Advani dividing Army, police: Cong

New Delhi : As the BJP raised questions about the authenticity of Malegaon blast investigations with BJP's prime ministerial candidate L K Advani attributing it to political leadership, the Congress launched a counter-attack accusing him of driving a "wedge between the Army and police" and making political interference in investigations. The Congress also called Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi as a "menace" to internal security.

Seeking to validate the revelations made by Lt Col Prasad Purohit during interrogation, AICC media cell chairperson M Veerappa Moily said the Army had deputed a senior Colonel to accompany the arrested Army officer and he was present throughout the interrogation of Purohit.

Replying to a question about the revelations made by the arrested Army officer, Advani had told reporters in Indore on Monday, "These are things related to political leadership, not to the agency." Rebutting his charges, Moily said here on Tuesday, "When Muslim outfits were arrested, there was a huge demand for enforcing POTA; none of the Central or state politicians interfered. The first political interference of a politician is from Advani."

Vouching for the neutrality and objectivity of the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), the senior Congress leader said the ATS detected 13 cases of Terror in the past four years in which it arrested 75 persons, including 24 Hindus and 51 Muslims. Eleven of the Hindus are connected with Malegaon case, said Moily. The other cases are related to Nanded, Peruwani and Jalna.

Dalai seeks India help, says it is Tibet’s ‘guru’

By Asit Jolly

Chandigarh

Nov. 20: The Dalai Lama has admitted that a resolution to the vexing Tibetan situation is "complicated". The Nobel Peace Prize winner and spiritual leader of the Tibetan people made the statement on the sidelines of the largest-ever conclave of exiled Tibetan leaders who have been called to McLeodganj to chart a fresh course of action on the future of their homeland.

Speaking at a special function at the Rotary Club at Dharamsala in Himachal Pradesh, he said of the three commitments of his life, resolving the Tibet situation was the most "complicated".

He listed "the promotion of compassion and love as a human being and promoting religious harmony as a Buddhist monk" as his other two, relatively more straightforward, commitments.

Significantly, the Dalai Lama sought India’s help in helping to resolve the Tibet situation. He said: "India and Tibet have the relationship of a ‘guru and chela’ (teacher and disciple), and when chela is in trouble, the guru must look after him."

The spiritual leader had earlier publicly expressed his disenchantment after the consecutive failure of as many as eight separate rounds of talks between his emissaries and representatives of the People’s Republic of China.

The Tibet situation has been simmering for the last half century, almost ever since the Dalai Lama was forced to flee his homeland along with his followers after the failed 1959 uprising against the People’s Liberation Army. He has since made McLeodganj his home and headquarters of the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Asked about his deliberate decision to stay away from the ongoing week-long conclave that has drawn considerable participation from the global Tibetan diaspora, he said: "I made it clear earlier that if I attended the meeting I may have made some comments. My presence could have hampered the free expression of opinions of the participants. So I am keeping away from the November 17-22 conclave."

But all of Tibet is anxiously awaiting the Dalai Lama’s post-conclave address on Sunday, which is likely to be coloured by the range of opinion delegates there articulate on the future of their homeland, now under Chinese rule.

Cloistered in his monastery, the monk has been regularly receiving summaries of what is being said at the 15 separate sessions by the 680 delegates.

CPM summons Kochi Mayor Mercy Williams to party HQ

Pioneer News Service | Kochi

The CPI(M) summoned Kochi Corporation Mayor Mercy Williams to AKG Centre, the State party headquarters in Thiruvananthapuram, for discussions with senior leaders including State secretary Pinarayi Vijayan in the context

of spreading complaints

in the corporation against the Mayor. Pinarayi informed the Mayor of the party’s displeasure over her inefficiency.

In the past three years of her performance as Mayor of the most happening city in the South, Mercy Williams has earned the reputation of being the most ineffective Mayor the corporation has ever seen. In this context, observers attach significance to the party summons served on Mercy Williams.

Talks in the party suggest that the leadership does not have any options before it but to ask her to step down because she through her inability to perform had caused serious damages to the party’s image in the corporation. CPI(M) leaders are convinced that the party cannot face the electorate in the coming Lok Sabha polls without taking such a measure to re-instill confidence in the people of the city.

The changing group equations in the Ernakulam district committee of the party also are not in favour of Mercy Williams. The Mayor is known to be from the group led by Polit Bureau member VS Achuthanandan but this faction has suffered considerable erosion of strength. Even the few councillors belonging to this group do not favour her continuance in the chair of the Mayor due to her infamous inefficiency.

The only factor that keeps her in power in the Kochi Corporation is said to be the influence wielded by her close relative, who is a leading city-based industrialist, who too is a close friend of Achuthanandan. But her reported inefficiency has even made him unable to lobby for her.

From the very start of her tenure as Mayor, Mercy Williams has been criticised for her inefficiency in dealing with the various civic problems in the city, the problems of garbage removal being the most crucial and lack of maintenance of city roads. Once she was even forced to take refuge in a house in the city when the people were holding a protest against her on the road.

The Kerala High Court has taken her to task over the issues of garbage and the roads dozens of times without any result. Even recently, the court had to warn that it would not hesitate to use the relevant articles in the Constitution to dissolve the corporation council if she failed to perform efficiently.

Even the Achutanandan group is convinced that the party would face a humiliating defeat in the Ernakulam and Mattanchery Assembly segment of the Ernakulam Lok Sabha constituency if it went to Parliament polls keeping Mercy Williams in the chair of the Mayor. The Opposition Congress-led UDF is continuing with a campaign against the Mayor and the Left-ruled corporation is also worrying the party.

Councillors of the CPI(M) have been demanding for her removal or serving of strict warnings to her for quite sometime now. A

councillor from the Achuthanandan group said, “We are forced to defend her when discussions come up in the council. We do so only with our voice because we do not have any just argument to do that. She will not get even her vote if a no-trust motion is brought against her.”

Observers see great significance for the summons to Mercy, who has never been in the good books of the official party leadership headed by Pinarayi Vijayan, at this juncture.

Pinarayi had called all the corporation council members to Alappuzha last week to take a decision on the matter. But this could not be done then as Mercy Williams did not turn up and as the matter became big news in the media.

CARTOON BY EP UNNY

INDIRA IS ALIVE IN OUR MEMORIES - NSUI JNU

'My grandfather once told me that there were two kinds of people: those who do the work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was much less competition.'
- INDIRA GANDHI

NSUI REMEMBERS CHACHA NEHRU

'Let us be a little humble; let us think that the truth may not perhaps be entirely with us.'- Nehru

NSUI TEAM LED BY JNU UNIT PRESIDENT SIMMY JOSEPH AND SENIOR LEADERS FAIZ ASHRAFI, LINESH V.V., SHABBIR ALAM, BHARAT KUMAR, SAIDUR RAHMAN, VISITED SHANTIVAN ON 14 NOVEMBER AND PAID HOMAGE TO PDT.JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, THE GREAT VISIONARY AND STATESMAN THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER PRODUCED.

