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.

Lok Sabha Debate On The Confidence Motion Speeches of Congress Leaders

India Will Decide Its Destination
Pranab Mukharjee

(While participating during the debate on the vote of confidence in Loksabha on July 21, 2008)

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion moved by hon. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, “That this House expresses its confidence in the Council of Ministers” headed by him. I find my good friend, Prof. Malhotra, is present here, though the Leader of the Opposition is not here to listen to me. As I would expect, you have very correctly pointed out that not only the Members of the Lok Sabha, or the Members of the other House are witnessing this debate, but also the whole country is witnessing this debate. Therefore, I join you in appealing as the Leader of the House to all the Members concerned that every one of us have our own perspective and we should have the full freedom in expressing our views which may not be acceptable to others, but everyone should try to express his view in his own way and in the way he likes. Therefore, I rise to support this motion moved by the Prime Minister and also to place the matters in proper perspective about the civil nuclear agreement.

I have personal reservations about describing this Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement as some sort of a deal. This is an agreement. Through these exercises we want to have civil nuclear cooperation with the international community, the entire international community and particularly the 45 countries that have competence to enter into civil nuclear trade, who have constituted the NSG. Therefore, I would like to put forward my perception for the hon. Members of this House. It is entirely for them to accept it or to reject it; or to partly accept it or to partly reject it because that is the basic principle. But before that I would like to correct certain facts; it is not a question of any theory but certain bare facts.

Hon. Leader of Opposition built up his case on a high moral platform that this Government was reduced to a minority the moment the Left Parties withdrew their support. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to submit certain facts and figures with regard to the strength of the UPA and its supporters as on 4th of July, 2008. If you want I can read out the whole length but to save the time I am bracketing it. The United Progressive Alliance had 234 Members; CPI(M)- 42, CPI-10, RSP-3, Forward Bloc-3, Kerala Congress-2, Independents-1, all put together 61; and BSP-17 - . Somebody was saying that it will be 19, even if I take 19 as correct - . Rashtriya Lok Dal-3; Unattached-2. The total was 22. The total strength was 317. BSP withdrew its support long ago. That means, 317 minus 17 makes it 300. With the withdrawal of the support of all 61 Members of the Left Parties, our strength comes down to 237.

On the same day, Samajwadi Party after half an hour presented the support of its 39 Members. My simple arithmetic, Mr. Speaker, Sir, says that 237 plus 39 comes to 276. The effective strength of Lok Sabha as of now can be obtained from your Secretariat. The effective voting strength of the Lok Sabha right at the moment is 541. It does not require big arithmetic to calculate what would be a simple majority. But the Leader of the Opposition thought it is a very bright case to build up that the Government has lost its majority right now. Yes, it will be proved when actually buttons will be pressed. For God’s sake, please wait till then. Government is not yet in the minority unless it is proven otherwise. If it is proved, it is proved. This is the first point.

Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition thought it to take another moral posture – we did never indulge in destabilisation of the non-BJP or Opposition party Government. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am not going back to the past – in 1977 when BJP was also a part of the Government by one stroke of pen, on the basis of a new concept of mandate theory, eight State Governments were dismissed. I am not going to that. I am going to the fact when you created a Government after the election of 1989, with your support, which is not the first largest party. First largest party was the Indian National Congress, having a strength of 197 or 198 did not form the Government. Ours was the single largest party. Second largest party, if I remember correctly, had around 143 whereby Mr. Vishwanath Pratap Singh formed the Government with the support of Left Parties and with the support of BJP, which had 89 or 90 Members at that point of time, and with some other parties. Surely, the Leader of the Opposition is not forgetful how that Government collapsed. We were in Opposition, we opposed the Government, and as an Opposition party, we believed that we should isolate, we should expose and if possible, we should depose the Government. That is the opposition party’s basic right.

