|
Excerpts of the Prime Minister’s
statement in Lok Sabha on the debate on the PM’s recent visits abroad on
July 29, 2009
29/07/2009
On
India-Pakistan relations
Madam
Speaker,
As I
have said many times before, we cannot wish away the fact that Pakistan
is our neighbour. We should be good neighbours. If we live in peace, as
good neighbours do, both of us can focus our energies on the many
problems – our abject poverty that confront millions and millions of
people in South Asia. If there is cooperation between us, and not
conflict, vast opportunities will open up for trade, travel and
development that will create prosperity in both countries.
It is, therefore, in our vital interest to make sincere efforts to live
in peace with Pakistan. But despite the best of intentions, we cannot
move forward if terrorist attacks launched from Pakistani soil continue
to kill and injure our citizens, here and abroad. That is the national
position. I stand by it.
I have said time and again and I repeat it right now again: it is
impossible for any government in India to work towards full
normalization of relations with Pakistan unless the Government of
Pakistan fulfills, in letter and spirit, its commitment not to allow its
territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against
India.
This was a commitment made as my friend Shri Yashwant Sinha has
mentioned to my distinguished predecessor Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and
it has been repeated to me in every meeting I have had with the
Pakistani leadership. The people of India expect these assurances to be
honoured and this government recognizes that as the national consensus.
Madam Speaker,
The attack on Mumbai last November outraged our nation and cast a deep
shadow over our relations with Pakistan. The reality and the horror of
it were brought into Indian homes over three traumatic days that still
haunt us. The people of India demand that this must never happen again.
Over the past seven months, we followed a policy, using all effective
bilateral and multilateral instruments at our command, to ensure that
Pakistan acts, with credibility and sincerity, as we would expect of any
civilized nation.
Soon after the attacks, the United Nations Security Council imposed
sanctions on the Lakshar-e-Tayeba and its front organizations, including
the Jamaat-ud-Dawa. It also imposed sanctions on four individuals
connected with the organization, including one of the masterminds behind
the Mumbai attacks, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi.
We exercised great restraint under very difficult circumstances but made
it clear that Pakistan must act. On 5th January 2009, we handed over to
Pakistan the details of the links to Pakistan that were revealed by our
investigators. Some action followed and Pakistan formally responded to
us on two occasions regarding the progress of their own investigations -
in February 2009 and then just two days before my departure for Paris
and Sharm El Sheikh.
The latest dossier is a 34 page document that gives details of the
planning and sequence of events, details of the investigations carried
out by the special Federal Investigation Agency team of Pakistan, a copy
of the FIR lodged and the details and photographs of the accused in
custody and those declared as proclaimed offenders. It provides details
of the communication networks used, financing of the operation and
seizures made in Pakistan including maps, lifeboats, literature on
navigational training, intelligence manuals, back packs etc.
The Pakistan dossier states that the investigation has established
beyond doubt that LeT activists conspired, financed and executed the
attacks. Five of the accused have been arrested, including
Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Zarar Shah, and thirteen others have been
declared proclaimed offenders. A charge sheet has since been filed
against them under Pakistan’s Anti Terrorism Act and other relevant
laws. We have been told that the investigations are nearly complete and
that the trial will now proceed. We have also been asked for some
further information. We will provide this shortly.
This is the first time that Pakistan has ever formally briefed us on the
results of an investigation into a terrorist attack in India. It has
never happened before and I repeat this is the first time. It is also
the first time that they have admitted that their nationals and a
terrorist organisation based in Pakistan carried out a ghastly terrorist
act in India.
Madam Speaker,
The reality is that this is far more than the NDA Government was ever
able to extract from Pakistan during its entire tenure despite all their
tall talk. They were never able to get Pakistan to admit what they have
admitted now. So the UPA government needs no lessons from the opposition
on how to conduct foreign affairs or secure our nation against terrorist
threats.