Sonia: Rs 8,000cr aid misused by BJP govt

Raigarh, Nov. 18: Terming the Chhattisgarh government corrupt, Congress chief Sonia Gandhi on Tuesday said that the BJP government in the state did not spend the huge amount of money provided by the Centre, for developmental schemes.

Addressing her lone election rally in the state at Kharasia in the district, Mrs Gandhi said that the Central government had provided funds to the state without any bias, but the funds were never used for developmental works.

"The UPA government provided Rs 8,000 crores to Chhattisgarh to carry out developmental works. But unfortunately the state government did not spend the money for the purposes it was meant. It is yet to be ascertained where the money has gone," she said.

Referring to Naxal-related incidents in the state, Mrs Sonia Gandhi said that the problem multiplied several folds during the last five-years due to the faulty policies of the state government. She also said that the law and order situation in Chhattisgarh has deteriorated under the present regime.

"Chhattisgarh used to be a peaceful state. But now the situation is different. Law and order situation in the state has deteriorated and Naxal problem has multiplied," she said. Mrs Gandhi also spoke about the flagship initiatives of the UPA government, including the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.

Meanwhile in Delhi, the Congress charged Chhattisgarh chief minister Raman Singh with misappropriating central funds. "We charge Chhattisgarh CM of misappropriating the Central funds, which went into the pockets of BJP ministers," said Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari.

Targeting the CM, the Congress spokesperson said if the people of the state will vote for the governance of Raman Singh, then it is certain that the Congress will for the next government there.

"We had started a movement against the BJP government right from the beginning and will expose it," Mr Tewari said.

—PTI

CARTOON BY EP UNNY

Govts don’t take hard decision at right time, says Fareed Zakaria

New Delhi, November 17 : Dismissing suggestions that the current financial crisis meant the failure of capitalism and reversal of globalisation, noted journalist and author Fareed Zakaria on Monday said the global meltdown was the result of the inability of the governments across the world to take hard decisions at the right time.

Delivering the 40th Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Lecture here, the editor of Newsweek International said governments have always tended to defer hard decisions, while pampering their constituencies with unsustainable policies.

“The current problems we are experiencing have at root the problem that governments — and they are mostly democratic governments — have lost the ability to inflict short-term pain on their constituencies for long-term gains,” he said.

“When looking at the fiscal situation in most Western countries, the core problem remains that democratic governments find it very hard to cut subsidies, reform entitlements, and restructure welfare programmes. Instead, they defer costs to the future using a combination of debt and creative accounting.”

This tendency of the governments manifested in India in the form of what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described as “competitive populism”, he said.

“It has been possible (in India) to go without enacting a major reform programme because the effects of the 1990s reforms were still working their way through the system. But that free ride is now over. Ultimately, Government policy matters, and good government policy will be rewarded,” he said.

Asking the people to guard against the tendency to over-hype India’s economic success, Zakaria said India was still a long way from becoming a superpower and many other developing countries were doing as well, if not better.

“Before counting on becoming a superpower, it would be worth doing the hard work that will make India one,” he said

“India has done exceedingly well compared to its past but not as well as some other developing countries. China’s economy is already three times the size of India’s and continues to grow at a substantially faster pace. Brazil has turned itself into an energy powerhouse. Turkey, a country of just 70 million, now gets more foreign direct investment than India and has a GDP that is only 20 per cent smaller,” he said.

Despite the current crisis being largely a making of governments, Zakaria said he had no doubt that in the end it was the governments that would prevail, though he did not know when or how.

“At the end of the day, governments are more powerful than the markets. They can close markets down, nationalise firms and write new rules. And the governments have already decided to put an end to the crisis.”...

1984 Sikh carnage was wrong: Rahul

Amritsar, November 18 : Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi condemned the anti-Sikh violence in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination, saying “whatever happened was wrong”.

“The 1984 riots were wrong. I strongly condemn the carnage,” Rahul said at a news conference in response to a question on Operation Bluestar and the riots. “There is no truth that there is hatred among Sikhs against the Congress party. I have travelled a lot and wherever I go and interact with them (Sikhs), I find lots of love for us... When my grandmother lost elections in 1977, I saw with my own eyes many Sikhs assembling by her side at our residence, when many others had left her isolated. We cannot forget all this.”

Rahul said he and his family bore no ill-will against the community of “which the whole country is proud of”.

Rahul reacted to BJP chief Rajnath Singh’s description of him as a “bachcha” in politics. “Yes, I am a bachcha. But then, 70% of the country’s population is bachcha. What kind of message is Rajnath Singh sending?”

In an interview with The Indian Express Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta on NDTV’s Walk the Talk, Rajnath Singh had said, “I would not like to comment on Rahul at all, I consider Rahul a child... Maybe some politicians consider him a rival but as far as I’m concerned he is just like my child.”

India touches the Moon

Johnson T A & Amitabh Sinha

Bangalore, New Delhi, November 14 : It played hide and seek in the cloudy skies above the Indian Space Research Organization’s command centre tonight but in the deep reaches of space, when it was 8.31 pm on the ground here, India finally touched the moon.

A small cube-shaped instrument, with the Tricolour on all four sides, met its tryst with the lunar surface signalling a mission accomplished step by flawless step over 24 days and nights — and a giant leap for the country’s space programme.

The 35-kg Moon Impact Probe (MIP), one of the 11 payloads on Chandrayaan-I, ejected from the main spacecraft — orbiting around the moon at a distance of 100 km — at the appointed time of 8.06 pm. And, after a 25-minute textbook journey, hit the lunar surface at a designated location on the Shackleton crater near the moon’s south pole.

The MIP became the first Indian object to leave its imprint on the moon’s surface. The United States, the erstwhile USSR and the European Space Agency are the only other three to have “deliberately landed an object on the moon.”

“As promised, we have given the moon to India,” said a beaming ISRO chairman G Madhavan Nair, the face to this historic achievement scripted by a team of hundreds of scientists of all disciplines working 24 by 7 for close to four years at a cost of Rs 386 crore, the least expensive mission to the moon so far.

“It has a huge symbolic value apart from being a tremendous scientific achievement,” said Mylswamy Annadurai, mission director of Chandrayaan-I. “We are literally over the moon,” he told The Indian Express. “But there is still a lot of science left in Chandrayaan. The real scientific experiments start now.”

The spacecraft, which is now left with 10 payloads, will continue in its present circular orbit for the next two years and carry out a variety of scientific experiments. These include testing the possibility of presence of water on the moon’s surface, mineral mapping of the lunar terrain and details about the presence of Helium-3.

If the sense of joy at ISRO’s Telemetry Tracking and Command Centre was overwhelming, so was the tension as the clock pushed past 8 pm. Giant screens across the room streamed in various health parameters for the probe — including temperatures and data transfer rate.

Former President A P J Abdul Kalam, who had proposed the idea of landing a probe on the moon...