Therefore, you are treating as destabilization. Who destabilized the Karnataka Government very recently? If you have to score a point, you score but please be sure Mr. Leader of the Opposition of the fact, in your over-enthusiasm even you went to the extent of saying two Prime Ministers – when he mentioned – who did not want nuclear weapons – Morarji Desai and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. In your over-enthusiasm, you said, even they refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. May I most respectfully submit, Sir, Mr. Nehru died in 1964; Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into existence in 1970. Therefore, a dead man cannot express his opinion whether he decided to sign the NPT or not. I come to these aspects. You have taken credit for them. Yes, I know, as your Party from 1960 talked of nuclear weaponsiation. We did not. We firmly believe and still we believe nuclear weapon is not a weapon to win the battle; nuclear weapon is nothing but total disruption and destruction of the civilization. And that is why, most respectfully, I would like to submit Mr. Speaker, that Indiraji in 1974 had conducted the Pokhran-I tests. In 1989, Rajiv Gandhi, the young Prime Minister, addressed the Disarmament Conference. What did he say?

It was one of the brilliant speeches that he delivered in the United Nations. Recently we had an international conference. We had circulated that speech. It was one of the masterpieces. I would like to quote a few things only. His ultimate appeal to the nuclear weapon States, the international community, was that India is just turning screw drivers, as our technology from the nuclear weapon States; we are capable and competent to weaponize, but we are saying that we will keep our options open. That is the international phrase from 1974, till May 1998, the Indian Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers used; they said “we shall keep our options open”. You chose to close that option, and you did it.

Did you believe seriously that within two months, you had become so-competent that you were ready for the second test, if everything was not ready? Therefore, let us not, in our anxiety, distort the facts. Yes, let us base our arguments on the basis of facts.

Another point is this. Whether they will re-negotiate and whether they will have re-negotiation on the equal terms or not, I am not going to that aspect to speculate, because what would happen in future nobody knows and only when it happens, ordinary mortals like us can judge what is happening, not on the commitment that we are going to do this and going to do that. Or sometimes, we draw our conclusions from what has happened in the past, because that is on record.

To me, there is a record; we have, after the second Pokhran test, the recorded speech of the then Prime Minister, in the General Assembly of the United Nations. We have, on record, the signed article by the then Foreign Minister, in one of the important international journals. These are on records. From these records we find that we are de facto going to sign CTBT; it is a matter of time to put it de jure. Therefore, we will re-negotiate; yes, we wanted to assure the House. These are the records – something has come in print. The principal negotiator, on behalf of the USA with our Foreign Minister, Strobe Talbott – the book is available; it is in the market. Here it is – if somebody wants it, can have a look; my colleague Shri Anand Sharma is giving me – it is on record, page after page, what has happened is written there. Therefore, surely people will judge what is the performance of yours, what did you do and what you have done.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to score points by cutting this side of the argument or that side; my intention is to say ‘decide yourselves’; Prime Minister has given you the chance – each and every Member present here; I am quite confident that they will apply their minds; as per conscience and as per judgements, they will exercise their rights when we ask them to do so at the end of the debate.

Before that, both sides will try to place their cases and I am doing it with all honesty at my command and at my disposal.

A lot of things have been said, not today; I did not have the privilege of being a Member and sharing the floor of this House with many hon. colleagues, but within the Parliamentary premises, I have spent almost four decades, in the other House.

I do not remember, Mr. Speaker, Sir, any other Foreign Policy issue which has been debated so intensively, so extensively as this Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. Prime Minister visited the United States of America in 2005. A Joint Statement was issued on 18th July, 2005. If my dates are incorrect, I would like to be corrected but if I remember right it was 18th July, 2005. It was debated on 25th July here itself. Whenever there has been any major development it has been debated here. Joint Statement has been debated. Separation Plan has been debated in February-March 2006. In August in the other House – I would not refer to the other House but it is known to everybody – the Prime Minister gave point-by-point reply when my Left friends raised points 1 to 9. The Prime Minister had assured on all the nine points and the Member concerned himself said that he was satisfied. I am not to indulge in imagination, it is also on record in the printed volumes of Rajya Sabha.

