Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05NEWDELHI6079
2005-08-05 12:31:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy New Delhi
Cable title:  

PM REAFFIRMS VALUE OF STRATEGIC TIES WITH U.S. IN

Tags:  PGOV PREL MNUC MASS KNNP ENRG EPET KDEM IN 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 09 NEW DELHI 006079 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/05/2015
TAGS: PGOV PREL MNUC MASS KNNP ENRG EPET KDEM IN
SUBJECT: PM REAFFIRMS VALUE OF STRATEGIC TIES WITH U.S. IN
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ROUND II

REF: NEW DELHI 6011

Classified By: Charge Bob Blake, for Reasons 1.4 (B, D)

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 09 NEW DELHI 006079

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/05/2015
TAGS: PGOV PREL MNUC MASS KNNP ENRG EPET KDEM IN
SUBJECT: PM REAFFIRMS VALUE OF STRATEGIC TIES WITH U.S. IN
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ROUND II

REF: NEW DELHI 6011

Classified By: Charge Bob Blake, for Reasons 1.4 (B, D)


1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Compared to the staid August 3 Lok Sabha
debate about Prime Minister Singh's Washington visit
(Reftel),the statements in the Rajya Sabha on August 4 were
much livelier, with the depth of feeling reflected in
repeated personal insults and yelling matches. Throughout
the debate, the BJP and Communist parties harped on two
themes: India's nuclear sovereignty and lack of trust in US
intentions. In a well-received 40 minute speech, the PM
again defended the agreement as being in India's interests,
emphasizing that greater cooperation with the US is crucial
for expanding development options and does not mean
sacrificing the country's foreign policy sovereignty. A
follow-on meeting of MPs at the Charge's residence suggested
that the argument is trending in our favor, but an August 8
debate on the US-India Defense Framework could see more
fireworks. END SUMMARY.

The Opposition and Communists Sing the Same Old Songs
-------------- --------------


2. (SBU) The BJP, with somewhat more vigor than in the
August 3 debate (Reftel),continued to argue that separating
civilian and military nuclear facilities would deprive India
of the ability to increase its military capability when the
need arises. In a loud and accusatory speech met with
frequent booing, hardline BJP leader MP (and former Health
Minister) Sushma Swaraj charged the UPA government with
committing "a big blunder" by making nuclear commitments
without US guarantees and agreeing to separate facilities
without first reaching a national consensus. Pushing a
sensitive button in Indian history, she compared the signing
of the joint statement to Nehru's mistake of taking the
Kashmir issue to the United Nations.


3. (SBU) The Communists, ever-backward looking, focused on

the history of US "betrayal" and asked whether nuclear
normalization now would lead to additional conditionalities
in the future. Arguments also strayed into a protest of
nuclear power, with several MPs arguing that Congress should
look at alternative energy sources and follow a Gandhian
ideal of a nuclear-free world. Calling the Communist party's
arguments "totally out of line with today's thinking, Sushant
Sareen of "Public Opinion Trends Analyses and New Service"
commented to Poloff after the debate that the "Communists are
barking up the wrong tree by trying to incite people against
nuclear power and cooperation with the US."

And Congress Fights Back Harder
--------------


4. (SBU) Senior Congress leader Anand Sharma fought back,
calling out the BJP for politically motivated and inaccurate
criticism of Indo-US cooperation. Quoting Strobe Talbot's
memoir of his diplomacy with Jaswant Singh, Sharma drove home
the point that the BJP supported a similar deal during their
leadership, warning Swaraj that "before you launch on a
motivated criticism, you should have done a better job on
your homework as to what you were doing the last six years."
He also addressed the fundamental concern of India's foreign
policy sovereignty by pointing out that the GOI was
simultaneously engaging with Russia, the EU, ASEAN, IBSA and
other allies. Sharma commented that "When we say that we
have given up, forsaken our commitment to multipolarity only
by engaging the United States of America, this is a travesty
of the truth."


