Discussion Regarding Indo-Us Nuclear Agreement (Discussion … on 28 November, 2007

Lok Sabha Debates
Discussion Regarding Indo-Us Nuclear Agreement (Discussion … on 28 November, 2007


Title: Discussion regarding Indo-US Nuclear Agreement (Discussion concluded)

MR. SPEAKER: We will, of course, continue the discussion on the Supplementary Demands for Grants (General) tomorrow.

We will now take up the discussion under Rule 193 on the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement.   Hon. Members, it is a very important matter and I am sure the debate will be of a very high order.  I would request all the hon. Members and the Leaders to see to it that this is discussed with proper importance and dignity.  I would request that Heads of foreign friendly Governments should not be referred to in the discussion.

          Hon. Members, the discussion on the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement has been admitted in the names of Shri P. Karunakaran and Shri Rupchand Pal.  Shri P. Karunakaran has since requested me to allow Shri Rupchand Pal to raise the discussion on his behalf.  I have acceded to his request.

          Now, Shri Rupchand Pal.

प्रो. विजय कुमार मल्होत्रा (दक्षिण दिल्ली): आपने जो कहा, वह बिल्कुल ठीक है, पर आपने कहा कि एग्रीमेंट हुआ था कि चर्चा नियम 193 के अन्तर्गत की जाये। हमारा इन्सिस्टेंस था कि रूल 184 में चर्चा होनी चाहिए, जिसमें वोटिंग हो…( व्यवधान) It is for you to decide on the issue.  I thought that I can just tell this point.

MR. SPEAKER:  I have already given my ruling and it was accepted by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

SHRI MOHAN RAWALE (MUMBAI SOUTH CENTRAL):  Sir, I have a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:  What is your point of order?

श्री मोहन रावले : आपने रूल 253 के मुताबिक मैं पाइंट ऑफ ऑर्डर लाना चाहता हूं। I am not going to challenge you, Sir.

अध्यक्ष महोदय : बोलिये, आपका क्या पाइंट ऑफ ऑर्डर है?

श्री मोहन रावले : अभी इसके ऊपर जो लीगल कंट्रोवर्सी ट्रीटी में हुई है, अभी तक तो कभी भी कंट्रोवर्सी नहीं हुई थी, हमने कई देशों के साथ कीं। अभी ये सपोर्ट विथड्रा करने जा रहे थे, सरकार गिराने के लिए जा रहे थे, मेरी आपसे विनती है, I am not going to challenge you, Sir. इस पर एक लीगल ओपिनियन भी दी गई है, जो श्री पी.बी. सावंत ने दी है।“The Union Executive has no authority to enter into a bilateral treaty unless it is ratified by the Parliament.”

MR. SPEAKER:  I  am sorry.  This is not a matter for a point of order.  When you would be speaking, you may make the statement and speak on it.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER:  You know that it is not a point of order.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL (HOOGLY): Sir, at long last, this august House has got an opportunity to discuss a very very important deal, the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation Deal.  It has a serious bearing on the future of this country, its economy, its relationship with other countries, its nuclear programme and its energy security.  It is good that we are discussing it today and we are thankful to you, Sir, the Leaders of the Government and all the concerned that this opportunity at last is given to us.  

          In the last Session, we have been insisting on such a discussion on this important deal but we had been denied of it because of interruptions by the main Opposition.  We could well understand the reason as they continued to be confused about their stand vis-à-vis the Nuclear Deal.   Firstly, it is they who had initiated it and the hon. Prime Minister had very rightly mentioned, when the delegation of the BJP met him, that it is your baby.  But they want to put the ownership of the baby in a different language.  What is the language going to be?  We will come to know of it because different voices are being heard on it.  One is by Shri  L.K. Advani, the hon .Leader of the Opposition who, at a point, said, “No, no.  We are in full agreement with the deal.”

प्रो. विजय कुमार मल्होत्रा : आप अपना स्टेंड क्लियर करो।…( व्यवधान)

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : Now some Opposition Leaders are writing articles and making speeches.  They are speaking in different voices.  According to the BJP, they have no objection to the strategic alliance with the US and 14 rounds of secret discussio[MSOffice38] ns have taken place.

Fourteen rounds of discussions have taken place between Shri Jaswant Singh and Mr. Strobe Talbott.  Of course, they took place in different places and most of them were secret discussions.   I demand from the Government what have been the issues that have come out in the latest book “Engaging India” by Mr. Strobe Talbott who tells us a lot of things that without the concurrence of the Government, without taking into account the national consensus about our foreign policy, without taking into account our national interests, certain commitments have been made. As it happened for their wrong economic policies, the claim for India shining when India was suffering, the people had put them in right place.  So, also when people come to know about their position vis- a- vis their surrender to the US pressures people will react similarly.  But we expected something different from the UPA..  When the Common Minimum Programme was being framed, at that point of time, might be that some suggestion had come about –the strategic relations with the United States and the Left had categorically stated `no’.  The Left cannot be a party to it.  So, there was a demarcation of the UPA vis-a-vis its independent foreign policy and the policy of the previous NDA Government which had a definite tilt towards US for a strategic alliance which by now is revealed in more than one document. 

          Now, when the Government, the hon. Prime Minister, had come out with a joint statement on 18th of July, 2005, even at the very beginning, the Left had expressed certain apprehensions.  It is not that overnight the Left woke up and said, `no’, we cannot agree to it. If you go without our consultation, and as we are a supporting partner, we cannot be a party to it.   We say that we cannot be a party to it. We have serious reservations in respect of various provisions in the 123 Agreement itself.  Then, on the basis of that there have been certain discussions. We have raised nine points relating to the Deal where we differ and we have serious reservations vis-à-vis the Draft.  The hon. Prime Minister in August gave some assurances.  Then in 2006, December came the Henry Hyde Act which was reconciliation between the two earlier drafts.  What came out, how to give the exemption, what sort of waiver should be given in the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954 etc. 

          Sir, under the leadership of Henry Hyde, a Draft was prepared and after the Left came to know of the provisions in the Draft, they made it clear to the Government that there were the nine areas where the Left had objection and the nation need to be reassured by the Government on these.    In August, the hon. Prime Minister came out with assurances on all those points.  But to our dismay, we found that in the Hyde Act of December, 2006, most of the important assurances given by the hon. Prime Minister on the floor of the House were trampled and ignored.  This was in relation to technology transfer, in relation to fuel supply, in relation to congruence of Indian foreign policy with the US foreign policy, specific reference to Iran, un-interrupted fuel supply and on very many other issues.  We shall come to that one by one. 

The hon. Prime Minister had categorically stated one thing – the nuclear cycle in its entirety,  This is very important.[a39]  

But we found that it was selective. It was selective even in respect of lifting of the sanctions. Transfer of sensitive technology as well as transfer of dual use technology was denied. The Government claims that from a regime of technology denial, we are entering into the mainstream global nuclear arena; we are a recognised nuclear power also. But that was not so. It is not only in respect of the technology transfer but also in the case of fuel supply, the assurance given was very vague. We have the experience of Tarapur. We found that there was no assurance regarding uninterrupted fuel supply. This was taken up again and again. The Government is trying to say:- “No. There is an assurance.”  Even in the case of termination, what will happen? There is a termination clause. What is the termination clause? In case the Government of India goes in for a nuclear explosion, then the termination can take place. The termination can take place for various other reasons and extraneous reasons directly unrelated to the civilian nuclear energy also. In the case of a termination of the agreement, the fuel supply, the reactors, equipment and everything will have to be returned. Although there is a clause on which the Government is trying to argue by saying: “ No. In that case, the US is saying that it will help us to take corrective measures”, yet you if relate the 123 Agreement to the Hyde Act.  It is something else.

          The relationship between these two is important.  Would we find that only the US Congress can grant the permanent waiver and just condone you.  The Hyde Act specifically mentions that the US will stop any other country from providing the fuel supply in such a scenario termination of the agreement. That means, you are nowhere. That is the issue that we have been making. Canards have been spread saying that we are doing it at the behest of China; we are doing it for that and we are doing it for this. So, canards have been spread. Is it not wise to ask whether our nuclear reactors will have uninterrupted fuel supply? What is the guarantee?  You are going for the agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency in perpetuity. But nuclear fuel supply is not going to be in perpetuity. It is conditional. Is it not wise to ask this question? The whole gamut of the fuel issue, these extraneous issues are there. Our patriotism is being questioned. We have the  past experience also.

          Several times, the Communists have been charged saying that they are unpatriotic. But history says something else.  In the party there are some best men and women of the country who sacrificed most for the freedom of this land, who suffered most for 30-40 years in jail, some of whom have been Members of this House. We have made suggestions about settlement  Indo-China border. We had said that it should not be resolved by an armed conflict but by dialogue. The Government is now doing it. Many others believe that this is the right way. For making our suggestion, we are accused. Today also when we are saying the right thing, we are being abused like anything. But we are not going to take it lying down. We are asking: “What about your uninterrupted fuel supply?”

          Now, I am coming to all the nine points given by the hon. Prime Minister. What will happen to our strategic autonomy?[R40] 

          If we look into the speeches prior to this agreement, we do find that it had started long back during the talks between Shri Jaswant Singh and Mr. Strobe Talbott. They talked about military exchange, strategic alliance and to have a new regional architecture in Asia to contain China and very categorically in a writing very recently published it is being said by no less a person than the Chief Interlocutor Mr. Nicolas Burns that it is an age of anti-Americanism. Yes, throughout Latin America, countries like Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Ecuador and Bolivia, Venezuela are opposing the United States of America. Look at the world, Russia is standing up against any threat which it could not do a few years back. It is a changed world. Even inside America, – I am not naming – the present President is the most hated person amongst Americans.

MR. SPEAKER: It need not be said like that.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : Sir, I have not named anybody.

MR. SPEAKER: All right, but let us discuss with dignity.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : Sir, India under NDA cooperated with them in Iraq. Some others have also done in other parts of the world. In the United Kingdom, those who have supported America have gone out of power, in Australia also they have gone out of power and in Japan also they have gone. So, this is the age of anti-Americanism. This is the admission made by Mr. Nicolas Burns and in this age, what is required? What is required, according to that article of Nicholas Burns, is that in Asia, US must have a new regional architecture, new military status, naval exercises, new friends and it is being said in the same article that “US is only just beginning to realize the benefits of this relationship for its interests in South and East Asia”. So, you can well understand the situation.

          Sir, why are the ‘Henrys’ of America losing their sleep? I am not naming anyone. Mr. Henry Hyde has done the job elsewhere and some other ‘Henrys’ are coming here, meeting the people in the Government, meeting the Opposition leaders and all that. Once in a millennium one benefactor has come, losing his sleep. We are questioning the Agreement and saying that we are not going to be benefited by it. They say, ‘No, it is in your benefit’, although we know it is in their benefit. Repeatedly it is being said that it is in their benefit for creating a new regional architecture in Asia. For a new Asian NATO, they need India. Once they wanted to balance Pakistan and India, there was talk of composite dialogue and all that, I am not going into that here. But now they want India. What do they say? The July statement says that the Indo-US Nuclear Deal is one part of it. They say there will be collaboration in the fields of agriculture, education, economy, politics, military and it is a total package and in the midst of the total package, there is one deal. In the language of Mr. Nicolas Burns, it is the centerpiece. That is not all. So, they want us to ignore our independent foreign policy. They are openly saying that non-alignment is an old thing and telling us to leave it. Again and again they are telling us not to go in support of Iran. They want us to ignore Iran and unfortunately we have been doing it. Twice India voted against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency.[R41] 

 [r42] Our Indian delegation was amazed by the directive that had come from the top quarters.  How is it?  Our friend is Iran.  Civilisational contacts are there.  On the Republic day in recent past, we had an honoured guest from Iran. We have our relationship.  We depend so much on our oil supply from Iran.  Why should we ignore them?  But we did.  In nine references, Hyde Act says, ‘India, you are going to be rewarded and Iran is not behaving properly, they are going to be punished.  Help us to punish Iran’.  Is it the way, Indian should pursue its independent foreign policy?

          Was it the legacy we had from our Freedom Struggle – a well tested Non-aligned Policy on the basis of a national consensus?  It is a new multi-polar world, unilateralism is not working anymore.  It has been admitted by Nicholas Burns day by day that they are getting isolated. At such a time, India should stand by America and isolate themselves, at their dictate.  We should refrain from undertaking the Iran-Pakistan-India Gas project on their instance India had voted against Iran as asked by us.  It is very unfortunate.

This is not simply a vision of an independent foreign policy, it affects our strategic programme also. The hon. Prime Minister’s argument is that Indian economy is growing like anything, nine per cent or nine-and-a-half per cent.  They can go on saying any figure because it has nothing to do with the livelihood common people.  Even his Cabinet Minister has admitted that this growth, this percentage is not reflected amongst the people.  As per their own report more than 70 per cent of the people of India are living on Rs.20 a day.

In the perspective for growth, we need more energy.  Who can deny it?  The Left is not denying it.  Have they any policy?  The only policy document they have got is the Eleventh Plan Mr. Parikh Document on Integrated Energy Policy.  There what they have said.  Have they got any vision?  They have said Nuclear Power Projections by 2020, 2030 and so many things.  Have they got any national policy on the energy mix?  How do you calculate this? What is the study? What is the analysis? What is the cost of imported reactor?  Nothing has been done and suddenly comes the nuclear renaissance.  We cannot miss the bus. Bus to which end, to what goal, whose goal? 

Nuclear renaissance is a hype. In America itself, no nuclear plant has been set up for 30 years since Three Mile Island disaster.  They are depending, Westinghouse GE, etc. and all other nuclear companies, on outside sales only.  Even the international document says that Nuclear Power is now 16 per cent of global electricity consumption.  It is an international body.  If you want, I can read it.  In this our Rev. Pachauri Saheb सम्मानित पचौरी साहब, जो कि नोबेल लॉरिएट हैं, उनकी रिपोर्ट है, स्टडी ग्रुप की रिपोर्ट है  that it is only 16 per cent and with the best endeavour you can reach at 18 per cent. क्लाइमेट चेंज के आधार पर, एनर्जी सिक्योरिटी के आधार पर हमारे पास क्या नहीं है।

The people have been telling – the MP from Arunachal Pradesh is here, he has written to me and spoken to me – that there is 60,000 MW potential in hydro electricity in N.E. alone.  What is the difficulty?  There is no money.  Only in the North-East, this potential is there, the study says that and we have not exploited it. Have you no coal reserves?  Is it exhausted? Is there no clean technology available in India today?  Is there no Coal Bed Methane (CBM) or no liquefied coal technology available?  I would like to know whether you have any national coal use and national coal policy.  There is nothing like that.  In such a scenario, you are opting for the nuclear energy  which is costly.  According to a draft calculation in Kudankulam, it was calculated that it would be – even after Russian concessional help, and the nuclear cost would be around Rs. 4 to Rs. 5.50.  It is not cheap.  Now the question is that if it is not cheap, why are you going for that?  If you have so much to pay – our independent foreign policy, our strategic programme, our own domestic nuclear programme, we have to go at their instance, they may use nuclear blackmail in various situations which they have done – why should you go for it?  Is it to benefit them?  Their ailing nuclear industry will be rejuvenated and more jobs will be created there.  It is the admission of Condoleezza Rice.  But it will be done at the cost of India.  We have so much of unemployment.  We will have no jobs.  There, we will have jobs because there nuclear reactors will come to India. 

We have a self-reliant domestic nuclear programme.  We are not against nuclear energy.  We want an appropriate, judicious, nuclear energy mix.  We are being told that there is no money; resources are not available.  Suddenly, we are opting for the most expensive nuclear energy at their instance.  Is it going to help us?  No.  What I want to say is that if you go for the cost benefit, India is not benefited.  It is being said that 123 Agreement is different from the Hyde Act, why we are worried about the Hyde Act.  Who says this?  Sir, 123 Agreement is in conformity with the Hyde Act.  Wherever there is no dispute, it is okay.  If there is any dispute, their national law will prevail.  It is very specific.  The Left had put its viewpoint on the relationship between the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act very categorically as to what is the international position, what is the Vienna Convention about international treaties and all these things.  They are saying China has done it.  अरे बाबा, चाइना एक न्यूक्लियर वैपन स्टेट है। China is a party to NPT.  Why are you comparing India with China?  The contract between China and the United States is being guided by international law.  Ours is guided by US national law.  This has happened in such case, say, about the fast breeder reactor in Japan and all these things and in all such areas.  What has happened in the case of Japan? By arbitration-But Indo-US nuclear deal is put on a level which is detrimental to India.  They say, no, the present President has assured us in writing.  What is the use of this writing?  The future President will go by the American law only.  In such a situation, what we have been saying is why  are you so eager that we should not miss the bus, which bus I do not know, for which goal, that also I do not know.  We have the experience of ENRON.  Have you forgotten that?  It is not only about the price; we have said so many things about it.  We have said: “Do not do it.”  They say: “No, it is a different world.”  In a different world, you have gone for ENRON and Maharashtra people will tell us better as to what is the situation. 