Yes, I understand and appreciate your point that after that the Hyde Act was passed. After the Hyde Act we said that this is to be taken into account. I am coming to that aspect. I am giving the entire details. I will not hide anything and that is why I have sought the indulgence of hon. Speaker.

Most respectfully, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to submit that after that there were some developments and we were having negotiations with our colleagues. UPA Chairperson took some initiative. After Hyde Act there was a debate in both the Houses in the Winter Session of Parliament. There were seven debates in this regard and the last debate took place in the last Winter Session of 2007. When the Hyde Act was passed, on the very same day I reacted saying that there are prescriptive provisions in respect of Hyde Act which are not applicable to us and we will not accept it. What does it mean? It means that we will not accept it. On these issues anywhere if they want to impose the conditionalities of Hyde Act or anywhere if they want to link their cooperation with reference to Hyde Act, that will be the breaking point. 123 Civilian Cooperation Agreement is on the Website. You may please examine it. I would request my Left friends to forget about their own interpretation of the implication. Do they find anywhere the mention of the word Hyde Act in 123 Agreement?

ISSA, India Specific Safeguard Agreement, is also on the website. Why did they submit this document to my Left colleagues? In the UPA-Left Committee I would explain to it, maybe later. But the point which I am trying to develop right now is that we do agree that there are prescriptive provisions in Hyde Act which are unacceptable to us under any circumstances.

We can never compromise our independent foreign policy. It is the basic inherent strength of ours. That is why, I will take the pain to explain to my colleagues who have supported us so long. The Chairperson herself and the Prime Minister himself have stated that we have done a lot of good work over the last four years. With an emphasis, I would like to say that we have done a lot of good work. it is not 8 per cent to 9 per cent. For four years, the GDP growth is nine per cent plus. It is not less. After many years, this year we have reached 4.5 per cent growth in agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are saying that we would not accept prescriptive provision. That is why, we have scrupulously avoided these two documents. We suggested our negotiator that please be very careful. It should not be there.

I was telling about this mechanism which we built up. When they said that they are concerned, then with the initiative of the Chairperson of the UPA and the Prime Minister, we met. First, we met at my residence. I am in good contact and in touch with them all along this period since our coalition Government was installed. As Leader of the House, it was my responsibility. We had been in touch constantly. There was no dearth of communication and everybody shared our opinion very frankly. Then with her and the Prime Minister’s intervention, it was decided that a mechanism will be constituted. On 30th August, we announced that a mechanism would be established and a committee will be constituted. The Chairperson will nominate the committee. Thereafter we will start. The mandate of the Committee was to address the concerns of the Left Parties on the impact of the Hyde Act, impact of 123 Agreement and the impact on both India’s independent foreign policy and our three-stage civil nuclear programme which we had accepted long ago. These concerns of the Left Parties will be addressed by this committee. Thereafter, the findings of the committee will be taken into account before the operationalisation of the civil nuclear cooperation. Please remember these are the words which were used. The text was drafted by myself and one of the important Left leaders. As he is a Member of the other House, I am not mentioning his name. Both of us read it jointly. The operative part was that to finalize the findings of the committee, the findings would be submitted to the Chairperson of the UPA. It is because this mechanism was established by the UPA Chairperson. Sir, it was not a Parliamentary Committee appointed by you.

It was not a Government Committee appointed by the Prime Minister. It was a political mechanism appointed by the Chairperson, UPA. Therefore, it was our responsibility to submit the findings of the Committee to the UPA Chairperson and thereafter it was the responsibility of the Government to take this into account before operationalisation of the Cooperation Agreement.

