I do not want to enter into that controversy. But what we exhibit is rebounded by Pakistan. That is also a thing of great concern. At least, we may have restraint. Any responsible Minister sitting there must think that we will have a venue, date and time to extend the invitation to Pakistan. Somebody has uttered the same thing regarding China.
MR. SPEAKER: Again, it is a repetition of what has already been said.
SHRI R.S. GAVAI (AMRAVATI): Lastly, I would like to tell that it is a matter of great concern that the sanctions imposed by America are not yet spelt out. The eventuality has come to us to face. Considering the devaluation of the rupee, what will be the financial implications on the country? We are supposed to examine that aspect. By and large, in a good spirit, I extend my support subject to the condition that the hon. Minister should make a safe explanatory statement in the reply.
MR. SPEAKER: Prof. Soz, the Minister of State is already here.
PROF. SAIFUDDIN SOZ : No. Sir, I have greeted Shri Jaswant Singh because we are relieved today that there is a Foreign Minister. We have suffered for nine months. So, I want only five minutes to speak. But the hon. Minister Shri Jaswant Singh has to be here. If he is not here, I will not speak. I withdraw...(Interruptions) As I said earlier, I will not repeat a single word. But I have a hurt feeling that we have to come at the fag end of the Session and speak for four minutes only. I have something to say.
First thing is that I am very much relieved that Shri Jaswant Singh has taken his position very deservedly. We are very happy that we are very safe. I must support Shri Sangma about one thing. I was one of those who raised the question here that the Foreign Minister should not speak to Mr. Talbott because our Foreign Minister represents this great nation. But now I support Shri Sangma when he said that Shri Jaswant Singh should speak only to the Foreign Minister of the United States of America Ms. Madeleine Albright.
Since I said that I will not repeat, I will not speak anything about the CTBT. I feel that the Government will have good sense to consult people around and take a good and correct decision for the nation. Of that, I am sure. But, from time to time, it must become a routine thing and it must be institutionalized in the system that the opposition leaders must be consulted. Sometimes, smaller parties are there. You cannot force us to join bigger
parties. The future is for the coalition. I say it. Therefore, I request you to give us time to express our ideas.
The Prime Minister's statement on the Gulf was inadequate, in my opinion. I do not say it because of Iraq. Iraq has stood with us in the past on Kashmir. Iraq is a different country, a special country for India. Iraq always stood with us on Kashmir. When I said that it was inadequate, I did not say it because of Iraq only. I say it because we are a big country and a big nation. Therefore, it must be adequate with the nation's dignity. I want the Prime Minister to condemn it. I say it primarily because the whole world is watching India. India is emerging into a very big situation for the whole world. I have no anxiety in my mind if today we are not in the Security Council. India cannot be refused that position. India will win that position. But where I feel very much anxious and very much worried is that India is not performing any role this time for ushering in a situation of multipolarity.
I want to remind the hon. Minister Shri Jaswant Singh that when Baghdad was attacked by America last time in 1991, many Indians including myself wanted Russia to show a fist although that fist was empty because Russia was in difficulty at that time. People like me think that it is not because of the Armed Forces that nations can act and react on the globe. There are so many other things like the cultural factor, the regional factors, the strategic factors and the ideologies. So, now a multipolar world is emerging. India should decide about it. Shri Jaswant Singh is equal to the task. We are happy about it. India must decide to contribute and not wait for Mr. Primakov to come and tell us that we are going to usher in a multipolar world.
India must take the lead. I am one with them today on the Bomb. I was against it at that time. Even today, I can say, I have travelled internationally a lot, Jawaharlal Nehru's name and Mahatma Gandhi's name is much more powerful as compared to Pokhran. But, today I take a position with the B.J.P., the Congress, and with the whole House that we have not committed any crime. We are a sovereign nation and we had done the tests. It is all right. But we are not doing anything as far as ushering in a multi-polar world is concerned. India must give the lead.
