AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        On 30 September 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich bearing what he believed was Hitler's reassurance of 'peace in our time'. For a brief interlude, he was a most popular man in his country and his Parliamentary majority was never in doubt.

        But during the House of Commons debate on the settlement between Neville Chamberlain and Hitler, which lasted from 3 to 6 October 1938, some very powerful speeches were made in opposition to the betrayal of Czechoslovakia, especially by Duff Cooper, who had resigned as First Lord Of The Admiralty, Archibald Sinclair, Clement Attlee, Anthony Eden and Richard Law. As so often during this period, it was Winston Churchill, who spoke in the debate for 49 minutes, who provided, in another superb oration, the most damning indictment of all.

        The 'Daily Telegraph' believed that his warnings, by now increasingly verified by events, 'have entitled him to be heard'. In the final vote 30 Conservative MPs abstained from voting, the most convincing demonstration yet of the opposition to Neville Chamberlain within the ranks of his own supporters. Winston Churchill's words are worth recalling:

        'I do not begrudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week, I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us every year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time'.
 

The above prophetic words of Winston Churchill were fully vindicated by the subsequent conduct of Hitler and the course of events leading to the II World War which began on 3 September, 1939.         I am referring to Winston Churchill because he was referring to Neville Chamberlain. Quite like Neville Chamberlain in temperament, though not in the official attire of authority, we have a neutral non-functional de jure Prime Minister, stripped of all de facto authority.         The Government of India today is in a state of triple synchronisation, the tripod of conceptual confusion, technical incompetence and political failure.         The whole UPA Government finds itself a prisoner of this self-chosen syndrome. A vital matter affecting the future survival of India as a nation, an issue involving the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India ( I am referring to 'Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement') has been allowed to hibernate between the Department of Atomic Energy and the Prime Minister's Office.         This has become very clear thanks to the bold and fearless stand taken by Atomic Energy Commission Chairman and Ex-officio Secretary to Government of India Anil Kakodkar. He has expressed his open concerns about the different layers of confusion in the Government of India on the approach to the 'Nuclear Separation Plan'.

Nevville Chamberlain (1869-1940), Dr Manmohan Singh, Nevville Chamberlain of India

        At a time when all the right-thinking people in India are worried about the consequences of the proposed 'Indo-US Nuclear Deal', instead of keeping the people of India in a state of suspended animation, Anil Kakodkar has expressed his views on the kind of separation plan (of civilian and military nuclear reactors) that would be credible for the US. At the same time he has said that there is a vital need for a credible minimum nuclear deterrent, keeping in view the Asian security scenario. He has also quantified the sort of deterrent India needs to maintain for the future, explaining that in less than a decade, the country's stockpile will begin to feel the impact of uranium's half-life decay cycle.

        Finally on the larger issue of separation, he has firmly indicated that India will have to take particular care to ensure that it does not negatively impact the credible minimum nuclear deterrent. As regards the fast breeder reactor programme, Kakodkar has made it very clear that India cannot afford to put it on the civil list as it would not be in its long range strategic interests. Highlighting the dual purposes of the Fast

        Breeder Reactor (FBR) programme, Kakodkar has indicated that he endorses the view that India needs the latest technology in this field and for that the Indo-US nuclear agreement is vital.

        Eight Bangalore-based former Ambassadors have asked the Government of India to present a full picture to the people of India regarding the proposed 'Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement' which is going to be signed in New Delhi next month when President Bush comes to New Delhi.

        They have called upon Government of India 'to set aside its policy of reticence. Given the sharp divergence of opinion on this landmark agreement and the strong passion that it has generated in the country, the very least that the Indian government could do, before finalising the terms of implementing this agreement, is to present a full picture to the Indian public of where we are heading.'

        The eight who have issued this joint statement of historic significance are: C B Muthamma, former Ambassador to Sweden, N Krishnan, former permanent representative to the United Nations, A P Venkateswaran, former foreign secretary, A Madhavan, former Ambassador to Germany, P L Sinai, former Ambassador to Austria and representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, P A Nazareth, former Ambassador to Egypt, C V Ranganathan, former Ambassador to France and M A Khaleeli, former Ambassador to Iran.

        They have categorically expressed the view that even admitting that security considerations may have to be kept in mind, 'the present ambiguity and paucity of information is not acceptable in a democratic country'.

        When people are kept in the dark about an important aspect of our foreign policy by the Government of India, the only inference that the common man in the street can draw is that somehow our country is being manoeuvre d by US Government into surrendering our national autonomy, even sovereignty, in decision-making in such vital matters.

        The consortium of eight former Ambassadors in their joint statement has concluded with the appeal: 'The government of India should put aside its present policy of reticence and share with the people of India all that they are legitimately entitled to know'.

        There is legitimate fear in many responsible quarters in India that India will be forced to pay an exacting price to ensure US Congressional ratification not only in the specific area of New Delhi's future nuclear programme but even on broader issues of nuclear proliferation and also on other foreign policy matters/ aspects.

        Finally what has been the track record of America after the II World War in regard to the matter of upholding the legal sanctity of international agreement in letter and spirit? The whole world knows the double standards of America which only believes in the policy of might is right. Men in Washington seem to think that men in New Delhi can be manipulated like men in Baghdad.

        When Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister in the early 70s, we as a country were living from hand to mouth. Even in that desperate situation Indira Gandhi did not allow herself to be cowed down by America or for that matter, any other Western country. India, today is in a very strong position in every sense of the word compared with 1971. And yet with all this advantage we have a Prime Minister with feet of clay who is decided only to be undecided, resolved only to be irresolute, adamant for drift and solid for fluidity.

Dr Manmohan Singh, Nevville Chamberlain of India

To the people of India, it is incomprehensible. To the whole world, we are giving a signal that India has only to be pressed hard enough for her to give way. By doing that we will only bring the possibility of war nearer and we will lessen our resources for dealing with that danger. We should not cast away real and important means of security and survival for vain shadows and for ease.         In this context, I can very clearly hear Yevgeny Yevtushenko, the great Russian poet, whispering into the ears of Dr Manmohan Singh, his following famous lines of poetry:         'My wisdom has certainly increased         but folly has not deserted me.         Folly has a most amiable soul.         Folly, a very rabbit, with unabating ardour, tries to find friends in the slimy society of boa-constrictors.         Wisdom gives a wry smile: 'Oh! Folly! Get wise!

        Don't look for friends in the scaly family.

        You won't find any warmth in cold-snakiness.

        A cold snake's for ever a cold snake'.

        Dr Manmohan replies to the Russian poet in the poet's own words:

        'Though I am master of my wisdom,

        But not the master of my folly.

        I am dead to the blissful folly of yielding to impulse.

        What does 'getting wise' really mean

        When the soul sips the poison of unbelief?

        I say to wisdom and folly

        Wisdom! Don't be mockingly morose;

        Holy folly, don't get wise and worldly!

        I have no respect for wisdom grown foolish

        And folly grown wise gets only my pity!'