We had nine meetings. In the first six meetings we addressed the concerns of them which have been elaborated and even in the published document which Shri Salim was showing to us, many of those notes and correspondences were reproduced there. After that some problem arose in November, 2007. We told them, look IAEA is an organisation which has been established by India itself. India is one of the founding members of IAEA. Out of 35 Governors, India has 10 permanent Governors. It is known as the Board of Governors of the IAEA and India has 10 permanent Governors on the Board of Governors of the IAEA. So, it is our own organisation. They were expressing concerns on three major issues, firstly, how IAEA can assure of un-interrupted fuel supply? Secondly, is the Government sure that IAEA is going to recognise the Government’s Separation Plan and strategic programmes? Thirdly, is the Government sure that if there be a disruption in the fuel supply, can the Government get some remedy from IAEA? We said that all these concerns will be adequately addressed once we finalise this document. Then again, with the intervention of the Chairperson, UPA it was decided that we would go to the IAEA and after it is being initialled – initialled what? It is not the document, but the agreed text, to freeze the text, the language of the text, not acceptance. These are done by the negotiators who are the employees of the Principal. Here Principal is the Government of India and the Principal is the IAEA. Questions have been raised as to why we have not given the text when the text was finalised. It was not given. We explained the reasons to them not once but in three meetings. It was said that we will give the outcome. We will explain them the substantive provisions. We could not give the text because in various countries there are various methods of treating documents. In our country what we say confidential is something that is a secret document; a privileged document; a classified document, a restricted document. IAEA used the phrase restricted and de-restricted. The IAEA officials said that they cannot bind any sovereign country with their documents. They bind themselves. It is the understanding. It is commonsense that when they are binding themselves, our Government do not. That is why the Chairperson of the UPA appointed on behalf of the UPA all Ministers as members because she knew that when we shall have to share the information, some of the information are to be based on classified document. Therefore, we told them that we shall have to wait and when it is circulated as an agenda for the approval of the Board of Governors, the text will be available. We have made the text available. The moment this arrangement collapsed, then all of you are aware as to what happened and I need not mention that. Please remember that, before rushing into conclusions, that there are time differences between India and Geneva, between Geneva and the USA.

They are beyond and therefore, they will be advance. When Shri Karat read out his letter to me, the last line of it read that time has come to withdraw support and thereafter he announced that they were going to the hon. President to submit the list.

The Indian time was 12.30 but the time in Vienna was 9 a.m. I am not going into that. Whatever has happened has happened subsequent to that but not before that. So, there is no question of betrayal in any way. Whatever has happened has happened after that.

It is a fact that even an important agreement like the existing Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty, Parliament came to know of it after 25 years in 1970 when it was announced that an agreement has been signed. I am not going into the merits of the constitutional provisions. But from 26th January, 1950, till today, this is the position. Mr. Advani had the opportunity to see it as the Home Minister, as Deputy Prime Minister, when he appointed a Commission to have a relook at the constitutional provisions. I do not know why it did not occur to him at that point of time to give this particular provision to the Commission which was appointed, which was presided over by a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It appears to me a lacuna. Why this belated wisdom?

Most respectfully I would like to submit that even before that, the Leader of Opposition had a similar agitation on the WTO agreement. After that, he came to power. Even before that, he had various reservations and he was one of the important leaders in the other House who formed coalition with the then CPI(M) leader in that House to frustrate that Bill and after that, you know that we lost in Geneva. Subsequently, with our support, the same deal, with only some cosmetic changes, you had to pass when you were in the Government. Most respectfully, I would like to submit, if I would be in the Parliament, I would see what type of great new deal you will bring for this country. Let us wait for the future. I am not going into that.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would not take much time of the House. But I would like to point out certain other substantive issues which have been stated very eloquently. Firstly, why you are going in for this civil nuclear cooperation? What great facilities we will get out of it? Today, we are having our total power generation capacity as 1,45,000 megawatt. I need not explain why power is needed Power is needed for everything. Everybody knows it.