          I would just like to take this opportunity to tell the Government that ultimately – the Left has told you – you can go to the international atomic energy.  But, what for?  We want a concrete assurance about the uninterrupted supply.  That you have not done for the Russian Programme; you have not signed it.  It is a different issue, I am not going into that Kudankulam issue.[r43]  

          The re-assurance from IAEA has to be according to India’s specific requirement because it will be India specific safeguard.  I would like to know from the hon. Prime Minister as to what the India specific safeguard is?  What is the guarantee? 

You are saying that our fast breeder reactors will also be under the supervision of the international agency in perpetuity.  Our nuclear scientists have said that our fast breeder reactors are superior to others in certain areas.  We work on a particular nuclear cycle by which you can use the spent fuel, enrich it and go on. 

Now, nuclear waste management is a big problem to the Western world.  In such a situation we have certain advantages.  But putting the fast breeder reactors under the supervision and under the safeguard, will it be helpful to us? 

Now, I come to re-processing.  It is very vague.  It is notional only.  Whatever assurance has been given is only notional.  They say that under a dedicated arrangement, we should have this use of spent fuel and all these.  What is the cost?  So, it is not a simple question of a strategic alliance.  It is surrendering to their pressure.  As they are getting isolated, they want to get India also to be isolated.  It will harm us immensely at the WTO level in our negotiations.  Our friends are in G70, G77, and G90.  Against whom are we fighting?  China, India and Brazil are fighting against the American agricultural subsidy.  They are our friends.  In so many international bodies and also in the emerging bodies, we are all friends.  What message will it go now?  After 60 years of India’s Independence, India did what India has never done.  They mentioned this in their speeches.

The Congress Party people can read these aspersions about how they had been dealing with Soviet Russia and others during the time of Pandit Nehru.  They had the audacity to mention that the Soviet weapons were flooding in the Indian military.  We have 126, Multi Role Combat Aircraft  … (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER:  Now, please conclude.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL (HOOGHLY): Please give me one minute.

Apart from that, they are saying that India should simultaneously open up banking, India should open up insurance and India should open up foreign retail.  In such a scenario, we think that this Government is not applying its mind to the dangers in the Deal itself.

It is said that 90 per cent of the Indian civilian nuclear reactors would be under the supervision of IAEA. How do they calculate?  That is the question I am asking. Nicholas Burns, who is the Chief Interlocutor, himself is writing that 90 per cent of the Indian civilian nuclear reactors will be under the supervision of IAEA in perpetuity.  That also is in perpetuity.  Then, we know their concept of democracy.  They are saying that with India, they will just stabilize democracy in so many countries.  What will happen to our relations with so many other countries?  We know as to what sort of democracy they have.  We know what happened in Iraq and what happened in Afghanistan.  Now, strangely we find the change in Government voice in terms of its support to Palestine and in relation to various other Middle-East issues.  It is toned down so substantially.  We apprehend that the pressure has started to work on them.[h44]  [h45]      

          Sir, I am concluding now.

          He further says that ‘the military co-operation is impeded  by the fact that much of the Indian Military still uses a considerable amount of Soviet Union equipment. A significant Indian Defence purchase from the United States, for example, of the new Advanced Multi-role Combat Aircraft that the Indian Air Force take, would be a great leap forward.’  So, 123 is not 123; 123 is also 126, that is, their aircraft. 

          He says about the Indian Arms Bazar, Indian Insurance Market, Indian Banking, Indian Retail and India as an ally to guard the seas and the Navy.  And, they are insisting on PSI, Proliferation  Security Initiatives.  They are insisting on many other such Agreements, which we did not agree earlier.

          We know, very recently the nuclear materials equipped ship had come. There have been Australia, Singapore, the US, Japan and India joint exercises.  What signal had it sent?  What was the reaction to our neighbours?  What happens? It is the logistic agreement that the fuel services would be allowed and they would take the fuel here, and they would just wait in the Indian Ocean or the Bay of Bengal. They are waiting.  Will not our neighbours be suspicious about us?   For the fault of America, we will have to suffer,  we will  be punished.  It had happened long back. When these people were agreeing to send the Indian troops to Iraq, the  whole august House woke up and said: “No.” But still they were hesitant.  There was no condemnation.  They used the only word ‘deplorable’.

          Sir, I am just concluding.

MR. SPEAKER: It should be actual concluding.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : I am concluding.

          About the timetable, they are hurrying up and saying: “By January, you must have to do this; this has to go to the US Congress” as if their Parliament, their US Congress is superior to the Indian Parliament. The Indian Parliament must discuss it.  Let there be a sense of this House.  We know that in our Constitution, there is no provision of ratification of any International Treaty.  We shall discuss it later on when the time comes.

          But it is our earnest appeal.  We have submitted our viewpoints.  On the PM’s assurances with regard to all the reservations we had made regarding the Draft Bill, most of them have been trampled down by the Hyde Act.  Our apprehensions have been proved true  repeatedly.  Please take the sense of the House. Do not proceed further because  the majority of this sovereign House is against this very, very important Deal, which has a serious bearing  on the future of this country, on the  future economy of this country, on our nuclear programme, on our self-reliance and on our relations with other countries in an emerging multi-polar  world.


SHRI L.K. ADVANI (GANDHINAGAR): Mr. Speaker, Sir, though it is not the first time that we are discussing this particular matter, but I still believe that at this point of time, this has become a very important debate in the history of Parliament.

          Just now, Shri Rupchand Pal, while concluding his speech, said that he would like a sense of the House to be taken so far as this issue is concerned.  I for one see no reason why the Government should not have agreed to have this discussion under Rule 184 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. [r46] 

          I can understand that irrespective of what the vote is, the Government may say that the Constitution does not obligate us to seek ratification for any international treaty. Therefore, you have expressed an opinion. There are occasions when the House expressed its opinion.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt you for a second? When I had given my ruling on the notice under rule 184 in the last Session, I had not consulted the Government. Therefore, Government’s willingness has no relevance for me. It is because you said why did the Government involve.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : I accept it. But I think that so far as the sense of the House is concerned, it has already been expressed on several occasions. Once when we staged the walk-out against something that had been said on this particular issue from the Government side, almost all sections of the House walked out. In fact, from even the UPA, the Left Parties also walked out with us. There have been other occasions also. I am not going to go into that.

          Today, the Prime Minister is here and I would like to recall that when first he met President Bush way back in the year 2005 when exactly this debate started in the country among political parties, among thinking sections of the people, a question was posed to him two days after his Joint Statement with President Bush had been issued on Nuclear Cooperation. The question posed to him at a Press Conference held in Washington on 20th July 2005 was this. “Mr. Prime Minister, do you see any resistance coming forward from your Allies–obviously, they had an inkling of what is likely to happen–and the Opposition?” So, despite what my friend Mr. Rupchand Pal may say about Strobe Talbot and all that, they knew that on this particular issue, we had certain very strong reservations. So, the question posed was: “Do you see any resistance coming forward from your Allies and the Opposition in putting the new India-US Policy to practice, and will you seek a Parliamentary consensus or approval to the new direction you seem to be taking in Foreign Policy?” So, they take it for granted that it is a new direction in Foreign Policy that this Government is taking.

          The Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh replied: “Well, the Parliament in our country is sovereign. It is my intention to make a Statement in Parliament when I go back home, and it goes without saying that we can move forward only on the basis of a broad national consensus.” Now, my first poser to the Prime Minister is this. Do you see this broad national consensus before which you have used the word, “only if there is a broad national consensus”? In this country, we do not have any provision in the Constitution for a referendum as is there in some other countries.

          But so far as Parliament is concerned, I am sure that you are aware, everyone is aware that there is no consensus on this particular deal. So, when it is obvious that there is no broad consensus on this deal, why are you so rushing into this deal? Why? I cannot understand this. Why can you not think in terms of what we have suggested all along? Think of ways of re-negotiating the deal.

          Their objection is not to the deal so much. You could see it even in the first sentence itself. It is either anti-Americanism or anti-BJPism which becomes the guideline for all of them. So their very first sentence is that they are against any kind of strategic partnership with the United States. We are not. We are not. So, when people quote me, Strobe Talbot or Jaswant Singh’s book or my statement which I made, I simply emphasized this. While in the discussions in the other House, many times it may seem that the CPI(M)’s opposition and the BJP’s opposition is identical. No, it is not identical.[m47] 

          The difference I wanted to stress in that particular statement which was supposed to be a shift in my stand. No, there has been no shift all along. I would like to tell you one thing. It is true that in the last Session, this issue could not be discussed as it ought to have been. Why? It was because after all, we said why we cannot have a Joint Parliamentary Committee on this. The Government did not agree and instead first said what has been done is signed and sealed and it is not negotiable and therefore, we cannot have a Joint Parliamentary Committee going into it. But it was a surprise for the country to find that instead of a Joint Parliamentary Committee in which all could have participated including the Left, you formed a Committee of the UPA and the Left. How do you explain it?

          Today, my second poser to the Prime Minister and the Government is this. What has been accomplished by this joint committee of the UPA and the Left till now? From the Press all that we see is that the Committee met and decided to meet on this day again. Very often these days it appears that while the Congress is particular about the deal and says ‘bachao the deal’ the Left, especially the CPI(M) suddenly says ‘bachao Bengal’.  Not only that, but the kind of flip flop that you are making makes me feel that you are no longer concerned with the deal; you are more concerned with the timing of elections. You do not want an election now and therefore, you say, ‘All right, you go ahead with IAEA, talk to them and we will see later’. We have a veto with us. Do not deceive yourself and do not deceive the country. … (Interruptions)

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL: We are not deceiving. … (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : You are where you are, but it is certainly expected of a party which is part of a coalition, which is part of an alliance not to behave in this manner. I will see their outlook later. I will come to the deal itself.

          I was surprised to find that in one of his earlier statements made in Parliament, the Prime Minister said on 13.8.07 :

“As I have said, this is an agreement for cooperation between India and the US on peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Its genesis is the shared perception between the India and the US that both our countries need to address their energy challenges …”

I can understand that we are looking at it from the energy point of view, but I do not see how America also is looking at this deal from the point of view of energy. What is mentioned in this statement is ‘its genesis is shared perception’. The US is certainly not looking for nuclear energy as a major option, leave alone the most important option to meet its energy challenges; we may be. I can say that we have our energy concern which I share, though I do not agree that this is going to be a solution to that, but the US is certainly looking at this from a strategic angle. This is the difference. They are not looking at it from the energy angle.


          If you just go to the second sentence of the 123 Agreement, which is an agreement between the India and the USA, it says:

“Recognizing the significance of civilian nuclear energy for meeting growing global energydemands in a cleaner and more efficient manner… ”

This is the agreed text of an agreement. The agreement is yet to be finalised.[s48] Therefore, both USA and India recognise the need of sharing the common perceptions of energy.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Thank you, Shri Pranab Mukherjee. I can only endorse what my friend Shri Rupchand Pal just now said, namely, that there has been no nuclear reactor that has come up in America for many many years. Therefore, … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE : You just see what you said a few seconds ago, and what was my contention.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : No, I can understand that you can have it in a format, but so far as reality is concerned, the reality comes out very clearly in other statements that they have made. I will quote them later on. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE : You can give your own argument, and I have no problem with it.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : It is my conviction that while our concern is energy, their concern has been all along strategic. The strategic approach adopted by Shrimati Indira Gandhi in 1974 and pursued further by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998 is to see that it is contained. This is their principal objective, which I will prove just now.

          They are not concerned too much with this as for them it is only Russia and China who have the right to build-up nuclear arsenal. So far as India is concerned, they are opposed to it irrespective of which Government is in power whether it is the Congress Government or the NDA Government. … (Interruptions)

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : We are advocating universal disarmament.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : I can quote even a recent statement that : “Our approach on the nuclear weapons is clear from the very beginning. India must not go in for weaponization in the nuclear field.” This is your statement, and I can understand it. … (Interruptions)

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : We are supporting universal disarmament.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Sir, Dr. Manmohan Singh in the famous statement made at the Tarapur Atomic Power Plant on August 31 said that : “India cannot afford to miss the nuclear bus.” He said that : “There is today talk the world over of a nuclear renaissance, and we cannot afford to miss the bus or lag behind these global developments.”

          The UPA Chairperson, Shrimati Sonia Gandhi, went a step further while speaking at Jhajjar in Haryana when she said that : “Those who are opposed to the deal are not only enemies of the Congress, but also of India’s development.” I do not know why people should use words like enemy in this context meaning both the Left Party, who are allies to the Government, and the NDA, which is certainly opposed to the Government. We are political adversaries, and none of us are enemies of any other Party. But this statement mentioning ‘enemies of development’ is difficult to believe.

I have with me the Integrated Energy Policy Report of the Expert Committee set up by the Planning Commission. It was released in August 2006. It has taken into account all the promises made in respect of energy in the nuclear deal. The Committee was headed by Dr. Kirit S. Parikh, and Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was also a Member on the Committee. I would like to quote just one portion of it. The Report says that : “Even if a 20-fold increase takes place in India’s nuclear power capacity by 2031-2032, the contribution of nuclear energy to India’s energy mix is also, at best, expected to be 4.0-6.4 per cent.” This is the total. It further says that this is an optimistic scenario, and possibilities of imports of nuclear fuel would be made possible if the Indo-US Agreement is not impaired.[r49]   Only then,  will there be this scenario – 4 to 6.5 per cent. Now, how can this be called a Deal to ensure energy security for the country? Certainly not; it is so obvious. Let us not delude ourselves.

          It is true that my Party, the BJP, earlier the Jan Sangh, has been the only Party – in 1964, China had its nuclear blast at Lop Nor — which in 1964 itself moved a Motion in the Lok Sabha, but in 1966, we formally adopted a Resolution in our Party’s National Council at Varanasi that India must build up a nuclear deterrent of its own. I can tell you that in those days all other political parties criticized us, scoffed at us, and the argument was that we could not afford it; India just could not afford it because our resources were very limited. But we drew strength from the Principal Architect of India’s Nuclear Programme, Dr. Homi Bhaba. He was among those who favoured India becoming a nuclear weapon State, and he said it very clearly. So much so that in one of his very significant speeches made on All India Radio on 24th October, 1964, the same year as China had its nuclear blast at Lop Nor, he said: “Atomic weapons give a State possessing them in adequate numbers a deterrent power against attack from a much stronger State.” This was the statement that he made in 1964 just a few days after the Lop Nor blast, though at that time the Government’s policy, the Government was headed by Pandit Nehru, was that we would develop our nuclear programme, that our nuclear energy would be used only for peaceful purposes, and that it would not be used for weaponizing the country.

          Our Party became the sole Party to be an advocate of this and it is going on since then till today. So, when in 1998 Vajpayee ji became the Prime Minister, he was able to make all the other parties in the Coalition agree to this that we must develop a nuclear deterrent of our own. On the 19th of March, the NDA Government took office, and on the 11th of May, we had these Pokhran-II blasts. I can say, at that time, we were criticized within the country not only by the Left Parties, but even by the Congress Party. The present Prime Minister was Leader of the House in the other House and he criticized us. His criticism was that the consequences for our economy would not be good; it would damage our economy; economic sanctions would be imposed on us, and the consequences would be these.

          Sir, I think Mrs. Gandhi did the right thing when she departed from the policy laid down by Pandit Nehru, and in 1974, shortly after the Indo-Pak War in which War, America had sent its nuclear-armed Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal.

SHRI N.N. KRISHNADAS (PALGHAT): At that time, the Soviet Union protected us.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Therefore, if Soviet Union protects us or helps us, my Party has always been grateful to it. We were in favour of the Indo-Soviet Defence Agreement that we signed shortly after the War. We are not like you in which you have a closed mind in respect of America. You would not talk about America. So far as we are concerned, even at that time, we had favoured… (Interruptions)

SHRI N.N. KRISHNADAS : We are against American imperialism.

MR. SPEAKER: Advani ji, do not reply to it.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : They are not worthy of reply.

MR. SPEAKER: But you have replied to that.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : I concede to the Speaker’s advice. He thinks that you should not be replied.

MR. SPEAKER: I said that you should not get diverted because your speech is a very important speech.

SHRI N.N. KRISHNADAS : You always take advice from the hon. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is better to take advice from me than anybody else, so far as the issue of running the House is concerned.

SHRI N.N. KRISHNADAS : It should always be like that.[r50] 

15.00 hrs.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI : Therefore, my first point to the Government is, do not try to mislead the people by telling them that this is for energy purposes only and anyone who is opposing this is in a way standing in the way of India’s development. I think that we need energy.

I may even mention something that relates to our period in Government. Recently, many negotiators came from America to persuade us to support this Deal. It made me feel that even more than the Government of India, it is America which is interested in this particular Deal. One of the people who met me and who has been involved in this nuclear programme of America, he originally happens to be an Indian who has lived in Mumbai, belongs originally to Goa, and has written an excellent, a very comprehensive book on India’s nuclear policy and nuclear doctrine. His name is Ashley Tellis. I am not going to mention anything that he spoke to me personally. I would not mention it; it is not proper. But I have seen one of his interviews on Rediff.Com in which the question was that why no Deal was struck with the Vajpayee Government of this kind. His answer was that the Deal could not be reached because the Vajpayee Government did not offer much to the US in exchange for the Agreement. We got more from the Government of Dr. Manmohan Singh. The next question was: “What is it that you wanted from the Vajpayee Government but could not get?” The answer was: “I am afraid, I cannot answer this question.” Now, this made me make some enquiries into those who were in the matter at that time. I am told that so far as negotiations with our Government are concerned, at that time, there was never even a suggestion that there would be a ban or a curb on our right to test.  Secondly, we were willing to open only two reactors for inspection – two out of sixteen – by the IAEA and no more. There were other matters also on which we could not agree, but the sum and substance is that this particular statement, “that we could not get from the NDA Government what we were able to get from Dr. Manmohan Singh’s”,  I do not know how to see it.