PM's reply to the debate on the Motion of Confidence in the Lok Sabha

July 22, 2008

New Delhi

The Leader of Opposition, Shri L.K. Advani has chosen to use all manner of abusive objectives to describe my performance. He has described me as the weakest Prime Minister, a nikamma PM, and of having devalued the office of PM. To fulfill his ambitions, he has made at least three attempts to topple our government. But on each occasion his astrologers have misled him. This pattern, I am sure, will be repeated today. At his ripe old age, I do not expect Shri Advani to change his thinking. But for his sake and India’s sake, I urge him at least to change his astrologers so that he gets more accurate predictions of things to come.

As for Shri Advani’s various charges, I do not wish to waste the time of the House in rebutting them. All I can say is that before leveling charges of incompetence on others, Shri Advani should do some introspection. Can our nation forgive a Home Minister who slept when the terrorists were knocking at the doors of our Parliament? Can our nation forgive a person who single handedly provided the inspiration for the destruction of the Babri Masjid with all the terrible consequences that followed? To atone for his sins, he suddenly decided to visit Pakistan and there he discovered new virtues in Mr. Jinnah. Alas, his own party and his mentors in the RSS disowned him on this issue. Can our nation approve the conduct of a Home Minister who was sleeping while Gujarat was burning leading to the loss of thousands of innocent lives? Our friends in the Left Front should ponder over the company they are forced to keep because of miscalculations by their General Secretary.

As for my conduct, it is for this august House and the people of India to judge. All I can say is that in all these years that I have been in office, whether as Finance Minister or Prime Minister, I have felt it as a sacred obligation to use the levers of power as a societal trust to be used for transforming our economy and polity, so that we can get rid of poverty, ignorance and disease which still afflict millions of our people. This is a long and arduous journey. But every step taken in this direction can make a difference. And that is what we have sought to do in the last four years. How far we have succeeded is something I leave to the judgement of the people of India.

When I look at the composition of the opportunistic group opposed to us, it is clear to me that the clash today is between two alternative visions of India’s future. The one vision represented by the UPA and our allies seeks to project India as a self confident and united nation moving forward to gain its rightful place in the comity of nations, making full use of the opportunities offered by a globalised world, operating on the frontiers of modern science and technology and using modern science and technology as important instruments of national economic and social development. The opposite vision is of a motley crowd opposed to us who have come together to share the spoils of office to promote their sectional, sectarian and parochial interests. Our Left colleagues should tell us whether Shri L.K. Advani is acceptable to them as a Prime Ministerial candidate. Shri L.K. Advani should enlighten us if he will step aside as Prime Ministerial candidate of the opposition in favour of the choice of UNPA. They should take the country into confidence on this important issue.

I have already stated in my opening remarks that the House has been dragged into this debate unnecessarily. I wish our attention had not been diverted from some priority areas of national concern. These priorities are :

(i) Tackling the imported inflation caused by steep increase in oil prices. Our effort is to control inflation without hurting the rate of growth and employment.

(ii) To revitalize agriculture. We have decisively reversed the declining trend of investment and resource flow in agriculture. The Finance Minister has dealt with the measures we have taken in this regard. We have achieved a record foodgrain production of 231 million tones. But we need to redouble our efforts to improve agricultural productivity.

(iii) To improve the effectiveness of our flagship pro poor programmes such as National Rural Employment Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Nation-wide Mid day meal programme, Bharat Nirman to improve the quality of rural infrastructure of roads, electricity, safe drinking water, sanitation, irrigation, National Rural Health Mission and the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. These programmes are yielding solid results. But a great deal more needs to be done to improve the quality of implementation.

(iv) We have initiated a major thrust in expanding higher education. The objective is to expand the gross enrolment ratio in higher education from 11.6 per cent to 15 per cent by the end of the 11th Plan and to 21% by the end of 12th Plan. To meet these goals, we have an ambitious programme which seeks to create 30 new universities, of which 14 will be world class, 8 new IITs, 7 new IIMs, 20 new IIITs, 5 new IISERs, 2 Schools of planning and Architecture, 10 NITs, 373 new degree colleges and 1000 new polytechnics. And these are not just plans. Three new IISERs are already operational and the remaining two will become operational from the 2008-09 academic session. Two SPAs will be starting this year. Six of the new IITs start their classes this year. The establishment of the new universities is at an advanced stage of planning.

(v) A nation wide Skill Development Programme and the enactment of the Right to Education Act,

(vi) Approval by Parliament of the new Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy and enactment of legislation to provide social security benefits to workers in the unorganized sector.

(vii) The new 15 Point Programme for Minorities, the effective implementation of empowerment programmes for the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, paying particular emphasis on implementation of Land Rights for the tribals.

(viii) Equally important is the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act to impart utmost transparency to processes of governance. The Administrative Reforms Commission has made valuable suggestions to streamline the functioning of our public administration.

(ix) To deal firmly with terrorist elements, left wing extremism and communal elements that are attempting to undermine the security and stability of the country. We have been and will continue to vigorously pursue investigations in the major terrorist incidents that have taken place. Charge-sheets have been filed in almost all the cases. Our intelligence agencies and security forces are doing an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. They need our full support. We will take all possible steps to streamline their functioning and strengthen their effectiveness.

Considerable work has been done in all these areas but debates like the one we are having detract our attention from attending to these essential programmes and remaining items on our agenda. All the same, we will redouble our efforts to attend to these areas of priority concerns.

I say in all sincerity that this session and debate was unnecessary because I have said on several occasions that our nuclear agreement after being endorsed by the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group would be submitted to this august House for expressing its view. All I had asked our Left colleagues was : please allow us to go through the negotiating process and I will come to Parliament before operationalising the nuclear agreement. This simple courtesy which is essential for orderly functioning of any Government worth the name, particularly with regard to the conduct of foreign policy, they were not willing to grant me. They wanted a veto over every single step of negotiations which is not acceptable. They wanted me to behave as their bonded slave. The nuclear agreement may not have been mentioned in the Common Minimum Programme. However, there was an explicit mention of the need to develop closer relations with the USA but without sacrificing our independent foreign policy. The Congress Election Manifesto had explicitly referred to the need for strategic engagement with the USA and other great powers such as Russia.

In 1991, while presenting the Budget for 1991-92, as Finance Minister, I had stated : No power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come. I had then suggested to this august House that the emergence of India as a major global power was an idea whose time had come.

Carrying forward the process started by Shri Rajiv Gandhi of preparing India for the 21st century, I outlined a far reaching programme of economic reform whose fruits are now visible to every objective person. Both the Left and the BJP had then opposed the reform. Both had said we had mortgaged the economy to America and that we would bring back the East India Company. Subsequently both these parties have had a hand at running the Government. None of these parties have reversed the direction of economic policy laid down by the Congress Party in 1991. The moral of the story is that political parties should be judged not by what they say while in opposition but by what they do when entrusted with the responsibilities of power.

I am convinced that despite their opportunistic opposition to the nuclear agreement, history will compliment the UPA Government for having taken another giant step forward to lead India to become a major power centre of the evolving global economy. Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision of using atomic energy as a major instrument of development will become a living reality.

