India Will Decide Its Destination
Pranab Mukharjee

(While participating during the debate on the vote of confidence in Loksabha on July 21, 2008)

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion moved by hon. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, “That this House expresses its confidence in the Council of Ministers” headed by him. I find my good friend, Prof. Malhotra, is present here, though the Leader of the Opposition is not here to listen to me. As I would expect, you have very correctly pointed out that not only the Members of the Lok Sabha, or the Members of the other House are witnessing this debate, but also the whole country is witnessing this debate. Therefore, I join you in appealing as the Leader of the House to all the Members concerned that every one of us have our own perspective and we should have the full freedom in expressing our views which may not be acceptable to others, but everyone should try to express his view in his own way and in the way he likes. Therefore, I rise to support this motion moved by the Prime Minister and also to place the matters in proper perspective about the civil nuclear agreement.

I have personal reservations about describing this Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement as some sort of a deal. This is an agreement. Through these exercises we want to have civil nuclear cooperation with the international community, the entire international community and particularly the 45 countries that have competence to enter into civil nuclear trade, who have constituted the NSG. Therefore, I would like to put forward my perception for the hon. Members of this House. It is entirely for them to accept it or to reject it; or to partly accept it or to partly reject it because that is the basic principle. But before that I would like to correct certain facts; it is not a question of any theory but certain bare facts.

Hon. Leader of Opposition built up his case on a high moral platform that this Government was reduced to a minority the moment the Left Parties withdrew their support. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to submit certain facts and figures with regard to the strength of the UPA and its supporters as on 4th of July, 2008. If you want I can read out the whole length but to save the time I am bracketing it.  The United Progressive Alliance had 234 Members; CPI(M)- 42, CPI-10, RSP-3, Forward Bloc-3, Kerala Congress-2, Independents-1, all put together 61; and BSP-17 - . Somebody was saying that it will be 19, even if I take 19 as correct - . Rashtriya Lok Dal-3; Unattached-2. The total was 22. The total strength was 317. BSP withdrew its support long ago. That means, 317 minus 17 makes it 300. With the withdrawal of the support of all 61 Members of the Left Parties, our strength comes down to 237.

On the same day, Samajwadi Party after half an hour presented the support of its 39 Members. My simple arithmetic, Mr. Speaker, Sir, says that 237 plus 39 comes to 276. The effective strength of Lok Sabha as of now can be obtained from your Secretariat. The effective voting strength of the Lok Sabha right at the moment is 541. It does not require big arithmetic to calculate what would be a simple majority. But the Leader of the Opposition thought it is a very bright case to build up that the Government has lost its majority right now.  Yes, it will be proved when actually buttons will be pressed.   For God’s sake, please wait till then.  Government is not yet in the minority unless it is proven otherwise.  If it is proved, it is proved.  This is the first point.

Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition thought it to take another moral posture – we did never indulge in destabilisation of the non-BJP or Opposition party Government.  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am not going back to the past – in 1977 when BJP was also a part of the Government by one stroke of pen, on the basis of a new concept of mandate theory, eight State Governments were dismissed.  I am not going to that.  I am going to the fact when you created a Government after the election of  1989, with your support, which is not the first largest party.  First largest party was the Indian National Congress, having a strength of 197 or 198 did not form the Government. Ours was the single largest party. Second largest party, if I remember correctly, had around 143 whereby Mr. Vishwanath Pratap Singh formed  the Government with the support of Left Parties and with the support of BJP, which had 89 or 90 Members at that point of time, and with some other parties.  Surely, the Leader of the Opposition is not forgetful how that Government collapsed.  We were in Opposition, we opposed the Government, and as an Opposition party, we believed that we should isolate, we should expose and if possible, we should depose the Government.  That is the opposition party’s basic right.

Therefore, you are treating as destabilization. Who destabilized the Karnataka Government very recently?  If you have to score a point, you score but please be sure Mr. Leader of the Opposition of the fact, in your over-enthusiasm even you went to the extent of saying two Prime Ministers – when he mentioned – who did not want nuclear weapons – Morarji Desai and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. In your over-enthusiasm, you said, even they refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  May I most respectfully submit, Sir, Mr. Nehru died in 1964; Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into existence in 1970.  Therefore, a dead man cannot express his opinion whether he decided to sign the NPT or not.  I come to these aspects.  You have taken credit for them. Yes, I know, as your Party from 1960 talked of nuclear weaponsiation.  We did not.  We firmly believe and still we believe nuclear weapon is not a weapon to win the battle; nuclear weapon is nothing but total disruption and destruction of the civilization.  And that is why, most respectfully, I would like to submit Mr. Speaker, that Indiraji in 1974 had conducted the Pokhran-I tests.  In 1989, Rajiv Gandhi, the young Prime Minister, addressed the Disarmament Conference.  What did he say?