But while noting the steps Pakistan has taken, I have to say that they
do not go far enough. We hope that the trial will make quick progress
and that exemplary punishment will be meted out to those who committed
this horrific crime against humanity. We need evidence that action is
being taken to outlaw, disarm and shut down the terrorist groups and
their front organizations that still operate on Pakistani soil and which
continue to pose a grave threat to our country.
Madam Speaker,
In the final analysis, the reality is that, despite all the friends we
have, and we should have as many friends as Shri Mulayam Singh ji has
said, when it comes to matters relating to our national security and
defence, we will have to depend on ourselves. Self-help is the best
help. There is no substitute to strengthening our defence capabilities,
our internal security structures and our emergency response mechanisms.
I wish to assure the House that the government is giving these matters
the highest priority and attention.
Several important steps have been taken to modernize, rationalize and
strengthen our defence, security and intelligence apparatus. A detailed
plan to address internal security challenges is being implemented in a
time-bound manner. The Government is maintaining utmost vigil in the
area of internal security. Measures have been taken to ensure enhanced
information and intelligence sharing on a real time basis. A policy of
zero-tolerance towards terrorism, from whatever source it originates,
has been put in place.
In the area of defence, steps are underway to substantially improve our
coastal and maritime security. Large acquisitions of major weapon
systems and platforms have been approved for the modernization of our
Army, Navy and Air Force. There has been a special focus to improve the
welfare of the Armed Forces personnel.
We will spare no effort and no expense to defend our nation against any
threat to our sovereignty, unity and integrity. This is the sacred and
bounden duty of any Government of this great country.
Madam Speaker,
We do not dilute our positions or our resolve to defeat terrorism by
talking to any country. Other major powers affected by Pakistan based
terrorism are also engaging with Pakistan. Unless we talk directly to
Pakistan, we will have to rely on third parties to do so. That route, I
submit to this August House, has very severe limitations as to its
effectiveness, and for the longer term the involvement of foreign powers
in South Asia is not something to our liking.
I say with strength and conviction that dialogue and engagement is the
best way forward.
This has been the history of our relations with Pakistan over the last
decade. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee took a decision of political courage
to visit Lahore in 1999. Then came Kargil and the hijacking of an Indian
Airlines plane to Kandahar. Yet, he invited General Musharraf to Agra
and again tried to make peace. The nation witnessed the terrible attack
on Parliament in 2001. There followed an extremely difficult phase in
our relationship. The armed forces of the two countries stood fully
mobilized.
But, to his great credit, Shri Vajpayee was not deterred, as a statesman
should not be. In 2004, he went to Islamabad, where a Joint Statement
was issued that set out a vision for a cooperative relationship. I must
remind the House that opposition parties supported these bold steps. I,
for one, share Shri Vajpayee’s vision, and I have also felt his
frustration in dealing with Pakistan.
In my meetings with President Zardari in Yekaterinburg and with Prime
Minister Gilani in Sharm El Sheikh, I conveyed, in the strongest
possible terms, our concerns and expectations. I conveyed to them the
deep anger and hurt of the people of India due to the persistence of
terrorist attacks in India.
I told them that the operations of all terrorist groups that threaten
India must end permanently. I urged them to make no distinctions between
different terrorist organizations. I said that it was not enough to say
that Pakistan is itself a victim of terrorism. They must show the same
political will and take the same strong and sustained action against
terrorist groups operating on their eastern border as they now seem to
be taking against groups on their western border.
Both President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani assured me that the
Pakistan government was serious and that effective action would be taken
against the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage.
Shri Yashwant Sinha asked me what had changed between my meeting with
President Zardari and the meeting with Prime Minister Gilani. In between
came the dossier which showed progress though not adequate progress.
Shri Sinha also asked me do we trust Pakistan. Let me say that in the
affairs of two neighbours we should recall what President Reagan once
said – trust but verify. There is no other way unless we go to war.
