'You Might Have Created Difficulties For Yourself'

Mr. Chairman, Sir, I rise on behalf of my party to support the Resolution that you havejust read out.  Now, Sir, some people may find some shortcomings with this Resolution, but a unanimousResolution of both Houses of Parliament has very great importance and significance.  It reflects not onlythe views of the two Houses of the great Parliament of India, but we here, as Members of these two Houses,reflect the passions, the feelings and the emotions of the one billion people of India. Therefore, it is inthe fitness of things that on such a grave issue Parliament was able to come out with a Resolution, whichreflects the sentiments of other people of India. 

Sir, I have respect for the shrines of the minds of the people and I would like to heremention that the hon. Prime Minister and his two ministerial colleagues who are here, have played a seminalrole in producing a draft, which was acceptable to all of us.  Now, we live in an era where eventsovertake ideas -- diplomacy overtakes foreign policy.  Hence, foreign policy must continuously beexplained; must reflect national consensus.  We have to have a clear, creative and flexible but not apliant foreign policy. 

Parliament and the country must be told why a particular course has been adopted and thisResolution reflects why this particular course has been adopted.  Now we all want the closest possiblerelations with the United States, but we also expect that, as our friends, the United States should look forpartnership of nations and not a hegemonistic relationship. 

What is happening in Iraq is even today all of us had been witnessing the heart-rendingscenes of massive bombardment by the latest technology that the American nation can produce.  What is theobjective of this continuous bombarding of Iraq?  Who is suffering?  It is the innocent people ofIraq, the children, the women, the old men and innocent civilians who are not involved in any militaryactivity whatsoever.  The aim, we are told again for the second time, of the bombardment is toassassinate the President of Iraq and his family.  What does one say to this kind of a thing when thegreatest power in history, the most powerful country, the richest country and technologically the mostadvanced country, which should be an example of responsibility and restraint, has undertaken this massslaughter of innocent human beings? 

This is contrary to the United Nations Charter.  This is contrary to all the valuesall human beings stand for.  Now the reason for the war was that Iraq possesses weapons of massdestruction.  That was the principal reason given apart from the assassination of the Head of the Stateof Iraq.  Now Mr. Saddam Hussein's fate is not known.  But it is now quite clear that weapons ofmass destruction have not been discovered.  So, what is the legitimacy of this war?

If weapons of mass destruction had been discovered, then I would have been speaking in adifferent language. But the fact of the matter is, with all the resources that they have to find out if thereare any weapons of mass destruction, the attacking forces have not been able to find out any weapons of massdestruction. So, the legitimacy of the war has been destroyed.

We have been saying from the very beginning that it was contrary to the U.N. Charter. Ihave got a copy of the U. N. Charter with me. I do not want to read out portions from it. But, it is quiteclear that articles 1 to 39, 41 and 51 have been totally ignored, and the United States is its Founder Member,and so are we. We were Member of the League of Nations even as a part of the British Empire, and we became aFounder-Member. Other countries had to apply for its membership. We did not apply. So, being a Founder-Member,we have a voice and a role, and that is why, I attach the highest importance to the Resolution that has beenadopted, and will be adopted by this House.

Now, we have heard a great deal about a Coalition. I do not know whether the hon. Membersare aware of the fact who constitute this Coalition. Apart from the important countries, which are Australia,Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States,the others are Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,Eritrea, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Icelands, Latvia, Luthania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands. Does anybodyknow where the Marshall Islands are? Micronesia, Nicaragua, Palau. Palau is apparently a country. Then,Panama, Portugal, Rwanda, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Tonga. We have very good relations with Tonga. It is inthe Coalition. Then Ukraine, Uganda, Uzbekistan. This is the great Coalition, which we are supposed toapplaud.