What is the nuclear agreement about? It is all about widening our development options, promoting energy security in a manner which will not hurt our precious environment and which will not contribute to pollution and global warming.

India needs to grow at the rate of at least ten per cent per annum to get rid of chronic poverty, ignorance and disease which still afflict millions of our people. A basic requirement for achieving this order of growth is the availability of energy, particularly electricity. We need increasing quantities of electricity to support our agriculture, industry and to give comfort to our householders. The generation of electricity has to grow at an annual rate of 8 to 10 per cent.

Now, hydro-carbons are one source of generating power and for meeting our energy requirements. But our production of hydro-carbons both of oil and gas is far short of our growing requirements. We are heavily dependent on imports. We all know the uncertainty of supplies and of prices of imported hydro-carbons.

We have to diversify our sources of energy supply.

We have large reserves of coal but even these are inadequate to meet all our needs by 2050. But more use of coal will have an adverse impact on pollution and climate. We can develop hydro-power and we must. But many of these projects hurt the environment and displace large number of people. We must develop renewable sources of energy particularly solar energy. But we must also make full use of atomic energy which is a clean environment friendly source of energy. All over the world, there is growing realization of the importance of atomic energy to meet the challenge of energy security and climate change.

India’s atomic scientists and technologists are world class. They have developed nuclear energy capacities despite heavy odds. But there are handicaps which have adversely affected our atomic energy programme. First of all, we have inadequate production of uranium. Second, the quality of our uranium resources is not comparable to those of other producers.Third, after the Pokharan nuclear test of 1974 and 1998 the outside world has imposed embargo on trade with India in nuclear materials, nuclear equipment and nuclear technology. As a result, our nuclear energy programme has suffered. Some twenty years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission had laid down a target of 10000 MW of electricity generation by the end of the twentieth century. Today, in 2008 our capacity is about 4000 MW and due to shortage of uranium many of these plants are operating at much below their capacity.

The nuclear agreement that we wish to negotiate will end India’s nuclear isolation, nuclear apartheid and enable us to take advantage of international trade in nuclear materials, technologies and equipment. It will open up new opportunities for trade in dual use high technologies opening up new pathways to accelerate industrialization of our country. Given the excellent quality of our nuclear scientists and technologists, I have reasons to believe that in a reasonably short period of time, India would emerge as an important exporter of nuclear technologies, and equipment for civilian purposes.

When I say this I am reminded of the visionary leadership of Shri Rajiv Gandhi who was a strong champion of computerization and use of information technologies for nation building. At that time, many people laughed at this idea. Today, information technology and software is a sun-rise industry with an annual turnover soon approaching 50 billion US dollars. I venture to think that our atomic energy industry will play a similar role in the transformation of India’s economy.

The essence of the matter is that the agreements that we negotiate with USA, Russia, France and other nuclear countries will enable us to enter into international trade for civilian use without any interference with our strategic nuclear programme. The strategic programme will continue to be developed at an autonomous pace determined solely by our own security perceptions. We have not and we will not accept any outside interference or monitoring or supervision of our strategic programme. Our strategic autonomy will never be compromised. We are willing to look at possible amendments to our Atomic Energy Act to reinforce our solemn commitment that our strategic autonomy will never be compromised.

I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing. Thus the nuclear agreements will not in any way affect our strategic autonomy. The cooperation that the international community is now willing to extend to us for trade in nuclear materials, technologies and equipment for civilian use will be available to us without signing the NPT or the CTBT.

This I believe is a measure of the respect that the world at large has for India, its people and their capabilities and our prospects to emerge as a major engine of growth for the world economy. I have often said that today there are no international constraints on India’s development. The world marvels at our ability to seek our social and economic salvation in the framework of a functioning democracy committed to the rule of law and respect for fundamental human freedoms. The world wants India to succeed. The obstacles we face are at home, particularly in our processes of domestic governance.

I wish to remind the House that in 1998 when the Pokharan II tests were undertaken, the Group of Eight leading developed countries had passed a harsh resolution condemning India and called upon India to sign the NPT and CTBT. Today, at the Hokkaido meeting of the G-8 held recently in Japan, the Chairman’s summary has welcomed cooperation in civilian nuclear energy between India and the international community. This is a measure of the sea change in the perceptions of the international community our trading with India for civilian nuclear energy purposes that has come about in less than ten years.

Our critics falsely accuse us, that in signing these agreements, we have surrendered the independence of foreign policy and made it subservient to US interests. In this context, I wish to point out that the cooperation in civil nuclear matters that we seek is not confined to the USA. Change in the NSG guidelines would be a passport to trade with 45 members of the Nuclear Supplier Group which includes Russia, France, and many other countries.

We appreciate the fact that the US has taken the lead in promoting cooperation with India for nuclear energy for civilian use. Without US initiative, India’s case for approval by the IAEA or the Nuclear Suppliers Group would not have moved forward.

But this does not mean that there is any explicit or implicit constraint on India to pursue an independent foreign policy determined by our own perceptions of our enlightened national interest. Some people are spreading the rumours that there are some secret or hidden agreements over and above the documents made public. I wish to state categorically that there are no secret or hidden documents other than the 123 agreement, the Separation Plan and the draft of the safeguard agreement with the IAEA. It has also been alleged that the Hyde Act will affect India’s ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. The Hyde Act does exist and it provides the US administration the authorization to enter into civil nuclear cooperation with India without insistence on full scope safeguards and without signing of the NPT. There are some prescriptive clauses but they cannot and they will not be allowed to affect in any way the conduct of our foreign policy. Our commitment is to what has been agreed in the 123 Agreement. There is nothing in this Agreement which will affect our strategic autonomy or our ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. I state categorically that our foreign policy, will at all times be determined by our own assessment of our national interest. This has been true in the past and will be true in future regarding our relations with big powers as well as with our neighbours in West Asia, notably Iran, Iraq, Palestine and the Gulf countries.

We have differed with the USA on their intervention in Iraq. I had explicitly stated at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC in July 2005 that intervention in Iraq was a big mistake. With regard to Iran, our advice has been in favour of moderation and we would like that the issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme which have emerged should be resolved through dialogue and discussions in the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I should also inform the House that our relations with the Arab world are very good. Two years ago, His Majesty, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was the Chief Guest at our Republic Day. More recently, we have played host to the President of Iran, President of Syria, the King of Jordan, the Emir of Qatar and the Emir of Kuwait. With all these countries we have historic civilisational and cultural links which we are keen to further develop to our mutual benefit. Today, we have strategic relationship with all major powers including USA, Russia, France, UK, Germany, Japan, China, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa. We are Forging new partnerships with countries of East Asia, South East Asia and Africa.

CONCLUSION

The Management and governance of the world’s largest, most diverse and most vibrant democracy is the greatest challenge any person can be entrusted with, in this world. It has been my good fortune that I was entrusted with this challenge over four years ago. I thank with all sincerity the Chairperson of the UPA, the leaders of the Constituent Parties of the UPA and every member of my Party for the faith and trust they reposed in me. I once again recall with gratitude the guidance and support I have received from Shri Jyoti Basu and Sardar Harkishen Singh Surjeet.

