x xɽ nM* 

... (ɴvx)

+bh V M i =xE x xɽ nM*

... (ɴvx)


* Expunged as ordered by the chair.

x ʺƽ (nʮ): ɦ{i ɽn, <ix MƦҮ i Mɪ* < {ɮ ɡ Mx E i *

... (ɴvx)

+{ =E EɪǴɽ xEɴ nVB* ... (ɴvx) +{ =xɺ ɡ Mɴ<*

... (ɴvx)

b. ɡE֮ǽx E : ɽ ƺn E +{ɨx *

... (ɴvx)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do not want anybody to express any derogatory remarks against any Member particularly with regard to our security. Any such remarks expressed here would be expunged. Please continue.

x ʺƽ : <ix Eɡ xɽ *

... (ɴvx)

ɽ ɽi MƦҮ i *

... (ɴvx)

ii {I E BE Vɨnɮ n x B i E * ... (ɴvx)

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI L.K. ADVANI): If anyone from the Government Benches has described an hon. Member of this House as ........I apologise for it apart from the fact that you may expunge it.

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n : ɦ{i ɽn, <ʱB E l EE VV ɽ x E E x ʴɺ] <ʱB E E + EU xɽ + * <ʱB x EU i E E i =xE ҡ Mɱi E Mɪ =xx {jɴʱɪ xɽ {g , <ʱB M{xҪi E M xɽ Ex Sɽi* x V EU E , =xE VV ɽ EM* =xE iɱɪM + +Mɮ =xE Mɱi ҡ E i =xE Eɮ EBM E x EU xɽ E * <ʱB x <x i E Ex Sɽ* <E +ɴ + E< ƶ xɽ l*

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n - Vɮ ɽ E ʤi Ei * {ɮh ]] E +c n E l BE + U E V * E Eɮh l E +{x {ɮIh E 3-4 nx E +n +ɮE B V{x E{xɪ E ʤVɱ Vx+ E ʱB ɮEɮ MƮ] Vڮ E* {Ux Sɽi E <E {U E ƶ * +{x i =i{nx E ʱB 18 E ʴn E{xɪ E Vڮ EB* < iɮ 28 ʴn E{xɪ E n E 50,000 M E] M {ɮ Jx E <Ǻƺ n* Vɤ ʴɺ] EE Vɨx E ]] E VBM i ʴn E{xɪ ɮ n E I E {ڮ M{xҪi M* ɽ n E ʱB ɽi c Jiɮ {n E Mɪ * {i M E Ex nɦEi , Ex np * ʴn E{xɪ ʴɺ] E ɽx E-E EM* <ɺ ɮ n E I E ɤɺ Vn Jiɮ {n + * ɽ E E , E ɽ n +nx* ... (ɴvx) 50,000 M E] ʽxnֺix E Vɨx {ɮIh E Sɮ nx E +n n + xɮ ni n E, n E ɽEi n E xɨ * <ʱB Ex Sɽi E ɽ n E xɮ xɽ * ɹ] ʽi E l <ix c Jɱɴc Ex, <ɺ ɮ n E I ɮ M{xҪi M VBM* ɽ i Eɮ Ex {cM E ɽ Eiɶɱ V +lE nʹ] Vɤi * ʡ nx Sɽi E I E ɨɱ +{x Ei E Vɤi Ex SʽB Vɺɺ nxɪ E E< n ɮ n E iɮ ֮ xMɽ x nJ E*

x .]..]. {ɮ niJi Ex ɡ x E n* x E, |vxɨj V x E n l E iIɮ xɽ EM, i <ɺ ɽ ɡ l E ɮ {ɺ B] ɨ * =E l x E< ɮ E E E {ɮ ɱ xɽ EM* n E< ɱ EM i nֶx E Vɨx {ɮ c< M* Ex ɽ E Eɨ E E {Eix + Sx E ʴɹɪ +ʮE E S_ ʱJE Sx {E BE l Jc E n* ɮ xi B x SʽB E {c n +SU ʮi * Ex +{x Sx + {Eix nx +SU ʮi E Ji E n* +V {ڮ {ʶSɨ iE {ڮ Ҩ {ɮ +i * Sx + {Eix E <E_ EE ɮ n E ֮I E ʱB ɤɺ c Sxi {n E * Vɤ Sx E ɮ Ei E c |ɪɺ E n Sx Ƥv +SU l, EO E ɮEɮ x, VҴ Mv E MVɮɱ iE ɤx =ɺ +SU Ƥv xB VɺE xiV ɽ xE E 1965 1971 E Vɤ {Eix c< < l i Sx Jɨ nJi , =x ɮi E ʴɮv xɽ E + x BE ɤn * +{x {Eix, Mɱn E ]Ec-]Ec E nB* ɮ ɽn֮ c, `E Eɨ E, ɮ x c, <n V c * Ex < ɮ +{x Sxi nE Sx E ʴɮv E*

