Draft Reply to Starred Question No. 341 on L.K. Jha, Secretary to the Prime Minister

TOP SECRET/IMMEDIATE

To: Prime Minister

FROM: PN Haksar

DATE: May 26, 1967

Prime Minister’s Secretariat

A draft reply to Starred Question No. 341 set down for an answer in the Rajya Sabha on the 30^th May is submitted for PM’s approval together with a Note for Supplementaries.

I have shown the draft reply to the Foreign Secretary. Paragraph 9 of the Note for the Supplementaries is his contribution.

---------------------

Rajya Sabha

Starred Question No. 341

Prime Minister’s Secretariat

Date: May 30, 1967

Question:   

Shri Bhupesh Gupta:

Will the Prime Minister be pleased to state:

1. Whether Mr. L.K. Jha, Secretary to the Prime Minister, has been sent to the USA and the USSR on any diplomatic or other official mission;
2. The reason why the secretary to the Prime Minister instead of any responsible official of the Ministry of External Affairs has been sent?

Answer to a and b:

In the course of an official mission, Shri L.K. Jha, Secretary to the Prime Minister, visited Moscow, Paris, Washington, London and Paris again. About the same time, the Foreign Secretary, Shri C.S Jha, visited Cairo, Rome and Belgrade. He also visited Geneva where he joined the Foreign Minister in discussions with representatives on the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee, and others. The assignment of the Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to separate missions was designed merely to effect a convenient division of labour.

Note for the Supplementaries

The actual dates of the visits made by the Foreign Minister, Secretary to the Prime Minister (Shri L.K. Jha) and by the Foreign Secretary are set out below.

1. Foreign Minister’s visit to Geneva

1. 20^th to 25^th April, 1967

1. 2^nd to 6^th April, 1967 (Moscow)
2. 6^th to 7^th April, 1967 (Geneva)
3. 8^th to 11^th April, 1967 (Paris)
4. 12^th to 18^th April, 1967 (Washington)
5. 20^th to 26^th April, 1967 (London)
6. 27^th to 29^th April, 1967 (Paris)

1. 18^th to 20^th April, 1967 (Cairo)
2. 20^th to 24^th April, 1967 (Geneva)
3. 25^th to 26^th April, 1967 (Rome)
4. 26^th to 30^th April, 1967 (Belgrade)

2. It will be recalled that Shri L.K. Jha had paid an earlier visit to Moscow between the 13^th to 16^th February, 1967.

3. The object of Shri L.K. Jha’s mission was to exchange ideas with the principal nuclear powers on the general subject of security of a country which is not a nuclear power and also not a member of any of the Alliances, namely, a country which is non-aligned and a non-nuclear-weapon power. The problem of security exists and would continue to exist whether we sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty or not. Our country shares this problem with a large number of non-aligned and non-nuclear-weapon powers. There is, however, an additional dimension to this problem created by the existence of a neighboring country which is developing fairly rapidly a nuclear capability.

4. We have also to consider not merely the question of ensuring our security in the event of any actual nuclear attack launched upon us, but an immediate situation where our country is subjected to a nuclear blackmail.

5. Quite clearly, there are no easy solutions to these problems. It was, therefore, felt that some kind of exchange of ideas should take place not merely with the principal nuclear powers, but also with some of the non-aligned countries, such as the UAR and Yugoslavia.

6. The approach and discussions have been consistent with our traditional policy of building up and strengthening an international order based not on alliances, but on the principles of collective security. Whether something positive will come out of it or not depends very much on the nature of the response which we ultimately get from the nuclear Powers as well as – and this is a point to be emphasized – how other non-nuclear countries view this idea. A good deal of further discussions have to take place before anything definite can be said about the outcome of talks which have essentially been exploratory in character. All that we can say is that in all the countries visited, there was a recognition of the problem which India faces, as well as of India’s unique position as a non-aligned nation living under the threat of a nuclear Power and having out of her own free will decided not to make nuclear weapons, despite the technical capability which she has.

7. However, the basic object of these talks is not, as have been pointed out above, an assurance which would apply to India alone. It is, in fact, a move in the direction of making the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries unlawful in the same way as by a Treaty, the use of poison gas in warfare has been made unlawful.

8. No commitments of any kind have been make in these talks. We have not said that we shall sign the Treaty of Non-Proliferation as a price for the guarantee. The Non-Proliferation Treaty has not yet been released, even in draft form, to the Members of the ENDC. There is no question of our making any pledge to sign a Treaty the full draft of which we have not even seen. In fact, such indications as we have of the contents of the Treaty do suggest that we shall have considerable difficulties signing it, because many features of the Treaty are objectionable from our point of view.

9. During his visits to Cairo, Belgrade and Rome, Shri C.S. Jha discussed with the Governments of these countries, inter alia, the question of a Treaty of Nuclear Non-Proliferation. The talks helped in acquiring a thorough understanding of the points of view of these governments and of others with whose representatives there were discussions in Geneva, on the complicated and difficult issues arising from such a Treaty. The discussions also enabled us to project in detail our thinking on the question of a Non-Proliferation Treaty as a result of which there is a much better understanding and appreciation of our position. We are against a one-sided Treaty which contains no provision about nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapon powers, is discriminatory as between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon powers, places an impediment to the development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes by non-nuclear weapon powers, and does not embody a balance of obligations between nuclear and non-nuclear-weapon powers.

10. The suggestion or innuendo in part (b) of the question is not a worthy one. It would not be right to read any special meaning into the fact that Shri L.K. Jha went to a particular country and Shri C.S. Jha to another. The Government of India functions as a whole and the objectives of the External Affairs Ministry which is operative Ministry for disarmament, are, in no way, different from those of the rest of the Government. Consequently, the dispatch of Shri L.K. Jha to one set of capitals and of Shri C.S. Jha to another was merely a matter of convenience and divisions of labour.