But what I do see is that Mrs. Gandhi went in for Pokhran-I. The other day the name that was mentioned, Mr. Paul, Henry – one Henry came to see me also (Henry Kissinger) – and I casually happened to tell him that my Party has always been in favour of India becoming  a nuclear weapon State, which Pandit Nehru and subsequent Governments up to Mrs. Gandhi’s, were not in favour. I even mentioned that Shri Morarji Desai was also not in favour of it, and we were in that Government. But Mrs. Gandhi, after US sent that nuclear-armed Seventh Fleet, was prompted to go in this direction. When I said to him, “Your Government”, I meant the Government at that time, he smiled and his reaction was, “Well, I have been personally blamed for that.” [r51] 

Whatever that was I cannot say. But this much I can say that Mrs. Gandhi took a step in the right direction when she thought in terms of building India as a nuclear weapon State. In between there were several Governments, in one of which Shri Venkataraman was Defence Minister. He is publicly on record having complimented Vajpayeeji when a book by Vajpayeeji was being released, and saying, “While I was Defence Minister, all the things in Pokhran were ready. Everything was ready. I also went and inspected it at the last moment and I found everything in order. The scientists were there and everything was there. But we somehow failed to do it because we came under pressure. I compliment you for disregarding all kinds of pressures and going in for Pokhran II”. Shrimati Gandhi did India proud when in 1974 she conducted Pokhran I. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee did India more proud by completing the process – that was the first step really – and conducting Pokhran II.

          Mr. Prime Minister, are you determined to ensure through this deal that there will be no Pokhran III? Is that your desire? Our objection to this particular deal is principally because this deal prohibits India from making another test. Our feeling is that today India is at a stage where it is in a position to gradually build up an effective nuclear deterrent against all our hostile neighbours. I am told that we are going in for it. Well, very good. But this is also true that the 123 Agreement says that national laws will prevail. American national law will prevail on this insofar as our strategic partnership is concerned. Section 106 of the Hyde Act bans Indian testing. It also specifies the consequent punitive actions that might follow including America’s right of return of nuclear reactors and other materials sold to India. The 123 Agreement upholds applicability of national laws to govern its implementation. Hence, the 123 Agreement cannot override the Hyde Act. This has to be understood.

          This was very clearly explained by Nicholas Burns himself when a reporter asked him in a Press Conference. “In the Hyde Act US Congress made it quite clear that if India were to test a nuclear weapon, American cooperation with India would cease. If you are giving India assurances that there will be no interruption in its fuel supplies regardless of what happens, how does that comply with the law?” This is a very pertinent question posed by a journalist. Look at the answer that Mr. Burns has given. He states, “First of all, we were quite careful when we began this latest phase of negotiations and we reminded the Indian Government that since the President and the Prime Minister had their two agreements of July, 2005 and March, 2006, something else has happened. The United States Congress had debated over six, seven months those agreements and the Congress has now passed the Hyde Act. So, we had to make sure that everything in this US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, the 123 Agreement was completely consistent with the Hyde Act and well within the bounds of the Hyde Act itself”.

          So, this kind of trying to tell us that the 123 agreement does not mention Hyde Act, the 123 agreement does not mention all these restrictions, this is misleading us. No, it is not true.[KMR52]   The two essential parts of the clarification given by Burns are – firstly, he invited the Indian negotiating team  that in terms of sequence of events, the Hyde Act comes after the two agreements between Dr. Manmohan Singh and President Bush; and secondly, we had to make sure that anything in this US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, the 123 Agreement was completely consistent with the Hyde Act and well within the bounds of the Hyde Act itself.

          Sir, in its present form, in the final form, the US legislation adopted the NSG guidelines, imposed extraneous conditions on India, this is what Dr. Manmohan Singhji said in  Rajya Sabha on August 17 – if in the final form, the US legislation be adopted the NSG guidelines, impose extraneous conditions on India, the Government of India will draw the necessary conclusions consistent with the commitments I have made to Parliament.”  This is your own statement.  Are these consistent with the assurances given in both Houses  that under no circumstances, would we accept the kind of restriction on our right to – you have said in this House also –  test? Though it is said that provisions have been made which call for discussion and we have to convince the American side…

MR. SPEAKER:  If you yield?

THE PRIME MINISTER (DR. MANMOHAN SINGH):  Since you have quoted me on India’s right to test- what our Government has committed on this issue of testing is no more than what your Government had done, that we are committed only to a unilateral moratorium and that if in our wisdom, if the necessity arises that this country has to have a test, there is nothing in this agreement which prevents the exercise of that sovereignty.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI :   Correct.  I had anticipated this comment of yours that after all, we had unilaterally decided to impose the moratorium but a country which unilaterally decides to have a moratorium  on the point which we have reached, can unilaterally decided to disregard that.  On both occasions – whether it was in the case of Mrs. Gandhi in 1974 or in 1998, in the case of Shri Vajpayee, America did try to penalize us.  Though in 1974, the sanctions imposed on us were far severe; and secondly by 1998, India had arrived at a stage where even the severe constraints could not do us much harm so that practically they had to withdraw them.  But on both occasions, the consequences followed.

          Here, we are inviting consequences by signing for them this agreement that if we test, the consequences, the right on return of America.  This would be something which we never agreed to.  You imagine something like that happens and sometime later, some other Prime Minister has to reply in this House.  What will happen? How can he defend that we have agreed to it? We have agreed that if we test, then, you have the right to take back our nuclear reactors and you have the right to take back other related necessary materials.  We would have never done it.

Unilaterally, they are doing it and trying to penalize us is one thing, and by virtue of a pact, we do it and we agreed to it.  We are opposed to this kind of infringement.  I regard it as an infringement of India’s sovereignty.  That we will explain why a test became necessary?  China did this; Pakistan did this; so and so country did this.  They say, no, we are not satisfied.  It is for them to be satisfied that the argument that we have for going in for a test is justifying.  This is the Pact and we have agreed to.  We said that if you are not satisfied, you can take back all this.

          Mr. Prime Minister, the whole thing is so apparent that no self-respecting country should agree to it. I am sure that if Mrs. Gandhi were there; if Shri Vajpayee were there, they would not have agreed to this kind of encroachment of our sovereignty.

          Sir, I had mentioned about Dr. Bhaba being an advocate of India becoming a nuclear weapon State.  These days, while studying the whole thing, I was surprised at least I did not recall it that way but a small thing that I had thought might be worth mentioning on this occasion. [r53] 

On 11th January 1966, just hours after he had signed the Tashkent Declaration, formalizing the end of hostilities in the war with Pakistan, the Prime Minister Shastri died of a heart attack. This is a casual mention of a fact.

Just two weeks later, on January 24, on the very day Shastri’s successor Indira Gandhi was sworn in as the Prime Minister,  Dr. Homi Bhabha was killed while on a trip to Europe, when the plane in which he was flying collided with Mont Blanc in France. India’s impressively large nuclear establishment was suddenly left without any official plan or policy to give a direction.

          Now, it makes me wonder – was it just an accident? I do not know. I have no further information than what I have come across in this. To me, it seems a mischief, that a person who was the head of our nuclear establishment and who had not kept it secret to himself and who had publicly said that India should have a nuclear weapon, died like this. And he had publicly said, in reply to a question during a Press Conference, which I had participated in, as a Journalist in those days, that if the Government of India were to give me clearance, our own atom bomb would be ready within 18 months to two years. Such a person suddenly being killed in an accident of this kind, it does make me wonder. Maybe, you have more facts about those days, but I do not have. I thought, I might put it on record, that it is, to me, an enigma and a mischief.

          In the same context, I would say that today we are outside the Nuclear Weapons’ Club. Why? It is only because of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT Act passed in 1967 and implemented in 1970 said that only those countries which have developed a nuclear weapon of their own before 1970, would be deemed as nuclear weapon States. I today wonder if we had not committed that mistake, in those days, in the 1960s and had gone by Dr. Homi Bhabha’s advice, we would have been a part of that club.

He even requested Pandit Nehru that we should have it. But Pandit Nehru said, ‘No. Not so long as I am there and I would not favour it’. If we had done it at that time, we would have been a part of this Nuclear Weapons’ Club, before 1970 and all the debate that is now taking place, would not have been needed. We would not have been in this situation. We are now being pushed into the non-proliferation regime in this manner because we need nuclear energy; and therefore, they are taking advantage of it, by pushing us into the non-proliferation regime.

           I must compliment Mr. Nicolas Burns, the US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, who was one of the main negotiators and the Principal Spokesman for all that had happened. He said that this deal brings India back into the Non-Proliferation mainstream in a way, it was never before. It is true. Never before had any Prime Minister agreed to this. But we agreed to this.

          He went on to say that – he did not talk about ‘energy’ – this deal is the centrepiece of Indo-US strategic relationship. I am not against strategic relationship; I am not against strategic partnership. But this strategic relationship and partnership is in the nature of a junior or of an unequal partner; India cannot be an unequal and a junior partner of America or of Russia or of any other country. India, this one billion strong Indians, is a proud nation, which cannot be subservient or junior to any other country.

          My objection to this particular deal is principally because firstly it bars our right to test.[MSOffice54] 

Secondly, it makes us a junior partner in this partnership with America.

Thirdly, whatever we may say, they have also said that it is not merely IAEA but even American inspectors can come and see the nuclear reactors that are opened.  You assured us the other day that under no circumstances will you allow Americans to come here and see, yet it is there.

I would say that if in the sixties we had done what Dr. Homi Bhabha advised us to do, we would not have missed the nuclear weapon club or the nuclear weapon bus.   We missed it.  Now, let us not commit ourselves to that situation in perpetuation.  This particular 123 deal says that it will last for 40 years.

One of the leading papers of Delhi, one of the leading editors who had been a Member of the Congress Party at one time, Shri M.J. Akbar wrote on that day that it is a day of dependence.  After sixty years of Independence are we going to sign a deal which make us dependent for 40 years?  123 deal itself says that this will last for 40 years.

Only recently the Prime Minister went to Moscow, Russia.  Among the journalists who accompanied him, one was a well known editor of The Hindu, Shri N. Ram.  I saw an editorial in The Hindu after the Prime Minister’s return.  The editorial says: “According to Russian official sources an inter-governmental agreement, presumably on par with India’s 123 Agreement with the United States, was fully prepared for signatures during the Summit but the Indian side backed out at the last moment.”  I do not know why.  I do not know what the proposed agreement was.  Why the Indian side backed out?   The Hindu itself says that it was according to the Russian official sources.  This is what he gathered.   Shri N. Ram is a very responsible editor. 

I would urge the Government to come to Parliament clean on this matter.  What exactly happened?  What was the proposal?  What transpired?  Why did you back out if you had agreed to it earlier?  All these things must be known, otherwise, some of the complaints people have about how independent is our direction of Foreign Policy would certainly come under question mark.

I shall conclude my remarks by saying that 123 Agreement, as it stands, is unacceptable to the nation because it is deeply detrimental to India’s vital and long-term interest.  Let me say that hereafter if NDA gets a mandate, we will re-negotiate this deal to see that all the adverse provisions in it are either deleted or this treaty is rejected completely. 

SHRI  JYOTIRADITYA M. SCINDIA (GUNA): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise today in support of Indo-US nuclear deal signed by this Government.  Of the numerous initiatives taken by our Government to ensure that India retains its rightful place in the global arena, none compare with the 123 Agreement signed by the US.  This is a path breaking Agreement.  Rupchand Palji also said that this is a historic Agreement.  In one stroke, it induces the global community to accept India’s nuclear weapons and strategic deterrent.  With the signing of this 123 Agreement, the UPA  Government has for once and for all eliminated the nuclear apartheid that had been created against India.

          The 123 Deal is very clear.  It keeps our military reactors outside the purview of the safeguards to be signed with the IAEA.   We now have the freedom to build our nuclear deterrent without the fear of inviting sanctions and without undertaking the obligations of the NPT.  India being granted a single-nation exemption to the international regime is unprecedented in the history of global diplomacy. 

Members here would recall that our civilian nuclear programmes have been severely constrained due to the shortage of fuel.  Our reactors today are operating at roughly 70 per cent Plant Load Factor thereby nuclear energy in our midst is only at 4000 megawatt contributing only about three and a half to four per cent of power generation capacity in our country.  If India has to grow at 9 to 10 per cent and I think there is unanimity on that cause, and if that growth has to go to grass root level, we cannot ignore the civilian nuclear option.  This Agreement opens the doors for that.  By 2020, we should have in place close to 30,000 to 40,000 megawatt of nuclear energy in our midst.  But far more important than this, the Deal also raised the stature of India.  Mr. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of Political Affairs of US Government, in his official statement said on July 25, 2007:

“I can assure you that the United States is not going to suggest a similar deal with any other country in the world.  We have always felt of India as an exception.”

          We have been recognized as a responsible nuclear nation that can be trusted not to proliferate weapons technology and not to  illegally export any fissile material.  Our record and behaviour have been praised and unlike some of our neighbours, we have been found today a responsible global player and trustworthy global player.  Arguably, this definitely clears the decks for India’s greater involvement in global affairs.  Therefore, we must all join hands today and congratulate our Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singhji and his team for achieving an outstanding accomplishment in foreign policy. 

As I see it, this is a one sided balance sheet.  There are only gains and no losses.  Yet, we find a disturbing crescendo of criticism in our midst.  Our Government is charged with bartering our sovereignty, surrendering our strategic programme and our right to test.  We are accused of becoming unquestionable camp follower of the US.  It is being said that our foreign policy will now be dictated from Washington.  I have great respect for our democratic traditions but we must not respect dissent when it seeks to perpetrate falsehood.  We must not respect dissent when it seeks to vitiate the atmosphere by fear mongering.  But before I deal with what our friends in the Opposition have said, let me, at least, re-count to this House what some of our rivals in the Asian nuclear balance are saying.  An official statement issued by the National Command Authority of Pakistan after assessing Indo-US deal said :

“This Agreement would enable India to produce significant quantities of fissile material and nuclear weapons from unsafeguarded nuclear reactors.”

          Pakistan has urged that a similar deal should be offered to them.  Why would Pakistan want a deal that would barter their sovereignty; that would kill their weapons programme and take away their right to test?  The truth is that it does none of that.  All that it does is that it gives them the same right that it has given to India which is to continue its strategic programme.[R55] 

          The NCA of Pakistan has only reiterated the same concern with the Chinese last year. The official paper of the Chinese CCP has said:

“The Bush Administration has made a generous gift, granted India the status of a de facto nuclear power.”

          This, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is why Pakistan wants the deal.

          Let me first deal with the first allegation. I will come to each of the allegations. The first allegation is that our foreign policy would now be dictated by Washington. I would like to quote the hon. Prime Minister here.

“India is too large and too important a country to have the independence of its foreign policy taken away by any power. There is independence in our thoughts and independence in our actions.”

There are many areas of dissonance where we do not agree with the United States. Take the example of the WTO. Shri Rupchand Pal talked about it. We have opposed their stand tooth and nail. We have never surrendered the interest of our farmers or किसानों के हक के साथ हम कभी भी समझौता नहीं करेंगे। We stand by our democratic responsibility. We are answerable to our people. We have opposed the US on UN reforms; on the composition of the Security Council. Based on our interest in enlarging our oil security we are continuing to negotiate on the Indo-Iran gas pipeline contrary to the wishes of the US. In order to diversify our risk we are negotiating with China; we are negotiating with France; we are negotiating with Russia on nuclear power. In fact, during the last visit of the Chinese Prime Minister to India we actually talked about nuclear co-operation and they greatly evinced interest in our market, as has Australia. The hon. Prime Minister said:

“I urge those who question our commitment to an independent foreign policy to display the same degree of confidence in India as those from outside do. There is no question that we will ever compromise in any manner our independent foreign policy.”

          The second allegation that we are bartering our sovereignty, our right to test and what happens when the US decides to terminate. I would like to follow on what Shri Pranab Mukherjee said, the Preamble to the Agreement:

“This agreement is based on mutual respect for sovereignty, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality, mutual benefit and reciprocity and with due respect for each other’s nuclear programmes.”

          It is clear that India is entering into this agreement as a sovereign nation, as an equal and not as subordinate. This agreement makes no mention whatsoever, I beg to differ with Shri Advaniji, limiting our right to test. The hon. Prime Minister said:

“A decision to undertake a future nuclear test would be our sovereign decision one that rests solely with the Government.”

          Standard 123 with a non-nuclear weapon States does provide that in the event of a nuclear test there will be automatic termination if there is any clause of the agreement that is violated. But this is the first time in the history of global diplomacy that this 123 agreement with India obliges the US to understand the context in which India has tested resulting from a changed security environment. In place of the earlier proposal that would have converted a unilateral moratorium into a legal obligation, this time around the 123 agreement commits the two sides to a process of consultation to take into account India’s strategic compulsions.

