'The Right Of Pre-Emptive Strike'

Sir, I rise in support of the Resolution, which you have very kindly moved from theChair.  I do not rise, let me clarify, to participate in a debate because I do not think we have debatedhere an issue in the spirit of Treasury Benches and Opposition.  It is a Resolution, which has thesupport of all Members of this House, cutting across political  party lines.  I am sure at the endof it, it will be passed by acclaim. 

Sir, as I mentioned in the beginning,  I rise in support of the Resolution  and to say a few words which need some clarification.   But before I proceed to do that, Sir, Iwould like to deeply mourn on my behalf, on behalf of the Government of India -- and  I am sure the wholeHouse will join me--  the precious lives   of media people which have been lost in this war inIraq.  Lots of lives have been lost.  I believe at least a dozen media people have lost their livesin this war.  Three journalists died only yesterday when the hotel in which they were staying wasattacked.  I would also like to compliment the Doordarshan Team of Satish Jacob and Syed Nizami whodespite all these dangers in Baghdad have stayed on to report on what is happening in Baghdad.  I am surethe whole House will join me in complimenting them for this courageous act.  

Sir, the world has been deeply divided on the issue of Iraq.  I am not sharing asecret with this House when I say that the United Nations is divided, the Security Council of the UnitedNations is divided, the Non-alignment Movement is divided, the OIC is divided, the Arab League is divided, theNATO is divided, the European Union is divided.  Think of any major group of nations and we find thatthere is a deep fissure, a deep division which has prevented them from speaking in one voice on this issue. I am, therefore, particularly happy that the Iraq issue has not succeeded in dividing us.  This wholeHouse, the entire Parliament of India stands as one person behind the Resolution, Sir, that you have moved. Once again, we have demonstrated that when it comes to national interests, when it comes to a matter of suchimport as the present Iraq crisis, then we have the genius to demonstrate our wisdom and also our unity. Andthis has been proved repeatedly in our history.  

Sir, therefore, I will not like on this occasion to reply to some of the issues whichhave been raised vis-a -vis the attitude of the Government or any other political party.  I thinkultimately we need to compliment you, Sir, and we need to compliment ourselves on the fact that it has beenpossible for us to agree on a Resolution, which is not cast in a language, which meets the requirement of allshades of thinking.  Sir, there have been one or two issues which have been raised and specially by mydistinguished colleagues Shri Natwar Singhji, Ramachandraiahji and others.  I think it will createmisunderstandings if I do not respond to those issues.  And that is why I am responding to them so thatthose misunderstandings, if any, are removed. 

Sir, the first is the question, the right of  pre-emptive strike and did I say thatIndia had the right of pre-emptive strike against Pakistan, and, therefore, was I supporting the American ledpre-emptive strike against Iraq even by implications.  I would like to clarify, Sir, that in this age andtime wherever you go, there is media waiting for you.  They ask you questions.  You cannot alwayssay that I will not answer any questions.   Questions are asked which are of immediate topicalinterest and are of importance.  

It was in that spirit, a question was put to me that if weapons of mass destruction,terrorism or export of terrorism and absence of democracy are reasons for a country to go into anothercountry, militarily, then don't you think that Pakistan is a fitter case and don't you think that India hasgot all the arguments in its favour to do what the U.S. had done or the U.S.-led coalition has done? And, I am quite sure, nobody in this House will disagree with me when I say that I genuinely believe thepossession of weapons of mass destruction, absence of democracy and export of terrorism are the criteria. Then, no country deserves more than Pakistan to be tackled in this way compared to any other country in theworld.  

We have said, and, I am not trying to conceal anything, that we, in the Government ofIndia, have not come across any evidence to link Iraq with either weapons of mass destruction or export ofterrorism.  And, therefore, we have differed with many other powers on this particular issue.  But,we know from experience, we know on the basis of evidence, that Pakistan does not fall in the same category asIraq, it is in a much worse category.  And, therefore, it was in that context, that this reply was givenby me that if these are the criteria then Pakistan is a fitter case.

But, I would like to say, Sir, ever since the issue of a pre-emptive strike against Iraqhas been talked about, there have been commentators, there have been writers, not only in India but elsewherein the world, who said that if there was a pre-emptive attack case, India has a better case against Pakistanthan any other country.  This is an opinion which has been expressed, repeatedly, in articles that havebeen written even in the foreign media. 