5. (SBU) Prime Minister Singh concluded the debate in a 40
minute extemporaneous speech, emphasizing that India would
never give up its nuclear or foreign policy sovereignty
because it will always retain the right to: a) choose which
facilities are inspected, b) permit inspections only in a
phased manner, c) backtrack if the US does not fulfill its
reciprocal agreements, and d) maintain an independent foreign
policy. The PM's virtuoso performance (full text para 8)
reflected his high degree of comfort with the US-India
relationship and a detailed understanding of our
civil-nuclear framework. To the Leftist critics of US
"hegemony," he explained that if India wants to work towards
their cherished vision of a multi-polar world, then it must
take advantage of cooperation with the US in order to develop
a stronger voice in international affairs. Admitting the
agreement was a "calculated risk," Singh told the Lok Sabha
that "it was a risk worth taking" in order to "take advantage
of those who would take India to a higher growth path." A
"Times of India" article on August 4 emphasized the import of
his statement, comparing his trip to the US to the dramatic
pro-market steps he took as Finance Minister in 1991, and
summarizing that he "has taken the next biggest challenge -
to change the course of India's strategic future."
The Dust Is Settling Nicely
--------------


6. (C) In a follow-up meeting at the Charge's residence on
August 4, members of the Indo-US Parliamentary Forum from
across the political spectrum expressed a general sense of
satisfaction with the PM's visit, and mentioned repeatedly
that the PM's interventions had addressed most of their
questions about the Washington visit. Several BJP members
admitted on the margins that their party had been forced to
oppose the US-India agreement in order to prevent the Left
parties from occupying the opposition space. Several
expressed quiet satisfaction at what we have achieved
(including Jaswant Singh's son Mahvendra, who was one of
those who played down the BJP criticism). The Charge
emphasized the broad scope of what had been discussed in
Washington, leading several to remark that we need to find
ways to highlight the agricultural agreement, the CEO forum,
and other steps that will build broad partnership with the
US. Predictably, the greatest point of anxiety was the
security relationship and the Defense Framework agreement,
which has been widely mis-reported as a binding commitment of
Indian forces. Speaking on the margins of the Charge's
event, one thoughtful opposition MP made the point that
anxiety about the Defense Framework was compounded by the
fact that Defense Minister Mukherjee had downplayed his visit
before the fact, claiming that it was a simple orientation
with no likely substantive result. This contrasts with the
PM's visit, which was carefully prepared with advance
briefings to the Left and BJP opposition. Because the
agreement that Mukherjee signed came out of the blue, our MP
contact noted, Indians have been more susceptible to
suggestions that there was some hidden agenda that lies
behind the unexpected Defense Framework. We expect to see
more of this argument on August 8 when Mukherjee will appear
before the upper house of Parliament to explain his visit to
Washington.

Comment: India Needs The US
--------------


7. (C) COMMENT: These Parliament arguments mirrored those
presented in the Lok Sabha, but the atmosphere was energized,
the debate was fiercer and the partisan politics were
sharper. The PM has put full effort into defending the
agreement with America. He made a spirited and detailed
defense on July 28, as well as on August 3 and 4 in both the
Lok and Rajya Sabha. In each of his remarks, he has reminded
Parliament and the broader public that this agreement is good
for India, addresses India's energy needs, and preserves
India's security prerogatives. The government has done a
thorough and careful job of addressing the criticisms of the
left and the right, and neither side's complaints seem to
have swayed a Delhi elite that generally views the agreement
as a hard-won victory by two successive Indian
administrations to secure India's strategic and economic
interests. END COMMENT.

Full Text of PM Singh's Statement
--------------


8. (U) Begin PM text:

Mr. Chairman, Sir, I am very grateful to all the hon.
Members who have participated in this debate and given their
assessment and valuable suggestions regarding the outcome of
my visit to the United States.
Sir, before I go and analyze the various issues that
have emerged in the debate, I would like to submit to this
House that one particular charge that Shrimati Sushma Swaraj
levied against our Government of not consulting the relevant
fora is simply not true. Before I went to the United States,
I had the privilege of inviting Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee,
Shri L.K. Advani and Shri Jaswant Singh, and I laid before
them what objectives I had. I had clearly mentioned to them
my objective in this visit as far as the nuclear policy is
concerned -- to preserve and maintain our independence and
autonomy in the management of strategic assets and, at the
same time, open up new pathways to cooperation, to enhance
India's energy security. Jaswant Singhji would recall in that
discussion that there was a discussion about the management
of nuclear power programme. We agreed that India's nuclear
power programme was facing difficulties, not because our
scientists lacked expertise, but because of the inequitable
restrictive regime that various powers had adopted, to deny
India access to technologies and other associated facilities,
which would enable us to leapfrog in the race for social and
economic development, so that we can accelerate the tempo of
social and economic change and get rid of chronic poverty,
which still afflicts millions and millions of our people.
Sir, I had mentioned to hon. Atalji, Advani ji and
Jaswant Singh ji precisely the framework which I followed
while I was in Washington. I was also privileged to have the
benefit of consultations with our colleagues from the Left
Parties and I did them the same briefing, which I did to the
Members of the NDA. After coming back, before making the
statement in the House, I also requested Atal ji, Advani ji
and Jaswant Singh ji to do me the honour of sitting with me,
so that we could jointly appraise and analyse what we have
achieved and what we have not achieved. I was very privileged
that they did accept my invitation. I did the same thing with
regard to our Left colleagues.
Therefore, Sir, within the limits of possibilities, all
relevant steps were taken by us to keep the keep the main
cross-currents of political opinion within our country -- the
leaders of the Opposition, the leaders of the Left Alliance
-- fully informed of what we were going to do before going,
and what we did after we came back.
Sir, several points have been raised here. Sushma ji
referred to the statement of a particular American official,
Mr. Nicholas Burn. She preferred to believe him rather than
me. I think the choice was entirely hers. But I do hope, I am
right in saying that she and her friends have greater
confidence in Mr. Strobe Talbott. She should also quote what
he has been writing about what our Government has done in
Washington. Mr. Talbott's comments are exactly in the
opposite direction that too much has been conceded to India,
that the nuclear order will collapse because President Bush
has made extraordinary concessions to India.
I am not going to say who is right and who is wrong. I
think, I leave this judgment to the hon. leaders of the
Opposition. My purpose today is, through this House, to
inform our country what I set out to achieve and how far I
have been successful in achieving that. The purpose, the
basic thrust, of all policies of our country, as I see it, is
to set in motion processes which would enable us to leap frog
in the race of social and economic change so that we can get
rid of chronic poverty which still afflicts millions and
millions of our people. After India became independent,
great progress was made in all directions. But, the task of
getting rid of poverty to which Panditji committed our nation
on the 15th of August, 1947, is still not complete.
When I presented my first Budget as Finance Minister in
1991, I had then referred to both Houses of Parliament,
quoting Victor Hugo, that no power on earth can stop an idea
whose time had come, and I had then suggested to this august
House, and the other House, that the emergence of India as a
major global power happens to be one such idea whose time has
come and that is the goal that our Government has sought to
work on to realise. Whether we have succeeded or not, it
cannot be realised in one go, but that is the mission, that
is the ambition, and India's foreign policy has to contribute
to preservation and strengthening of national security and
also to widen our development options. We live in a world
which is not a world which we like in all respects. Yet, it
is a fact that inter-dependence of nations is a reality.
And, that in this inter-dependent world, there is such a
thing as power relations. This power in the world is not
distributed equally, and we know, through history, that where
there is inequality of power -- international relations are
fundamentally power relations -- those who are more powerful
cannot resist temptation to coerce those who are weak.
The United States is today a pre-eminent power. It is
a super-power. It has global interest. In many areas, those
interests do not coincide with our interests. Our ambition
is to work to create a more just international system, a
world which will be more moving towards multi-polarity; at
the same time, to take advantage of the opportunities that
exist in the present system to achieve our goals of
accelerating the pace of social and economic change. We are
not saying that this multi-polar world can become reality
overnight, but we have a contribution to its realisation that
can be done only by making India a strong pole of the global
economy. Therefore, my first effort has been to use whatever
opportunities that exist in the present system, to take
advantage of those to move India into a high growth path.
Our country, today, is admired all over the world. We have
the second highest growth rate in the world and what is more
significant is that the world today marvels and respects
India for what we are - a country of one billion people with
great diversity of beliefs, of religions and yet, seeking its
salvation in the framework of a democratic polity committed
to all fundamental human freedoms and respect for the dignity
of the individual.
Therefore, there are opportunities in this unequal
system that we have to contend with, and, I sincerely believe
working with the United States to explore areas of
convergence of interests is in our national interest. This
does not mean that we endorse everything that the United
States does, but in an interdependent world in which the