I was told that Mumbai was the work of non-state actors. I said that
this gave little satisfaction and that it was the duty of their
Government to ensure that such acts were not perpetrated from their
territory. I told them that another attack of this kind will put an
intolerable strain on our relationship and that they must take all
possible measures to prevent a recurrence.
Madam Speaker,
After I returned from Sharm El Sheikh, I made a statement in Parliament,
which clarified and elaborated not just the Joint Statement issued
following my meeting with Prime Minister Gilani, but also what we
discussed.
I wish to reiterate that the President and the Prime Minister of
Pakistan know, after our recent meetings, that we can have a meaningful
dialogue with Pakistan only if they fulfill their commitment, in letter
and spirit, not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for
terrorist activities against India. This message was repeated when the
Foreign Ministers and Foreign Secretaries met.
I stand by what I have said in Parliament - that there has been no
dilution of our position in this regard.
An interpretation has been sought to be given to the Joint Statement
that we will continue to engage in a composite dialogue whether Pakistan
takes action against terrorism or not. This is not correct. The Joint
Statement emphasized that action on terrorism cannot be linked to
dialogue. Pakistan knows very well that with terrorism being such a
mortal and global threat, no civilized country can set terms and
conditions for rooting it out. It is an absolute and compelling
imperative that cannot be dependent on resumption of the composite
dialogue. In the Joint Statement itself, the two sides have agreed to
share real time, credible and actionable information on any future
terrorist threats.
Madam Speaker,
When I spoke to Prime Minister Gilani about terrorism from Pakistan, he
mentioned to me that many Pakistanis thought that India meddled in
Balochistan. I told him that we have no interest in destabilizing
Pakistan nor do we harbour any ill intent towards Pakistan. We believe
that a stable, peaceful and prosperous Pakistan living in peace with its
neighbours is in our own interest.
I told him then, and I say it here again, that we are not afraid of
discussing any issue of concern between the two countries. If there are
any misgivings, we are willing to discuss them and remove them.
I said to him that I had been told by the leadership of Pakistan several
times that Indian Consulates in Afghanistan were involved in activities
against Pakistan. This is totally false. We have had Consulates in
Kandahar and Jalalabad for 60 years. Our Consulates perform normal
diplomatic functions and are assisting in the reconstruction of
Afghanistan, where we have a large aid programme that is benefiting the
common people of Afghanistan.
But we are willing to discuss all these issues because we know that we
are doing nothing wrong. I told Prime Minister Gilani that our conduct
is an open book. If Pakistan has any evidence, and they have not given
me any and no dossier has been given, we are willing to look at it
because we have nothing to hide.
Madam Speaker,
I believe that it is as much in Pakistan’s vital interest as it is in
ours to make peace. Pakistan must defeat terrorism, before being
consumed by it. I believe the current leadership there understands the
need for action.
I was told by the parliamentarians who accompanied Prime Minister Gilani
that there is now a political consensus in Pakistan against terrorism.
That should strengthen the hands of its leaders in taking the hard
decisions that will be needed to destroy terrorism and its sponsors in
their country.
Madam Speaker,
Our objective, as I said at the outset, must be a permanent peace with
Pakistan, where we are bound together by a shared future and a common
prosperity.
I believe that there is a large constituency for peace in both
countries. The majority of people in both countries want an honourable
settlement of the problems between us that have festered far too long
and want to set aside the animosities of the past. We know this, but in
the past there have been hurdles in a consistent pursuit of this path.
As a result, the enemies of peace have flourished. They want to make our
alienation permanent, the distance between our two countries an
unbridgeable divide. In the interests of our people, and in the interest
of peace and prosperity of South Asia, we must not let this happen.
That is why I hope and pray that the leadership in Pakistan will have
the strength and the courage to defeat those who want to destroy, not
just peace between India and Pakistan, but the future of South Asia. As
I have said before, if they show that strength and that courage, we will
meet them more than half way.
There are uncertainties on the horizon, and I cannot predict the future
in dealing with neighbours, two nuclear powers. We have to begin to
trust each other, but not blindly, but trust and verify. People say that
we have broken the national consensus. I refuse to believe that we have
broken the national consensus.