          To me it is all the more surprising to see that our principal Opposition Party, the BJP, is criticizing us on this. When they were on this side of the Bench they nearly went ahead and signed the CTBT and I would like to quote our former Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee when he addressed the UN General Assembly on the 24th of September, 1998. He said:

“India announced a voluntary moratorium on further underground nuclear test explosions. We conveyed our willingness to move towards a de jure formalization of this obligation. In announcing the moratorium India has already accepted the basic obligations of the CTBT.”[R56] 

“India is now engaged in discussions with key interlocutors on a range of issues, including the CTBT.  We are prepared to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion, so that the entry into force of the CTBT is not delayed.”

The former Prime Minister, Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee echoed the same sentiment  in his address to Parliament on 15th December, 1998 and the former Minister for External Affairs, Shri Jaswant Singh, expressed and echoed the same sentiments in his article in Foreign Affairs. We had opposed the CTBT then. We have not allowed it in the 123 Agreement. We are consistent.  The BJP wanted the CTBT then.  It is now worried that we will not be allowed to test.  The BJP has always been inconsistent, hypocritical driven by their greed for momentary gain and not for national interests.

          The third allegation is levelled against us all the time – The towering scepter of the Hyde Act: The Opposition’s scarecrow!  The Left’s scarecrow!  Every time the issue of the Hyde Act is raised. Let me be very clear, Sir, that India as a sovereign nation is only committed to what it has appended its signature to, which is the 123 Agreement.  There is no question of us being bound by any law passed by a foreign legislature. Nowhere in the 123 Agreement does it talk about US cooperation with India being subject to an annual certification process. 

          President Bush, ruling on the so-called contentious clauses, while signing the Hyde Act very clearly said and I would like to quote him.

 “Section 103 of the Act purports to establish US policy with respect to various international affairs matters.  My approval of the Act does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy as US foreign policy.  Given the Constitution’s commitment to the presidency of the authority to conduct the nation’s foreign affairs, the Executive Branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory.  Also, if section 104(d)(2) of the Act were construed to prohibit the Executive Branch from transferring or approving  the transfer of an item to India contrary to Nuclear Suppliers Group transfer guidelines that may be in effect at the time of such future transfer, a serious question would exist as to whether the provision unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to an international body.  In order to avoid this constitutional question, the Executive Branch shall also construe section 104(d)(2) as advisory.”

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Glib readers of the Hyde Act, unfortunately, has lost over these very important clarifications.  Clearly then these clauses are non-binding.  The Hyde Act in Sections 102, 103 and 104 are not enforceable and cannot be acted upon.  The Hyde Act does not have the power to determine US foreign policy. 

          The fourth allegation that is made about consistently is American intervention and surrendering our strategic programme. It is very clear, Sir, and I would beg to differ again with Shri Advani that we would accept only IAEA safeguards on our civilian nuclear facilities and that too post our separation plan being in place and first lifting of all international restrictions on nuclear trade.  Here, I would like to quote Shri Anil Kakodkar, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.  He said: 

“Even if it comes to a situation where the IAEA determines that the application of safeguards is not possible, which is almost an impossibility, there will be consultation between the supplier and the recipient on verification measures.  Verification measures are not the same as safeguards.  Verification means you basically verify that the material that is supposed to be there is there.”

Sir, this Agreement does not affect our unsafeguarded strategic nuclear facilities and our indigenous technology programme.  Nicholas Burns said in his briefing on 27th July, 2007 as: 

“We work with India on the civil side;  that is safeguarded.  What India does on the strategic side is India’s business.  This Agreement does not aid that programme and it does not have an effect.”

Many times, Mr. Speaker Sir, parallels are consistently drawn with China-US Bilateral Agreement signed in 1985 and comparisons are consistently made with the 123 [MSOffice57] Agreement.

I would like to point out five important points here.

  Firstly, Upfront rights to reprocess spent fuel was not granted to China.  They must seek permission for that and while that permission is being given, they cannot act.  In all the other 123 agreements the standard language is that no material can be reprocessed unless the US agrees. India has been given those upfront rights to reprocess.

Secondly, China’s relations with Pakistan, China’s non-proliferation record and China’s progress on Tibet are all linked to their China-US Bilateral of 1985.   There are no such linkages in India’s case. 

China has given Australia a role in its separation plan.  India has the sole decision making authority with regard to our separation plan.   

China has accepted bilateral inspections by US and Australian inspectors.  Sir, I again differ with Shri L.K. Advani that India has not accepted US inspectors to be part of this transaction.

India’s agreement assures uninterrupted fuel supplies and China’s does not.

Therefore, Sir, clearly India though a non-NPT signatory, has achieved major distinct advantages over the China-US bilateral. 

Sir, every country wants this deal. There is a dominant voice in the US that is even saying that this deal is completely in India’s favour.  The New York Times editorial dated 5th August, 2007 said:

“Bringing India in from the cold is not a bad idea.  The problem is that the US got very little back.  No promise to stop producing bomb-making material.  No promise not to expand its arsenal.  And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.”

Yes, Sir, to our utter dismay, there are some of us in this House who are raising a din against this agreement.  Those of us who are doing so are not only doing a disservice to the nation but also a disservice to the generations to come.

          The hon. Prime Minister has upheld the commitments he made to Parliament in his last address.  The coming generations will own him a debt of gratitude and he will be remembered for posterity as the visionary and enabler that ushered India to its rightful place as a global power.  We must have courage and the conviction in our actions and in our dealings to stand up and be counted amongst the tallest nations in the world and this agreement will do just that!


प्रो. राम गोपाल यादव (सम्भल): श्रीमन्, जिस मुद्दे पर यह सम्मानित सदन आज बहस कर रहा है, उस पर पिछले कुछ महीनों से देश के अंदर जबर्दस्त चर्चा हो रही है। मैं समझता हूं इस एग्रीमेंट पर जितनी बहस हुई है, समाचार पत्रों और अन्य माध्यमों में जितना लिखा गया है, उतनी दूसरे किसी मुद्दे पर चर्चा नहीं हुई। इसके पक्ष और विपक्ष में बहुत तर्कसंगत तरीके से देश के जाने-माने डिफेंस के विशेषज्ञों और अन्य लोगों ने बातें कही हैं। मैं अपनी बात दो हिस्सों में आपके सामने रखूंगा। पहले देश के सामने जो परिस्थिति है, फिर जो यह एग्रीमेंट है, उससे सम्बन्धित कुछ शंकाओं के बारे में भी कहना चाहूंगा।[R58]        

          महोदय, जहां तक हमारे देश का प्रश्न है, इस वक्त हमारे चारों तरफ जो भी पड़ोसी देश हैं, उनसे हमारे रिश्ते ठीक नहीं हैं। अगर हम यह कहें कि ज्यादातर पड़ोसी देश हमसे होस्टाइल हैं, तो इसमें कोई अतिशयोक्ति नहीं होगी। अंतर्राष्ट्रीय राजनीति में हमारा जो सबसे विश्वसनीय राष्ट्र सोवियत यूनियन था, वह जिसइंटिग्रेशन के बाद स्वयं संकट में फंस गया, वह किसी का संकट मोचन नहीं हो सकता है। वर्ष 1971 में पहली बार डिफेंस के मामले में बहुत महत्वपूर्ण संधि इंडो-सोवियत फ्रेंडशिप ट्रीटी हुई थी, जो श्रीमती इंदिरा जी ने की थी, उसके बाद बांग्लादेश का उदय हुआ था। अब जो दो बड़ी शक्तियां दुनिया में बची हैं वह हैं – अमरीका और हमारे पड़ोस में चाइना।

15.46 hrs.

(Dr. Laxminarayan  Pandey in the Chair)

          इन देशों के हमारे साथ कैसे रिश्ते रहे हैं, हमें इस बारे में भी जानना पड़ेगा। जब हमारी चीन के साथ बहुत अच्छी मित्रता थी, जब पंचशील के सिद्धांत का प्रतिपादन हुआ, जब हम  ” हिंदी-चीनी भाई-भाई ” के नारे लगा रहे थे, तब हिंदुस्तान पर हमारे मित्र राष्ट्र ने हमला किया और लाखों वर्ग मील जमीन अब भी उसके कब्जे में है। अभी थोड़े दिनों पहले ही चीन ने कहा था कि अरूणाचल प्रदेश भी चीन का ही हिस्सा है। यह सही है कि अमरीका के रिश्ते पाकिस्तान के साथ बहुत अच्छे रहे हैं। हम पंडित नेहरू के जमाने से गुटनिरपेक्ष राष्ट्रों के लीडर रहे। अमरीका पाकिस्तान से सैंट्रल ट्रीटी आर्गेनाइजेशन, साउथ ईस्ट एशिया ट्रीटी आर्गेनाइजेशन के जरिए मिलिट्री के मामले में जुड़ा हुआ है और जब संकट में कभी वह देश आया, खास तौर से बांग्लादेश से लड़ाई के दौरान चीन और अमरीका दोनों का लगभग एक जैसा रवैया हमारी तरफ था। सैवेंथ फ्तलीट विद इट्स न्यूक्लियर वैपंस कैरियर पश्चिम बंगाल की खाड़ी की तरफ चल रहा था, तब चीन ने काल्पनिक आरोप हिंदुस्तान पर लगाया था कि हिंदुस्तान ने चीन के अंदर कुछ चौकियां बना ली हैं, उन्हें 24 घंटे में डिस्मेंटल करे अन्यथा परिणाम भुगतने के लिए तैयार रहे। दोनों का एक जैसा रवैया हिंदुस्तान के प्रति था। हालांकि स्थिति ऐसी बनी कि देश इस समस्या से उभरकर सामने आया और हमारा कुछ न बिगड़ सका। अब प्रश्न यह है कि क्या हम आइसोलेशन की स्थिति में रहें और अगर हम किसी से रिश्ते बनाएं तो किससे बनाएं? अतीत इस बात का गवाह है कि चीन ने हमारे ऊपर आक्रमण किया और चीन का इतिहास है कि जो उसका सबसे बड़ा मित्र था, उसी के ऊपर उसने आक्रमण किया। हिंदुस्तान पर आक्रमण किया और वियतनाम पर उस दिन आक्रमण किया जब हमारे विदेश मंत्री, श्री अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी चाइना, बीजिंग में थे। इन परिस्थितियों में अमरीका से एक एग्रीमेंट की बात सामने आई। हमारे प्रधान मंत्री ने यहां बयान भी दिया। जो टैक्स्ट एग्रीमेंट का है, इंटरनेट के जरिए हमें उपलब्ध हुआ है, उसमें कई ऐसे बिंदु हैं, जिन पर तमाम तरह की शंकाएं हैं और आलोचनाएं हो रही हैं।[R59]  

          हमने पिछली बातें इसलिए कहीं कि अब सोवियत यूनियन जैसा मित्र देश हमारा कोई नहीं है। पड़ोस में सारे होस्टाइल कंट्रीज हैं।  हम आइसोलेशन में नहीं रह सकते और जब नहीं रह सकते तो किसी से संबंध बनाने होंगे लेकिन जो अमेरिका से सिविल न्यूक्लियर कोआपरेशन का एग्रीमैंट हो रहा है , उसमें कई ऐसी बातें हैं जिन पर शंकाएं हैं और उससे ऐसा लगता है कि हमारी कहीं संप्रभु विदेश नीति और अन्य मसलों पर भी असर पड़ सकता है। मैं उन कुछ बिन्दुओं को रखूंगा और चाहूंगा कि माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी जब जवाब दें, तो शंका का निराकरण जरूर करें क्योंकि जो शंकाएं लोगों के मन में हैं, अगर उनका निराकरण हो जाएगा तो यह देश के इंटरेस्ट में भी होगा और बहुत जबर्दस्त विवाद पर विराम लग सकता है।

          जो हेनरी हाइड एक्ट है,  मैं इसके सैक्शन 102, सब सैक्शन 6 की तरफ आपका ध्यान आकर्षित करना चाहूंगा। उसमें लिखा है कि –

 “It is in the interest of United States to enter into agreement for nuclear cooperation arranged pursuant to Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 with a country that has never been a State party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty…”

          इसके आगे लिखा है कि –

 “The country has a functioning and uninterrupted democratic system of Government, has a foreign policy that is congruent to that of the United States and is working with the United States in key foreign policy initiatives related to non-proliferation…”

          अमेरिका की विदेश नीति के पैरेलल या उसके समकक्ष कॉग्रूऐंंट हमारी विदेश नीति हो, यह एक बिन्दु इस एग्रीमेंट में है। इसका अर्थ यह हुआ कि अगर हम अमेरिका की विदेश नीति के साथ नहीं चल सकते हैं, तो इस एग्रीमेंट से दिक्कत पैदा हो सकती है।

          इसी के अगले सैक्शन में है कि –

“With respect to South Asia, to secure India’s full and active participation in United States’ efforts to dissuade, isolate and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction including a nuclear weapons capability…”

          क्या इस एग्रीमेंट के बाद या इस एग्रीमेंट से हम इस बात के लिए बाध्य हैं कि जिस तरह से अमेरिका ईरान को थ्रैट कर रहा है, उस तरह से हम भी अमेरिका के साथ हां में हां मिला कर कहेंगे कि ईरान यह नहीं कर सकता, ईरान एटम बम नहीं बना सकता, वह वैपन्स ऑफ मास डिस्ट्रक्शन नहीं बना सकता। अगर हम ऐसा करेंगे, तो क्या यह हमारी इंडिपेंडेंट विदेश नीति होगी? दूसरी यह आशंका थी।

          तीसरा, सैक्शन 104 में इस बात का उल्लेख है कि –

“The President shall submit to the appropriate Congressional Committees a report including all sorts of information of nuclear activities in India, the amount of uranium mined and milled in India during the previous year.”

          उस यूरेनियम में से कितना यूरेनियम एटॉमिक वैपन्स के प्रयोग में यूज हुआ, यह हर साल अमेरिका का राष्ट्रपति अमेरिका की संबंधित कांग्रेशनल कमेटी को इसकी सूचना देगा।  एक तरफ हम कहते हैं यह केवल सिविल न्यूक्लियर कोऑपरेशन है, क्या इसका अर्थ यह हुआ कि हमारी जितनी भी एक्टिविटीज़ हैं, एटॉमिक वेपन्स को बनाने के लिए जो रिएक्टर्स हैं या न्यूक्लियर एक्टिविटीज़ हैं, जिनमें मिलिट्री या सैन्य न्यूक्लियर गतिविधियां हैं, अगर उन पर कोई कार्यवाही हो रही है उसकी सूचना अमेरिका को देनी होगी और अमेरिका का राष्ट्रपति सारी जानकारी अमेरिकन कांग्रेस को देगा? अगर यह चीज है तो सबसे बड़ी दिक्कत यह है। एक स्टेज ऐसी आने वाली है क्योंकि बीएआरसी में साइंटिस्ट्स काम कर रहे हैं, जो तीसरी स्टेज या थर्ड साइकल है, जिसमें थोरियम और प्लूटोनियम का यूरेनियम-233 के रूप में फिजिबल तत्व के रूप में प्रयोग किया जा सकेगा, अगर ये सारी सूचनाएं अमेरिका को देनी पड़ेंगी और अमेरिका इस बात का अहसास करेगा कि हिंदुस्तान में इस लैवल की एक्टिविटीज चल रही हैं, तो इस हाइड एक्ट या एग्रीमेंट के तहत अमेरिकन कांग्रेस या अमेरिका के राष्ट्रपति अदरवाइज व्यू अख्तियार करके एग्रीमेंट को खत्म भी कर सकते हैं। सब जानते हैं कि जिस दिन हिंदुस्तान इस स्थिति में हो जाएगा कि थोरियम का एज़ यूरेनियम-233 का प्रयोग करने लगेगा तो हमें दूसरो से इम्पोर्टिड यूरेनियम-235 की आवश्यकता नहीं पड़ेगी। असली संकट यूरेनियम-235 है, जिसकी जरूरत एटम बम और न्यूक्लियर वैपन्स बनाने के लिए पड़ती है, जितनी न्यूक्लियर सप्लाई कन्ट्रीज़ हैं, उनके माध्यम से इसकी आपूर्ति होनी है। इस देश में यूरेनियम और थोरियम का इतना भंडार है, अगर थर्ड साइकल की मास्टरी हमारे साइंटिस्ट कर लेंगे और जिस दिन हिंदुस्तान आत्मनिर्भर हो जाएगा तब ये नौबत नहीं आ सकती कि हमें इस तरह से जरूरत पड़े। यहां कुछ शंकाएं हैं कि इसका असर हमारी फॉरेन इनडिपेंडेट पॉलिसी पर भी पड़ सकता है, हमारे साइंटिस्ट भी डिस्क्रेज हो सकते हैं, क्योंकि उन्हें ये लगेगा है कि हम जो अगली रिसर्चिज कर रहे हैं उनका क्या होगा, कहीं उन पर पाबंदी न लग जाए।

          महोदय, तीसरी चीज जो बहुत खास है और जिसे लेकर चर्चा चल रही है कि हम एनर्जी में आत्मनिर्भर होने के लिए ये सब कर रहे हैं। अभी जो देश की स्थिति है उसमें अगले पांच सालों में 2012 तक स्थापित थर्मल और हाइडल क्षमता 2,10,000 मेगावाट होगी। अब तब तक केवल एटॉमिक एनर्जी क्षमता, जो 4200 मेगावाट के आसपास है, यह अगले पांच साल में 3300 मेगावाट और बढ़ जाएगी। इस तरह से कुल एनर्जी, जो हमारे यहां अवेलेबल है, वह तीन परसेंट है, जो हम प्रोडय़ूज करते हैं, उसकी एटामिक एनर्जी तीन या चार परसेंट है। अगर हम 2020 तक 40,000 मेगावाट भी बिजली पैदा करेंगे तो उस वक्त हाइडल या थर्मल से पैदा होने वाली बिजली बहुत ज्यादा होगी और उसका पांच, छः या सात परसेंट से ज्यादा एटामिक एनर्जी नहीं हो सकती। इस स्थिति में क्या सरकार ने सर्वे कराया है कि हम न्यूक्लियर रिएक्टर्स को लाकर कितनी एनर्जी बना सकेंग् और हमारी थर्मल और हाइडल की कैपेसिटी तब तक क्या होगी।? [r60] 

16.00 hrs.