I have often said that I am a politician by accident. I have held many diverse responsibilities. I have been a teacher, I have been an official of the Government of India, I have been a member of this greatest of Parliaments, but I have never forgotten my life as a young boy in a distant village.

Every day that I have been Prime Minister of India I have tried to remember that the first ten years of my life were spent in a village with no drinking water supply, no electricity, no hospital, no roads and nothing that we today associate with modern living. I had to walk miles to school, I had to study in the dim light of a kerosene oil lamp. This nation gave me the opportunity to ensure that such would not be the life of our children in the foreseeable future.

Sir, my conscience is clear that on every day that I have occupied this high office, I have tried to fulfill the dream of that young boy from that distant village.

The greatness of democracy is that we are all birds of passage! We are here today, gone tomorrow! But in the brief time that the people of India entrust us with this responsibility, it is our duty to be honest and sincere in the discharge of these responsibilities. As it is said in our sacred texts, we are responsible for our actions and we must act without coveting the rewards of such action. Whatever I have done in this high office I have done so with a clear conscience and the best interests of my country and our people at heart. I have no other claims to make.

Some People Want China, And Not India, To Become Economic Super Power P. Chidambaram

Some People Want China, And Not India,
To Become Economic Super Power
P. Chidambaram

(While participating in the debate on the motion of confidence in Loksabha on July 22, 2008)

Mr. Speaker Sir, 42 months after this Government came into office, we have this Motion of Confidence moved by the hon. Prime Minister.

I have listened very carefully the whole of yesterday to the speeches led by the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and many other hon. Members.

Sir, this Government did not move a Motion of Confidence when it was first sworn in office. It is widely accepted that this Government enjoyed a clear majority. The withdrawal of support by the Left Parties created a situation where despite the numbers, the numbers were easily demonstrated by simple arithmetic by the hon. External Affairs Minister yesterday, a question arose whether this Government enjoyed the confidence of this House or not.

Sir, the Prime Minister offered to move the motion and he has moved the motion with a brief but eloquent speech.

My good friend, Mr. Salim said that we have moved away from six basic principles of the Common Minimum Programme. If I have the time, I would deal with each one of the six, but since I have limited time today, there are many other hon. Members, like Mr. Malhotra, who will be speaking, let me deal with two of the more important of the six principles.

The first is that this Government will ensure that the economy grows at least seven to eight per cent per year in a sustained manner. After 42 months what is the position? The economy has grown at an average of 8.9 per cent in the first four years. Compare this with the average of 5.8 per cent during the six years of NDA Government. We came into office towards the end of the Tenth Plan. The target for the Tenth Plan was eight per cent. It is because the economy grew at 9.4 per cent in 2005-06 and 9.6 per cent in 2006-07 that we were able to achieve an average growth rate for the Tenth Plan of 7.8 per cent, which was nearly close to the target of eight per cent. The Eleventh Plan began in 2007-08. There were prophets of gloom and doom. I had always maintained that in 2007-08 we will grow close to nine per cent.

Actually, when the revised agricultural estimates have come in, the growth in 2007-08 is close to 9.1 per cent. We have made a resounding start of the Eleventh Plan and I am confident that we can redeem our promise to grow at over seven to eight per cent.

Sir, I wish to make a special mention of agriculture. The year 2007-08 is a watershed year in India’s agricultural history. Food grains production has registered an all time record of 230.7 million tonnes. Of this, rice production was 96.43 million tonnes, which is a record; wheat production is 78.4 million tonnes, which is a record; coarse cereals was 40.7 million tonnes, which is a record; pulses was 15.1 million tonnes, which is a record; oil seeds was 28.87 million tonnes, which is a record.

Cotton was 25.81 million bales, which is a record. How did this come about? This came about through farsighted plans, missionary approach and attention to details. This Government launched the National Horticulture Mission. This Government undertook renovation, repair and restoration of water bodies. This Government appointed the Vaidyanathan Committee for reviving cooperative credit institutions. This Government launched a mission for pulses. This Government set up the Rainfed Area Development Authority. This Government launched the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana for Rs. 25,000 crore and the National Food Security Mission for Rs. 4,882 crore. Under this Government’s charge, capital formation in agriculture has increased from 10.2 per cent in 2003-04 to 12.5 per cent in 2006-07.

In the first four years, we have sanctioned proposals for Rs. 50,000 crore under RIDF and the corpus for the current year is Rs. 18,000 crore. So, I ask, Sir, respectfully, show me any other four year period in the history of independent India where so much has been done for agriculture. This is a difficult year. I promise you, even in this difficult year, we will achieve a growth rate which is better than what was promised in the CMP. That will be a growth rate far better than what is achieved in the six years of the NDA Government.

Another of the six principles was to enhance the welfare and well-being of farmers, farm labour and workers, particularly those in the unorganized sector. No Government has done more for farmers than this Government. I recognize that some farmers take extreme step of committing suicide. It was so ten years ago; it was so four years ago. Every suicide is a blot. Whenever there is a suicide, we have to hang our heads in shame. We have, therefore, addressed the needs of farmers in a systematic way. We are confident on that. While some results are visible, more results will be visible.

Sir, farm credit has increased from Rs. 86,000 crore in 2003-04 to Rs. 2,50,000 crore in 2007-08. This year, the target is Rs. 2,80,000 crore; but we will exceed the target. In order to take care of farm labour, who do not get work throughout the year, we introduced the NREG Scheme. In less than 15 months, the Scheme has been rolled out to all the 597 rural districts of India. Why did the NDA not introduce the NREG Scheme? A paltry amount of Rs. 75 was given as old-age pension. We raised it to Rs. 200 a month. We have removed the condition that they must be a destitute. We persuaded the State Governments to match it by another Rs. 200. Why did the NDA turn a blind eye to the suffering of old people?

For unorganized workers, there is a path-breaking Bill before Parliament. We are debating the Bill. We have not yet resolved the differences of the Bill. Yet, even before the Bill was passed, we introduced Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana which would provide death and disability insurance to the poor. By October 1, we will enroll one crore people. The Swasthya Bima Yojana would provide medical cover to the poor; 11 States have signed it up. The Janashree Bima Yojana would provide health and life cover to millions of women who are members of self-help groups. So, why did the NDA not introduce a single scheme for the unorganised sector?

Finally, never before in the history of this country, has any Government undertaken a loan waiver scheme of the size and scale that has been undertaken by this Government. I am happy to report to this House that on the basis of data gathered from the participating financial institutions, these are our conclusions. Debt waivers have been granted for a sum of Rs. 50,254 crore. Debt relief has been granted for a sum of Rs. 16,223 crore. Thus, the total amount of debt waiver and debt relief is Rs. 66,477 crore.

Sir, the total amount, I repeat, granted under debt waiver and debt relief is Rs. 66,477 crore. Among the beneficiaries, the number of small and marginal farmers is 2,98,05,305, and the number of other farmers is 65,81,818. Thus the total number of beneficiaries is 3,63,00,000.