ʤVɱ, {x E ɨɺ ɺ xɽ i* +OV E֨i ɮ n Mֱɨ l* ʽxnֺix E< ɮ +Eɱ {c Ex =E n ʽxnֺix E Ex x E +iɽi xɽ E* +V ɮ Ex E ɽ n * E =x +iɽi Ex {c * +V ʽxnֺix E E Jiɮ i =x +iʮE Eiɪ V n E xɨ {ɮ, ʽxn-ֺɱɨx E xɨ {ɮ i Ei * ֮nɤn ʺɨ SS E (8 10 ɱ E ) 302 E ֱWɨ xE nM EE +{x V E , =.|. ]b 14-14 ɱ E ʺJ cE E V n E l*

, V ʽxn, ʺɨ, ʺJ, <Ǻ< E BEi E Jbi Ex ɱ , =ɺ n E ɤɺ c Jiɮ *

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n Vɮ ɮ ɽn֮ x + ɮ ɽn֮ Vxi BE E ʴn Ei Eix iEiɴɮ M, ɮ ʽxnֺix Eɤɱ EM + n ]E Vɴɤ nM + nֶx E vɮi {ɮ c< M + ʽxnֺix E vɮi E c< E nx xɽ xx Sɽi , ɽ +ʮE E Vɶ * +{E xiɪ E Eɮh +Mɮ c< E nx ʽxnֺix xi i E iEҡ M* +Mɮ Vɤڮ c< E nx i i c< E nx ʽxnֺix x x, nxɪ E E< + ֱE x, < i E vx Jx E Vɰi * +{x {ɮ{ʮE Ei E gɪ + = Ei E Vɤi E*

<x ɤn E l +{E vxɴn ni B +{x i ɨ{i Ei *

... (ɴvx)

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR): I have been conceding to everybody. If I am not called upon to speak, I will have to stage a walk-out.

nx ɱ J֮x : +{ B xɽ E* =vɮ +{E i M + ɽ Sɮ M *

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : I must concede to the Minister. The Speaker had said that after Shri Advani, I can speak.

Mɽ j ( ɱ Eh +bh) : ɦ{i V, 1949 ɮi ixj + + iɤ E Z 4-5 B +ɺɮ E ɮh i , Vɤ n ɽi |ɺxxi <* Ex |ɪ& ɦ +ɺɮ {ɮ Vɤ n |ɺxxi < + ɴǺvɮh ɮiҪ Mɴ E +x֦ɴ Ex M i ʴɶ ɮ ɮ c iJ +ɱSx <*

Z ɮh +i E Vɤ 1948 nɤn ɮi E l ʴɱɪ Ex E iɮ xɽ l + = ɨɪ ɽ {ɮ EɮǴ< Ex {c + VɺE {ʮhɨɺɰ{ nɤn E ɮi E l ʴɱɪ Ex E ʱB ʴɴɶ x {c i V M ʴɶ ɮ ʨj x Vi l, B Eiɪ x ɮ c +ɱSx E* Vɤ M E Ei Oɨ + i ɽ SV <* M Ei +, iɤ +* ɽ iE E Bb<W ]Ҵƶx V ɮi E {ɮ ʨj l, EiMi { =xx <ix iJ +ɱSx ɮ ɹ] P E + x<]b xƺ ʺEʮ] E=ʺɱ ɮ Jɱɡ Eɪn |ɺiɴ J Mɪ* ɽ |ɺiɴ {ʶSɨ ɹ] E ɨlx {ʮi Vi, +Mɮ ʴɪi =E ] x Ei* <ʱB Vɤ <E i i x E ʴɶ ɮ +ɱSx i =E E] xɽ xx SʽB* =E =J E E ɽ {ɮ Ex E Vɰi xɽ * , =E Vix EU vx Jx , ɽ Jx SʽB*

ɮi E +xiɮǹ]Ҫ +ʦɨi E ɮ =nɺx xɽ Ei* E xɽ Ei* Ex =E +l xɽ E ɽ xhǪE x, ɽ xhǪE xɽ x Ei* Z n E {Jɮh Vɤ {ɽ-{ɽ +h ʴɺ] + l, = ɨɪ Eɡ +ɱSx < l, Ex n E iɮ, ɽ 1974 E i , = ɨɪ ɮiҪ VxɺP E +vI l + +vI E xi BE J E { , Eiɴ E { x V i E, =E lc =ri EM* x E E:

"The Government's announcement that India has successfully carried out an underground nuclear explosion has been hailed with hallelujah from all sides.