          दूसरी तरफ इस बात की बहुत चर्चा है और तमाम तरह के विद्वानों ने लिखा-पढ़ी भी की है, पता नहीं वे अंदाज से लिख रहे हैं या इस बात का कहीं रिकार्ड है कि जो एटोमिक एनर्जी बनेगी, उसकी कीमत थर्मल से लगभग दोगुनी होगी और जो न्यूक्लियर रिएक्टर आयेगा, वह न्यूक्लियर रिएक्टर जितनी बिजली पैदा करेगा, उस कैपेसिटी का हमारे यहां जो थर्मल पावर प्लान्ट होगा, उससे रिएक्टर की कीमत तीन गुना ज्यादा होगी। इस तरह से कुल मिलाकर कीमत में इनक्लूडिंग रिएक्टर एंड इनर्जी बोर्ड लगभग छः गुने का फर्क है। अगर यह बिजली छः गुनी महंगी होगी तो इस देश की गरीब जनता को हम इसे कैसे दे सकेंगे। यह बात पूरे देश में फैलाई गई है, बताई गई है, इसमें कितनी सत्यता है, यह मैं भी जानना चाहूंगा। …( व्यवधान) यदि प्रधान मंत्री जी बतायेंगे, तो मैं मान लूंगा – यह मैं इसलिए कह रहा हूं। जब मैं बोलने के लिए खड़ा हुआ, मैंने तभी कहा कि जितना विवाद,  जितनी लिखा-पढ़ी और जितने आर्टिकल्स इस एग्रीमैन्ट के पक्ष और विपक्ष में आये, इतने ज्यादा पिछले बीसों सालों में मैंने कभी किसी और दूसरे मुद्दे पर नहीं देखे।

          अभी हाल ही में हिंदुस्तान की रक्षा से जुड़े हुए, एटोमिक इनर्जी से जुड़े हुए, फॉरेन सर्विस से जुड़े हुए लोगों का एक संयुक्त बयान आया था, जिसमें हिन्दुस्तान के भूतपूर्व एयर चीफ मार्शल, फॉरेन सैक्रेटरीज, साइंटिस्ट्स, एटोमिक इनर्जी कमीशन के चेयरमैन आदि सारे लोग शामिल थे। इन सब लोगों ने कहा कि यह बहुत अच्छा एग्रीमैन्ट है। कल ही हिंदुस्तान टाइम्स में रॉ के एक रिटायर्ड सैक्रेटरी, सीनियर अफसर ने लिखा कि यह हिंदुस्तान के लिए बहुत खराब है। जब इस तरह की बयानबाजी होती है तो हमारे जैसे लोग तो लेमैन हैं, मैं कोई साइंटिस्ट नहीं हूं, कोई एक्सपर्ट नहीं हूं, कोई सैन्य विशेषज्ञ नहीं हूं। लेकिन जब इस तरह की बातें होती हैं तो लोगों के मन में एक कंफ्यूजन पैदा होता है और उस कंफ्यूजन को दूर करना, लोगों के मन से उस आशंका को दूर करना, यह जिम्मेदारी माननीय प्रधान मंत्री और उनकी सरकार से जुड़े हुए लोगों की है। कोई प्रधान मंत्री जी की देशभक्ति पर, उनकी विद्वता पर, उनकी निष्ठा पर संदेह नहीं कर सकता। उन्होंने संसद में जो बयान दिया था, वह बहुत ही विश्वास के साथ दिया था कि हम ऐसा कोई एग्रीमैन्ट नहीं करेंगे, कोई ऐसा काम नहीं करेंगे, जो देश के इंटरैस्ट के खिलाफ हो। हम लोगों को या अन्य किसी को भी यह अंदाज नहीं था कि इस एग्रीमैन्ट पर आगे चलकर इतना विवाद होगा कि सरकार के जाने-आने और चुनाव के होने तक की नौबत आ जायेगी। प्रारम्भ में ही अगर इस तरह की चेतावनी दे दी गई होती तो हो सकता है कि आगे न बढ़ा जाता है। मैं यहां बिल्कुल ह्युमेनिटेरियन प्वाइंट ऑफ व्यू से कह रहा हूं, कोई पार्टी और पोलिटिक्स को बीच में नहीं ला रहा हूं। चूंकि यदि कहीं हम एक एग्रीमैन्ट करके आ जाएं और उसके बाद यह कहा जाए कि अब आप यह समझौता नहीं कर सकते, तो जो समझौता करने वाला व्यक्ति है, उसके सामने बहुत बड़ा धर्म संकट होता है। इसमें क्रेडिबिलिटी का सवाल पैदा होता है और अगर किसी प्रधान मंत्री की क्रेडिबिलिटी को ठेस लगती है तो वह केवल प्रधान मंत्री की क्रेडिबिलिटी का मामला नहीं होता, वह पूरे देश का मामला होता है। आज यदि यह बात होती है तो कल को कोई दूसरा देश यह कह सकता है कि हिंदुस्तान का क्या ठिकाना है, आज ये लोग यहां कह जाएं और कल वहां लोग इन पर दबाव डालें, फिर यही लोग कह दें कि नहीं, हम ऐसा नहीं करेंगे – इस तरह से आने वाले दिनों में अंतर्राष्ट्रीय राजनीति में हमारी कोई बात भी नहीं सुनेगा। मैं समझता हूं कि ऐसी स्थिति भी पैदा हो सकती है। इसलिए मैं कहना चाहूंगा कि माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी लोगों के मन में जो शंकाएं हैं, आप उन्हें दूर करें और मैं श्योर हूं कि प्रधान मंत्री जी उन शंकाओं का निवारण करेंगे और यदि वह उन शंकाओं का निवारण करेंगे तो मुझे उम्मीद है कि सब लोग जो विरोध कर रहे हैं, देश के हित में अगर यह काम होगा, आप सारी शंकाओं का निवारण करेंगे और हमारी स्वतंत्र और सप्रभु विदेश नीति पर कोई खतरा नहीं होगा,[b61] 

          जहां तक न्यूक्लिअर टैस्ट का सवाल है, न्यूक्लिअर टैस्ट को रोकने में, क्योंकि जो करना चाहता है, उसे कोई नहीं रोक सकता है। आपको याद होगा कि जब पहली बार संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ ने डिस-आर्मामेंट कमीशन बनाया, उसके तुंत बाद सोवियत संघ ने पहला विस्फोट किया। उसके बाद जब नॉन प्रॉलिफरेशन ट्रीटि पर हस्ताक्षर हुए, तो हस्ताक्षर की स्याही सूख भी नहीं पाई थी कि चीन ने अपना एटॉमिक एक्सप्लोजन कर दिया। इसके बाद भी कई ऐसी घटनाएं हुई हैं अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर, चाहे वह सीटीबीटी की बात हो, कभी कोई की बात आई, कोई न कोई देश इसके बाद विस्फोट करता रहा है – जो विस्फोट करना चाहे। आगे अगर देश के हित में होगा तो हिन्दुस्तान भी ऐसा करेगा और यह जो डील है या एग्रीमेंट है, यह इसे नहीं रोक सकता है। यह बात दूसरी है कि अगर उस डील में कोई ऐसी पाबन्दी है कि न्यूक्लिअर रिएक्टर ही अमरीका वाले उखाड़कर ले जाएंगे, अगर आपने ऐसा कर दिया, इसलिए ऐसे ही कोई दस्तखत मत कर दीजिए जिसमें न्यूक्लिअर रिएक्टर उखाड़ने की बात आए। मैं यही चाहूंगा कि आप सारी आशंकांओं को दूर करें, जिससे संसद और लोगों का समर्थन आपको हासिल रहे।

श्री देवेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव (झंझारपुर)  : सभापति महोदय, आज भारत-अमरीका परमाणु समझौते पर चर्चा हो रही है जो न केवल राष्ट्रीय बल्कि अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय महत्व का विषय है। यह विषय कोई पक्ष या विपक्ष का विषय नहीं है, यह देश के व्यापक हित से जुड़ा हुआ मामला है। जो भारत-अमरीका परमाणु समझौता है, जैसा अभी राम गोपाल जी ने भी ठीक ही कहा था कि इसमें किसी भी तरह से चर्चा में माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी की नीयत पर शंका करना उचित नहीं है। इसीलिए देश के व्यापक हित में जिस संधि पर आज चर्चा हो रही है, क्योंकि आज माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी की देश के प्रति पूरी प्रतिबद्धता है, इसीलिए प्रधान मंत्री जी की नीयत पर सवाल नहीं उठाना चाहिए। सवाल विचार का हो सकता है या मतैक्य का हो सकता है, हमारा दृष्टिकोण सोचने का अलग हो सकता है लेकिन परमाणु करार करने की जो नीयत है, इसमें कोई दो राय नहीं हो सकती है। देश के व्यापक हित को किसी भी तरह से गिरवी नहीं रखा जा सकता क्योंकि देश के सामने यह पहली संधि है। यह बात कहने में कोई अतिशयोक्ति नहीं होगी कि, यह पहली संधि है जिस पर इतनी व्यापक चर्चा हो रही है। आज तक किसी भी संधि पर इतनी व्यापक चर्चा नहीं हुई है। इसी संधि पर इतना संसद का विश्वास लेने और पूरे देश का विश्वास लेने की कोशिश की गई है। जुलाई में इस पर संयुक्त वक्तव्य हुआ ही था। इसके बाद अगस्त में दोनों सदनों में बार-बार इस बात को यानी माननीय वामपंथी मित्रों तथा अन्य दलों द्वारा जो शंकाएं उठाई गईं थीं, उन शंकाओं को निर्मूल करने का भरसक प्रयास किया गया। ऐसा प्रयास इस संधि पर जिसमें लोकतांत्रिक तरीके को “एडॉप्ट” किया गया है, इसके लिए भी मैं सरकार को धन्यवाद देना चाहता हूं। आपने एक अच्छा काम किया है क्योंकि आपने पारदर्शिता को स्पष्ट किया है, आपने इस देश में व्यापक रूप से चर्चा चलाई है और इसके बाद यदि कोई शंका है क्योंकि बिजली आज देश की सबसे बड़ी आवश्यकता है क्योंकि सारा बुनियादी आधारभूत ढांचा बिजली पर ही निर्भर करता है।

          ऊर्जा हमारी बुनियादी आधारभूत संरचना और देश के विकास के लिए जरूरी है और देश की सामयिक आवश्यकता आज बिजली है। इस बिजली की सामयिक आवश्यकता को देखते हुए जो करार हो रहा है, इस करार में यद्यपि बहुत सारे मसौदों की चर्चा हो रही थी, इस देश को समृद्ध बनाने में यह नाभिकीय ऊर्जा पॉजीटिव साबित हो सकती है लेकिन हम यह कहना चाहते हैं कि इस देश में जो सवाल उठा है कि जो करार है, या 123 जो समझौते का मसौदा है या जो हाइड एक्ट है, कई शंकाओं में मूल शंका उठ रही है कि क्या इसकी कोई वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था है या नहीं है? जो हाइड्रो-इलैक्ट्रिक पैदा  करने की बात है, हाइड्रो पॉवर पैदा करने की बात है, वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था कोयले से भी हो सकती है। जो एनर्जी पैदा करने की बात है कि क्या पवन से ऊर्जा पैदा करने की कोई वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था हो सकती है?

          वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था के बारे में प्रो. राम गोपाल जी ने चर्चा की है।  इन सब सम्भावनाओं के लिये सरकार प्रयास करे। वैकल्पिक विकास हो या न हो लेकिन यह करार आगे की दिशा में बढ़ रहा है। हमारे वामपंथी मित्रों ने सरकार को अंतर्राष्ट्रीय ऊर्जा एजेंसी से वार्ता करने की इजाजत दी है कि सरकार वार्ता कर सकती है, लेकिन उसके परिणामों पर शंका हो रही है। बिजली व्यवस्था से रोज़ी-रोटी का मामला और रोज़गार का मामला जुड़ा हुआ है। इस परिणाम से, यदि बिजली की हमारे देश को आवश्यकता है, उसे पाने के लिये कोई विकल्प है, तो उस पर ध्यान देना चाहिये।  बिजली को पाने के लिये देश में कई शंकाये कई तरफ से उठायी जा रही हैं। कोई कहता है कि गुट निरपेक्ष नीतियों का बलिदान हो जायेगा, कोई कहता है कि स्वतंत्र विदेश नीति पर कुप्रभाव पड़ेगा, यहां तक कहा जा रहा है कि देश की सार्वभौमिकता पर कुप्रभाव पड़ेगा और परमाणु परीक्षण का अधिकार छीन लिया गया है। हाईड एक्ट में जो 123 का करार है, उसका कहीं न कहीं कुप्रभाव पड़ेगा। जहां तक हाईड एक्ट का प्रश्न है, यह अमरीका का नेशनल लॉ है। उसका प्रभाव हमारे यहां कैसे होगा? अमरीका का कानून है, इसलिये एक तकनीकी सवाल है। इसके मसौदे की विस्तृत जानकारी श्री रूप चंद पाल ने दी है और कहा है कि 123 करार पर हाईड एक्ट का कैसा प्रभाव होगा? मैं फिर इस बात को कहता हूं कि हाईड एक्ट अमरीका का कानून है, उससे हम कभी प्रभावित नहीं हो सकते हैं, क्योंकि यह कानून उनके लिये है, हमारे लिये नहीं है। लोग शंकाये करते करते हाईड एक्ट से 123 करार पर चले गये। प्रो. राम गोपाल जी ने ठीक कहा है कि नीयत कर लो तो रिएक्टर उखाड़कर ले जाएगा अमेरिका, रॉयल्टी ठोक देगा, उनका उपकरण है, काफी दाम होगा। क्या हम उससे कम सजग हैं? यदि साम्राज्यवादी देश हमारे व्यापार की अनदेखी करेगा तो इस मसौदे में यह क्लाज़ है कि हम एक वर्ष के नोटिस के आधार पर डील को खत्म कर सकते हैं, वापस कर सकते हैं, इसमें क्या बात है?  हमें इस डील से अलग होने के लिये कौन रोक सकता है? अगर हमारी स्वतंत्र विदेश नीति पर आघात होगा या सार्वभौमिकता पर आघात होगा, परमाणु परीक्षण पर प्रतिबंध लगेगा तो हमारे प्रधान मंत्री जी संसद में इस संबंध में कई बार स्पष्टीकरण दे चुके हैं कि परमाणु परीक्षण का हमारा अधिकार महफूज़ रहेगा। इसलिये चर्चा होने के बाद एनर्जी सिक्यूरिटी के व्यापक हित में करार होगा। विकसित देशों की श्रेणी में चीन जैसा देश इन-प्रिंसीपल इस करार के खिलाफ नहीं है।