United States counts for what you all know, we have to do
business, and, therefore, my effort has been in this visit to
help create an international environment which is more
supportive of India's development efforts and which in the
process widens our development options.
Excessive discussion has taken place on the nuclear
issue. My first thought when I thought of visiting the
United States was not on nuclear issue. I was worried about
the state of India's agriculture. The previous Government
prepared the Tenth Five Year Plan. It has a target of four
per cent growth rate of agriculture. We are nowhere in
sight. Our agricultural economy seems to have reached a
platform where new technologies associated with the Green
Revolution, which came about in the mid-sixties and
seventies, seem to have lost their old dynamism. And,
therefore, I thought this is an opportunity to use the
tremendous advances in human knowledge, in bio-technology and
related fields to see if we can revitalise our research
institutions, our agricultural universities, our extension
centres, and, that is what is reflected in the Joint
Statement, and, I attach great importance to its role in
modernising and expanding the horizons for India's
agricultural economy. Therefore, please do not concentrate
only on the nuclear issue.
Then, there is this tremendous infrastructure
bottlenecks. The tragedy of Mumbai is very much before us.
How inadequate infrastructure has created such a human misery
in this premier financial capital of our country. This could
happen to any other city. We have been very negligent of
infrastructure management. I have calculated that we need,
at least, $ 150 billion worth of investment in the next seven
or eight years if we have to modernise our infrastructure, if
we have to realise our ambitions of moving on to a growth
rate of eight to ten per cent. Our domestic savings rate is
respectable, but we need international help and the United
States can help us, and, therefore, when I discussed this
idea first with President Bush when I met him in Moscow, he
said that the American Government is not now in the aid
business but whatever we can do to encourage the US business
to take greater interest in India, I will work with you, and
he said, I will put 5 of my best friends who are in the world
of business to work with 5 of your top businessmen and let
them jointly explore as to how our two countries can work
better to realise your vision of a more dynamic
infrastructure.
I attach great importance to that aspect of my work in
Washington. When I was in Washington, three of our top
meteorological scientists, led by Dr. Shukla, came to me and
said, "India's meteorological system require a sea change, if
we are to take advantage of what is happening on the
frontiers of relevant scientific subjects". This is not only
in meteorological matters that we need upgradation of our
skills. Our scientists have done very well. We are proud of
their achievements. But human knowledge is increasing at a
pace which was unthinkable even ten years ago. Therefore, we
need increased contacts between the academic institutions,
the research institutions, between the scientists of our two
countries. And, fortunately, there are today, in all major
US research centres, whether you go to the IBM laboratory or
you go the University, bright young Indians are operating on
the frontiers of the knowledge. I think, this is the brain
reservoir we must tap. And, during this visit, it was my
effort to tap that potential reservoir for our country, and
that is an aspect which I would like to emphasise.
We have reached an agreement, a Framework Agreement, on
science and technology development in frontier areas. The
United States now recognises India as a space leader. I hope
possibilities of cooperation will occur which will do us
credit. This was yet another aspect of my work and what we
achieved is mentioned in the joint statement. But, I was
always conscious of the fact that if India is going to become
a major growth pole of the evolving world economy, if we have
to achieve every year 8 to 10 per cent growth rate, we would
require the growth of commercial energy in our country, at
least, at the same rate as our GDP growth. In fact, in our
country, the demand for commercial energy is going to
increase at a much faster pace. Why do I say this? Because,
in our country, two revolutions are taking place
simultaneously. At one go, under the impact of
modernisation, the subsistence rural economy is shrinking.
Therefore, old traditional ways of meeting energy,
firewood, household fuels, they are giving place to the
increasing demand even in the rural sector for modern
commercial energy. And, secondly, as we grow, as we
industrialise, as we urbanise, there is that increase in
demand for commercial energy. Therefore, India's energy
security, along with the security of our water resources and
security of our food, I think, is a critical determinant of
what happens to the Indian economy in the next 25 years.
Now, if we are going to work for energy security, what are we
going to do? We have plentiful reserves of coal. We, today,
produce about 400 million tonnes of coal and calculations are
that the demand for coal will increase over a thousand
million tonnes by the year 2010. More production of coal
must take place. But with it come consequences for the
environment, the CO2 emissions. I mean, if, in due course of
time, the international climate change regime comes about,
this could become a cropper. Therefore, we cannot put all
the eggs in the basket of coal, though we work to develop
clean coal technology. That is one area of priority, which
is recognised in this Joint Statement.
Today, we cannot do without hydrocarbons. For 70 per
cent of our consumption of hydrocarbons today, we are
dependent on imported supplies. I hope this prosperity
prevails in the West Asia. But who can ignore all the
uncertainty, leave aside other uncertainty? We are
witnessing this year the uncertainty, instability and
unpredictability of the oil prices. They have tripled in the
last five or six months. So, we must, therefore, explore
other options.
The resolution which led to the establishment of our
Atomic Energy Commission -- and, our country will be
eternally grateful to Panditji for having the vision to
recognise the role of science and technology, particularly
atomic energy, in managing the future needs of our country
-- laid the greatest emphasis on the use of atomic power for
generation of electricity. I think, Jaswant Singhji,
mentioned our ambitions in this regard.
I was a Member of the Atomic Energy Commission, when I was
Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, way back in 1970. At