What are the projections for the future? I am not talking of remote future. I am talking of near future, that is 2030, just 23 years from right now. By 2030, the energy deficit would be 1,50,000 megawatts. If we go a little longer, that is by 2050, our energy deficit would be 4,12,000 megawatts. When these figures are worked out, we take into account thermal power, coal, petrol and diesel, hydel power, and non-conventional energy sources like wind, solar, etc. Even after their fullest exploitation, that would be the deficit.

If we take the nuclear power on board, as per some studies, if we start the work on that today or if we initiate action now, to produce 40,000 megawatts of energy in the period of eight years from 2012 to 2020, we will be able to reduce the energy deficit from 4,12,000 megawatts to only 7,000 megawatts in 2050.

In 2030, that means within 22 years, we will be able to reduce it by 1,50,000 megawatts. That is the deficit. 1,00,000 megawatts will be made up and only 50,000 megawatts will remain.

Now, let us go back a little bit to see what had happened in one of the advanced countries. Charles de Gaulle was the President of France in 1948. After the devastation of Second World War, the visionary leader thought that if he wants to build up France, it will require civil nuclear energy. He started the work in 1948. But there was strong anti-nuclear energy lobby and there was a lot of resistance in France itself. Charles de Gaulle did not continue for long time. But they went on working despite the strong anti-nuclear energy lobby. The first oil crisis came in 1973. From 1974 they started building up their nuclear energy programme. Today, from 1974, within 34 years, 79 per cent of their energy comes from nuclear. People are asking why America is not doing it; why Russia is not going in a big way for nuclear energy. It is not for me to answer. It is for them to answer that. But one simple reason comes to my mind. They are floating on oil. Primary source of energy in those countries is much more than what it is compared to India. Primary source of energy in our country is much less. Take, for instance, coal. If we have to derive energy from coal, by 2050 we shall have to import 1.6 billion tones of coal.

All the capacities of the ports today will be totally utilised to load and unload coal. Therefore, we shall have to build up the capacities of the ports also. This is one factor.

The second factor is hydel resources. Our hydel resources are located in such places at the initial stage that even if we have massive plantation programme at the initial stage, massive destructions of woods would be needed which will be strongly resisted by the environmentalists. Leave these factors. What is happening in Uttarakashi is that on the river, water running down the current, energy efforts, the hydel power build up is getting resistance from the environmentalists. All of us are fully aware. Our Government felt, their Government felt and it is not just suddenly felt. We are here for the last four years. Before four years, they were in power for six years. Uranimum mining in Jadugoda or uranium mining in Meghalaya was not that simple.

To score a debating point, you can say it. But if they refuse to accept it, what pinch they felt when they wore that shoe, only God can help them and I cannot help. But here we are feeling the pinch. That is why we want it. I must congratulate the hon. Prime Minister that he has taken a visionary approach to have the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru started this programme in 1948. Eminent scientists starting from Homi Bhabha to Vikram Sarabhai and we have the companion of that great Scientist, Dr. Raja Rammana, I had the privilege of working with him in the Rajya Sabha. All of them made significant contributions. That is why, today, our scientists and engineers can do this miracle. It is not merely getting the energy. This cooperation will open the door of 30 years’ isolation – from 1974 till date –of our nuclear technology. I would not use the word ‘apartheid’ but sometimes strong words are being used. That is going to be broken and that is the advantage.

Why should we go to NSG? It is because unless we go to NSG, our friends in Russia, our friends in France and even our friends in other countries cannot agree to have this. The NSG and IAEA clearance are the two clearances that can be described in common man’s language as passport and visa. Whether I travel or not it depends on me. But if I do not have a passport, I cannot even apply for the visa. If I do not have the visa, I cannot enter into that country. These are the passports and visas. Please let us have these passports and visas. Then, we will decide whether we will travel or not and if we travel, what would be our destination of the travel. If you want to decide that, no, you will be denying, it is for the collective wisdom of the Members of the Parliament, those who are representing 70 crore voters. They will take the decision, not me, not merely my words. I can just place my case. I can place my case on behalf of the Government. You are the ultimate masters and you have to decide whether you will accept it or not. But this much I can tell, most respectfully that whatever judgement you give, we will accept it with due respect to you. But before the judgement, in delivering the judgement, I would surely like to plead my case to convince the hon. judges of this highest court of the public opinion. Therefore, please have the patience. What would be the position if the motion is rejected?