It was one of the brilliant speeches that he delivered in the United Nations. Recently we had an international conference. We had circulated that speech. It was one of the masterpieces. I would like to quote a few things only. His ultimate appeal to the nuclear weapon States, the international community, was that India is just turning screw drivers, as our technology from the nuclear weapon States; we are capable and competent to weaponize, but we are saying that we will keep our options open. That is the international phrase from 1974, till May 1998, the Indian Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers used; they said “we shall keep our options open”. You chose to close that option, and you did it.

Did you believe seriously that within two months, you had become so-competent that you were ready for the second test, if everything was not ready? Therefore, let us not, in our anxiety, distort the facts. Yes, let us base our arguments on the basis of facts.

Another point is this. Whether they will re-negotiate and whether they will have re-negotiation on the equal terms or not, I am not going to that aspect to speculate, because what would happen in future nobody knows and only when it happens, ordinary mortals like us can judge what is happening, not on the commitment that we are going to do this and going to do that. Or sometimes, we draw our conclusions from what has happened in the past, because that is on record.

To me, there is a record; we have, after the second Pokhran test, the recorded speech of the then Prime Minister, in the General Assembly of the United Nations. We have, on record, the signed article by the then Foreign Minister, in one of the important international journals. These are on records. From these records we find that we are de facto going to sign CTBT; it is a matter of time to put it de jure. Therefore, we will re-negotiate; yes, we wanted to assure the House. These are the records – something has come in print. The principal negotiator, on behalf of the USA with our Foreign Minister, Strobe Talbott – the book is available; it is in the market. Here it is – if somebody wants it, can have a look; my colleague Shri Anand Sharma is giving me – it is on record, page after page, what has happened is written there. Therefore, surely people will judge what is the performance of yours, what did you do and what you have done.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to score points by cutting this side of the argument or that side; my intention is to say ‘decide yourselves’; Prime Minister has given you the chance – each and every Member present here; I am quite confident that they will apply their minds; as per conscience and as per judgements, they will exercise their rights when we ask them to do so at the end of the debate.

Before that, both sides will try to place their cases and I am doing it with all honesty at my command and at my disposal.

A lot of things have been said, not today; I did not have the privilege of being a Member and sharing the floor of this House with many hon. colleagues, but within the Parliamentary premises, I have spent almost four decades, in the other House.

I do not remember, Mr. Speaker, Sir, any other Foreign Policy issue which has been debated so intensively, so extensively as this Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.  Prime Minister visited the United States of America in 2005.  A Joint Statement was issued on 18th July, 2005.  If my dates are incorrect, I would like to be corrected but if I remember right it was 18th July, 2005.  It was debated on 25th July here itself.  Whenever there has been any major development it has been debated here.  Joint Statement has been debated.  Separation Plan has been debated in February-March 2006.  In August in the other House – I would not refer to the other House but it is known to everybody – the Prime Minister gave point-by-point reply when my Left friends raised points 1 to 9.  The Prime Minister had assured on all the nine points and the Member concerned himself said that he was satisfied.    I am not to indulge in imagination, it is also on record in the printed volumes of Rajya Sabha.

Yes, I understand and appreciate your point that after that the Hyde Act was passed.  After the Hyde Act we said that this is to be taken into account.   I am coming to that aspect.  I am giving the entire details.  I will not hide anything and that is why I have sought the indulgence of hon. Speaker.

Most respectfully, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to submit that after that there were some developments and we were having negotiations with our colleagues.  UPA Chairperson took some initiative.  After Hyde Act there was a debate in both the Houses in the Winter Session of Parliament.  There were seven debates in this regard and the last debate took place in the last Winter Session of 2007.  When the Hyde Act was passed, on the very same day I reacted saying that there are prescriptive provisions in respect of Hyde Act which are not applicable to us and we will not accept it.  What does it mean?  It means that we will not accept it.  On these issues anywhere if they want to impose the conditionalities of Hyde Act or anywhere if they want to link their cooperation with reference to Hyde Act, that will be the breaking point.  123 Civilian Cooperation Agreement is on the Website.  You may please examine it.  I would request my Left friends to forget about their own interpretation of the implication. Do they find anywhere the mention of the word Hyde Act in 123 Agreement?