Now, Sir, first of all, our hearts go out to the valiant and brave people of Iraq, and Ithink the entire House is expressing its profound grief and anguish as this Resolution mentions. Now, I wouldlike to mention one or two things, which are of grave concern, and I am sure, the distinguished ExternalAffairs Minister will throw some light on this. I might also mention that America's close neighbours, Canadaand Mexico, have not joined the Coalition. Canada is next door to America, so is Mexico. They have not joinedthis Coalition.

The distinguished External Affairs Minister had made a statement about pre-emptivestrike. He has said that logic may be clear that if the United States could take pre-emptive action againstIraq, India would be justified in taking pre-emptive action, and have a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan.Now, I have profound respect and affection for him. I do not know whether you had thought this through or not.But, I think, you might have created difficulties for yourself, because if you take your argument to thelogic, then you are justifying the Americans' intervention. I do not think this was your intention because ifyou say that we can take a similar action, that means, you are justifying the Americans' attack. That is notyour intention. That is not the intention of this Resolution. But, this is what my thick brain can understand[meri moTii buddhii ko samajh aataa hai] Maybe, you might have not thought this through, and I would be verygrateful and the House would appreciate if you could enlighten us on this as to the reasons why you have madethis statement.        

You are a very cautious and careful person and that is to be welcomed.  Now, oneother thing that all of us are deeply concerned about is the observations of the distinguished Secretary ofState of United States, Mr. Collin Powell.  He said that after the tragic conclusion of this horrible warin Iraq, the United States would turn its attention to India and Pakistan with regard to Jammu and Kashmir.The exact words are available with you in the Ministry of External Affairs and are also available to some ofus.

On the 12^th of March, when we discussed this issue in this very House, Imentioned that "who next, when next" and knowing that the United States has responded promptly toyour suggestion of India having the right to have pre-emptive strike.  They have rejected your point ofview and their view was that there was an overwhelming difference between the situation in Iraq and thesituation in Jammu and Kashmir.  Therefore, India is not entitled to take pre-emptive strike. 

I mean the United States is not in a position to make policy decisions for India and thatis for you to deal with this particular matter with the United States in the White House, in the StateDepartment.  But what we are concerned with, and, I am sure, you are also concerned with here is thatsuppose the President of the United States were to write to the Prime Minister of India and the President ofPakistan to say that both the countries should sit down and find a solution for, what they call 'dispute' onJammu & Kashmir.  We do not consider it a dispute.  The whole of Jammu & Kashmir is a partof India.  I would like to know the views of the Government, because this is not a figment of myimagination. 

If you read the security document issued by some think tanks in the United States in thelast year, whatever is being done in Iraq and other countries is only a prelude to what they intend to do; andMr. Rumsfeld has made it quite clear that Iraq is being taken care of and if we find evidence that Syria hasbeen helping Iraq, Syria will also have to face the consequences and the axis of evil also includes Iran andNorth Korea. 

Now, I do not want to take much time of the House discussing the merits of what theAmerican policy is in Iraq and what its policy is in North Korea for obvious reasons, because it is not assimple as walking into Iraq, to take on North Korea with China next door and South Korea, not even at twominutes flight.  But I think the country would like to know and the House would like to be assured thatin such an eventuality, what would be your reaction? The American mood is -- if I may use a religious term --of this 'evangelical fervour' of President Bush who has invoked God to his side, now we all believe in God,but it is for the first time probably in 80-90 years that this 'evangelical' zeal to shape the world in themanner they want the world to be, to say the least, is a matter of deep concern and must alarm all of us.Especially, in the last few years our relations with United States of America have improved. The process wasstarted in the time of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and carried forward by Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, Mr. Narsimha Rao, Dr.Manmohan Singh and now Prime Minister Vajpayee and his colleagues.

Therefore, I think, since we are friends--I know that we are discussing matters with theUnited States which we have been discussing with them during the last 50 years--there is a willingness, onboth sides, to speak to each other frankly and to share our anxieties and concerns with our American friends. We are entitled to do so because we consider ourselves as their friends.  So, I think the House would beinterested to know whether you applied your mind to this particular possibility, which, as I said, is not afigment of my imagination. 