          सभापति महोदय, देश को 2012 तक एक लाख मेगावाट की अतिरिक्त विद्युत की आवश्यकता होगी, जैसा सोलर विद्युत सर्वे ने बताया है। हमारे देश में विद्युत की आवश्यकता को पूरा करने के लिये अतिरिक्त ऊर्जा स्रोतों की आवश्यकता है। इस आवश्यकता को देखते हुये हमें इस पर विचार करना चाहिये। आज हमारे देश में एक लाख 34 हजार मेगावाट बिजली का उत्पादन हो रहा है। इसमें परमाणु ऊर्जा का हिस्सा केवल 3.1 प्रतिशत है। हमारी आवश्यकता 8.0 प्रतिशत है, और हमें 5-6 प्रतिशत अतिरिक्त ऊर्जा चाहिये। हमारे देश के कृषि और औद्योगिक क्षेत्र में इनफ्रास्ट्रक्चर को विकसित करने के लिये ऊर्जा की आवश्यकता है।[s62]   आने वाला समय परमाणु ऊर्जा का युग होगा, जिसमें अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सहयोग ज़रूरी है। अपने देश के हित को तिलांजलि देकर हम अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सहयोग नहीं ले सकते। इस पर भी विचार करने की ज़रूरत है। मैं इसीलिए निवेदन करना चाहता हूं कि जब बार-बार माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी ने स्पष्ट कर दिया है कि भारत-अमेरिका परमाणु करार भारत के परमाणु परीक्षण के अधिकार को प्रभावित नहीं करेगा, राष्ट्रहित में परमाणु परीक्षण करने का हमारा संप्रभुतापूर्ण निर्णय रहेगा और हमारी स्वतंत्र विदेश नीति पर भी कोई आँच नहीं आएगी। आज मैं समझता हूं कि माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी या विदेश मंत्री इस बात को स्पष्ट कर दें कि इसकी वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था है या नहीं – जैसे हाइड्रो इलैक्ट्रिक पावर है। हाइडल पावर की बात शुरू होगी तो बहुगुणा जी द्वारा तुंत प्रदर्शन शुरू हो जाएगा। इसमें कई तरह की अड़चनें और कठिनाइयां हैं। इन कठिनाइयों को ध्यान में रखते हुए, मैं समझता हूं कि जो परमाणु ईंधन के रीप्रोसैसिंग का अधिकार है, वह भी स्थायी रूप से बना रहे, इस पर भी ध्यान देने की ज़रूरत है। परमाणु करार में हमारे परमाणु संयंत्रों को अमेरिका द्वारा सतत् परमाणु ईंधन की आपूर्ति जारी रखने की गारंटी हो, इस पर भी माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी जब वक्तव्य दें तो स्थिति स्पष्ट करें। इससे हम सब लोगों की शंका का समाधान हो जाएगा। हम अमेरिका जैसे साम्राज्यवादी देश के सामने उनके व्यापक हित के लिए नहीं झुकेंगे। हम दोस्ती चाहते हैं लेकिन किसी भी हालत में दासता स्वीकार नहीं कर सकते, यह हमारा संकल्प है। लोकतांत्रिक तरीके से जिस तरह से माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी ने इस पर बार-बार चर्चा कराने की कोशिश की है, संसदीय लोकतांत्रिक इतिहास में कभी इस तरह से किसी भी तरह की अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संधि पर चर्चा नहीं हुई थी। यह एक अच्छा प्रयास है, अच्छा तरीका है जो यूपीए सरकार ने अडॉप्ट किया है। इसके लिए माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी को बधाई दी जानी चाहिए।

          मैं साफ कहना चाहता हूं कि हमारे समक्ष जो ऊर्जा का बेहतर विकल्प हो, उनकी संभावनाओं को भी खोजने का भरसक प्रयास करना चाहिए। मैं आपसे कहना चाहता हूं कि यदि इसके बाद भी हमारे वामपंथी मित्रों की शंका का समाधान नहीं होता है और क्लीन बिजली, स्वच्छ विद्युत उत्पादन करने का और कोई रास्ता है, तो मैं समझता हूं कि यूपीए और वाम दलों की बैठक की जा सकती है। हमारे राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष लालू जी भी उसमें सदस्य हैं। जब यूपीए और वामदलों की सहमति की बैठक होती है, उसमें आम सहमति बनेगी। सहमति बनाकर ही इस  करार पर मुहर लगेगी। बैठक निरंतर चल रही है, सिलसिलेवार बैठकें हो रही है। उसमें सारे बिन्दुओं पर, तकनीकी विषयों पर और देश के व्यापक हितों पर विस्तृत चर्चा हो रही है। उस समिति द्वारा सहमति के बाद ही यह करार होगा, इसलिए शंका की कोई गुंजाइश नहीं है। पर्यावरण का मामला भी बहुत चलता है। इसलिए क्लीन बिजली की भी ज़रूरत है। इन सब बातों पर ध्यान देने की ज़रूरत है। इसलिए सुलह समिति जो यूपीए और वाम दलों की है, उसमें सहमति के बाद ही इस पर विचार होगा। मैं आपसे कहना चाहता हूं कि  एनर्जी सिक्यूरिटी के हित में  यह करार ज़रूरी है। मैं अंत में एक मिनट का और समय लूंगा कि आज जो परिस्थिति देश में बनी है, उसके संबंध में मैं कहना चाहता हूँ। …( व्यवधान) साम्राज्यवादी देशों से हमारा कोई समझौता नहीं हो सकता। हम लोगों ने तो लाठी लेकर प्रदर्शन करने का काम किया था जब इराक का सवाल उठा था।  हम अपनी संप्रभुता को किसी भी तरह से नहीं खो सकते। हम साम्राज्यवादी देश के खिलाफ हैं, लेकिन यहां संधि का सवाल है और एनर्जी सिक्यूरिटी का मामला है। सिर्फ एक मसले की बात है। आज जो वर्तमान स्थिति है, मैं उसकी चर्चा करना चाहता हूँ। …( व्यवधान) आडवाणी साहब की शंका है कि 90 प्रतिशत परीक्षण रियैक्टर की जांच उनके हाथ में जाएगी..( व्यवधान) यह सब भ्रम है। देश के व्यापक हित के साथ किसी भी तरह से समझौता नहीं हो सकता है। देश के किसान और गरीबों को आज इसकी ज़रूरत है। [h63] इसमें देश के व्यापक हित का ध्यान रखा जाएगा, इससे कोई समझौता, साम्राज्यवादी देश से नहीं हो सकता। आज जो स्थिति है, उसके संबंध में मैं थोड़ा बोलना चाहता हूं। आज सुबह जब परमाणु पर चर्चा हो रही थी, तो मैंने एक छोटी सी कविता बनाई, उसे मैं पढ़ना चाहता हूं –

          “आज हो रहा है भारत और अमेरिका के बीच परमाणु करार,

          इस परमाणु करार ने देश को कर दिया है बेकरार,

          यूपीए तथा प्रतिपक्ष में भी पड़ रहा है छोटा-सा दरार,

          यदि केन्द्र सरकार रखे अगस्त, 2007 वाला संकल्प बरकरार,

          और स्वतंत्र विदेश नीति, सार्वभौमिकता व परमाणु परीक्षण का महफूज़ रहे हमारा अधिकार,

          तो हो जाएगा परमाणु करार, तब नहीं रहेगा किसी दल को शंका और कोई मलाल,

          देश के व्यापक हित में हो जाए यह करार, तब पट जाएगी यूपीए और प्रतिपक्ष की भी दरार,

          सम्पूर्ण देश को हो जाएगा इस परमाणु करार से पूरा सरोकार,

          दोस्ती बढ़ेगी अमेरिका से, नहीं होगा कोई दास्ता और वास्ता से सरोकार,

          बिजली महंगी नहीं हो, इस पर भी करना है विचार,

          किसी हालत में देश का व्यापक हित रहे बरकरार,

          तब हो पाएगा मजबूती से यह परमाणु करार, यही है हमारा विचार।”


श्री ब्रजेश पाठक (उन्नाव)  :माननीयसभापति महोदय, आज मैं बहुत महत्वपूर्ण विषय पर भारत-अमेरिका परमाणु समझौते पर बहुजन समाज पार्टी का पक्ष रखने के लिए खड़ा हुआ हूं। भारत-अमेरिका परमाणु समझौता, जिसे 123 के नाम से भी जाना जाता है, यह एक महत्वपूर्ण मुद्दा है, क्योंकि यह समझौता एक प्रकार से भारत के भविष्य से जुड़ा हुआ है।

          सभापति महोदय, इस संबंध में बहुजन समाज पार्टी का मानना है कि इतने महत्वपूर्ण व दूरगामी प्रभाव वाले समझौते को अंजाम देने से पहले जनता के दिमाग में उभर रही भ्रांतियों को केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अवश्य दूर किया जाना चाहिए। यह ठीक है कि ऊर्जा हमारी परम आवश्यकताओं में है ताकि विकास की प्रक्रिया को तीव्र बनाया जा सके, लेकिन भारत-अमेरिका परमाणु समझौते के संबंध में सभी पार्टियों के नेताओं को विश्वास में लेकर या आमराय बना कर काम करना क्या गलत होगा? इसके अलावा भारत-अमेरिका परमाणु समझौते के प्रति जनता में ये भ्रांतियां फैल रही हैं कि भारत अपनी अस्मिता, स्वतंत्र विदेश नीति तथा भविष्य में परमाणु स्वतंत्रता के अपने अधिकार को अमेरिका के हाथों बंधक बना कर रख देगा। जनता में फैली इन भ्रांतियों को अवश्य दूर किया जाना चाहिए, क्योंकि हमारी पार्टी का मानना है कि ऐसे महत्वपूर्ण व संवेदनशील मामलों पर देश को एकमत रहना चाहिए। राष्ट्र की अस्मिता व सुरक्षा से संबंधित मामलों पर देश को एकजुट रखने की आवश्यकता है और यह जिम्मेदारी मुख्यत: केन्द्र सरकार की बनती है। इसके साथ-साथ हमारे परमाणु विशेषज्ञों की राय भारत-अमेरिका परमाणु समझौते के प्रति स्पष्ट तौर पर क्या है, इसका भी सही-सही खुलासा किया जाना चाहिए। साथ ही अमेरिकी मंत्रियों व अधिकारियों का यह कहना कि भारत के साथ अमेरिका का परमाणु समझौता स्वयं अमेरिका के बड़े हित में है, परन्तु भारत-अमेरिका परमाणु समझौते को अमेरिकी अधिकारी लगातार ईरान के साथ गैस पाइपलाइन से भी जोड़ रहे हैं, जिसकी तरफ केन्द्र सरकार को भी अवश्य ध्यान देने की आवश्यकता है।

          सभापति महोदय, केन्द्र सरकार को चाहिए कि वह अमेरिका को एहसास दिलाए कि उसे भारत के साथ दोस्ती का और मजबूती से हाथ मिलाना है तथा उसे और मजबूत करना है। उसके अंदर इतनी इच्छाशक्ति है कि वह भारत को वास्तव में अपना सही दोस्त साबित करना चाहता है, तो वह भारत को संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुरक्षा परिषद में पहले वीटोयुक्त स्थायी सदस्य का दर्जा दिला कर अपनी नेकनीयती का सबूत दे और इस प्रकार भारत की जनता को भी भरोसे में ले।

          सभापति महोदय, अंत में बहुजन समाज पार्टी केन्द्र सरकार को यह सुझाव देती है कि भारत-अमेरिका परमाणु समझौते पर कोई भी कदम बढ़ाने से पहले सभी पार्टियों के नेताओं को विश्वास में लेने के लिए एक सर्वदलीय बैठक बुलाए ताकि सभी दलों को यह मालूम हो सके कि इस न्यूक्लियर डील के पीछे केन्द्र सरकार की असल में नीयत क्या है और इस समझौते के नफा-नुकसान के कितने दूरगामी परिणाम हो सकते हैं तथा इस समझौते के आधार पर भारत का परमाणु भविष्य क्या है? क्योंकि अपने देश के लोग किसी भी कीमत पर परमाणु स्वतंत्रता खोना नहीं चाहते हैं। साथ ही किसी सामरिक गठबंधन का हिस्सा बनने के बजाए स्वतंत्र प्रतिरक्षा व विदेश नीति पर चलना पसन्द करते हैं, अर्थात् भारत को दुनिया के सामने अपने आप में एक मिसाल की तरह कायम करना चाहते हैं।

          सभापति महोदय, इन सब बातों को मद्देनज़र रखते हुए बहुजन समाज पार्टी का स्पष्ट मत है कि यदि कांग्रेस के नेतृत्व वाली यू.पी.ए. की सरकार बी.एस.पी. के इन सुझावों को नहीं मानती है तो हमारी पार्टी अपना रास्ता खुद चुनने का अधिकार सुरक्षित रखती है। [rep64]         महोदय, परिस्थितियों के अनुसार कोई भी निर्णय लेने का अधिकार, हमारी बहुजन समाज पार्टी ने, बहुजन समाज पार्टी की राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्षा व उत्तर प्रदेश की मुख्य मंत्री, बहन कुमारी मायावती जी को दे रखा है। अगर देशहित के खिलाफ, परमाणु नीति के संबंध में कोई निर्णय लिया जाता है, तो बहन कुमारी मायावती जी, इस संबंध में, कभी भी कोई निर्णय ले सकती हैं। इन्हीं शब्दों के साथ, सदन और आपके प्रति आभार व्यक्त करते हुए, मैं अपनी बात समाप्त करता हूं।


THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE     (SHRI K. VENKATAPATHY): Mr. Chairman, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to speak on behalf of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and my hon. Leader Dr. Kalaignar on the issue of nuclear deal signed between India and the United States of America.

          India is witnessing an unprecedented all-round progress over the past few years. Our economy is growing at a rate of between 8 per cent and 9 per cent per annum; our foreign exchange reserves are rising; our stock market is booming; and our export growth is experiencing a growth of 20 per cent per annum. Therefore, the world is looking at India as a favourable investment destination.

          Millions of people, who have been suffering a lot, are watching with new hope and optimism. I feel that this is largely because of the macro-economic management of the UPA Government. However, not everyone is rejoicing at what we have attained or what we have achieved so far. I need not adduce statistics, evidence or give material particulars to establish the fact that millions of our brothers and sisters are still starving; millions are still sleeping on the pavements without any shelter; millions of children are severely malnourished and remain illiterate; and millions of people are yet to get the basic amenities like drinking water, health facilities, or electricity. Therefore, this generation has to get energy at any cost.

          We should maintain the growth momentum in order to give specific relief to the people, and we require among other things a conducive policy environment; infrastructural facilities and quality inputs in order to sustain the growth momentum. Uninterrupted energy supply is vital to all our economic activities, and it will be more helpful towards the development of the nation.

          The per capita consumption of energy is very much necessary as it is the indicator of the level of economic development of a country. On an average, our energy consumption is only 1/20th of energy consumed by a person living in a developed nation. Despite the critical linkage between energy and development, access to energy for the poor has not received sufficient attention. Our economic development is dependent on energy because the economic development is energy intensive.

          Our domestic reserves of fossil fuels are rather limited. Therefore, we have to import major proportion of gas, crude oil and petroleum products. This import incurs heavy expenditure, and that cost is putting severe strain on our economy. Therefore, augmenting and diversifying our energy resources is essential for our nation. This is important not only from the economic point of view, but also on strategic considerations.[r65] 

We must explore all the sources of energy – whether hydel, thermal, non-conventional or nuclear. Nuclear power generating capacity should be improved because that is the only avenue available now. To meet the demands of expanding economy, this Deal is very, very important. This Deal frees our country from 33 years of unfair restrictions imposed on us following the peaceful nuclear test conducted by hon. Indira Gandhi in 1974.

I congratulate our Prime Minister and the team of negotiators for having negotiated this Deal. Our Prime Minister is a man of honesty, integrity and uprightness, and nobody can question his bona fides. Without compromising on India’s key positions, he has clinched this Deal. It enables India to acquire civilian nuclear technology. At the same time, we are able to have access to the dual-use technologies.

          This Agreement with India is unique, singular and exceptional in view of the fact that we are the only country who is a non-NPT member. Therefore, they have entered into an Agreement with a non-NPT member. It recognizes India as a responsible country with advanced nuclear technology. Therefore, this Deal is in favour of India which nobody can question. Other countries who are our neighbours are very particular to have this type of pact with the US with the same terms and conditions that have been extended to India. That itself is a proof that our Deal is in our favour.

          Concerns have been expressed about the right to conduct further nuclear tests and whether we have been curbed from conducting nuclear tests in the future. So far as this issue is concerned, our concerns are misplaced. A mere reading of the text will clearly go to show that if at all there is a test, we have to explain the circumstances under which we carried out the tests. That point should be taken into account. Also, it provides for a process of consultation before terminating it.

          We have got a provision for compensation also. Suppose, America decides to take back all the materials that have been furnished, we have got a provision for compensation. These things are provided for in the Deal. So far as the nuclear stockpiles are concerned, it is not good for India. We are not after waging any wars. India is a country which does not believe in wars. The military strategic argument for stockpiling arms is detrimental to the interest of any nation. We stand for peace and tranquillity. We have been fighting for that. We do not have intransigent attitude or uncompromising attitude. We have been preaching Panchasheel Policy and, therefore, India must focus on faster economic development and equitable distribution of opportunities, wealth and resources to every one of its citizens.

          Certain genuine concerns have been expressed by our Left allies. They stem not only from the Agreement per se but also from the general direction of our foreign policy initiatives. Therefore, not only from the text, but also from the context, they are raising certain questions. Our Prime Minister has taken effective steps by issuing statements twice with regard to them. He has allayed their fears and he has also clarified the apprehensions. A mere reading of those two statements clearly establish that there is no point in having those apprehensions and that we can get on with the Deal.

          Some other parties are opposing it and I do not know why they are opposing it. Without showing any reason or without knowing the reasons, they are opposing it tooth and nail. Had they continued in power, they would have clinched this Deal and they would have claimed that they had done a wonderful job. But quite unfortunately or fortunately, they were sent out of power, and now they are opposing this Deal. Like a Chameleon, they are changing their colours. After crossing the fence, they have changed their colours. [r66] [KMR67] When they were in power they were of one opinion and they are airing a different opinion now when they are in the Opposition. They are taking a different stance now. They are famous for their doublespeak. They are determined to oppose whatever the Government does. They are ready to oppose the Government view either in the name of Ram or in the name of bomb. They are all men of diction but they tell untruth. We are fighting for power for the betterment of the public. They are fighting for power, the political power. They are men of diction but have now become men of addiction to power.