For the present we have agreed that the Foreign Secretaries will meet as
often as necessary and report to the two Foreign Ministers who will meet
on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. The two Foreign
Ministers have met even before the Joint Statement in Trieste. I met
President Zardari in Russia. So in operational terms the effect of the
Statement that the two Foreign Secretaries will meet as often as
necessary followed by the Foreign Ministers is no more than what we are
doing at present. Does it involve surrender or a sign of weakness?
As neighbours it is our obligation to keep our channels open. Look at
what is happening in the world. The US and Iran have been sworn enemies
for thirty years, and yet they feel compelled to enter into a dialogue.
Unless we want to go to war with Pakistan, dialogue is the only way out.
But we should do so on the basis of trust but verify.
On End Use Monitoring
All governments, including our Government, are particular about the end
uses to which exported defence equipment and technologies are put to and
for preventing them from falling into wrong hands.
Since the late nineties, the Governments of India and the US have
entered into End Use Monitoring arrangements for the import of US
high-technology defence equipment and supplies. These were negotiated
before this agreement in each case by successive Governments of India.
The Government has only accepted those arrangements which are fully in
consonance with our sovereignty and dignity.
What we have now agreed with the US is a generic formulation which will
apply to future such supplies that India chooses to undertake. By
agreeing to a generic formulation, we have introduced an element of
predictability in what is otherwise an adhoc case by case negotiations
on each occasion.
I should add that we need access to all technologies available in the
world for the modernization of our defence forces. The threats to the
country are growing and we need to have the capability to deal with
them, and to be ahead of them. Our Armed Forces are entitled to the best
equipment available anywhere in the world. It is also in our interest to
diversify to the maximum extent possible the sources of our imports of
defence items and equipment.
You have my assurance that the Government has taken all precautions to
ensure an outcome that guarantees our sovereignty and national interest.
Nothing in the text that has been agreed to compromises India’s
sovereignty. There is no provision for any unilateral action by the US
side with regard to inspection or related matters. India has the
sovereign right to jointly decide, including through joint
consultations, the verification procedure. Any verification has to
follow a request, it has to be on a mutually acceptable date and at a
mutually acceptable venue. There is no provision for on-site inspections
or granting of access to any military site or sensitive areas. This is
the position in regard to the end use monitoring.
On Climate Change
The Major Economic Forum Declaration adopted at L’Aquila is not a
declaration of Climate Change policy by India, nor is it a bilateral
declaration between India and another country or a group of countries.
It is a declaration that represents a shared view among 17 developed and
developing countries, the latter category including China, South Africa,
Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico. Therefore, the formulations are
necessarily generally worded to reflect different approaches and
positions of a fairly diverse group of countries.
It has been argued in some quarters that the reference in the
Declaration to a scientific view that global temperature increase should
not exceed 2ºC, represents a significant shift in India’s position on
Climate Change and that it may oblige us to accept emission reduction
targets. This is a one-sided and misleading interpretation of the
contents of the Declaration.
It is India’s view, which has been consistently voiced at all forums,
that global warming is taking place and that its adverse consequences
will impact most heavily on developing countries like India. The
reference in a document to 2ºC increase as a possible threshold reflects
a prevalent scientific opinion internationally and only reinforces what
India has been saying about the dangers from global warming. True, this
is the first time that India has accepted a reference to 2ºC as a
possible threshold guiding global action, but this is entirely in line
with our stated position on global warming.
Drawing attention to the seriousness of global warming does not
automatically translate into a compulsion on the part of India or other
developing countries represented in the Major Economic Forum to accept
emission reduction obligations. I would like to mention that our
position and the Chinese position are nearly identical, and we have been
coordinating with that country. Quite to the contrary, the greater the
threat from global warming, the greater the responsibility of developed
countries to take on ambitious emission reduction targets. That is why,
37 developing countries including India, China, Brazil, South Africa and
Indonesia, have tabled a submission at the multilateral negotiations,
asking the developed countries to accept reduction targets of at least
40% by 2020 with 1990 as the baseline.
