US embassy cable - 05NEWDELHI6079

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, External Political Relations 
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