          Renowned Tamil poet Thiru Valluvar said,

          “Gunam Naadi Kuttramum Naadi Avattrul

            Migai Naadi Mikka Kollal”

That means, “Weigh good and evil well.  Weigh merits and demerits. Judge by virtues that prevail”. Whenever we look into this agreement, there are merits and there is good. Therefore, it is the virtues that prevail. Therefore, we have to support the agreement. I welcome this agreement because it is not entered at the cost of the three important aspirations of our country – (1) autonomy of our strategic nuclear programme, (2) indigenous three-stage nuclear programme, (3) India’s research and developmental activities.

          I consider this agreement to be a unique and historical agreement by which India will become the only country in the world to pursue a a nuclear development programme even without signing the NPT and still being allowed to conduct nuclear trade with the NSG member-countries. What else do we want? This is a win-win situation for us. I would request all our friends to have oneness of opinion, modicum of thought and perfect symphony in supporting this agreement. I hope that all of us would support this agreement. I on behalf of my DMK Party and my beloved leader Kalaignar support this agreement.

श्री मोहन रावले (मुम्बई दक्षिण-मध्य): महोदय, जो अभी एग्रीमेंट हुआ या ट्रीटी हुयी, मैं इसके बारे में कहना चाहता हूं। आज सुबह मैं जब टीवी देख रहा था, अभी प्रियरंजन दासमुंशी जी यहां नहीं हैं, उन्होंने एक वक्तव्य दिया।  उस वक्तव्य में उन्होंने कहा कि ट्रीटी डिस्कस होगी।  उसको मान्यता नहीं है, अगर वोटेड होती, तो मान्यता होती।  आपको मान्यता लेने में क्या ऐतराज है?  पहली बार हिंदुस्तान में ऐसी ट्रीटी हुयी, जिस केस में कंट्रावर्सी हुयी है।  इसके बारे में मैं आपको कोट करके बताना चाहता हूं कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट के एक जज हैं, उन्होंने कहा, “Legal experts on the nuclear deal questioned the claim that the 123 agreement does not require ratification by the Indian Parliament. The Union Executive has no authority to enter into any binding treaty unless it is agreed to by the Parliament. In support of this assertion, articles 53, 73 and 253 of Indian Constitution were cited. ” He further said, “The nuclear deal without ratification by Parliament is not only undemocratic but is also unconstitutional. The national laws of US are already embedded in the 123 agreement. The Government cannot deny that Hyde Act will apply to the deal.” यूएस के साथ जो वर्ष 2005 से प्रधानमंत्री ने प्रक्रिया शुरू की।  प्रधानमंत्री और बुश के बीच करार के बारे में बातचीत हुयी।  बाद में अमेरिका की सीनेट में करार के पक्ष में 85/12 वोटिंग हुयी।  वहां वोटिंग हो सकती है, तो हमारे यहां वोटिंग क्यों नहीं हो सकती है?  यह यूनीलेटरल है।  This is not bilateral.  मैं आपको बताना चाहता हूं।  मैं कोट करना चाहता हूं। Article 253 reads, “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body”. हमारे यहां यह पास क्यों नहीं हो सकता?  पहली बार इतनी कंट्रावर्सी हुयी है।  हमारे दोस्त लोग तो सपोर्ट विदड्रा करने वाले थे।  यह ट्रीटी ऐसी है, जो हिंदुस्तान को पंगु बना देगी।  [p68] यह ऐसी ट्रीटी है। मैं बताना चाहता हूं कि चीन ने 1985 में यूएस के साथ एग्रीमैंट किया था।       

The China-US Agreement of 1985 states that both States would observe the principal of the international law under which neither party could invoke the domestic law to justify failure to perform the treaty. चीन कर सकता है, लेकिन चीन ने स्वीकार नहीं किया। उसने डायरैक्ट साइन नहीं किया, वह उनके सामने नहीं झुका, उसने अपना स्वाभिमान बचाया। हमारी सरकार अपना स्वाभिमान क्यों नहीं बचा रही है? हमारी सरकार अमरीका के सामने क्यों झुक जाती है?

          उन्होंने अभी चीन के साथ इंटरनेशनल एग्रीमैंट किया। यह एग्रीमैंट अमरीका और इंडिया के तहत हुआ है। मान लें हमने कल 123 एग्रीमैंट तोड़ दिया, तो हम इंटरनेशनल कोर्ट में नहीं जा सकते, लेकिन चीन जा सकता है, चूंकि चीन का इंटरनेशनल एग्रीमैंट के तहत समझौता हुआ है। मुझे नहीं पता कि इन्हें क्यों इतनी जल्दी थी। चीन ने काफी साल लिए और जापान ने छ: साल लिए थे, जापान और अमरीका के एग्रीमैंट में छ: साल लगे। मुझे लगता है कि यह यूनीलेटरल एग्रीमैंट है बॉयलेटरल एग्रीमैंट नहीं है।

          मैं न्यूक्लियर कोऑपरेशन के बारे में बताना चाहता हूं। हमारे पड़ोस में पाकिस्तान, चीन, मालदीव, श्रीलंका है और यह सारे हमारे ओशन से घिरे हुए हैं। इन सब जगहों पर चीन के मौनीटरिंग सैंटर्स हैं। श्री बुश ने कहा कि आप न्यूक्लियर टैस्ट नहीं कर सकते। यदि अमरीका हमें अपना पार्टनर  बता रहा है, तो पार्टनर का स्टेटस क्यों नहीं दे रहा है। हमें पार्टनर का स्टेटस मिलना चाहिए। हमें भी न्यूक्लियर टैस्ट करने का मौका मिलना चाहिए।

          अभी हमारे विद्वान नेता श्री लाल कृष्ण आडवाणी ने सभी तरीकों से बताया। उन्होंने डा. भाभा के बारे में बताया। हम न्यूक्लियर वैपन के बारे में सक्षम हो सकते थे। लेकिन दुर्भाग्य से वे मारे गए या उन्हें मार दिया गया। यदि उनका कहना मानते तो अलग बात थी।

          भारत सीटीबीटी और एनपीटी में टैस्ट बैन ट्रीटी और न्यूक्लियर नॉन प्रोलिफरेशन ट्रीटी का सिगनेटरी नहीं है। भारत सरकार ने यही स्टैंड लिया था कि इन दोनों में मसौदे का सिगनेटरी नहीं बनेगा। पोखरण-2 के बाद एनडीए सरकार ने पांच न्यूक्लियर टैस्ट किए। उसके बाद इन्होंने सैल्फ इम्पोज मोरेटोरियम एनाउंस किया था और कहा था कि फिलहाल भारत कोई न्यूक्लियर टैस्ट नहीं करेगा। इसका मतलब यह नहीं हुआ कि भारत कोई टैस्ट नहीं करेगा। उन्होंने पाकिस्तान को सहूलियत दी हुई है, चीन को सहूलियत दी हुई है। यदि वे कभी न्यूक्लियर टैस्ट करेंगे तो क्या हम उनका मुंह देखते रहेंगे? वे हमारे यहां बम फोड़ते रहेंगे तो क्या हम मरते रहेंगे? सरकार का क्या इरादा है? सरकार का इरादा स्पष्ट होना चाहिए।

          पाकिस्तान हमारा पड़ोसी देश है। कुछ दिन पहले अमरीकन सरकार ने डिक्लेयर किया था कि पाकिस्तान में विकास निधि के लिए जो पैसा दिया जाता है, वह सारा हिन्दुस्तान के खिलाफ आतंकवादी एक्टीविटीज के लिए इस्तेमाल किया जा रहा है। आज अमरीका ने उसे छ: हजार बिलियन डालर की मदद दी है। आज पूरे हिन्दुस्तान में बम फट रहे हैं, चाहे मुम्बई हो, रेल हो, बाजार हो या कोई भी जगह हो, आज जगह-जगह पाकिस्तान की आईएसआई एजेंसी के द्वारा बम फोड़े जा रहे हैं और पाकिस्तान उसे सपोर्ट कर रहा है।

          मैं बताना चाहता हूं कि ईरान को न्यूक्लियर वैपन्स टेक्नोलॉजी ब्लैक मार्किट में मिली है। पाकिस्तान को जो न्यूक्लियर टैस्ट टेक्नोलॉजी दी गई, पाकिस्तान ने उसे लीबिया को दी है, ईरान को दी है, नार्थ कोरिया को दी है और चीन ने उनके लिए चोरी-छुपे नान-प्रॉलीफरेशन कनाइवेंस से किया है।[N69] 

          सभापति महोदय, मैं थोरियम के  बारे में कुछ बताना चाहता हूं। आदरणीय प्रधान मंत्री जी को मैंने इस संबंध में एक लैटर लिखा था। हमारे स्वर्गीय होमी भाभा,जो ग्रेट साइंटिस्ट थे, उन्होंने कहा था कि थोरियम का इस्तेमाल होना चाहिए। भाभा जी ने जो कहा था, उस पर हमारी सरकार ने ध्यान नहीं दिया। अगर सरकार उस पर ध्यान देती, तो आज हमें थोरियम के लिए यूरेनियम और प्लूटोनियम की आवश्यकता नहीं होती।  मैं बहुत से साइंटिस्ट्स से मिल चुका हूं। थोरियम के लिए प्लूटोनियम की आवश्यकता होती है।  आज हमारे पास प्लूटोनियम काफी कम है।  हम उसका केवल दो साल ही इस्तेमाल कर सकते हैं।

16.46 hrs.

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

          महोदय, अगर हम प्लूटोनियम रशिया से मंगाते, तो आज हम प्लूटोनियम, थोरियम के जरिये यूरोनियम जैसा  मैटीरियल बना सकते हैं। इसी सदन में दो दिन पहले जब रंजन साहब  ने थोरियम के बारे में क्वेश्चन पूछा, तो माननीय पृथ्वीराज चौहान ने जवाब दिया कि हमारे पास थोरियम सफीशेंट है। हमारे यहां थोरियम का प्रोग्राम चल रहा है।  लेकिन इसका इस्तेमाल होना चाहिए। आज हमारे पास 2 लाख, 90 हजार टन थोरियम है। हम पूरे वर्ल्ड को थोरियम दे सकते थे। श्री होमी भाभा ने इस बारे में कहा था लेकिन 1966 में श्री होमी भाभा की मृत्यु हो गयी। उसके बाद 41 साल गुजर गये हैं।  हमने इसका टाइम बाउंड प्रोग्राम क्यों नहीं किया? मैं आपके माध्यम से पूछना चाहता हूं कि  सरकार के पास इस बारे में क्या टाइम बाउंड प्रोग्राम है? …( व्यवधान)

          अध्यक्ष महोदय, आप कृपया मुझे बोलने दीजिए। India has developed nuclear weapons, but it is not recognized as a nuclear weapons state by the five official Nuclear Weapons States – US, Russia, Britain, France and China, which had all tested their nuclear devices prior to the existence of the NPT.  लेकिन वे हमें करने नहीं देते हैं। The Hyde Act calls for achieving a moratorium on the production of fissile material for explosive purposes by India, Pakistan and the People’s Republic of China. It may be recalled that China has been producing fissile material for weapons purposes for a long time, while India was not allowed to do, by the NWS. The Hyde Act that President Bush signed categorically demands that India should ban all nuclear tests.हम प्रधान मंत्री जी से जानना चाहते हैं कि क्या वह हमारी प्रगति को रोकना चाहते हैं? मैं बताना चाहता हूं कि प्रधान मंत्री जी बार-बार यह बोल रहे हैं कि इससे हमें ऊर्जा मिले जायेगी, यानी हमें  20 हजार मेगावाट इलैक्ट्रीसिटी मिल जायेगी। मैं आपको बताना चाहता हूं कि हमें 20 हजार मेगावाट बिजली कब मिलेगी, यह वर्ष 2020 में 20 हजार मेगावाट बिजली हमें मिलेगी। इसी सदन में हमारे पावर मंत्री श्री सुशील कुमार शिंदे जी ने कहा था कि हमें दो लाख मेगावाट पावर की जरूरत है यानी 86 हजार मेगावाट बिजली की हमारे यहां कमी है। इस 86 हजार मेगावाट बिजली की हमें वर्ष 2013 तक  आवश्यकता है। अभी हमारा इंडस्ट्रियल ग्रोथ 11.5 परसेंट के करीब जाने वाला है। ऐसा सरकार का कहना है। इस हिसाब से हमें वर्ष 2020 तक 4 लाख मेगावाट ऊर्जा की जरूरत है। अब आप बताइये कि 20 हजार मेगावाट ऊर्जा कहां पूरी होगी? ये लोग सिर्फ 20 हजार मेगावाट के बारे में बताना चाहते हैं, दिखाना चाहते हैं, जो सही नहीं है। यह ऊर्जा एक स्टेट के लिए भी पूरी नहीं होगी। हमें केवल 20 हजार मेगावाट ऊर्जा मिलेगी, जिसके लिए हम इतनी कोशिश कर रहे हैं। हम अपने स्वाभिमान को गिरवी रख रहे हैं। मेरे पास बोलने के लिए बहुत प्वाइंट हैं।

MR. SPEAKER: You can lay your speech.

श्री मोहन रावले :  अध्यक्ष महोदय, आप हमें बोलने के लिए इजाजत दें ।

अध्यक्ष महोदय :  हम क्या करें। आपका पांच मिनट टाइम था लेकिन बारह मिनट हो गये हैं।

श्री मोहन रावले : इसके लिए आपका बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद। आपने हमारे ऊपर बहुत मेहरबानी की।…( व्यवधान)  अध्यक्ष महोदय, हम शिवसेना पार्टी की तरफ से कहना चाहते हैं किहिन्दुस्तान को पंगु बनाने वाला आपने जो एग्रीमैंट किया है, वह अनकांस्टीटय़ूशनल है। आप पार्लियामैंट की मान्यता  लेते नहीं हैं। इस बारे में कम्युनिस्ट लोगों ने पहले ही विरोध किया था। उन्होंने बंगाल में जाकर प्रधान मंत्री जी को ललकारा था। वे गुस्सा हो गये थे। उन्होंने वहां कहा था कि आपको जो करना है, वह कर लीजिए। मेरी आपसे प्रार्थना है कि इस डिबेट के साथ इसकी निंदा होनी चाहिए।

अध्यक्ष महोदय :  आप एक लाइन में बोल दीजिए। You can say that you reject this.

SHRI MOHAN RAWALE : Let the Government come forward.  [MSOffice70] जैसा कि सुबह दासमुंशी जी ने कहा कि चर्चा हो रही है, तो इसका मतलब यह नहीं है कि इसे सभी की मान्यता मिल गयी है।

          महोदय, मेरे पास कहने के लिए बहुत से प्वाइंट्स हैं, अगर आपकी इजाजत हो तो मैं अपनी स्पीच सदन के पटल पर ले करना चाहता हूँ।

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, you can lay it.   I hope it deals with the Nuclear Deal.

श्री मोहन रावले :जी हाँ, न्युक्लियर डील से ही सम्बन्धित है।

          *अमरिका के साथ होने वाले परमाणु करार को लेकर काफी जदो जहद चल रही है लेकिन अध्यक्ष महाराज, इसके पीछे छिपे तथ्य को ध्यान में लेने के लिए कोई तैयार नहीं। बिजली की दिन दुनि और रात चौगुनी बढनेवाली मांग, इस सभी फसाद कि जड़ है। भारत अब आधुनिक जीवन के नये मार्ग पर अग्रसर हो गया है। बिजली उसके जीवन का एक अविभाज्य अंग बन चुका है। इसी कारण बिजली के मांग की आपुर्ति यह सरकार की प्रथम समस्या बन गयी है। बाष्प द्वारा निर्मित बिजली, जलस्त्रोतों से निर्मित बिजली और अन्य किसी भी स्त्रोतों से प्राप्त बिजली हमारे नैसर्गीक धरोहर को समाप्त करने मे लग जाती है। केवल एक ही स्त्रोत ऐसा बचा है जो हमे लंबे अरसे तक बिजी मुहैया करा सकता है और वह है परमाणु शक्ति से निर्मित बिजली। इस समस्या को सुलझाने के लिए परमाणु शक्ति और परमाणु शक्ति के लिये पर्याप्त युरोनियम 233 की आवश्यकता है। इस आवश्यकता की परिपुर्ति के लिए करार करने की नौबत हमारे देश पर आई है क्योंकि युरोनियम पर्याप्त मात्रा में आज हमारे पास उपलब्ध नहीं है। हमे तो इसी सभागृह में बताया जाता है कि हमारे देश में थोरियम का भन्डार भरा है। उपलब्ध थोरियम के खजाने को बिजली के उत्पादन के वास्ते अनुकुल बनाने के कदम क्यों नहीं उठाए गए? इस अहम समस्या पर मंत्रालय क्यों सोता रहा?

*…* This part of the speech was laid on the Table.

