I quote:
"The nuclear weapons are to be used in a war with India when conventional defence system fails to withstand the Indian superiority."
He agrees that if the conventional weapon system fails, they will press the nuclear button. I again quote:
"The message too is very clear. If in any future conflagration we find that our forces are losing ground, we shall not hesitate to use whatever nuclear arsenals we have. It may be small, but it surely will cause a damage that cannot be acceptable to you. We also know that you have a much larger stock of nuclear weapons, and that you can indeed inflict much worse damage onto us, but our level of desperation is such that it is acceptable to us in comparison to a capitulation to your hegemony.
A little mistake here and there can easily lead to havoc in the two countries. Should this be allowed?"
The Pakistani professor has asked this question. I would like to ask the same question. A small mis-calculation will lead to nuclear destruction of this ancient civilization. It would not stop with that. There is instability, a dangerous instability. They call it as not an ordinary instability but a hat-triggered instability to any future crisis.
In 1985, when the cold war was at its peak, President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev met and made a declaration that a nuclear war could not be won and, therefore, it should not be initiated. That was the lesson the two superpowers have learnt. The challenge now is to make the subcontinent and the whole region free of war and conflict. The most urgent need is to avoid a nuclear war or even the threat of nuclear weapons. We should avoid nuclear race. New Delhi needs to propose comprehensive negotiations and a whole range of conventional confidence building measures with Pakistan on nuclear and conventional arms fronts.
What we should do now is very important. We cannot unscramble an omelette. We cannot go back to the status quo. The tests have already taken place; Pakistan is going to continue the same. We have to think very deeply on what we have to do now. I do not know why we have unnecessarily invited China also into this trouble. In this connection, I would like to quote Shri J.N. Dixit, a former Foreign Secretary. He said:
"I wish we had not been so specific in mentioning China as the reason for our nuclear weaponisation. We have landed in an unnecessary confrontationist stand with China. It is absolutely necessary to bring our relations with China back on the track. Escalating the current confrontations, which frankly has been begun by us, will be detrimental to our mutual interest as well as the regional stability."
We should give top priority to this. As Shri Gujral has said, in 1993, China -- which was an acknowledged nuclear weapon state even then -- and India signed an agreement to bring about peace and tranquility on the border based on the principle of mutual and equal security. It was done in 1993 when Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister. The principle of mutual security now assumes more credible dimension. This should lead to greater understanding and mutual respect in accordance with the `Pancha Sheel' doctrine propounded 44 years ago.
I would request the Prime Minister to start the process of concluding bilateral agreements and `no first use' commitments between China and India. China has such an agreement with Pakistan and with Russia. So, we can also have such an agreement with China. Pakistan has offered us an agreement, more than four years ago, not to attack population centres and economic centres. A similar proposal may be revived, even if Pakistan continues to make hostile statements. As Shri Gujral has suggested, we should start talking with Pakistan. The need of the hour is to seriously engage in negotiating confidence building measures with our neighbours.
The world has changed. American President, Mr. Clinton says that we are on the wrong side of the history and we cannot be considered a nuclear weapon state. The Prime Minister, in his statement, says that we are a nuclear weapon state. It is not possible; they would not accept us as a nuclear weapon state. As to who are they to say so, is a different question. In the NPT, the cut-off date for admittance of a nuclear weapon power is 1-1-1967. That is why President Clinton says that we are on the wrong side of the history. But the United States should understand that history has changed, whether they like it or not. The myth that the world will be governed by the five nuclear powers has been blown to smithereens.
[NEXT PAGE]
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