Sir, the hon. Members will note that I have more than fulfilled my promise made to this House. But for the loan waiver and debt relief, these three crore and sixty-three lakh farmers would not have been entitled for loans, and they are being given loans. That is reflected in the increase in the sowing area, and that would be reflected eventually in the increase in food production at the end of the year.

Sir, this debate naturally turns on an agreement that we have signed with the US. We should remember that India signed agreements not with just one country. It has signed agreements with more than one country. We have signed an agreement with the US, we have signed an agreement with France, and we have signed an agreement with Russia. As the External Affairs has said, we need to cross two stages before we can operationalize any of these agreements. The first is the safeguards agreement of the IAEA, and the second is the waiver from the NSG.

Questions were asked about the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act. Let me explain the terms which I understand, and I would earnestly request the hon. Members to just lend me his ears for a couple of minutes. These are not very complicated legal issues.

In 1954, the U.S. adopted the Atomic Energy Act. That Act prohibits the US from cooperating on nuclear matters with any country until certain conditions are fulfilled. Section 123 authorizes the President of the US to exempt the proposed agreement from the conditions. That is why, this agreement is called ‘123 Agreement’. The Hyde Act was passed in 2006 and it became the law in December, 2006. Please mark the date. The 123 Agreement text was agreed between India and the US on August 1, 2007.

So, the 123 Agreement is an agreement after the Hyde Act came into force. In the US, it is a well-accepted Constitutional principle, well enshrined that while passing a Bill into law, the President may issue a signed statement asserting his Constitutional prerogative powers and refusing to abide by any provisions of the US Act.

We are not concerned with the provisions of the US Act nor are we concerned with what the US President said. That is their domestic matter. But the fact is that the US President issued a signed statement when he signed the Hyde Act into law. Six months later, we agreed to the text of the 123 Agreement. The question is, what is the status of the 123 Agreement. In the US, the status is quite clear. Every US commentator, every US newspaper, every analyst has said that the 123 Agreement is not inconsistent with the Hyde Act because, according to the White House, when properly construed, the later 123 Agreement nearly flushes out the details for the US-India Nuclear Cooperation, and then the 123 Agreement dwells upon the exceptions carved out in the Hyde Act, and once the Congress approves the 123 Agreement, then the Agreement and the Agreement alone, will delineate the specific rights and responsibilities of the US and India as a prevailing law that governs and controls the Agreement.

Now, look at it from our point of view. This is the US interpretation; this is the interpretation, which I rely upon because that is the way the US looks at it. The 123 Agreement alone will delineate the rights and responsibilities of the parties. Look at the way that we can look at it from the Indian law point of view. The 123 Agreement is, according to Article 2.5— and I urge you to read it — “to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation between the parties.” Please underline the words ‘to enable’. It is an agreement to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation between the parties. It contemplates such cooperation on an industrial scale or a commercial scale. Under Article 16, the Agreement enters into force on a date on which the parties will exchange diplomatic notes, informing each other that they have completed all applicable requirements. The legal status of the 123 Agreement is that it has not yet entered into force. It will enter into force after India and the United States notify each other; and they can do so only after completing all applicable requirements. It is, therefore, an enabling agreement. And, even after it enters into force, you would have to enter into further agreements for industrial or commercial scale cooperation in nuclear energy.

The next question is: How do you interpret under our law and international law, the 123 Agreement and any earlier agreements? Article 16.4 of the 123 Agreement says: “The Agreement shall be implemented in good faith and in accordance with the principles of the international law.” Please underline that. The Agreement shall be interpreted and implemented in accordance with the principles of the international law. Under the customary international law as well as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a Treaty. The 123 Agreement is a Treaty. The Hyde Act is an internal law. You cannot invoke the Hyde Act in order to refuse to perform your obligations under a Treaty.

And further more, when the 123 Agreement is ratified by the US Congress, it is up or down vote, it is ratified by the US Congress, it will be the last expression of the Legislature on the subject and under principle, which is known to every lawyer, the last expression of the Legislature will prevail over any earlier law passed by the same Legislature.

Besides, under Article 6(2) of the US Constitution, all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. In any view of the matter, the Hyde Act does not bind India. It cannot interfere with the implementation of 123 Agreement. The 123 Agreement alone will delineate the rights and responsibilities between India and the US. It will be the last expression of the Legislature, and under the Vienna Convention, we are bound only by the 123 Agreement.

The UPA-Left Committee held nine meetings between September 11, 2007 and June 6, 2008. At the fourth meeting on October 9, 2007, the CPI(M)’s Members noted that the Left Parties were not opposed to a safeguards agreement on principle just as they have not been opposed to the separation plan.

Their objection continued to be to the 123 Agreement. This issue was discussed at the fifth meeting on October, 22, 2007 and at the sixth meeting on November, 16, 2007. At the sixth meeting, after the exchanges, it was decided that the impact of the provisions of the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement on the IAEA Safeguards Agreement would have to be examined, and since it requires talks with the IAEA Secretariat for working out the text of an India-Specific Safeguards Agreement, the Government will proceed with the talks and the outcome will be presented to the Committee. That is precisely what this Government has done.

It went to the IAEA Secretariat for talks. It agreed upon a text. It froze that text. We came back to the Committee on March, 17, May 6 and June 25, and we have reported the outcome of the talks to the Committee. We have done nothing in a non-transparent manner. We have done it in the most transparent manner. We have taken everybody on board and we have told them that this is the outcome of the talks, and now the text is available. The ISSA text is available.

None of my comrades were members of the Committee. We know what happened in the Committee. We have said the ISSA text will be made available on the same day it is circulated officially to the Members of the IAEA Board. When we decided to go forward and circulate it to the Members of the IAEA Board, on the same day it was made available in India. The text is now available in India.

Sir, the short question is – does India want to end the nuclear isolation which we find ourselves since 1974, more so since 1998? What did the hon. Prime Minister Shri Vajpayee say in the United Nations General Assembly? I quote. After referring to the tests he said : “These tests do not signal a dilution of India’s commitment to the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. Accordingly, after concluding this limited testing programme, India announced” - India, the Government of Mr. Vajpayee announced – “a voluntary moratorium on further underground nuclear test explosions”.

“We conveyed our willingness to move towards a de jure formalization of this obligation in announcing a moratorium. India has already accepted the basic obligation of the CTBT. India is now engaged in discussions with our key interlocutors on a range of issues including the CTBT. We are prepared to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion so that the entry into force of the CTBT is not delayed beyond September, 1999.”

Then he came to this House and made a statement on 15th December, 1998. He says : “This House will be reassured that in the assessment of our scientists this stand” - that is converting our voluntary moratorium into a de jure obligation - “does not come in the way of our taking such steps as may be found necessary in future to safeguard our national security. It also does not constrain us from continuing with our R&D programmes nor does it jeopardise in any manner the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent in the years to come.”

