The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : The speech that was not allowed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Aug 21, 2006

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

The speech that was not allowed

K. Natwar Singh

The nuclear deal is aboutenergy, not non-proliferation. It is about reciprocity, not about unilateral steps taken by the USA. Talk about India having a congruent foreign policy with the U.S. is unacceptable to all patriotic Indians.

In spite of all the mistakes that we may have made, we have saved ourselves from triviality and an inner shame and cowardice. That for our individual selves has been achievement enough.

— Jawaharlal Nehru

AS FOREIGN Minister I was intimately connected with the deliberations leading up to the nuclear deal. I was in Washington on July 18, 2005 when the agreement was signed and sealed — speaking metaphorically. There were last minute hitches which the Prime Minister and I cleared with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after consulting Dr. Anil Kakodkar. Ms. Rice took the piece of paper we gave her to President Bush. He gave the green signal.

Dr. Manmohan Singh was generous and gracious enough to acknowledge my modest role in a letter he wrote to me on 13th March 2006, months after I resigned as Foreign Minister:

I have received your letter of 8th March and am touched by sentiments expressed therein. It was wonderful of you to have remembered me and sent me this letter. Coming from someone of your seniority, experience and knowledge of the subject in question, I value this far more than it is possible for me to express in words.

The Prime Minister further stated in the same letter:

You have correctly pointed out the need for skillful management required on our foreign policy front and take note of this for future. I must admit that you had a vital role to play in the process of managing our long-term relationship with the United States which began in July 2005 and which finally culminated in the understanding reached this month.

Mr. Chairman, I fully supported the statements made by the Prime Minister on July 29, 2005, and February 27, 2006, and even after the condescending Bush visit in early March.

My concerns and unease began on April 5, 2006, when [U.S. Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice appeared before the Senate and House committees on foreign relations. The nuclear deal is about energy, not non-proliferation. It is about reciprocity, not about unilateral steps taken by the USA. Condoleezza Rice, in clear words, made the 18th July 2005 agreement stand on its head, thus departing from the letter and spirit of the agreement. She spoke of permanent safeguards, intrusive and intensive inspection of our reactors. She spoke about the NPT and beyond, and annual waiver by the U.S. President. No status to India as a de facto nuclear weapons power.

Sir, during the earlier parts of the debate, member after member pointed out the shifting of goalposts by the U.S. — none more powerfully and persuasively than Dr. P.C. Alexander, Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, Sitaram Yechury, Amar Singh, and [JD (U) leader] Digvijay Singh. There was talk in the House of Representatives/Senate discussions about India having a congruent foreign policy with the U.S. This is unacceptable to all patriotic Indians. Nor is America's misguided understanding of the Islamic world welcomed anywhere on the globe.

The Americans are a warm-hearted and generous people. But American Presidents have to manage a number of diplomatic, security, and strategic balls in the air like a juggler — the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Vulcans, the neo-conservatives, Wall Street, the powerful media, and a growth industry called Think Tanks.

Even an arch neo-conservative like Francis Fukuyama has denounced the U.S. war on Iraq. The neo-cons have invented a new and sinister vocabulary: "benign hegemony," "humanitarian intervention" (Iraq), "export of democracy," (all three could be achieved by swallowing pills made in America).

The House is aware that some of our most respected and renowned nuclear gurus are expressing serious reservations. Their views cannot be ignored. The PM should have met them before this debate and not on the 26th.

A few days ago, I noted that the nuclear deal was no longer a party or government matter. It was a national issue of momentous importance. I appealed to the Prime Minister that he should evolve a national consensus on the basis of the July 18, 2005 agreement. No less, no more. Alas he did not do so.

I am a committed and dedicated Nehruite. Panditji understood the scientific temper. He saw clearly the temper of the times. He comprehended the historical process. His modernity was not a fashionable diplomatic cloak, it was structural.

Jawaharlal Nehru laid the foundations of our nuclear programme without giving up his passion for complete nuclear disarmament. He was an idealistic realist. His thinking was not outmoded or sterile. He wanted change. If I remember correctly, it was Marx who said change has to be planned, change has to be managed, change has to be structured. For this we need committed, honest, agents. Gandhiji had his galaxy of agents, so did Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi. Who are Dr. Manmohan Singh's faithful agents?

Let me end on a high note. Gandhiji provided the moral and spiritual dimension of our freedom struggle; Gurudev Tagore the poetic sensitivity; Jawaharlal Nehru a soaring and noble idealism tempered with realism. These three great sons of Bharat that is India that is Hindustan are our inspiring beacons. We are pygmies standing on the shoulders of giants. What legacy will Manmohan Singh leave? He must never forget that there is a higher life beyond the enchanting economic and financial arena with which some of his closest advisers are so enamoured.

P.S. For some inexplicable reason I was not permitted to speak in the Rajya Sabha debate on the nuclear agreement with the United States. Had I been allowed to speak, I would have given the Prime Minister my critical support. For I believe that leaders should not only contemplate problems, but must find solutions for them. India is not a commodity. It is a unique and durable civilisation, a never-ending pilgrimage. I regret to say the Prime Minister said a lot and conveyed very little in his speech. The bureaucratic jargon was wrapped in fog-making generalities. His 70-minute speech was comprehensive and covered a lot of the wrong ground. It begged all the serious questions and answered very few. He might have also ensured the death of a deal which in its original form was beneficial for us.

(The author, a Rajya Sabha member, is a former External Affairs Minister.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

A robust performance forecast

Continuing Yasukuni troubles

Breaking ships need not break lives

The speech that was not allowed

The unending war in Sri Lanka

New study: India's HIV burden overestimated

Positive, supportive: How some see it

Balance of economic power ebbs from U.S.