People's Democracy

DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT ON INDIA-US AGREEMENTS

Be Mindful Of Our Legacy Of Non-Alignment

Rupchand Pal In Lok Sabha

BOTH the prime minister and the defence minister visited the United States a few weeks back and a framework, a defence agreement was reached. Both of them have underscored the changes in the attitude of the United States. What are the changes? Is it that America has changed; or the US Administration has changed; or we have changed or the world has changed? “Has USA changed its views, its colour?” the answer is: “No.”

Why are they politically doing this? It is obviously to contain China, as a counter balance in Asia and to use India vis-à-vis China. China has not come out openly. No one has made any comment. But when we agree to the policing of the sea land, except Singapore who has agreed to the US proposal? Malaysia was against it. All the littoral States were against it. How will they take it? Will they not take it that India is a big brother. We are not against any just, equitable, and balanced relation with anyone.

Firstly, let us take up the initiative with regard to bilateral democracy with a country which does not have the least faith in any democracy, any sovereignty of the world. Till now, what is the fate of Iraq? What is the fate of Afghanistan? What is the fate of many countries? For decades the blockade is continuing on Cuba. Are we to learn democracy from them and that too bilateral democracy? How will the people world-over take it? Had it been under the United Nations banner? Yes, it can be done. It is a continuation of the community of democrats theory of the Clinton administration which the NDA government had agreed to. It is continuation. How do you demarcate yourself from the earlier government which had been surrendering to the American pressures?

I was reading our prime minister’s speech which was made in the other House. What will happen to nuclear disarmament? I do not say that whatever is being done is wrong. But the government must explain, convince that there is no deviation from our committed nuclear policy for peaceful means. We have an independent nuclear policy. We cannot be client to anyone. We cannot subjugate ourselves to any terms and conditions. The government owes it to the nation to explain this categorically. I believe the prime minister has tried to do that by saying that it is conditional and it is based broadly on reciprocity, on the basis of the mutual benefits. It will be done in a phased manner. If they do not act in the right manner, then we have the autonomy, the right to proceed independently according to our national interest. He has clarified that and I appreciate that clarification.

But I believe there are certain areas where more confusion has been created. Take for example anti-terrorism. The country which has been practising day in and day out State terrorism, trampling the rights of sovereign states, is speaking about anti-terrorism. After they started their programme of anti-terrorist campaign, what had happened? Has it died down? Has it been reduced? There is something wrong in their approach. People the world over do not believe them.

About our nuclear defence deal, we are proud of our scientists. From the days of Dr Homi Bhabha, even in the face of hurdles, impediments, our scientists have done wonders. If it does not sound exaggeration, our scientists are capable of doing things which others will take generations to achieve. Those who have some idea about the level of our scientists would say that they should be given independence. Nothing should be done which may create some doubts in their minds about our independent atomic energy programme and about our independent nuclear programme.

I am not going deep into the cost of separation of military use from the civilian use. We need our nuclear energy. But what about our independent programme? The nation needs to be assured categorically that whatever we have built up in the process, maybe in different phases – first stage, second stage, thorium stage –should never be dismantled in the name of allowing ourselves to the scrutiny of the international authority. It is our independent programme. Those who do not believe in equality and those who want discriminatory and unequal NPT are doing these things.

The issues of nuclear deal and the annual waiver are there. Of course, the prime minister has clarified all the conditions. If you do not proceed in the right track and right direction, we shall have the authority, the right, the autonomy and the independence to go out. It is for reciprocity. This is okay. The statement of the prime minister during the visit to USA is not to be seen in isolation. A few weeks back there was another very important visit of the defence minister of India to that country. It resulted in a framework agreement. It was nothing less than eyeing the Indian weapons market by the US Military Industrial Complex. What is our experience from the days of Pandit Nehru? Can we depend on them at the time of crisis? Has US at any time been along with us, supporting us or standing by our side whether it is Bangladesh incidence or the case of any other conflict with any other country in our neighbourhood? All along they have consistently been supporting our neighbours against us. They are waiving all sanctions and giving them F-16 and creating an atmosphere of arms race to fight with each other. Are we to believe such a country? Are we to believe the same people who have been behaving in the most hegemonistic manner? Here, we have some doubt.

Prime minister said that it was a great success but I am sorry to mention that it is not if I use a litmus test about American recognition of our growing power as the largest economy and as a global power today. When the prime minister proceeded to America, he said the he shall prevail on the American administration for supporting our cause at the United Nations Security Council. Very unfortunately, even as the prime minister was there, they openly supported Japan and isolated us. There was not a single word of recognition that India should have a rightful place in the Security Council as a permanent member. It is dichotomy; it is hypocrisy; it is a case of applying double standards.

Coming to the agreement on science and technology, the United States is a country which has all along been, for the very wrong reasons, standing in our way of development. Our eminent scientists who have been acclaimed internationally have been blacklisted by them. So, you are not to visit this country; you are not to address the students of its universities. Till now, both in the UK and in the US, there are long lists blacklisting our own scientists about whom we are proud. The ban has been lifted only in respect of five; there are hundreds of them more who are on the blacklists. In the universities of the UK and America, there are lists of these scientists. They are not allowed to do even innocent research, which has nothing to do with atomic energy or nuclear research. So, are we to believe them?

We are not against bilateral relations. I repeat that. But it must be balanced. It must be equitable. It must be fair. It must not be done in such a manner that we lose more friends – trusted friends who had stood by us in times of crises – or lose the ties that we are developing in the Asian century. If anyone thinks that everything America is doing is to counter-balance China by using India, it will send a wrong message. So, in the interest of multilateralism, in the interest of multi-polarity, in accordance with our legacy of non-alignment we must be careful.