SIPDIS
that time, we had prepared a plan to reach the target of
10,000 Megawatt for nuclear capacity. We are today 30 years
away from that period. Our total capacity is about 3,000
Megawatt. In the next five or six years, it can at best rise
to about 6,000 Megawatt. But, even for these, we do not have
fuels. We have problems in mining uranium in the areas where
domestic deposits are found. As far as imported fuel is
concerned, once again, because of the restrictive
international regime, which the United States and other
countries have erected, we are not able to access those
sources or supplies.
Therefore, it was my ambition to use this visit to make
an earnest effort to get this restrictive, repressive, and
inequitable regime -- which for 35 years has stood as an
obstacle in our race to leapfrog in the race for social and
economic development by use of high technology -- out of the
way.
If we want energy security, we have to rely more on
nuclear energy. All over the world, nations like Japan and
France, which are short of raw material, rely heavily on
nuclear energy. I do believe that while we must develop
coal, we must develop hydropower; we must develop renewable
sources of energy to widen our development options for the
future; and we must have an equal access to commercial
energy, which is environment- friendly
Sir, Jaswant Singhji referred to the international
nuclear order. It is in a state of flux. You may call it
disorder. I am not good at analysing long-term trends. But
that there is a flux, nobody can deny. The NPT exists, but
we all know, for example, the loopholes that exist and how
despite the NPT, proliferation has taken place in our own
neighbourhood. I could not, in the present stage, ask
President Bush or the US Government that they should remove
all restrictions on trade in nuclear assets. They said that
there is such a thing as 'civilian' and there is such a thing
as 'military'; we are willing to help you to augment your
energy resources for use of your development, but military
purposes are in other kettle of fish. I had to reckon with
that reality and, therefore, I had to evolve our approach,
taking into account the realities of the world order. And the
world order being whatever it is, I was clear in my mind that
we shall do nothing which will, in any way, compromise our
independence with regard to the management of security.
And despite the doubts that had been sought to be cast by
Sushmaji, I assure this House that I am satisfied that those
doubts are not based on facts.
It is true that what the US President has stated will
require Congressional assent. It is also a fact that at my
instance, President Bush has agreed that he will use the US
influence with US allies and other countries also to
dismantle these repressive regimes. And that applies also to
the nuclear suppliers' group to make concessions in favour of
India. What the US Congress will do, I cannot predict. But
if you read the Joint Statement, it is clearly stated that
after the US position is stated, what are our commitments.
The starting sentence of that refers to that all these
commitments are to be interpreted in reciprocity. If there
is no action taken by the United States Government or if the
US Congress does not agree with the US President, we are
completely free, for example, to stay where we are. We are
not required to do anything. The separation of civilian
nuclear facilities and military facilities, I have been told
by our nuclear establishment, can be done. I have not
studied the details, but competent observers have told me
that the Father of India's Nuclear Programme, Dr. Raja
Ramanna, himself had proposed, long ago, that such a division
should be made. Our nuclear establishment has told me that
this can be done, but it will have to be done in a phased
manner. And, therefore, we put it to the US Government that
this separation will be done in a phased manner. It will be
an autonomous Indian decision as to what is 'civilian' and
what is 'military'. Nobody outside will tell us what is
'civilian' and what is 'military'.
Therefore, Sir, I submit to this House that we have all the
essential safeguards built into this Joint Statement which
will ensure that India's autonomy and independence in the
management of its nuclear assets is not compromised in any
manner.
Sir, what are the commitments that I have taken? I am
very clear in my mind and I can assure the House that there
is no secret appendage or secret agreement. Everything that
I discussed with the President is faithfully stated. There
is nothing more to our agreement than what is stated in this
Joint Statement. Now, what are these commitments? First of
all, there is a moratorium on nuclear tests. This was