“In addition to the talks between Shri Jaswant Singh and Mr. Strobe Talbott” – they did have talks Mr. Malhotra, may be you forgot; the Prime Minister confirms that they had talks – “we have had detailed exchanges with France and Russia. Discussions have also taken place with UK and China at the level of Shri Jaswant Singh and at official level with Germany and Japan as well as with other non-nuclear weapon States. I have been in regular correspondence with President Clinton. President Clinton has also expressed to me his desire for a broad-based relationship with India that befits the two largest democracies of the world. I have fully reciprocated these sentiments. Indeed, our ongoing dialogue with the United States is geared towards that end. I am confident this House will want to wish it all success”.

What has this Government done? It has taken the dialogue forward. Today we have the 123 Agreement. The question is that, do we want to come out of the nuclear isolation? Sir, in this connection, I want to share with this House what China is doing. China’s electricity today is produced, 80 per cent from coal and 18 per cent from hydro power. Two per cent of China’s electricity comes from nuclear power. Mainland China has eleven nuclear power reactors in commercial operation. Six are under construction and several more are about to start construction. Additional reactors are planned including some of the world’s most advanced to give a six-fold increase in nuclear capacity, to at least 50,000 megawatt by 2020 and then – this is important – a further three to four fold increase to 1,20,000 to 1,60,000 megawatt of electricity by 2030. The country aims to become self-sufficient in reactor design and construction as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.

Moves to build nuclear power in China commenced in 1970 and the industry has now moved towards a steady development phase. Technology is being drawn from France, Canada and Russia with local development based largely on the French element. The latest technology acquisition has been from the US and France. A country with two per cent contributing nuclear energy towards total electricity.

We cannot because there are some people in this country who do not want India to catch up with China, who do not want India to go ahead of China. There are some people who want China to become an economic super power but India should never become an economic super power. Sir, I have no hesitation in saying that I do not envy China. I want to emulate China. I want India to be an economic power and economic super power.

Sir, when we talk about India, we should talk about only countries which are as large and as complex as India and that is China. We cannot talk about countries which are smaller than India or poorer than India. We must aspire to greater heights. Our ambitions must be large. When we talk about growth, we say that growth is a necessary condition not a sufficient condition. Let me give you some examples. Sir, China, for instance, has 29 million hectares under rice cultivation. India has 43 million hectares under rice cultivation. China produces 6.26 metric tonnes per hectare. The world average is 4.08 metric tonnes per hectare. India produces 2.1 metric tonnes per hectare. China has 23.4 million hectares under wheat while India has 25 million hectares under wheat. China produces 4.42 metric tonnes per hectare. The world average is 2.7 metric tonnes per hectare. India produces 2.72 metric tonnes per hectare. When I say we must grow, we must grow more wheat; we must grow more paddy; and we must emulate the best in the world. China produces 419 million tonnes of steel. India produces 44 million tonnes of steel. China produces 2,482 million tonnes of coal. India produces 427 million tonnes of coal. China generates 2,834 megawatt hour of electricity; India does 726 megawatt hour. When I say we must grow, we must produce more coal, produce more steel and generate more electricity. That is the only way we can bring economic justice to the people of this country.

The BJP and NDA seem to agree that we should end our nuclear isolation. After all these interruptions, no one is clear about the stand of the Left Parties. Let the two groups. Yet the two Groups are voting together against this Motion of Confidence. The NDA has no problem with a strategic relationship with the US. The Left Parties are ideologically opposed to any partnership — strategic or otherwise — with the US. Yet the two Groups are voting together against this Motion of Confidence. The NDA believes, as I listen to them, that India should become a nuclear weapon State, whereas the Left Parties have always been opposed to nuclear weapons and nuclear weaponisation. Yet the two Groups are voting together against this Motion of Confidence. The NDA says that if it comes to power, God forbid, it will renegotiate the Agreement. The Left Parties say that they will do everything possible to scuttle the Agreement now and for ever. Yet the two Groups are voting together against this Motion of Confidence. I doubt if in the history of India’s Parliament we have seen anything more bizarre than these two Groups voting together against the Motion of Confidence.

Yesterday, from the Speaker’s Chair, you welcomed one of the youngest Members of Parliament. There are millions of young boys and girls, and young men and women out there who are looking towards this Parliament and looking to the future. We can make our future; the future is in our hands. We can make our future, if we decide to have the vision and the farsightedness that can take this country forward. In the late 1980s and in the early 1990s, my beloved leader, Shri Rajiv Gandhi, followed by Shri Narasimha Rao and Dr. Manmohan Singh blazed a new path which made India a stronger economy than what it was 15 years ago. Today, this Government under Dr. Manmohan Singh’s leadership is charting out a new path which will end India’s nuclear isolation, which will pave way for India becoming an economic super-power.I ask this House to give a resounding vote of confidence to the Prime Minister. Thank you.

Together We Can Change This Country And Impact The World Rahul Gandhi

Together We Can Change This Country And Impact The World
Rahul Gandhi

(Speech during the debate on the Motion of Confidence in the Lok Sabha on July 22, 2008)

Mr. Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me speak on behalf of the Government. Yesterday, while I was thinking about what I would say in this House, I came to a simple conclusion. I decided that it is important at this point not to speak as a Member of a political Party, but to speak as an Indian. I decided, as I said, that I would not speak as a member of a political party but I would speak as an Indian.

You are also an Indian and you should also speak as an Indian. I would go further to say that you do speak as an Indian and I do not doubt that. So, I decided that what I would do is that I would take a step that a lot of our politicians normally do not do.

I decided that I will make a central assumption in my speech. The assumption is that everybody in this House, regardless of which party they come from, whether they come from the BJP or the Shiv Sena or the Samajwadi Party or the BSP or the Congress Party, speak in the interest of the nation. So, I would like to say that this is the assumption that I will make throughout my speech.

Yesterday, I thought about why we are meeting here today, why is it that this House needs to meet and I came to the conclusion that we are meeting because there is a serious problem in India and the problem is our energy security.

Poverty is directly connected to energy security and I will explain how. In my speech, I will explain to the hon. Member as to how poverty is directly connected to energy security. Once again, I would request everybody to give me ten minutes and to listen to me for ten minutes. That is all I ask for.

Three days ago, I went to Vidarbha and there, I met a young lady who has three sons. The young lady, Sasikala, a landless labourer, lives with Rs. 60 a day. Her husband who goes to work in a field nearby earns Rs. 90 a day and with the total earning that they make, they have put their three children in a private school. I spent an hour with these people. They live in a slum. I spoke to the sons and I spoke to the mother. The eldest son dreams of becoming a Collector, the middle son dreams of becoming an engineer and the younger son wants to do a private job. When I asked Sasikala as to whether she thinks that her children will be successful or not, she looked at me and said “Absolutely”.

As I was walking out of the House, I noticed that there was no electricity in the house. I told the children that when I was small, I used to study in the evening and how do they study. The children pointed towards a little lamp, a brass lamp that was there. They said, “We study using that lamp.” This problem of energy security reflects itself everyday with all of us; it reflects itself among the poor, like in the house of Sashikala; it reflects itself with industry; and it reflects among all Indians.