ISSA, India Specific Safeguard Agreement, is also on the website.  Why did they submit this document to my Left colleagues?   In the UPA-Left Committee I would explain to it, maybe later. But the point which I am trying to develop right now is that we do agree that there are prescriptive provisions in Hyde Act which are unacceptable to us under any circumstances.

We can never compromise our independent foreign policy.  It is the basic inherent strength of ours.  That is why, I will take the pain to explain to my colleagues who have supported us so long.  The Chairperson herself and the Prime Minister himself have stated that we have done a lot of good work over the last four years.  With an emphasis, I would like to say that we have done a lot of good work.  it is not 8 per cent to 9 per cent.  For four years, the GDP growth is nine per cent plus.  It is not less.   After many years, this year we have reached 4.5 per cent growth in agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are saying that we would not accept prescriptive provision.  That is why, we have scrupulously avoided these two documents.  We suggested our negotiator that please be very careful.  It should not be there.

I was telling about this mechanism which we built up.  When they said that they are concerned, then with the initiative of the Chairperson of the UPA and the Prime Minister, we met.  First, we met at my residence.  I am in good contact and in touch with them all along this period since our coalition Government was installed.  As Leader of the House, it was my responsibility.  We had been in touch constantly.  There was no dearth of communication and everybody shared our opinion very frankly.  Then with her and the Prime Minister’s intervention, it was decided that a mechanism will be constituted.  On 30th August, we announced that a mechanism would be established and a committee will be constituted.  The Chairperson will nominate the committee.  Thereafter we will start.  The mandate of the Committee was to address the concerns of the Left Parties on the impact of the Hyde Act, impact of 123 Agreement and the impact on both India’s independent foreign policy and our three-stage civil nuclear programme which we had accepted long ago.  These concerns of the Left Parties will be addressed by this committee.  Thereafter, the findings of the committee will be taken into account before the operationalisation of the civil nuclear cooperation.  Please remember these are the words which were used.  The text was drafted by myself and one of the important Left leaders.  As he is a Member of the other House, I am not mentioning his name.  Both of us read it jointly.  The operative part was that to finalize the findings of the committee, the findings would be submitted to the Chairperson of the UPA.  It is because this mechanism was established by the UPA Chairperson.  Sir, it was not a Parliamentary Committee appointed by you.

It was not a Government Committee appointed by the Prime Minister. It was a political mechanism appointed by the Chairperson, UPA. Therefore, it was our responsibility to submit the findings of the Committee to the UPA Chairperson and thereafter it was the responsibility of the Government to take this into account before operationalisation of the Cooperation Agreement.

We had nine meetings. In the first six meetings we addressed the concerns of them which have been elaborated and even in the published document which Shri Salim was showing to us, many of those notes and correspondences were reproduced there. After that some problem arose in November, 2007. We told them, look IAEA is an organisation which has been established by India itself. India is one of the founding members of IAEA. Out of 35 Governors, India has 10 permanent Governors. It is known as the Board of Governors of the IAEA and India has 10 permanent Governors on the Board of Governors of the IAEA. So, it is our own organisation. They were expressing concerns on three major issues, firstly, how IAEA can assure of un-interrupted fuel supply? Secondly, is the Government sure that IAEA is going to recognise the Government’s Separation Plan and strategic programmes? Thirdly, is the Government sure that if there be a disruption in the fuel supply, can the Government get some remedy from IAEA? We said that all these concerns will be adequately addressed once we finalise this document. Then again, with the intervention of the Chairperson, UPA it was decided that we would go to the IAEA and after it is being initialled – initialled what? It is not the document, but the agreed text, to freeze the text, the language of the text, not acceptance. These are done by the negotiators who are the employees of the Principal. Here Principal is the Government of India and the Principal is the IAEA.  Questions have been raised as to why we have not given the text when the text was finalised. It was not given. We explained the reasons to them not once but in three meetings. It was said that we will give the outcome. We will explain them the substantive provisions. We could not give the text because in various countries there are various methods of treating documents. In our country what we say confidential is something that is a secret document; a privileged document; a classified document, a restricted document. IAEA used the phrase restricted and de-restricted. The IAEA officials said that they cannot bind any sovereign country with their documents. They bind themselves. It is the understanding. It is commonsense that when they are binding themselves, our Government do not. That is why the Chairperson of the UPA appointed on behalf of the UPA all Ministers as members because she knew that when we shall have to share the information, some of the information are to be based on classified document. Therefore, we told them that we shall have to wait and when it is circulated as an agenda for the approval of the Board of Governors, the text will be available. We have made the text available. The moment this arrangement collapsed, then all of you are aware as to what happened and I need not mention that. Please remember that, before rushing into conclusions, that there are time differences between India and Geneva, between Geneva and the USA.

They are beyond and therefore, they will be advance. When Shri Karat read out his letter to me, the last line of it read that time has come to withdraw support and thereafter he announced that they were going to the hon. President to submit the list.

The Indian time was 12.30 but the time in Vienna was 9 a.m. I am not going into that.  Whatever has happened has happened subsequent to that but not before that.  So, there is no question of betrayal in any way.  Whatever has happened has happened after that.

It is a fact that even an important agreement like the existing Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty, Parliament came to know of it after 25 years in 1970 when it was announced that an agreement has been signed.   I am not going into the merits of the constitutional provisions.  But from 26th January, 1950, till today, this is the position. Mr. Advani had the opportunity to see it as the Home Minister, as Deputy Prime Minister, when he appointed a Commission to have a relook at the constitutional provisions.  I do not know why it did not occur to him at that point of time to give this particular provision to the Commission which was appointed, which was presided over by a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  It appears to me a lacuna. Why this belated wisdom?

Most respectfully I would like to submit that even before that, the Leader of Opposition had a similar agitation on the WTO agreement. After that, he came to power.  Even before that, he had various reservations and he was one of the important leaders in the other House who formed coalition with the then CPI(M) leader in that House to frustrate that Bill and after that, you know that we lost in Geneva.  Subsequently, with our support, the same deal, with only some cosmetic changes, you had to pass when you were in the Government.  Most respectfully, I would like to submit, if I would be in the Parliament, I would see what type of great new deal you will bring for this country.  Let us wait for the future. I am not going into that.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would not take much time of the House.   But I would like to point out certain other substantive issues which have been stated very eloquently.  Firstly, why you are going in for this civil nuclear cooperation?  What great facilities we will get out of it?   Today, we are having our total power generation capacity as 1,45,000 megawatt.   I need not explain why power is needed   Power is needed for everything. Everybody knows it. 

What are the projections for the future? I am not talking of remote future.  I am talking of near future, that is 2030, just 23 years from right now.  By 2030, the energy deficit would be 1,50,000 megawatts.  If we go a little longer, that is by 2050, our energy deficit would be 4,12,000 megawatts.  When these figures  are worked out, we take into account thermal power, coal, petrol and diesel, hydel power, and non-conventional energy sources like wind, solar, etc.  Even after their fullest exploitation, that would be the deficit. 

If we take the nuclear power on board, as per some studies, if we start the work on that today or if we initiate action now, to produce 40,000 megawatts of energy in the period of eight years from 2012 to 2020, we will be able to reduce the energy deficit from 4,12,000 megawatts to only 7,000 megawatts in 2050. 

In 2030, that means within 22 years, we will be able to reduce it by 1,50,000 megawatts.  That is the deficit.  1,00,000 megawatts will be made up and only 50,000 megawatts will remain. 

Now, let us go back a little bit to see what had happened in one of the advanced countries.  Charles de Gaulle was the President of France in 1948.  After the devastation of Second World War, the visionary leader thought that if he wants to build up France, it will require civil nuclear energy.  He started the work in 1948.  But there was strong anti-nuclear energy lobby and there was a lot of resistance in France itself. Charles de Gaulle did not continue for long time.  But they went on working despite the strong anti-nuclear energy lobby.  The first oil crisis came in 1973.  From 1974 they started building up  their nuclear energy programme.  Today, from 1974, within 34 years, 79 per cent of their energy comes from nuclear.  People are asking why America is not doing it; why Russia is not going in a big way for nuclear energy.  It is not for me to answer.  It is for them to answer that.  But one simple reason comes to my mind.  They are floating on oil.  Primary source of energy in those countries is much more than what it is compared to India.  Primary source of energy in our country is much less.  Take, for instance, coal.  If we have to derive energy from coal, by 2050 we shall have to import 1.6 billion tones of coal. 

All the capacities of the ports today will be totally utilised to load and unload coal.  Therefore, we shall have to build up the capacities of the ports also.  This is one factor.