The Major Economic Forum Declaration reaffirms the principles and
provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
in particular, the principle of equity and of common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities. As is well-known, the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change imposes emission
reduction targets only on developed countries. Developing countries are
committed to sustainable development. The full incremental cost of any
mitigation by them must be fully compensated by transfers of financial
and technological resources from developed countries. This is fully
reflected in the Major Economic Forum Declaration.
Furthermore, at the insistence of India, supported by other developing
countries, the Declaration includes an explicit acknowledgement that in
undertaking climate change action, the “first and overriding priority”
of developing countries will be their pursuit of the goals of economic
and social development and poverty eradication. This should allay any
apprehension that India will be under pressure to undertake commitments
that may undermine her economic growth prospects.
On the G 8 Statement on nuclear issues
Some Members have raised the issue of the Statement issued by the G-8
countries on Non-Proliferation at their L’Aquila Summit in Italy earlier
in July, and the references in it to the transfer of enrichment and
reprocessing items and technology.
The concern appears to be as to whether an effort is being made by
certain countries to prevent the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing
items and technology to non-NPT countries, i.e., countries like India
who have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Madam Speaker,
The government is fully committed to the achievement of full
international civil nuclear cooperation. Consistent with this objective,
in September last year India secured a clean exemption from the Nuclear
Suppliers Group, one that was India-specific. At that time also attempts
were made to make a distinction. The NSG has agreed to transfer all
technologies consistent with their national laws.
The ‘Statement on Civil Nuclear Cooperation with India’ approved by the
Nuclear Suppliers Group on September 6, 2008 contains India’s reciprocal
commitments and actions in exchange for access to international civil
nuclear cooperation. It is our expectation that any future decisions of
the NSG relating to the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing items
and technology would take into account the special status accorded to
India by the NSG. The NSG has given us this clean exemption knowing full
well that we are not a signatory to the NPT.
Prohibition by the NSG of such transfers would require a consensus
amongst all the 46 countries. This does not exist at present. The
exemption given to India by the NSG provides for consultations and we
will hence remain engaged with that body, so that any decisions take
into account the special status accorded to India by it.
As far as the G-8 is concerned, the fact is that we have no civil
nuclear cooperation agreement with the G8 bloc per se. We have, however,
signed bilateral agreements with France, Russia and the United States.
As I have said before, and I repeat it here, when I raised this matter
with President Sarkozy, he was gracious enough to tell me that as far as
France is concerned, there will be no restrictions. He also said that if
we want him to go public on this, he will do so. Therefore, there is no
consensus in the NSG to debar India from such technologies. We expect
that the countries concerned will honour and implement their bilateral
commitments.
Madam Speaker,
In the course of the discussions, some Hon’ble Members have raised the
issue of our accepting pre-conditions for transfer of enrichment and
reprocessing items and technology. I wish to once again state that
pending global nuclear disarmament, there is no question of India
joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon
State.
I would also like to clarify that the transfer of enrichment and
reprocessing items and technology has no bearing whatsoever on India’s
upfront entitlement to reprocess foreign origin spent fuel and the use
of such fuel in our own safeguarded facilities.
Finally, I would like to bring to the attention of this august House
that India has full mastery of the entire Nuclear Fuel Cycle, and this
includes enrichment and reprocessing technology. We have a well
entrenched E&R infrastructure as well. Our domestic three-stage Nuclear
Power Programme is entirely indigenous and self-sustaining. Our
indigenous Fast Breeder Reactor Programme and linked technology puts us
in the league of those very few nations which today possess cutting-edge
technologies.
The transfer of enrichment and reprocessing items and technology to
India as part of full international civil nuclear cooperation would be
an additionality to accelerate our three-stage programme.
New Delhi
July 29, 2009
|