The Government will go. Anyway, the Government will have to seek the mandate, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, after six months or seven months or eight months if it survives. If it does not survive, it does not survive. But what would be the impact of it? This is a pointed question to my Left friends. You may debate with me. You may challenge me. But search your heart and ask yourselves this question. Do you feel this is the issue on which the Government should be brought down - a Government which has been able to maintain a nine per cent GDP growth over a period of four years? I have some figures with me.

I am talking of the 9 per cent GDP growth. This Government takes credit for that. Gentlemen, till the other day, you were taking this credit. I would not like to quote. Umpteen number of times, you have stated that you are pressurizing the Government to pass the NREGA, the Right to Information Act. You have taken the credit saying that you have pressurized the Government to give rights to the tribal people in respect of their forest land though factually it is not correct. After all, you shall have to keep in mind that many of all these initiatives were taken by the UPA. But the broad point which I am trying to make is that it is a dangerous thing to bring down the Government.

Most respectfully, I would like to submit one thing by quoting one of my good friends Shri Hannan Mollah. He said the other day this. What should I do? He said:

“If the BJP is in the train, do you expect me to jump from the running train?”

Most respectfully, I say this. Do not jump from the running train. You will get an injury. I do not want my good friend to get an injury. I would simply advise you to please wait. Let the next station come. You change the train. You have the same destination. There is no harm if you reach your destination a little later. Please do not identify yourself with those forces which destroyed the Babri Masjid. Please do not make the mistake of 1977 and 1988.

In 1988, you said that the BJP is not untouchable. Having photographed with Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, you said this. A photograph was published on 2nd July reporting the meeting of 1st July when you said: “The BJP is not untouchable.” You said that you would defeat the Congress; you would work with the BJP. Consequently, the BJP increased its strengthen from 2 to 89 and thereafter to 119. From then onwards, the BJP has moved from strength to strength. In 1988, you gave respectability to BJP. In 1992, the Babri Masjid was destroyed. Do not allow them to destroy Parliament, to destroy Parliamentary democracy and to destroy human rights. Please do not miss the train. By adopting the anti-Congress posture, do not travel with them. Please remember that your companion is a bad companion, not a credible companion.

With these words, I conclude.

'China handing down death sentence to Tibetans'

Tokyo, November 2: : Chinese rule is handing down a ‘death sentence’ to Tibetans, the Dalai Lama said on Sunday, ahead of a meeting to decide Tibet's future approach to Beijing.
The region's exiled leader is on a week-long visit to Japan for talks on spirituality, just as a new round of talks between his envoys and Chinese officials was set to begin, and days after he said he had lost hope of any productive dialogue with Beijing.
"Tibetans are being handed down a death sentence. This ancient nation, with an ancient cultural heritage is dying," he told a group of reporters.
"Today, the situation is almost like a military occupation in the entire Tibetan area.
"It is like we're under martial law. Fear, Terror and lots of political education are causing a lot of grievance," he added.
The 73-year old Nobel Peace laureate said he was ‘semi-retiring’ because of stalled talks with Beijing, and said he would convene a meeting on November 17 to discuss Tibet's future approach to dealing with China.
"We will listen to the people's suggestions, and then I think things will become clear," he said.
"I don't think I will completely retire, but for the time being while dealing with the Chinese central government, I can no longer take full direct responsibility. My position is completely neutral," he said.
"Because we believe in democratic principles, the people should express their real feelings. I should not be hindering their opinions."
During his stay, he is scheduled to give speeches arranged by a Japanese Buddhist group and Tibetan supporters.
He will also visit children and monks.

INDIAN EXPRESS.COM