Prakash Virji mentioned about the base that is likely to be established at Makram on the Pakistan coast. Well, we have also read about it, heard about it. But at the present moment, I cannot affirm it or reject it whether it is a fact. But one will have to be careful about it because we see the tendency of having these naval bases all over the Indian Ocean. It is certainly not in the interest of America. It is definitely against the interest of all the littoral countries of the Indian Ocean and, I think, we have to pursue our policy of creating an opinion for treating the Indian Ocean as a peace zone. That is only effective answer to this particular problem.
Now, coming to the other aspects of the problem, as far as Pakistan is concerned, Prakash Virji raised certain aspects about the effect of this arms supply to Pakistan. I think he is right that Whenever these arms were supplied to Pakistan, they were only used against India. That is our experience in 1971, and this is going to be the effect of the supply of more sophisticated arms in future. Well I agree with him that the distinction between defensive arms and offensive arms has not much a meaning in this particular matter. It is also true that such a supply of arms is not in the interest of Pakistan itself.
This is also a thing which Pakistan should realise, and if the Americans want to be friendly in the real interest of Pakistan, they should not tempt them with arms. This is one basic thing which I hope both the U. S. Government also realise. So, far, I see a common approach between me and Prakash Virji. When we come to the other aspects, I must say, we have got different approaches. Because, Simla Agreement was the only right thing to do under the circumstances then. And what does the Simla Agreement say? It is not merely an agreement; it lays down certain new approach as to how to develop relation between these neighbouring countries. If at all we want to avoid the intervention of any third big power, our emphasis will have to be on the bilateral relations and a willingness to sit together and negotiate the problems that may be existing between the two countries. Therefore, this was a right thing. If we say that we do not want to have discussions then that is an invitation for the third powers to come in with their arms and other temptation. So, the policy of the Government in this matter is not what he said.
Therefore, I would request the hon. Members that this demand for atom bomb, weapons and nuclear weapons would not be the right policy to follow. It is neither in the interest of India’s security nor in the interest of peace in this part of country. Naturally, we have declared our intention that we will certainly develop nuclear technology in this country and we will use it for peaceful purpose. That stand is a firm stand and we stand by it.
Shri Prakash Virji made some mention of Shri T. N. Kaul’s activities there. Shri Kaul is trying to help improve relations between India and the U. S. A. He is doing that as the Ambassador of India. I think that should be the line on which he should work. He has been very careful to warn all the responsible authorities there of the consequences that will follow not only on the Indo-U.S. relations but also on the good friendly relations of the various countries in this sub-countries in which everybody should be interested.
I think I have practically touched all the questions that he has raised.