          अध्यक्ष महाराज सभी समस्या की जड़ यह है। क्योंकि इन लोगो ने सामान्य जनता के हित की बात कभी सोची ही नहीं। कुछ बेपरवाह राजनितिक दल तो समस्या हल करने के बजाय सरकार गिराने की कोशिश में जुट गये। मेरी समझ में नहीं आ रहा की सरकार गिराने से बिजली की आपुर्ति कैसे हो जाएगी? यहां मुझे सरकार की बकालात नहीं करनी है, बल्कि जिन गरीब मजदूरों का मजदूरी सक्षम बिजली की आपुर्ति पर निर्भर हे उनका भविष्य अंधेरे में क्यो धकेला जाए? समस्या को क्यों जटील किया जाए? क्योंकि इन्हें तो समस्या का हल नहीं, इस महान सभागृह को राजनीति का अखाड़ा बनाना है। आओ यहां पर कुछ बुनियादी बातें सोचे अगर आपको अमरिका सहित किसी बाहरी देश के कारनामे नहीं चाहिए तो आत्मनिर्भरता के कुछ सुझाव दो। देश की बिजली समस्या को कठीन मत बनाओ। हमें सपने में भी नहीं भुलना चाहिए की हमारी मातृभूमि भारत एक सार्वभौम (सोव्हरिन) देश है। हम नहींचाहेंगे की लाखों स्वतंत्रता सेनानियों के खून के बदले में हमे जा आजादी मिली, वह किसी अजनबी देश के ओट भेअ चढा दी जाए। हम अपने असुलोपर चल रहे है और भविष्य में भारत एक सुपर पॉवर महान देश बनने वाला है।

          अध्यक्ष महाराज बड़ा बनने के लिए मेहनत और लगत की जरूरत है। किसी की ईर्षा करने से , किसी की बुराई करने से और देशों में नफरत की खाई बढ़ाने से कोई देश बड़ा नहीं हो सकता, इसका इतिहास साक्षी है। तथाकथित मित्र कहलानेवाला देश अमरिका बड़ा उदार देश है। वह जिस प्रकार हमें मदद देता है, उसी प्रकार पाकिस्तान को भी भरसक मदद पहुंचाता है। फर्क केवल इतना है, हमें मिलने वाली मदद सही मानों में विकास कार्यो पर खर्च होती है तो हमारे प्यारे पाकिस्तान को मिलनेवाली मदद भारत के खिलाफ नफरत के दायरे बढ़ाने के वास्ते उपयोग में लायी जाती है। नहीं, नहीं एक विरोधक के नाते मैं यह बात इस महान सभागृह में प्रस्तुत नहीं कर रहा हूँ बल्कि हमारे देश के महान नेताओ ने खुलेआम कबूल किया है कि पाकिस्तान को अमरिका द्वारा की गयी मदद भारत के खिलाफ नफरत के दायरे बढ़ाने के लिए, आतंकवाद बढ़ाकर,िनर्दोष नागरिकों के कत्लेआम के लिए, निजी एवं सार्वजनिक सम्पदा बाँब धमाके से उड़ा देने के लिए और जिनकी वित्त और जिवित हानी हुई है उनका दिल दहलाने वाला विलाप देखने के लिए खर्च हो रही है। अब आप ही सोचिए बहस इस पर होनी चाहिए या अमरिका से मिलने वाली धन राशी पर होना चाहिए?

          अध्यक्ष महाराज उर्जा की बढ़ती मांग हमारे देश की एक अहम समस्या है क्योंकि भारत एक महान देश के रूप में उभर रहा है, बिजली की आपूर्ति सरकार को नये-नये रासते खोजने पर मजबूर कर रही है ऐसे में उसे हम करना सरकार का काम है। यह काम किस प्रकार से पूरा किया जाए, इस पर सारा लक्ष्य आन पड़ा है। अब आप ही मार्ग दर्शन करें की हमें राजनीति वाली कशमकश चाहिए, या विकास का राजमार्ग चाहिए?

          अध्यक्ष महाराज भारत में इस विधेयक का विरोध बिलकुल अलग मायने में किया जा रहा है । जहां तक न्यक्लियर नॉन प्रॉलिफेरेशन करार का सवाल है। शुरू से ही यानी जब 1970 में यह करार सामने आया था, इस पर दस्तखत नहीं करने वाले देशां के श्रंखला में भारत जुड़ गया था यह भी सभी जानते है की, इस करार के दायरे बाहर रहकर भी, 1974  से लेकर 1998 तक भारत ने पांच बार अणुशक्ति परीक्षण कर लिया है इसी का दुसरा अर्थ यह है कि भारत ने अपने परमाणु सामर्थ्य का प्रयोग अपनी सामरिक शक्ति बढ़ाने के वास्ते नहीं बल्कि परमाणु शक्ति का उपयोग जन सामान्य की भलाई के लिए किया है। जिस प्रकार सफल तरीके से भारत ने परमाणु परीक्षण किये है, वह देखते हुए उसे संसार के पांच अणुशक्तिशाली देशों के समान मान्यता मिलनी चाहिए थी लेकिन मामला आपके सामने है।

          भारत में परमाणु शक्ति की एकमियत इस लिए है, के सारे संसार में जिस तेजी से परमाणु हथियारों को कारगर बनाने के लिये विकसित राष्ट्र प्रयास कर रहे है, उन प्रयासों को देखते हुए अगर हमने अपने देश के सुरक्षा के वास्ते, अपने प्रयास तेज कर दिये तो उसमें क्या हर्ज है? जिस हायउ ऍक्ट पर राष्ट्रपति बुश ने दस्तखत किये है, उसमें स्पष्ट रूप से यह मांग की गयी है कि भारत अपने भविष्य में कोई भी अणुशक्ति परीक्षण ना करें। अब हालात ऐसे है की खुद अमरीका ही अपने रीलायबल रीप्लेसमेन्अ वेपन्स के विकास में जुटी है। और भविष्य में वह अणुशक्ति परीक्षण नहीं करेगी, इसकी संभावना कम ही दिखाई पड़ती है।

          अध्यक्ष महाराज इस विषय पर राजनीतिक दृष्टिकोण नहीं, किसी राजकिय दल का स्वार्थ नहीं, किसी व्यक्तिगत समुह का मनाफा नहीं बल्कि हमारे राष्ट्र के नवनिर्माण में हमारी कदम अपने देश को एक कदम अग्रसर करने में कितना कारगर साबित होगा इस पर सोचने का है।

          यह सभी जानते है कि पाकिस्तान की निर्मिती धर्म के आधार पर हुयी है। पाकिस्तान हमेशा से अपने विकास को नहीं बल्कि अपने ही देश में धर्मान्धता को बढावा देने के लिए प्रयत्नशील रहा है। लेकिन इसी निती के चलते उसने पाकिस्तान में 52 आतंकवादी ट्रेनिंग कॅम्प्स चलाए रखे है जिका प्रमुख रूख हिन्दुस्तान रहा है। रेलवे, बाजार, बस, मंदिर, मस्जिद ऐसे स्थानों पर जहाँ की भी भिड़ लगती हो उसमें यह आतंकवादी बंम धमाके करके लोगों के जानोमाल को बरबादी में धकेल रहे है। आज जो दहशतवाद वह इस्लाम के नाम पर चल रहा है उसका फायदा पाकिस्तान के तानाशाह भरसक अठा रहा है। लेकिन भारत तो नॉन इस्लामिक राष्ट्र है। अपने विकास निति के कारण भरत ने एक शान्तिपूर्ण राष्ट्र के नाते अपनी प्रतिमा तैयार की है। इसी कारण से अमरिका भारत से करार करना चाहता है। इस करार को अमरिका के इशारे पर नाचने के लिए नहीं अपितु अपने देश को एक सार्वभौम (सोव्हरिन) राष्ट्र बनाने के लिए इस्तेमाल करना है। विदेशों से करार करने का अधिकार भारत सरकार को अवश्य है लेकिन इस अधिकार का प्रयोग देश की स्वतंत्रता को गिरवी रखने के लिए नहीं अपितु अपने राष्ट्र को बलवाल बनाने के लिए होना चाहिए यही मेरी अपेक्षा है।  

In India, the opposition to the bill is based on an entirely different perspective. India has remained a non-signatory of the Nuclear-Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) since the Treaty entered into force in 1970, following U.S. ratification. Staying outside of the NPT-regime, India has tested its nuclear devices on three occasions—once in 1974 and twice in 1998. In other words, India has developed nuclear weapons, but it is not recognized as a nuclear weapons state by the five official Nuclear Weapons States-(NWS)— United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China—which had all tested their nuclear devices prior to the existence of the NPT.

The issue of future nuclear tests is important to the opponents of the bill in India, because they consider that such tests are necessary in order to upgrade India’s nuclear weapons to match nuclear developments elsewhere, and provide security to the nation. The Hyde Act that President Bush signed categorically demands that India ban all nuclear explosive tests in the future. It, however, does not address the ‘fact that the United States itself is working on the design of a “Reliable Replacement Weapon” (RRW) to modernize its nuclear arsenal, and may indeed carry out a test in the future!

Moreover, in the “Definitions” section of the contested 11, it is clearly stated that the “Additional Protocol” is to be based on the Model Additional protocol of the IAEA applicable to non-nuclear-weapon states, which is highly intrusive. It is maybe pointed out that the Hyde Act makes it clear that the U.S. President has to satisfy himself that India is working actively on an early conclusion of the Fissile Material Control ” regime (FMCT); that India is supporting the United States in preventing the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies; and that India adheres to the Misssile Test Control Regime (MTCR) and NSG guidelines (without actually being invited to be a member of these bodies). These actions which India is obliged to take are not consistent with what “a strategic partner” (which Washington wishes Indi3 to be) should be taking. Neither are they consistent with what India—described as a “responsible state with advanced technology”—should be mandated to take.

What also concerns India’s planners about the bill is the way it has been formulated. The Hyde Act calls for achieving a moratorium on the production of fissile material for explosive purposes by India, Pakistan, and the People’s Republic of China. It may be recalled that China has been producing fissile material for weapons purposes for a long time, while India was not allowed to by the NWS. Therefore, stopping production of fissile material at the same point of time would lead to a serious imbalance. The statement of policy goes on to say that the United States shall “seek to halt the increase of nuclear weapon arsenals in South Asia and to promote their reduction and eventual elimination.”

  Indian scientists have made their views known about the inadequacy of the Hyde Act, citing two specific areas. First-, the bill says categorically that India cannot reprocess spent fuel from its reactors. it demands this because the United States claims that the “no reprocessing” clause would-prevent from getting plutonium, which could be used later for making nuclear weapons.  However, there is more to the clause than meets the eye, India atomic scientists point out.

India decided on a three-stage nuclear program back in the 1950s, when India’s nuclear power generation program was set up. In the first stage, natural uranium (U-238) was used in pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs). In the second stage, the plutonium extracted through reprocessing from the used fuel of the PHWRs was scheduled to be used to run fast-breeder reactors (FBRs). The plutonium was used in the FBRs in 70% mixed oxide (MOX)-fuel, to breed uranium-233 in a thorium-232 blanket around the core. In the final stage, the FBRs use thorium-232 and produce uranium-233 for use in the third stage reactors.

To a certain extent, India has completed the first stage, although it has realized a dozen nuclear power plants so far. The second stage is only realized by a small experimental fast breeder reactor (13 MW), at Kalpakkam. Meanwhile, the Indian authorities have cleared the Department of Atomic Energy’s proposal to set up a 500 MW prototype of the next-generation fast-breeder nuclear power, reactor at Kalpakkam, thereby setting the stage for the commercial exploitation of thorium as a fuel source.

One reason for India’s commitment to switch over to thorium is its large indigenous supply. With estimated thorium reserves of some 290,000 tons, it ranks second only to Australia. Further, the nation’s pursuit of thorium helps to bring independence from overseas uranium sources. Since India is a non-signatory of the NPT, its leaders foresaw that its civil nuclear-energy-generation program would be constrained in the long term by the provisions laid down by the commercial uranium suppliers. The 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group demand that purchasers sign the NPT and thereby allow enough oversight to ensure that the fuel (or the plutonium spawned from it) is not used for making nuclear weapons. A non-signatory of the NPT is prevented from receiving any nuclear-related technology and nuclear fuel.

         India already began the construction of the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWB) in 2005. The AHWR will use thorium, the “fuel of the future,” to generate 300 MW of electricity—up from its original design output of 235 MW. The fuel for the AHWR will be a hybrid core, partly thorium-uranium 233 and partly thorium-plutonium.        

In other words, if India cannot reprocess the spent fuel to secure plutonium for the sake of converting thorium into fuel, the thorium reactors will never take off. Separation of plutonium is essential for the eventual use of thorium as a nuclear fuel. India therefore expects that reprocessing will be an important activity of its nuclear energy program This is what has put the Indian atomic scientists on a warpath against the Singh government’s willingness to accept the bill.

Natural uranium contains about 99.3% of the isotope uranium-238 and 0.7% of the fissionable isotope uranium-235. Although uranium-235 is the rarer of the uranium isotopes, it is the one that most readily undergoes nuclear fission, and is thus the most useful for common nuclear applications. Therefore, to use uranium, the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope found in natural uranium must be increased. This process of increasing the fraction of uranium-235 in natural uranium is called enrichment. At the same time, one must note that while uranium-235 is present in natural uranium in small amounts, uranium-233 does not exist in nature. Therefore, thorium-232 must be converted to uranium-233 in order to generate nuclear power.

The second concern of the Indian scientists is the scope of “full civilian nuclear energy cooperation” (Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act) that was promised to India in July 2005. India had assumed that this term encompassed the fuel cycle, namely enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent fuel. In the “discussions leading to the adoption of the Hyde Act, U.S. legislators argued that the U.S. Atomic Energy Act Of .1954 specifically forbids export of these technologies, as also heavy water production technology, to other countries. India has developed its own technologies in these three important areas.

India’s top atomic scientists have spelled out some of the key points to be incorporated in the 123 agreement are:

• India should not be asked to participate in international non-    proliferation efforts with a policy congruent to that of the United States.

•         There should be full-scale civilian nuclear cooperation, with an assurance of constant fuel supply.

•         India should be free to carry out more nuclear weapons tests.

There are four main areas of interest for the US to enter into the nuclear cooperation agreement with India. Firstly, this will generate over $150 billion worth of business opportunities to companies producing nuclear reactors, which would in turn be financed by US based transnational banks. Secondly, the Defence Cooperation Agreement, which preceded the nuclear cooperation agreement, would pave the way for the sale of sophisticated weaponry to India creating a huge market for the military industrial complex of the US. Thirdly, this would enable the US to draw India into the National Missile Defence System, which symbolizes the hegemonic design of the US to dominate the entire world. Fourthly, the US wants India to become its strategic ally in Asia, especially in the backdrop of the ASEAN taking a position against the Iraq War and the strengthening of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization comprising of Russia, China and other Central Asian republics. The provisions in the Hyde Act clearly point towards these strategic goals of the US. Nuclear cooperation would provide the leverage to the US to make India fall in line.

Our main weakness regarding nuclear energy is a limited supply of uranium which can be expanded by more mining or going for the thorium cycle. The government without doing any of this has suddenly pushed 123 Agreement with the US, when India today is on the threshold of completing the Thorium cycle. Contrary to the assurance made by the prime minister, the nuclear deal has not assured “full” nuclear cooperation. Technology would continue to be denied to India in crucial areas.        

The legal aspects of the nuclear deal question the claim that the 123 Agreement does not require ratification by the Indian Parliament.  The union Executive has no authority to enter into any binding treaty unless it is ratified by parliament.  In support of this assertion, three articles from the Indian constitution are sighted: Articles 53, 73 and 253 along with entry numbers 6 and 30 from the union list. On the basis of these- to go ahead with the nuclear deal without ratification of parliament is not only undemocratic but also unconstitutional. The national laws of the US are already embedded in the 123 Agreement and the government cannot deny that Hyde Act will apply to the deal.

What are India’s problems that force us into needing this agreement?

First off, we need energy to sustain our growing economy. We can’t depend too much on the middle-east to supply fossil fuel for two reasons:   

1)                 They are getting costlier   

2)                 That region is constantly volatile. Also, we don’t have quality coal available freely in India anymore. Some are hidden underneath our rainforests and we will have to destroy a bit of our ecology to plough them out.

We have very minimal uranium. We need nuclear fuel badly.

          In the last 40 years, we have been zealously developing this technology all by our own, though the advanced technology that this agreement is going to bring will help.            

       What are we losing in this bargain?     

We have to agree not to develop nuclear weapons using the fuel and the technology that the US is going to provide us. In order to do this, we have to identify a set of reactors that will use the fuel and the techie stuff comes from them. And understandably, there will be audits to ensure that we are not “sneaking’ out any stuff outside to the reactors used for military purposes. These audits will be carried out by IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency. India has identified 14 out of 22 reactors as ‘civilian’ and hence these will come under the IAEA surveillance.  

We will also have to work with US in terms of combating other countries that are aspiring for nuclear weapons, namely Iran.

The third most important aspect is about our right to conduct further tests. Interestingly, India has voluntarily capped a moratorium on further tests but we still have the right to test a nuke or two in case the situation demands. Going back a couple of decades, all the signatories of NPT have tested nukes after that. Considering the prevailing situation, India will not want to conduct another test, unless or otherwise it sees a threat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *