305 Special [8 JUNE 1998] Mentions 306

ft we are to buy wheat at the higher price MR. CHAIRMAN: I know you- AS a speak. from other countries, why should the We have to finish it by tvo O'clock. We must Government which is committed to give at least half an hour to (he hon. Minister to swadeshi and self-reliance, not buy it from make hit statement and for hon. Members to the indigenous market? Why should the seek clarifications. I request you to finish it in Government give a higher price for wheat two minutes. to other countries? Why is the Government not giving a higher price for wheat to our own farmers? Why is the Government not giving incentives to grow more wheat in the comig winter, rabi season? There is a great hue and cry against the antifarmer policies of the present Government, will the Food Minister and the Agriculture Minister look into the matter and scrap the order to import Resolution by United Nations Security wheat? Council on nuclear testa conducted by THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE India and Pakistan MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (SHRI MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. , SOMPAL): Sir, one thing. will you be able to finish within two minutes? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. Apart from you, there are two more Members who would like to speak on this subject, Shri SHRI SOMPAL: It is a simple matter of Ramachandran Pillai and Shrimati Jayanthi record. I will speak one sentence. Natarajan. The alleged anti-farmer policies of this SHRIMATI JAYANTHI Government have nothing to do with this NATARAJAN: (Tamil Nadu) I will add only import. This was a decision taken by the one sentence. previous Government. That is all. Thank you. SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: (West Bengal) Mr. Chairman, Sir, the matter on which I am seeking the attention of the House SHRIMATI URMILABEN and the Government is only on two or three CHIMANBHAI PATEL: Sir, at that time the points. I would like the Government to keep price of wheat was more than Rs. 20 /- per kg., the House informed about these things. We but now wheat is available at a lower price. are aware of the resolution passed by the Security Council asking both India and SHRI SOMPAL: She has been supporting Pakistan to halt their nuclear programmes. As the previous Government. reported in of 8th June, SHRIMATI URMILABEN 1998, it appears that there was some sort of CHIMANBHAI PATEL: The situation is unprecedented practice and procedure totally different. followed in the Security Council of the United Nations. If I remember correctly, never in the last 50 years of the United Nations' history a party concerned, a country concerned was not allowed to speak on its own behalf. Apart from Permanent Members, Non-Permanent Membe** also constitute the Security 307 Special [] Mentions 308

Council. But whenever the country concerned present Government have actually is criticised or has to say something on a internationalised the Kashmir issue. These matter on which the Security Council is policies are putting the security of our country deliberating, that country is given a chance to into danger. Of course, we have been taking a speak, whether it is a Member or a non- consistent stand that Member. But according to the newspaper the Kashmir issue between India and report we find that our permanent Pakistan is a bilateral issue and we will try to representative in the Security Council was not find a solution to this problem through allowed to speak whereas the permanent discussions. We have also consistently resisted representative of Pakistan was allowed to the intervention of any other country in this speak. It is against the Charter of the United dispute. But by doing all these things now this Nations. I do not know whether the news is issue has become an international issue. They correct or not, but I have my own doubt. That have internationalised the Kashmir issue is why I would like to seek clarification from because of their wrong policy. Because of the the Government in regard to that. earlier consistent policy, we were able to come The second aspect is, it is not a question of to an agreement with Pakistan in 1972 which is what we are going to do, but some sort of known as the Simla Agreement. Pakistan also absured proposition is arising out of the had agreed to the terms and conditions of that resolution which has been passed and how the Agreement. This is a bilateral issue. We tried to Government of India is going to respond to it. settle this issue through bilateral negotiations. I think the Government in its response must Now, the P-5 countries have come into the carry the whole country with them. Therefore, picture. The Security Council has passed a I would like to suggest that the authorised resolution directing the Secretary General to representative of the Government should talk come to the Security Council and report whether to the leaders of the various political parties this decision is being implemented or not. They and try to evolve a national response to the have asked India to stop making nuclear resolution which has been adopted because it weapons. They have also directed India and may lead to the next stage, economic Pakistan, as per the Press reports, to come sanctions. I would not like to put any together and try to settle the Kashmir issue. So, conditionalitics to the Government's the P-5 nations' decision and the Security observation, but I would expect that some Council's decision show that because of the authoritative representative of the policy of the Government of India, you have Government should come to the House either facilitated internationalising the Kashmir issue. today or tomorrow and make a statement Not only this, now, our country is getting explaining the position in detail, what the isolated in the international community. Of situation is, where we stand, how he has course, we have friends, and through our responded to the sort of peculiar situation friends, we are trying to find out a solution to which has been created where India's case the problem. We know that some of these P-5 was not represented when the Security countries in the Security Council have always Council deleberated on this issue. As per the been trying to create a problem and trying to newspaper report, our permanent instigate and induce these countries to fight representative was not allowed to speak at the against each other because America's interest is meeting of the Security Council. Thank you. there, because Great Britain's interest is there. That is why we have been resisting the SHRI S. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI intervention of these countiries. Now, because (): Mr. Chairman, Sir, the wrong and of your wrong policy, you have put the security bankrupt policies of the 309 Special [8 JUNE 1998] Mentions 310

of our country in danger, facilitating isolation arsenal which the P-5 have kept imt of our country in the international community. themselves, and for a country which I *«iU I also say that these countries, the P-5 not, name; that has been the only country to countries and the Security Council, have no actually use nuclear weapons, to turn around right to impose any sanctions, have no right to and tell India how to run its affairs, in issue any direction. Why are they doing so? something which is nothing short of This is just to keep their monopoly and to uncivilised behaviour. Therefore, I would like safeguard their own interests. So, with all the to say that we call upon the Prime Minister, force at our command, we oppose the action of while condemning the Resolution which has these countries to intervene in these matters. been passed by the security Council, adding Sir, this is a very serious j matter and many my views to those of Mr. Ramchandran Pillai, reports have come. I do not know about the that it is unfortunate that the policies of this correctness or otherwise of the reports. Let the Government have to led to the Government come forward with a statement internationalisation of the Kashmir issue. I and we will get an opportunity to discuss this would also like to point out to the Prime most important issue. The Government should Minister, who is present over here, that certain also take steps to initiate a discussion and try of his statements conveyed an impression to to evolve a consensus on this particular issue. some of us that as a result of the explosions, Thank you. as a result of the nuclear tests, there may be some move on India's part to sign the CTBT. SHRIMATI JAYANTHI This is a move having very, very far ranging NATARAJAN: Sir, I would like to associate consequences. I would like to Prime Minister myself with what has been said by Mr. to please explain to us whether there is any Pranab Mukherjee and Mr. Ramachandran move to sign the CTBT because in my view, Pillai. I would just like to add that all of us, the CTBT continues to be a discriminatory cutting across party lines, object to the treaty, and merely because of these Resolution that has been psssed by the explosions, merely because of these nucelar Security Council is a display of standing tests, I don't think India should be pushed into immorality of the permanent Members of the a position to sign the CTBT, particularly in Security Council, who have been responsible view of the entry into forced provisions. I over the last fifty years for conducting over would like the Prime Minister to please clarify 2,000 tests who are turning around to it. countries like India and PaWstan to tell us MR. CHAIRMAN: The Prime Minister. how to run our nuclear weapons programme THE LEADER OF THE HOUSE (SHRI or whether to conduct blasts ): Sir, the thing is, to in our country or not. Therefore, Sir, I would the Prime Minister is only reacting to the like to join all my colleagues in condemning hon. Members' request, and this will not be the Resolution of the P-5 countries, as being trctatcd as a statement; otherwise, there will totally discriminatory, totally opposed to all be clarifications etc. norms of international law and totally opposed to all norms of international and SHRI S. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI: diplomatic conduct. Sir, I would also like to Let us have a discussion. join all my colleagues in saying that there has THE PRIME MINISTER (SHRI ATAL been no talk regrettably in the Security BIHARI VAJPAYEE): We will have a Council, and in the Resolution, of any discussion. Just clarifications won't do. One attempt to reduce their own arsenal. There day we will have a through discussion on this has been no reference at all to the question.

311 Special [RAJYA SABHA] Mentions 312

Sir, hon. Members are aware of the Resolution country has strongly upheld for the last 50 adopted on 6th June, 1998, by the United Nations years. Security Council. I would like to take the Sir, a glaring lacuna in the Resolution is the House into confidence on our position in this total absence of a recognition that the non- matter. proliferation issue is not a regional issue but We regret that the Security Council has acted in has to be dealt with in a non-discriminatory a manner in which it has produced a global content. We find it unfortunate that the Resolution which is completely unhelpful in UN Security Council Resolution does not respect of the objectives it seems to address. reflect on the judgement of die highest The Resolution contains a number of international judicial body, the International references to nucelar non-proliferation. As I had Court of Justice, which has questioned the mentioned in my earlier statement in the legitimacy of nuclear weapons and called for House, we are a responsible and commited urgent negotiations for their elimination. In the member of the international community. The Paper on "The Evolution of India's Nuclear Resolution urges us not to carry any nuclear Policy" laid on the Table of this House, we have weapons test explosions. For India, such an reiterated our commitment to nuclear urging is redundant because we have already disarmament. Let me categorically state that unlike instituted a voluntary moratorium. We have also other nuclear-weapon States who have sought to indicated our willingness to explore ways and retain their exclusive hold over their nuclear means of converting this undertaking into a de jure aresenals, India has no such ambition. obligation. Further, we have made clear our Government is committed to initiatives that can readiness to engage in multilateral negotiations on a open negotiations for a global convention for the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty in the Conference elimination of all nuclear weapons. The attempt in Geneva. We cannot, however, be expected to to project the recent tests by India as a threat to commit ourselves in advane of these negotiatios, peace and security is totally misguided and to unilaterally restrain production of fissile grossly out of focus. Such a portrayal of our materials. In keeping with our commitment to policy ignores the positive steps announced by non-proliferation, we maintain the strictest Government to which I have already referred both controls over exports of nuclear materials and in die global disarmament framework and the technologies. Our record in this regard has been regional context. Our tests were necessary impeccable and better than that of some countries because of the failure of a flawed non- who are parties to the NPT or members of the proliferation regime and, therefore, we Nuclear Suppliers' Group of even Permanent categorically reject the notion that these have Members of the UN Security Council. adversely affeected either regional or global However, the call made in the Resolution security. Government has indicated willingness to that we should stop our nuclear programmes engage in a meaningful dialogue with key or missile programmes is unacceptable. Decisions interlocuters on the whole range of nuclear in this regard will be taken by the Government disarmament and non-proliferation issues. Last on the basis of our own assessments and week Special Envoy, Shri , visited national security requirements, in a reasonable Paris and London in this regard. He had and responsible manner. This right, which we meetings at the seniormQSt levels in the two claim for ourselves is not something new; it is the capitals. Dialogues with other countries are right of every sovereign country, and right that also planned. These dialogues have to be seen every Government in this as part of a process, a process that will lead to a better understanding of India's position. 313 Statement [8 JUNE 1998] by Minister 314

Hon. members are aware that India has Union. I would also like to draw the attention always desired a peaceful, friendly and of the Hon. Members to the terms in which mutually beneficial relationship with Pakistan Kashmir finds mention in the Resolution. The based on confidence and respect for each UN Security Council has recognised that other's concerns. I have already said on the bilateral dialogue has to be the basis of India- floor of both Houses and I would like to Pakistan relations and mutually acceptable reiterate that a secure and prosperous Pakistan solutions have to be found for outstanding is in India's interest. Our vision of our bilateral issues including Kashmir. This is in keeping relationship is not confind to a resolution of with our position. Thank you. outstanding issues, but is also directed to the DR. BIPLAB DASGUPTA (West Bengal): future by seeking to build a stable structure of Sir, it is a full-fledged statement. Can we cooperation, which will benefit the people of have a copy of the statement? Can we also both countries. As I wrote recently to Prime seek clarifications? Minister Nawaz Sharif, we must not remain mired in the past, prisoners of old contentions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Earlier, you had agreed And I say to him today, let us put the past not to seek clarifications. (Interruptions). behind us, let us think of the welfare of our THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY (SHRI children and grand children. We have SIKANDER BAKHT): He was reacting to remained committed to a path of direct the remarks made by the hon. Members. bilateral dialogue with Pakistan. This reflects (Interruptions). the nation's conviction and confidence that it DR. BIPLAB DASGUPTA: That is not is only thorugh direct discussions in a true. (Interruptions). sustained and constructive manner that we can move ahead in our bilateral relationship. I MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Sikander Bakht. would again like to reiterate our desire for the (Interruptions). earliest resumption of the official talks with DR. BIPLAB DASGUPTA: Sir, it was a Pakistan. The subject for discussions full-fledged statement. (Interruptions). including peace and security, (along with confidence building measures) Jammu and MR. CHAIRMAN: Now Shri Sikander Kashmir, economic and commercial Bakht will make a statement. Copies of the cooperation and cross-border terrorism have statement may be circulated. been identified. Our proposals for the modalities of these talks have been with STATEMENT BY MINISTER Pakistan since January this year. We await Maruti Udyog Limited their response. We have also made it clear once again that there is no place for outside THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY (SHRI involvement of any nature whatsoever in our SIKANDER BAKHT): Mr. Chairman Sir, I dialogue process with Pakistan. wish to make a statement concerning the dispute which has been going on over the last Hon. Members have expressed strong year between Government of India and reservations against attempts to Suzuki Motor Corporation Japan (SMC), over internationalise the Kashmir issue. There is the appointment of the Managing Director of simply no question of India ever agreeing to the Joint Venture Co. Maruti Udyog Limited such internationalism. UN" Security Council (MUL). A request for arbitration was filed has chosen to mention Kashmir in its before the International Court of Arbitration Resolution. This is unacceptable and does not (ICA) of the International Chamber of change the reality that the State of Jammu and Commerce by SMC and the arbitration Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian proceedings are currently going on. As Hon'ble Members are