You would, probably, be facing this situation in a few weeks or a few months ahead. Now, I have no doubt that no Government of India will accept this kind of a situation or diktat or intention,howsoever well meaning it is.   Why I am saying this is, we were told for a number of months by yourpredecessor that there had been a paradigm change in Indo-US relations. Now, if there has been a paradigmchange, why are the United States still persisting in their view that they consider Pakistan as their stalwartally?  

President Musharraf made a speech on 12^th January last year where he gave anundertaking to the whole world that he would not allow the soil of Pakistan to be used for exporting terrorismanywhere in the world including part of India, that is, Jammu and Kashmir.  But he has not fulfilled thepromises that he made and the United States say that it has not been able to persuade President Musharraf tostop cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.  Now, the same United States was able to persuadePresident Musharraf in October, 2001,  on their invading Afghanistan, President Musharraf made a 360degree turn and changed Pakistan's fundamental policy regarding Talibans.  

If the Americans could persuade the Pakistan Government and the Pakistan President tomake such a fundamental change in Pakistan's policy with regard to Afghanistan and Taliban, why are we notable to persuade President Musharraf that he must, in the larger interest of peace and tranquillity in theIndian sub-continent, stop cross-border terrorism?   We would be very grateful to you if you couldtake the House into confidence and tell us whether these matters have been taken up with them and whether youwere satisfied with the response that you had.

While concluding, I would like to mention one more thing, that is, the Prime Minister wasgood enough to tell us, both here and in the all-party meeting, that he had been in touch with the fivePermanent Members of the Security Council.  I think it was before the Iraq war started.  The Housewill be interested to know, I am sure, whether the Prime Minister had any conversations, in the last few days,with Shri Kofi Annan, President Jacques Chirac, President Vladimir Putin, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, ShriHu Jintao of China, Shri Mohammad Mahathir and other non-aligned leaders because the newspaper reports saythat Shri Kofi Annan, President Chirac, Chancellor Schroeder and President Putin will be meeting in St.Petersburg some time this week or early next week to take up the issue of post-war Iraq.

Now, the Resolution has very rightly mentioned that the Government of India has givenRs.100 crores in cash and 50,000 metric tons of wheat.  I don't know what is the amount in terms ofrupees.  But I think it is a substantial amount and more is needed.

Obviously, there is a difference of opinion.  Yesterday, the President of Americaand the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom met in Belfast in the Northern Ireland where the United Statessaid--it was a great relief to all of us who saw it--that the United Nations will play a pivotal role inpost-war Iraq developments.    But we also know that when it comes to reconstruction process,certain companies have already been allocated their share.

That is not going to solve the problems of Iraq because you know as Finance Minister thatIraq has debt of nearly $ 380 billion.  Add to it $ 100 billion for reconstruction, add to it the costfor telecommunication, road construction.  We are not talking in terms of figures.  Seven to Eighthundred billion dollars, where is it going to come from or is it all going to be given to a particularcountry's company?.

I think, it is important that in this exercise, India should be in touch with the fivepermanent members of the Security Council, with the Secretary General of the United Nations and with thesenior leaders of Non-Aligned Movement so that the views of a large part of the world are conveyed at thehighest level.  It is not necessary for us to be hard on words, but we have to be hard on facts.  Wewant to know that if the new international order is to be formulated by the United States, withoutconsultation with anybody else, then, we are living in a world, which is much worse than the world of 19^thcentury, or, the earlier part of the 20th century.  This should be done in the name of democracy and of avalue system, which is spelt out in inspiring and soaring language in the American declaration ofindependence.

I think, it will be right to say that the spirit and the letter of the AmericanConstitution are being violated and this is not being said by me, or, anybody else, but by the senior Membersof the American Congress.  So, once again, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on thisvery very important decision that the Parliament has taken to have a unanimous resolution on the illegal andunjustified war on Iraq.