DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT ON INDIA-US AGREEMENTS

India-US Have No Strategic Commonality

Nilotpal Basu In Rajya Sabha

I would like to reassure the entire House, that we thoroughly distance ourselves from the kind of criticism that has been made against the statement [made by BJP]. There have been references to a national consensus. If anybody has broken national consensus on strategic nuclear issues in this country, it is the BJP.

When I read the statement very carefully, I find that the compelling argument given by the prime minister for entering into this nuclear deal is the search for an alternative source of energy. Now, I would like to know this from the prime minister –– did we have a national debate in the country on what should be the appropriate energy-mix in this country? Since when was there a sudden recognition of nuclear energy as a major source of alternative energy? Has there been any financial accounting, and is nuclear energy the most viable form of energy? I ask this because there are several new technologies developed today in the world with regard to alternative sources of energy. One of the major new technologies is the coal gasification; another major source of energy is the hydel power. Therefore, I think it would have been better had the nation been witness to a proper, structured discussion and debate on what should be the appropriate energy mix.

There are several aspects of elements in this agreement which can be declassified and which could have been discussed before reaching this agreement. In that sense, the spirit of the National Common Minimum Programme that we will try to be as transparent as possible in our governance could have been maintained. I think, the kind of confusion that had been created in certain sections of public mind could have been avoided.

The other question, which is also equally important to us, is that the independence of the nuclear programme of India is because of the force of circumstances. We know that there is a discriminatory nuclear regime in the world today. And, our approach has always been, and I was just reading from the proceedings of the House after Pokhran II, that I think prime minister and I shared the same views in terms of bringing out the infirmities in the manner in which the NDA government went ahead in doing what it did. I remember clearly how after two days, a letter was sent to president Clinton, as if as an after-thought to try and say, “Well, we did this, but that should not bother you because we are taking care of Pakistan and China.” I have never seen a government devise its nuclear strategy with a country-specific perspective. Now, our approach on that day, in this debate in this House, was the question of India’s position vis-à-vis the whole question of global disarmament. We want a nuclear-free world because nuclear war, nuclear weaponisation, ultimately, can only lead us to a mutually-assured destruction. And, therefore, I would have been, or we would have been happier if in your agreement, you could relate the attempt to come out of the nuclear isolation, you could have combined that with our principled stand on having a nuclear weapon-free world as the vision of Rajiv Gandhi in his Vision 2020 Document. I find a mention of that in your statement here, but in the agreement, when I tried to find out that inter-connection, it is not as explicit as you may have later on explicitly made in your statement. But, in the body of the agreement as such, I think that inter-connection is absent. Therefore, our criticism of the nuclear deal is that it does not specifically mention the aim of India, as a nation, for a global nuclear-free regime which will bring an end to all this nuclear discrimination and division of the world into nuclear haves and have-nots.

The other point about nuclear agreement, where we have our doubts, is that while we have tried to access nuclear fuel, it should not bind us to programmes which will not allow our eventual liberation from the dependence on nuclear fuel. Thorium is a nuclear fuel, which is abundantly available in the country. So, the absolute prerequisite of the independent programme of our fast breeder reactor has to be maintained and I think, it will be important for the government to explain to us that how they are going to calibrate its responses in terms of dealing with the safeguards because one point about the IAEA has to be mentioned that over the years, it has been used as a handmaiden of certain international powers, I mean, to the detriment of certain developing countries.

We are proud of the statement that you made in terms of saying Americans that you made a mistake in Iraq, but in the same breath, you said, well that is past. I have the parliamentary unanimous resolution which says very clearly that the occupying forces must leave. It is clearly mentioned here in the statement. How can that be ‘past’? Does any member of this House think as to what happened in Iraq and what the Americans have inflicted is a thing of the ‘past’?

Regarding fighting terrorism with Americans, what has happened since 9/11? Has terrorism gone down? Can our approach and American approach be one and the same? Any reference to sharing fight against terrorism is a travesty of truth as it is because of the Americans largely today that terrorism is sprawling in different parts of the world. I do agree with the prime minister, with the leader of the opposition and with Vajpayee that terrorism under no context, under no grounds can be really defended. At the same time, unless we understand that those who are falling victims to terrorists and to ideological machinations which lead to terrorism, unless that can be effectively fought, terrorism can never be wiped out from the face of this world.

If we believe that our permanent seat in the UN Security Council will be courtesy United States, all of us will be making a mistake. Our claim to UN Security Council is for our active promotion for the cause of multilateralism. I think that has to be underscored in this debate. I do agree that the government has done right thing by saying that this agreement is reciprocal, by saying that it is conditional. I think that much of the euphoria in the country over this agreement is also premature.                

I think, there cannot be any strategic commonality between what India thinks and what the USA thinks. We want a very good relationship with the USA. We want a very good and equal relationship as a sovereign country with the United States. But that should not be seen as contravening our equal wish to have friendly relations with other countries.