announced by the previous Government and we said that we
would continue to do so. Then there is a commitment to work
with the United States for the conclusion of a Multilateral
Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Sushmaji, I think, was
skilled in pointing out the quibbles about words "together
with", "working with", etc. I respectfully submit that there
is no difference between the commitment that the previous
Government made and what is stated in this Joint Statement.
Sir, the third is to ensure that necessary steps have
been taken to secure nuclear materials and technology through
comprehensive export control legislation and through
harmonisation and adherence to Missile Technology Control
Regime and Nuclear Supply Group guidelines. Only a few weeks
ago, this august House passed the necessary legislation which
obliges us to ensure that our sensitive technologies do not
get into the hands of unauthorised persons. So, there is no
commitment, which is being taken, which is not there in the
laws as approved by our Parliament. The only commitment that
I have taken additionally is to agree to the separation of
the military from the civil programme. There I have the
support of the nuclear establishment. The Chairman of the
Atomic Energy Commission was with me. It is only after he
was satisfied that this agreement protects all the essential
interests that are dear to all of us, I signified that we can
go ahead with this arrangement. I respectfully submit to
you, Sir, that the arrangement, as it stands, is in our
national interest. It preserves our autonomy of the
management of strategic nuclear assets. Whatever the
designs, whatever the contents of the nuclear weapon
programme, that will continue to be exclusively the decision
of the Government and the people of India.
As far as our nuclear programme is concerned, our
scientists have done us proud by having mastered the complete
fuel cycle. From Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors to Fast
Breeders to Next Generation Reactors based on thorium, we
will give them all possible facilities to realise this vast
latent potential represented by the Indian science and
technology in the US. So, there should be no doubt in
anybody's mind that the nuclear programme, our research
effort, will suffer. There should be no doubt that our
strategic asset programme will not remain exclusively in our
own hand and, at the same time, we have the satisfaction that
if what the President has promised me is really implemented
by the Congress, we would have full equal status with regard
to international trade in civilian nuclear facilities.
I think if that comes about, it will open up a few
possibilities of the development of India's nuclear energy
system. We have today because of a small nuclear energy
sector, only small firms, high technology firms, in which we
can take great pride. I take pride in the activities of the
Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. I take pride in the way Larsen
and Tubro has managed the most modern technologies, and then
Walchand Hirachand. But these are only small islands. If
in the next 20-30 years our nuclear power programme increases
and we have the ambition to aim at 30,000 to 40,000 megawatts
of nuclear capacity in the next 20 years, I have a vision
that this will bring about a new burst of creativity, a
second industrial revolution based on high technology where
we will find many more new firms mastering the complicated
new technologies now operating on the frontiers of scientific
knowledge and technology.
Now Dr. P.C. Alexander said, "There are risks. US may
not live up to what they promise." In life nothing is very
certain. I think we have all to work on the assumption that
things ex post may not turn out to be what they appear to be
in sight. We must, therefore, take precautions. But not to
take risks would also be an act of lethargy. What is
necessary is that we, as a nation, should take calculated
risks. I submit to this august House that what we have done
during our visit is, if there are risks, those are
calculated risks; they are worth taking. While I am on the
subject, I would like to conclude by paying tribute to the
team of officials who worked hard. The Chairman of the
Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. Kakodkar; the National Security
Advisor, Mr. Narayanan; the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Shyam
Saran; our Ambassador in Washington, Mr. Ronen Sen, all
working actively under the guidance of my colleague, Shri
Natwar Singh. I think they deserve our appreciation for
what they have done.
With these words, Sir, I commend to this House that it
should endorse what we have done in Washington. Thank you.
BLAKE