Now, having clarified that point, Sir, I would like to say, again, an issue was raisedthat the U.S. Secretary of State has said that after they had done with Iraq, they are going to turn theirattention to the Indian Sub-continent.   When that question was put to me, I responded by sayingthat the only issue, according to us, which we are discussing with the international community, is the issueof cross-border terrorism and I would like everyone in this House, in this country, to be clear about it thatthere is an international coalition after 9/11.  There is a Security Council Resolution No. 1373 againstinternational terrorism.  And, under this Resolution and within the international coalition, there issupposed to be going on a global war against terrorism.  We are partners in that.  

Therefore, when we find that 'another country' is in clear violation of Resolution No.1373 that 'another country' is indulging in cross-border terrorism with impunity, then this is an issue, underthat international coalition, under that U.N. arrangement, within the ambit of the Security CouncilResolution.   We have not hesitated in discussing that with other countries.  We have discussedwith them the issue of cross-border terrorism.  

But, let me be very clear that what is not discussed and what will not be discussed isthe issue between India and Pakistan, whether it be Jammu and Kashmir or any other issue under the ShimlaAccord.  That is to be resolved bilaterally between India and Pakistan and that is how, if at all, itwill be resolved.  There is no third party role in these bilateral issues between Pakistan and India andwe will not permit any third party to play any role.  So, let there be no doubt about this particularissue that any one is being invited by us to play a role on the bilateral issues with Pakistan or, that anyonewill be permitted to play that role.  

Having said that, I would also like to say that we should not, perhaps, be too sensitiveabout the things.  We are a nation of over a billion people.  We are a nation of a great deal ofconfidence.  We should be able to reflect that confidence.  If somebody says, "We will try totake care of India and Pakistan", let them say what they want to say.  Let's also not be toosensitive about who is responding to a statement that I have made.  Let me tell you that when a jointstatement was made by the U.S. Secretary of State and the British Foreign Secretary, it was our officialspokesperson who had responded to that. 

This is something -- Mr. Natwar Singh will bear me out -- which happens repeatedly acrossthe world.  The Foreign Offices respond to statements which are made by Ministers, Heads of Government,Heads of State.  So, if somebody has responded from the US State Department, however mistakenly, to astatement, which I have made, or, which is perpetrated to have been made by me, I don't think we should takeit as a snub or a great humiliation of India or anything of that kind.  We have also responded in asimilar manner.  Therefore, Sir, I would say that we should show the confidence that we have, as anation. 

Yesterday, I had said in the other House that we have economic strength, we have militarystrength, but more than any other strength, we have the strength of Indian democracy. This is the strengththat will stand us in good stead.  Therefore, nobody can caste an evil eye on India.  If anyonetries and does anything that we are not willing to accept, India has the capacity with the same degree ofunity, which this House is demonstrating, today, in passing and adopting this Resolution.  The same unitwill come to our help in tackling that problem. 

I will also hasten to add that our Foreign Policy has never been Pak-centric.  It isnot Pak-centric even today.  We tend to talk about Pakistan all the time.  When I held my firstPress Conference as the Minister of External Affairs to the Government of India, I had to plead with the mediathree-fourths of the way that let's talk about other issues because Pakistan is not the only issue of IndianForeign Policy.  Today, we are discussing Iraq.  Pakistan came in tangentially. We will have anopportunity to discuss issues of Foreign Policy, I am sure, sometime within this session, or, at some othersession. Then, I will get an opportunity to clarify so many other points that have been raised in the courseof the discussion, today. 

But Let me, once again, compliment the entire House, the membership of this House, andyou, Sir, in particular, for the wisdom that has been demonstrated by us, for the unity that has beendemonstrated by us.  And, I am quite sure that the world will take notice of the Resolution, which isgong to be adopted unanimously by this House.  And, I would like to assure the House, through you, Sir,on behalf of the Government of India that it is an exceptional situation that the Parliament of India isadopting a Resolution.  We have adopted Resolutions in the past, Sir, in equally exceptional situations.  We are bound by those Resolutions. And, we will continue to work energetically; we will continue to worksincerely in the Government of India to ensure that the sentiment of this Resolution is translated at theinternational level.  Thank you.