But since there is no time, I will not bring in Russia. I have greeted the Russian Prime Minister because I felt that when there was a crisis in Gulf, when they recalled their Ambassadors from two countries, why should the Russian Prime Minister rush here? It is because Russia considers India important; China considers India important. I have not been happy with some statements made about China earlier by some people. I am not an expert about China. But, I would like to say that in Kyoto, in 1997, while I led my country on environment, in the first meeting with my counterpart from China, I could feel that China on the question of climate change, wanted to come closer. But it was a difficult decision. I consulted my officials, then I consulted myself. I felt as a Cabinet Minister at Kyoto, where Japan and Britain were holding brief for the U.S. that. US was wrong in asking China or India to accept responsibility U.S. was the largest polluter of the world. With five per cent of the population, the U.S. is emitting emission into the atmosphere to the tune of 25 per cent of the entire emissions in the world. Yet, the U.S. at that time wanted to pressurize China, wanted to pressurize India and through us, the G-77. But I found in my first meeting that our counterpart from China was willing to cooperate with me and then after consultations, China and India went together. We came closer and we defeated the U.S. designs at that time. It was a very big issue. Environment is now globally very important. I want to say, if China and India could come closer, on environment they can do so in other issue also. Even in Buenos Aires this time, America agreed to cut back emissions by five per cent on 1990 level, it is not because of discussions there but it is because China and India came closer on this issue. Shri Gujral said that he does not want a Russia-India-China Bloc and he is not interested in a Bloc. But we are interested in a very close friendship with China. We have heard so many statements. I have convinced myself, as a citizen of this country that we can improve relations with China. China is as much eager to forge relations with India. Therefore, tomorrow, when you reply to this debate in this House, you kindly tell us something about the Sino-Indian relations.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair wants the sense of the House to take up the reply by the Minister tomorrow immediately after the Question Hour. Does the House agree?
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: I have no objection in giving time. But, we have to pass two Bills.
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN: Already injustice is being done to new Members like me.
MR. SPEAKER: No. You have to understand the position also. We have one or two Bills to be passed today itself.
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN : We sit here for hours together. We read volumes of papers. Then, you say that you do not have any time for us. I express my frustration before you, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: Shri Swain, you can speak for two minutes.
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN : Sir, our hon. Prime Minister and the Government has avowed intentions that India needs a nuclear weapon-free world. India wants disarmament; India wants non-proliferation. Sir, I mean to say, are we not the only country having nuclear weapons but arguing for the total elimination of the nuclear arsenal?
No other nuclear weapons State does so. Are we not the only country who have made a de facto declaration of the intention of `no first use' and `no use against non-nuclear weapons States'? We want to make it a de jure obligation. Is it not a fact that no nuclear or fissile material technology was transferred to any third country from India in the past? Does it not prove the reliability of India that India does what it says? I can tell you that other nuclear weapons States like America, England, Russia and China have transferred this technology to other countries. Now, they say that there are some rogue States in the world like Iraq, Iran, Sudan and Libya. From whom have they received this technology? These rogue States have received it from America, Russia, England and other countries who are having this nuclear weapons technology.
Sir, our national security is not negotiable. Nobody can dictate us as to what security measures we can take. I would like to say that we should have a credible nuclear deterrent for our security. Then, the Government should develop a reliable delivery system and create an elaborate nuclear command, control and communication chain.
Sir, while initiating this debate, Shri Rupchand Pal has said that we do not require nuclear bomb. It is very surprising. When China exploded nuclear bomb in the early 1960s, the same Leftists went gaga over it and said that it was a `workers' bomb' and now they say that it is not required. When China did it, it was very good, but when India did it, it is very bad. They also say that we have been isolated. Has NAM isolated us? Have we been isolated us? The Prime Minister of Russia, which is having nuclear weapons, has come to our country now.
MR. SPEAKER: Please conclude.
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN : Sir, I will conclude within a minute.
So, we have not been isolated. Then, they say that sanctions have been imposed on us. I would like to tell that it is rather America which has been isolated in imposing sanctions against us. Which other country has imposed sanctions against us? It is only America which has imposed sanctions against us. The United States of America asked other countries to impose sanctions against us, but nobody did it and, so, we are not isolated.
Sir, they say that we do not require weaponisation. Unless we weaponise, what is the need of testing it? We tested it in 1974, but it was not proven that it was beneficial to us in any way, because we did not weaponise then.
Sir, when Shri Sangma spoke, he found fault with the Government for everything. He said that we are hegemonistic. But like America, have we attacked Iraq? Have we attacked Bangladesh? Have we attacked Pakistan? We are not hegemonistic. He also said that the rationale behind the nuclear tests has not been explained. What rationale does he require? The rationale is that we want to have a credible nuclear deterrent for our national security. Does he not find it a strong rationale?
Sir, the Leftists always go on criticising America and they find fault with America on every issue. It is just like giving the dog a bad name and killing it. America is not our enemy. America may be a dada, America may be a bully, but it is one of the biggest democracies in the world and we must have communication with it. It is not against us.
Finally, I would like to say that our hon. Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, is the chosen man to lead India to victory and bring `Param Vaibhav' to India. I would also like to say that he would take India from darkness to light, from indignity to dignity and he would make India the best country in the 21st Century. So, I congratulate him for what he did.
With these words, I conclude my speech.
------