The second factor is hydel resources.  Our hydel resources are located in such places at the initial stage that even if we have massive plantation programme at the initial stage, massive destructions of woods would be needed which will be strongly resisted by the environmentalists.  Leave these factors.  What is happening in Uttarakashi is that on the river, water running down the current, energy efforts, the hydel power build up is getting resistance from the environmentalists.  All of us are fully aware.  Our Government felt, their Government felt and it is not just suddenly felt. We are here for the last four years.  Before four years, they were in power for six years.  Uranimum mining in Jadugoda or uranium mining in Meghalaya was not that simple. 

To score a debating point, you can say it.  But if they refuse to accept it, what pinch they felt when they wore that shoe, only God can help them and I cannot help.   But here we are feeling the pinch.  That is why we want it.  I must congratulate the hon. Prime Minister that he has taken a visionary approach to have the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.  Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru started this programme in 1948.  Eminent scientists starting from Homi Bhabha to Vikram Sarabhai and we have the companion of that great Scientist, Dr. Raja Rammana, I had the privilege of working with him in the Rajya Sabha. All of them made significant contributions. That is why, today, our scientists and engineers can do this miracle.  It is not merely getting the energy.  This cooperation will open the door of 30 years’ isolation – from 1974 till date –of our nuclear technology.  I would not use the word ‘apartheid’ but sometimes strong words are being used.  That is going to be broken and that is the advantage.  

Why should we go to NSG?  It is because unless we go to NSG, our friends in Russia, our friends in France and even our friends in other countries cannot agree to have this.   The NSG and IAEA clearance are the two clearances that can be described in common man’s language as passport and visa.  Whether I travel or not it depends on me.  But if I do not have a passport, I cannot even apply for the visa.  If I do not have the visa, I cannot enter into that country.  These are the passports and visas.  Please let us have these passports and visas.  Then, we will decide whether we will travel or not and if we travel, what would be our destination of the travel.  If you want to decide that, no, you will be denying, it is for the collective wisdom of the Members of the Parliament, those who are representing 70 crore voters.  They will take the decision, not me, not merely my words.  I can just place my case.  I can place my case on behalf of the Government.  You are the ultimate masters and you have to decide whether you will accept it or not.  But this much I can tell, most respectfully that whatever judgement you give, we will accept it with due respect to you.  But before the judgement, in delivering the judgement, I would surely like to plead my case to convince the hon. judges of this highest court of the public opinion.  Therefore, please have the patience.  What would be the position if the motion is rejected?    

The Government will go. Anyway, the Government will have to seek the mandate, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, after six months or seven months or eight months if it survives. If it does not survive, it does not survive. But what would be the impact of it?  This is a pointed question to my Left friends. You may debate with me. You may challenge me. But search your heart and ask yourselves this question.  Do you feel this is the issue on which the Government should be brought down -  a Government which has been able to maintain a nine per cent GDP growth over a period of four years? I have some figures with me.

I am talking of the 9 per cent GDP growth. This Government takes credit for that. Gentlemen, till the other day, you were taking this credit. I would not like to quote. Umpteen number of times, you have stated that you are pressurizing the Government to pass the NREGA, the Right to Information Act. You have taken the credit saying that you have pressurized the Government to give rights to the tribal people in respect of their forest land though factually it is not correct. After all, you shall have to keep in mind that many of all these initiatives were taken by the UPA. But the broad point which I am trying to make is that it is a dangerous thing to bring down the Government.

Most respectfully, I would like to submit one thing by quoting one of my good friends Shri Hannan Mollah. He said the other day this.  What should I do? He said:

“If the BJP is in the train, do you expect me to jump from the running train?”

Most respectfully, I say this.  Do not jump from the running train. You will get an injury. I do not want my good friend to get an injury. I would simply advise you to please wait. Let the next station come. You change the train. You have the same destination. There is no harm if you reach your destination a little later. Please do not identify yourself with those forces which destroyed the Babri Masjid. Please do not make the mistake of 1977 and 1988.

In 1988, you said that the BJP is not untouchable. Having photographed with Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, you said this. A photograph was published on 2nd July reporting the meeting of 1st July when you said: “The BJP is not untouchable.” You said that you would defeat the Congress; you would work with the BJP. Consequently, the BJP increased its strengthen from 2 to 89 and thereafter to 119. From then onwards, the BJP has moved from strength to strength. In 1988, you gave respectability to BJP. In 1992, the Babri Masjid was destroyed. Do not allow them to destroy Parliament, to destroy Parliamentary democracy and to destroy human rights. Please do not miss the train. By adopting the anti-Congress posture, do not travel with them. Please remember that your companion is a bad companion, not a credible companion.