Atal Bihari Vajpayee is, as this column has noted twice in recent weeks, an honourable man. Then why be economical with the truth when replying to the debate in the Lok Sabha on foreign policy?First, said Vajpayee, the Pakistanis do not want to talk about anything but Kashmir. This is simply not true. The Pakistanis reiterated at Colombo their willingness to broach all eight subjects identified at IslamabadMurree in 1997: peace and security; Siachen; WullarTulbul; Sir Creek; terrorismdrug trafficking; economic and commercial cooperation; promotion of friendly exchanges; and, of course, Jammu and Kashmir.Only, for them the overwhelming priority is Jammu and Kashmir. So they should be asking for special and differential treatment for Jammu and Kashmir. Curiously, they are not. They want the issue discussed in a working group just as all other subjects are to be discussed in working groups. Extraordinarily, we, who say the discussion on Jammu and Kashmir should be no different from other subjects, insist it must be discussed at a different and higher level.Moreover, if the Pakistanis want to discuss the issue even exclusively, why can we not agree to do so? Is Vajpayee not convinced that we have a very strong case?Do we not become more vulnerable to third-party intervention if an Indo-Pak summit ends in abuse: India calling Pakistan "neurotic" and "obsessed"; Pakistan saying talking to the Indian prime minister is a "waste of time" amounting to "zero"? Is any national interest served in signalling a breakdown on the eve of three key summits: Non-Aligned in September, UN in October, Commonwealth in November? Is this any way to run foreign policy?Then there is the matter of the CTBT. Vajpayee claims we withheld accession to protect our national security interests. This is only a very partial explanation. It is also profoundly misleading. The Indian delegate to the first committee of the UN General Assembly stated on October 26, 1995, "The CTBT must be an integral step in the process of nuclear disarmament.The CTBT must, therefore, contain a binding commitment on the international community, especially the nuclear weapon states, to take further measures within an agreed time-frame towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons." The delegate's name? Atal Bihari Vajpayee.The CTBT contains no such "binding commitment". There is an Action Plan before the UN which spells out how to secure such a commitment. It was presented by India in 1988. Vajpayee, speaking at the UN on October 17, 1991, had said, "We have outlined a systematic, rational and practicable time frame to achieve these objectives. The core of the Action Plan is the elimination of all nuclear weapons in three stages over 22 years."Then why not reiterate, as we did in Geneva at the close of the CTBT negotiations, that we cannot sign the CTBT unless it is integrally linked to a commitment to "multilateral negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons within a reasonable span of time" (ambassador Arundhati Ghose, August 20, 1996). Is it because the only Action Plan India has put forth to achieve this objective bears Rajiv Gandhi's name? At no stage in the CTBT negotiations did we say we were not signing the treaty because we wanted to undertake nuclear tests and once we had done so we would come on board. Yet, that is all Vajpayee's policy amounts to today. Let me remind him of what Arundhati Ghose said in our final statement on the subject at the UN: "India will never sign this unequal treaty, not now, nor later." Never. Not now. Nor later. Did anyone, including the Vajpayee who repeatedly represented us at the UN, ever say we would sign up if the club of five nuclear weapons powers admitted us as the sixth?India is being prepared for a sellout because Vajpayee would rather eat his words than acknowledge the significance of an Indian plan, touted by Vajpayee himself, which is associated with a predecessor whose widow is his main challenger. This is no way of dealing with matters of national interest.What Vajpayee should be doing is dust out the 1988 Action Plan, update it, translate it into treaty language and circulate it at the upcoming Non-Aligned summit in Durban. He should then join hands with the Pakistanis and present it as a joint draft to the UN in October. The Americans should be very publicly asked to co-sponsor with us a resolution in the General Assembly instructing the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to begin negotiations on a multilateral treaty aimed at the time-bound elimination of nuclear weapons.We should remind the Americans that they owe us one because we co-sponsored with them their resolution which launched the CTBT negotiations. We should also tell them that if they co-sponsor such a resolution, we will talk CTBT. Otherwise, we will expose them for the hypocrites they are.The Vajpayee who joined Congress-sponsored delegations to the UN year after year after year would have no difficulty going along with that. The Vajpayee who has become prime minister sounds a different and less honourable man.The author is secretary, AICC. The views expressed here are his own..preferred-source-banner{ margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom:10px;}Published By: AtMigration Published On: Aug 17, 1998--- ENDS ---