Energy effects India; energy effects India’s growth; and energy is responsible for allowing us to grow at nine per cent and that growth is responsible for allowing us to to create programmes to help poor, like those the BJP has done, like the PMGSY; and like those the Congress has done, like the NREGP and guaranteed education.

The point that I am making here is if we do not secure our energy supply into the future, growth will stop and we will not be able to fight poverty which is something that every single Member of this House wants to do.

I have said what the problem is. I would go back to Vidharba to see what the solution could possibly be. I would go to the house of another young lady called Kalawati, who had nine children.

I would go to the house of Kalawati. I am glad you find that funny. But Kalawati is a person whose husband committed suicide. So, I would urge you to respect her. I would take you to the house of Kalawati, which I also visited three days ago. Kalawati is a woman with nine children whose husband committed suicide three years ago. Her husband committed suicide because he was dependent on only one crop, the cotton crop. When I asked Kalawati as to why her husband committed suicide, her answer was that he was dependent on only one source of income.

I asked Kalavati as to what did you do. Kalavati responded by telling me that I diversify. When I asked the widow lady as to how she resolves her problem, she said that instead of sowing one crop, she now sows three crops. She told me how she bought two buffaloes and now has milk as a source of income. She also told me, most importantly, that she dug a little pond which she fills with water and uses as an insurance policy when it does not rain.

I spoke to two poor families. One of them was called Mrs. Kala. Mrs. Kala said that she had diversified her income sources and she has used that to stabilize her family and bring up her nine children.

Sir, at the very least, nuclear energy is going to act like Mrs. Kala’s pond and it is going to act as an insurance policy for this country in times of need. At its maximum, nuclear energy is going to act like Mrs. Kala’s main crop.

So, the problem is that the way our nuclear industry is positioned today, it is going to do neither. It is neither going to act as an insurance policy nor is it going to act or have the potential to act as a fundamental source of energy. And, the reason it is not going to do so is because the hands of our scientists, the hands of our establishment are tied; they are tied because they do not have fuel on one hand, and on the other hand they do not have investment and technology.

Sir, I am very proud to say that our Prime Minister Shri Manmohan Singhji has recognized both the problem and a potential solution. But it would be unfair of me not to accept that Shri Vajpayee also saw the problem and also, in his time, worked on the solution. Now, I have stated and all of us know that there is a problem with regard to our energy security in this country, and that we need to think about it in the long term. It is a problem that all of us need to solve working together.

As I said, senior leaders have also established that the way forward is diversification and reliance on more than one source of energy, a balanced portfolio that includes nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar and wind among others.

But, Sir, it is not enough to identify a problem and a potential solution. The magic of what Shri Manmohan Singhji is doing is that within the problem, he has identified an opportunity that is significantly larger than the problem itself. The opportunity our Prime Minister has identified is based on a simple fact. It is based on the fact that over the next 30-40 years, two countries are going to use the largest bulk of new energy that comes on line. These countries – China and India – have the ability to define the way the world’s energy moves

Sir, what I am suggesting is that instead of looking at our energy problem as a problem, we start to look at our energy usage as an opportunity. Like a big buyer who goes to any market, we have the ability to shape the global energy industry, and energy is like no other industry in the world. Energy, as I said earlier, is used everywhere, in everything and in every aspect of economic and social life. Energy has destroyed nations and it has built nations.

Our old opponent, the British, grew to their prominence because they control coal. The United States today controls hydrocarbons. It has a large emphasis on hydrocarbons, and we all know how powerful they are. What I am suggesting is that we start to think like a big country, like a powerful country. Instead of worrying about how the world will impact us, we start worrying about how we will impact the world.

Many years ago, this country embarked on a path which many people did not believe in. We developed an industry called, IT industry and the telecom industry. Very few people believed at that time that India would ever play a major role in this industry. Very few people believed that the computer would have anything to do with empowering the poor and with changing the way this country worked. Yet, today all of us together see the impact of the computer. We see the revolutionary impact that IT and communications has had on this country, and it is important that we do not forget this. It is important that we do not forget this because I believe we are at the cross roads, very similar to the cross roads we were at when the decision on IT was to be made.

The decision here is not about three per cent energy or seven per cent energy. It is not about India’s usage of nuclear energy. If we look at the big picture here, it is about whether India can become a global power in a type of energy that is going to be very important in the future. We all know the problems caused by hydrocarbons. We know about pollution.

Earlier, one of the Members asked me to point out what is the connection between energy and poverty. We know the link between us depending on hydrocarbons and prices in India today. Sir, when we think about energy, when we think about nuclear energy, we must think about the poorest in the country. Contrary to what most people believed, when we thought about IT in this country, we were thinking about the poor in this country. It is something that is hard to cross because it is counterintuitive. But one must not underestimate the connections between industry, between energy and between the poor.

Sir, I have taken a lot of time. So, I do not want to go on for ever. But I want to make one last submission. I am very happy this House is now listening to.

The difference between a powerful country and a country that is not powerful and does not have a similar impact on the world stage is that the powerful country thinks about how it will impact the world. The country that is not so powerful thinks about how the world will impact it.

Sir, it does not matter which Government runs this country. Many Governments will run this country in the future. But it does matter how we think about our position in the world. What is important is that we stop worrying about how the world will impact us, we stop being scared about how the world will impact us and we step out and worry about how we will impact the world.

Sir, as I said earlier, I speak today not as a Congress person or a Congressman but as an Indian. I would like to say two other things before I conclude. The first is that we are all building this country together. We might have different views about how this country should be built. We might have different opinions on what we should do. But essentially we sit in this room together and we have to solve our problems together. This is what differentiates us and this is what gives us our true power that any voice can be heard in this room, that any voice can disrupt any other voice in this room. I am being serious. It is uncomfortable for me. But I am very proud of it that every voice can be heard in this country.

I would like to conclude by saying two things. The first thing is that we must never, ever let fear be our guide. We must never take decisions based on the fear of the unknown or what is going to happen if we act. We must only act with one rule and that is courage. The second thing I would like to say is that we are a country of a billion people; 70 per cent of us are young. I am old for this country; I am much above the average age. It is important to realise that this country is brimming with confidence and brimming with self-belief. Another point we must never forget when we take decisions as leaders in this country is that we have to believe in that, in our people and we have to have confidence in what we are capable of doing. We have to have confidence in what they are doing.

I think these are guides not only for Congress leaders, these are guides for every single Indian that when you do act, whoever you are, whatever opinion you have, act with courage and act with confidence. With that, together, we can change this country and impact the world.

To conclude, I would like to support our hon. Prime Minister and like to say that he has shown tremendous courage and confidence in the Indian people and I would also like to say and I say this as a youngster from this Party and as a youngster from that Party and all those other Parties that it does not matter what happens here today. What matters is that we start working together and we together try to solve the problems of this country.

I would like to support the motion of the hon. Prime Minister. Thank you very much.