Sir, the Prime minister has mentioned the major issues being discussed in the several rounds of talks. This Parliament has been kept in the dark about the talks that have been going on during those several rounds of talks.

1540 hours (Shri Raghuvansh Prasad Singh in the Chair)

Sir, the nation has been eager to know about the discussions because there have been reports that in the discussion itself, India has been gradually surrendering to the pressure being mounted by the American representative and other interlocutors.

India's nuclear policy, as a part of its foreign policy in the pre-Pokhran period, had been one where there was a national consensus, but in

the post-Pokhran scenario, we had stated that this misadventure would make India more vulnerable to pressures, particularly of the US and the exclusive nuclear club, and cause isolation of India.

During the last few months, our apprehensions have proved to be correct. It has been said that there has been some progress during the talks that are taking place till today. The hon. Minister of External Affairs himself has been engaged in the deliberations and can confirm whether the talks were of six rounds or seven rounds. I am saying this because there is a reference to six rounds of talks in the statement, but we know that there was another talk held in Rome on 19th November.

During the seventh round of talks, the American side had exposed their cards. On 12th of November, President Bill Clinton, in a notification, had suggested that not only India should sign CTBT, but India should also join the NPT. On the question of deployment, it was mentioned that India would never be allowed deployment of nuclear weapons. As a follow-up of that notification of 12th of November, the American representative, Strobe Talbott, who had been engaged in the deliberations, in one article in The Times of India and also prior to that in a speech in the Brooking's Institution, had made clear that India should not only sign CTBT but also put a cap on the fissile material and join Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and then, desist from deployment of delivery system and nuclear weaponisation.

Till this was revealed by the American representative, this nation was kept in the dark. Although Pakistan had also been engaged in a similar dialogue, yet they made everything transparent as to what was going on, what the areas of the dialogue were, where there was an agreement, and where there was no agreement.

Unfortunately, Sir, whenever we had asked this question, we were told that these were `secret talks'. But the veil was lifted by the American Representative himself and that too through an article in an Indian national daily. Openly, she has put forward the American conditions.

After the Pokhran-II tests, in reply to a question, on the 4th of June, it was said that, "After the nuclear tests on 11th and 13th May, 1998 at Pokhran, Government have signalled their willingness to consider adhering to some of the undertakings of CTBT, but not in a political vacuum and depending upon reciprocal responses." This was the same statement made by Shri Brajesh Mishra, immediately after the blasts; this was the position taken by Shri Pramod Mahajan on behalf of the PMO. What is this `reciprocal response'?

During the seven rounds of talks, what was the response of the American side? The Prime Minister reiterated the Indian position that we are committed to our goal of total disarmament and a nuclear weapons free world. Have they agreed to it? Our experience is that, till today, whatever and wherever discussions have taken place about disarmament, that they have not agreed to that. They wanted to form an exclusive nuclear club and they have now extended NPT also.

On CTBT, the Americans had great reservations. But at a point of time, they revised their position and in the latest version of CTBT, they included certain things conforming to their interest allowing vertical proliferation, sub-critical tests, computer simulation and so on. At least, three American laboratories are very near to producing pure fusion weapon systems. They are outside this CTBT. They are interpreting things in their own way. In their superb national interest, they are going on experimenting weapons of mass destruction, of a very sophisticated and refined type, in their laboratories and they will never need underground tests because they have done a lot. By this time, more than 2,000 such experiments have taken place and, at least, a little more than half have been done by the Americans themselves.

-----------------------

)) Sir, we have been putting our arguments, our nuclear doctrine, our no-first-use concept, that we shall not use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear powers, and we have spoken about credible minimum nuclear deterrence. What is their response? What does this concept of credible minimum nuclear deterrence mean?

It is not my question only; it is not the question of Parliament only, it is the same question asked by the American representative through several dialogues. The Americans do have their own concept of deterrence. In a book, it has been stated clearly by the American expert that they do not have any faith in what is being projected from the Indian side as minimum nuclear deterrent, credible deterrent. What does it mean? Weaponisation. After the blast, the Government has to go for weaponisation. We have great objection to it. This nation, the scientists and others have serious objections to it. They say that this misadventure will land the whole nation in serious difficulty.

Now, in the post 12th November situation, things are coming -- no missile, however bravado we may be in our statement. The crux of the problem is that they are tightening their screws one by one. If there is any result, it is that the screws have been tightened. There is no reference to it in the statement. The Brookings Institute's speech, the Times of India article and the American President's notification about the entities list consisting of 200 Indian Private Public Sector companies which came just four days before the Rome dialogue. What are these companies? There are even food-processing units in the entities list. Larson and Toubro who had done something for the Nuclear Power Corporation five years back and Godrej and Boyce company who had the tool rooms engaged in the civilian production only are also in the list. They had nothing to do with nuclear research or anything like that. But what has happened to them? Has there been any objection even in the midst of the deliberations? It has not happened. We are succumbing to their own position to which they are sticking.

In the Statement, there are four major issues that have been discussed and mentioned by the hon. Prime Minister. One of them is the CTBT. We know our position with regard to the CTBT. In 1996, when it came, the Indian representative had opposed the CTBT on the ground that it had no commitment to total disarmament which is our goal and commitment, and which we have been pursuing for the last five decades since the days of Pandit Nehru. Even when we acceded to this CTBT, we had hoped that step by step, it would lead to disarmament, total elimination of the weapons of mass destruction. Even when Rajiv Gandhi had placed his historic formula of a time-bound programme, what was the reaction? Be it America or for that matter the Nuclear Club, they want to perpetuate their monopoly in a different language, at a different level by allowing them the scope and opportunity for vertical proliferation while denying others, the developing countries. The developing countries have agreed but the three threshold countries countries, India, Pakistan and Israel are the targets of CTBT.

The whole history of American diplomacy with regard to Pakistan shows that particularly in the current scenario, in their geo-political strategy, Pakistan is important. It will give them access to the CIS countries to control Oil of these areas. You find that even the Talibans of Afganistan are not being criticised. They are soft to Pakistan. However, they may try to show a semblance of equity. Even in the last sanctions which were lifted, what do you find? You will find that it is selective and partial and it is against us. Maybe, we are also interested that Pakistan's economy should be saved and that Indians and Pakistanis should have friendly relations which should grow. We want better relations with friendly countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and China which were developed and strengthened during the United Front Government's time. But the American game plan is to put India and Pakistan first at the same level and at par with it and then to pursue their game plan. These dialogues are being held simultaneously. It has a meaning that they are discussing with India and also alternatively with Pakistan. They are putting pressure on both India and Pakistan to sign CTBT and we are talking of credible minimum nuclear deterrents. Whatever it may be, I am not going into the details. I will come to that later. Will these credible minimum deterrents be not allowed to Pakistan also? With their concept of difference, shall we not go a step further? If we go a step further, will it not lead to arms race? In this sub-continent, we have committed ourselves to deterrane and ironically we are contributing ourselves to arms race. Leave aside the question of cost factor. How much is required? According to a calculation, this weaponisation will require not less than Rs.50,000 crore in the first lap only. It may be a conservative estimate. Their game plan is they will compel us, pressurise us, to push us through CTBT and, at the same time, whatever we consider about the weaponisation programme, they will stay at the top to supervise and monitor. Under American monitoring and American supervisorship, India and Pakistan will play with these two toys. Wherever required, they will pull it and stop it. Otherwise, it may be said that it is categorically speltout in the Brooking.Institution Speechs of Mr. Strobe Talbot.It is not CTBT or NPT only.Us want India to join NPT.