The enemy within

It is useful, even as Jaswant Singh continues to engage with Strobe Talbott, to examine how the BJP itself sees the CTBT. We can look at three examples of concern, manifest in three different tones. The first is an equivocating voice, that of the BJP ideologue8217; Govindacharya. This is what he told The Hindustan Times on December 19, 1999, when asked if the BJP suffers from an identity crisis8217; on the issues arising from Swadeshi versus liberalisation, and the CTBT. 8220;Since we are now acknowledged as a nuclear power and we are not interested in escalating the arms race, we agreed in principle that signing the CTBT might not harm the national interest. But even then we need not be in a hurry. Considering the diversity in the polity and the need to take everyone along, it will be better that we wait than plunge inhaste.8221;

The following can be inferred from this guarded outburst: that sections of the BJP are of the opinion that the party agreed to sign the CTBT 8220;only in principle8221;; therefore, commitment to sign it is not clear and unequivocal; that the journey from agreeing to sign the CTBT only in principle to its ratification is dependent on a large number of unidentified factors; the judicious use of the phrase 8220;might not harm the national interest8221; contains in it the possibility that a rigorous re-examination of the issues could well yield to the realisation that some aspects of the national interest may be harmed by signing the CTBT; and the urgent need to recognise the 8220;diversity in the polity and the need to take everyone along8221; before committing India to walk along a one-way street.

Finally, the kernel of the Govindacharya philosophy is that it is not wise to repent at leisure for a decision arrived at in haste. It is reasonable to infer that though Govindacharya speaks of the diversity of ourpolity, his real intent seems to be to place on record several constituencies within the BJP that are chaffing at the elaborate charade of the consensus exercise.

This is completely understandable. The same can be said of Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi, who, to boot, is a professor of physics, and it stands to reason, is a lot more cognizant of some of the finer technical points of the CTBT than those who are avidly in favour of signature without proper scrutiny of its consequent ramifications. This is what Joshi has been reported by the PTI as saying on September 19, quot;The CTBT and the NPT continue to be discriminatory by their basic framework and India will not be part of these treaties so long as the anomalies are not worked out.quot; This is a more robust assertion than that of the BJP ideologue quoted in the preceding paragraph. Note carefully, this assertion was made long after the government seemed to have taken the decision to sign the CTBT. Was Joshi playing to the gallery whenhe made this thoughtful comment? After all, it was the month of September and he was seeking re-election from Allahabad.

The people of Allahabad seem to have reposed some trust in this logic by re-electing him. No one can seriously believe that loose talk is the forte of Joshi. He must have had good reasons to make the assertion. What has changed in the CTBT since September last year that makes the treaty less quot;discriminatoryquot; now than before? Could it possibly be that both Govindacharya and Joshi represent a more enquiring constituency within the BJP than External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh? But to be fair to Jaswant Singh, he possesses more details by virtue of the secret dialogue, and being trustworthy, he will keep the details between himself and the Prime Minister.

The others in the BJP, poor fellows, seem to be out of the information loop. However, some of them, more power to them, are already asking. Former Rajya Sabha member K.R. Malkani is one of them. In the last session of the Rajya Sabha,he rose to speak on the topic of defence procurement. Although he did not shed very much light in that area, he did illuminate certain aspects of the quot;consensusquot; exercise with regard to the CTBT; he called for a separate session of Parliament in order to lay bare, at least to the members of Parliament, the Storbe Talbott-Jaswant Singh dialogue; he called the CTBT an quot;unequalquot; treaty; he deplored the fact that Jaswant Singh had knocked out the sea-based aspect of the deterrent.

His speech was very candid, very thoughtful, and very questioning. He asked: quot;Why do we have to think of signing the CTBT unless these8230; matters are clarified. I think, unless and until the original position taken by the government, taken by our Prime Minister 8212; our honour to him 8212; that India must be recognized as a nuclear weapon state is accepted, there should be no question of discussing the matter8230; Otherwise we will remain permanently second class.quot; I do not wish to steal Malkani8217;s thunder, except to say that even going bythe unenviable standards set by the BJP on security issues, the consensus-building exercise has not even begun. It can only begin if the government approaches the issue with greater candour.

The writer is a Congress member of the Rajya Sabha and Supreme Court lawyer