Only twice in recent years has one witnessed such a mood of national elation - first when the Indian Army entered Dacca to liberate Bangladesh and now when India has virtually entered the nuclear club."

< i E ɮh <ʱB E E SɨS E ɽ xi B Z lc + + l* < i E + + l E Vɤ EU n x ɮ +ɱSx E, ɨZ +i , Ex M]-xɮ{I +xnx E V ɹ] =xE ɨx V |ɺiɴ {ʮi + ɽ ɺii& ɮi E < +h ʴɺ] E ɨlx l, Sɽ ɮi E xɨ xɽ ʱɪ Mɪ* B ʺli ɮ ɽi |ɨJ ɽM + V vɮhi& E ɨɱ E ɽ ʴɶh Ei + ʴɶh ɽ x Ei , {ڮ iɮ +ɡ n ]E x , =xE {ɽ-{ɽ ʮBEƺ |ɪ& {V] l, B Z xɽ nJ* Ex E Vɤ =xE xx M i c +ɶSɪ +* <ʱB x |vx j V +x֨i M E EU * vɮhi& ɽ ʴɹɪ B VɺE ɽi ʴɺiɮ |vx j V x +{x +ɮʨE Eiɴ J * |iɮI j V v i < ʴɹɪ Vc B * SE |vx j ʴn ʴɦM E Eɪ ɨɱi , ʴn ʴɦM E E< +M j xɽ <ʱB ʴɺiɮ ɽ E =iiɮ nM, B Z ʴɶɺ * <ɺ ɦ {ɽ+ {ɮ |Eɶ {c VBM*

xi E ɽ {ɮ BE i E Sxi n M<* ɽ |ɨJ M E uɮ n M< E Vɤ ɮi ɮEɮ Ei E x ɽ xhǪ n E ֮I E nʹ] E , i =x M x E E ֮I Eɺ? ֮I E E] Eɺ ? E< E] nJ< xɽ ni* E< E] xɽ, ʡ ֮I E i Ei , Ex ֮I E + M<? +{ E ni E ɮ Ph {j ʱJ + <ʱB E , `E , Sɱi, Ex Vɤ +{ E] + ֮I E i E i ɨZB E ɽ E] E + ɽ E] E {n + ? E ɽ ֮I E i +< ?

EO E + x]ɮ ʺƽ V * ʴn jɱɪ E l ɹ iE Vc * +Mɮ =xE x VB E ʴn Ij E ʴɶY i E< Mɱi xɽ M* t{ |iɮI Ij E ʴɶY xɽ, Z xɽ {i l* Ex Vɤ =xx E Z iɪ E |-BE] E +l E i |iɮI E ɹ , i Z +ɶSɪ +* <ʱB +V Z bƺ BE{]Ǻ E {ɺ Vx {c* x =xE E E x +Mɮ |-BE] ɤn E i E =E +l ɽ i V x]ɮ ʺƽ V Z i , =xx E ʤɱEֱ xɽ i* =xx E E +{E iBM E +l i * =xx +{x fM iɪ E E +l i , = {ɮ n +>M* Ex E x]ɮ ʺƽ V x +ɮ E:-

"Now, we are entitled to know from the Prime Minister when did this threat begin. Did it begin on the 19th of March when he took over? Or, did it begin on the 8th of April when he gave the green signal to his scientists? ... Have the Pakistanis mounted an exercise which threatened the city of Amritsar?"

Mark the words. Every word is important - `Have the Pakistanis mounted an exercise which threatened the city of Amritsar?'

And, later on, he goes on to say:

"For 25 years, since 1971, there has been no security threat to India (meaning, from Pakistan). The Simla Agreement has ensured that there is no conflict with Pakistan."

Frankly, I cannot agree with this kind of an analysis of the situation. In fact, it is a total disagreement with this analysis that has made the Government of India take the decision that it had taken.

Subsequently, something similar was said by Shri P. Chidambaram also. Let me quote that also. It would be in place.

Questioning the same security concept Shri Chidambaram said, `The last war with Pakistan was fought 27 years ago'. And then he described how the hon. former Prime Minister, Shri Inder Kumar Gujral in his negotiations with Nawaz Sharif and President Clinton saw to it that so far as relations with Pakistan were concerned they moved towards normalcy.

I would not like to comment on the puerile tactic that he indulged in about the Vajpayee doctrine and the Advani doctrine because that is a very pet copy of many journalists trying to drive a wedge between the two. I would not expect Shri Chidambaram to do that.

Shri Natwar Singh in his speech had said that Shri Vajpayee has mentioned Nehruji and Indiraji, but perhaps he did not mention Rajivji and that it was understood. He said something like that. He quoted Rajivji who had made a very fervent appeal for nuclear disarmament and said that it did not succeed for different reasons. He said:-

"Rajiv Gandhi said that all nuclear weapons should be abolished by 2010 and Gorbachev came out with a proposal, if I remember correctly, that the nuclear weapons should be abolished by 2005. Then the Soviet Union disintegrated."

I do not know why Shri Natwar Singh or Shri Chidambaram conveniently disregarded the fact that in 1991 just before the elections, the Congress Party came forth with a manifesto and let us see what the manifesto says. It took cognizance of the threat that this Government has taken cognizance of. The 1991 election was fought by the Congress under the leadership of Rajivji. The 1991 Congress manifesto was prepared under the aegis of Rajivji. On Page 54 it says:-

"We are deeply concerned that Pakistan is developing the nuclear weapons. It is hoped that they will desist from this disastrous path. They have already inflicted four wars upon India. In case Pakistan persists with the development and deployment of nuclear weapons, India will be constrained to review her policy to meet the threat".

Generally, I am sure, in all documents of this kind Shri Chidambaram has a role. But I do not know whether he had any role in drafting the 1991 manifesto. But this is what I read. Have you read this? I was really surprised. This was the manifesto of the Congress Party.

SHRI RAJESH PILOT : We still say and had been saying that we keep the options open. We have all along been saying that weaponisation would damage our foreign policy. ... (Interruptions)

SHRI NATWAR SINGH (BHARATPUR): Shri Advani, I am very glad that you have read this. What is wrong in it?

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I do not see anything wrong in this.

I only say that there is a threat perception which you tried to deny to this Government. ... (Interruptions)

SHRI NATWAR SINGH : We expect you to do better. It is feeble.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: You have done as badly as you can. I will try to do better.

Sir, this is in so far as the security environment is concerned. I said that I would have ordinarily not intervened in this debate and left it to the intervention by the Defence Minister and then the final reply by the Prime Minister.

In so far as the relations with other countries are concerned and in so far as external security is concerned, they are the concerns either of the External Affairs Minister or of the Defence Minister. But I do believe that in so far as relations with Pakistan are concerned, they impinge not only on our external security but also on our internal security; and as a person who has been entrusted with the responsibility of looking after internal security, I feel that I can contribute something to this debate.

I believe that since 1947, Pakistan which declared itself a theocratic State has failed to reconcile with the fact that India has declared itself a non-denominational secular State, because commitment to theocracy and commitment to the two-nation theory logically lead to Kashmir becoming a part of Pakistan. But it did not happen. The leadership of Kashmir and the people of Kashmir decided to go along with India; and they have remained a part of this country since then.

Pakistan's failure to reconcile with this fact has been at the root of many problems that the country is facing in Jammu and Kashmir. That is how, there was a war in 1947, there was a war in 1965 and in a way, even the war in 1971 was related to that. But having failed in all the wars, they adopted a certain strategy which those concerned with India's security can never afford to discard and ignore. It cannot be done. Only those who discard it can think in terms of making statements of this kind: "Are they mounting an attack on Amritsar? Are they doing this? After all, they have very good talks with us. The Gujral doctrine was functioning very well; if you want to throw it overboard, you can do it. Why do you talk about threat perceptions when there are no threats at all? It is hunky-dory all along." It is only that kind of thinking that shows that we are totally oblivious of it or we shut our eyes ostrich-like to the fact that after the war in 1971, Pakistan decided upon a different strategy.