Indian Council of World Affairs

Unidentified Speaker: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the Indian Council of World Affairs, it gives me immense pleasure to welcome you all to Sapru House for the Discussion on the Book Indian Parliament Shaping Foreign Policy by Shri V. K. Prasad. The book provides an insightful look into the valuable contribution of India's Parliament as a vital organ of our democracy in shaping Indian foreign policy. 

The discussion today will be chaired by Ambassador T.C.A. Raghavan, former Director General, Indian Council of World Affairs. Shri Harivansh Narayan Singh, Honourable Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, will deliver the special remarks. This will be followed by remarks by Shri Sujeet Kumarji, Honourable Member of Parliament and Member, Consultative Committee of the Ministry of External Affairs. Thereafter, we will have a brief question and answer session, moderated by the Chair.

May I now request Ms. Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Acting Director General, Indian Council of World Affairs, to kindly give her welcome remarks.

Nutan Kapoor Mahawar: Honourable Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha, Shri Harivansh Narayan Singhji, Honourable Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, Shri Sujeet Kumarji, Ambassador T.C.A. Raghavan, former Director General, ICWA, who is chairing today's discussion, members of the Diplomatic Corps, students and friends. As you are all aware, the Executive Legislature interface is an essential element contributing to the shaping of foreign policy in the Indian polity and is a hallmark of democracy.

Through mechanisms such as the hearings of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, on issues such as demands for grants or topical issues related to foreign policy and modalities such as short duration debates, calling attention notices, parliamentary questions, ministerial statements, we see democracy in operation in the Parliament of India and the Executive's responsibility to people's representatives and to the citizens of India. The Advisory Consultative Committee on External Affairs is yet another mechanism for this interface. And the Ministry of External Affairs routinely provides evidence to other parliamentary committees as well, as and when required.

It was to capture the workings and impact of this interface that a decision to commission the book project titled Indian Parliament Shaping Indian Foreign Policy by Shri K.V. Prasad, senior journalist, was taken by ICWA. The book examines and catalogs three case studies of intense parliamentary debates having a significant impact on the course of Indian foreign policy, each set apart by approximately a decade and with reverberations till date. These are the case of India-Sri Lanka ties from the 1980s, the case of WTO negotiations of the 1990s, and the India-US nuclear deal of 2005 to 2008.

On the case of Sri Lanka from the 1980s, the book establishes that the debates in the parliament on IPKF presence in Sri Lanka made the government reverse its decision and laid the foundation of India's carefully considered approaches towards its neighbors, mindful of mutual sensitivities and concerns. With the benefit of hindsight, one can say that these debates in the parliament brought home the point of the need for enhanced integrative linkages and interdependencies with our neighbors across sectors for regional stability, security and prosperity and for goodwill for India among their people.

It affirmed that India's military forces are meant for the defense of national security interests and securing the well-being of the Indian people and that the presence of our military forces on foreign soil and waters would be in service of these objectives, in addition to contributing to UN peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief, and other humanitarian and environmental goals. It also provides the basis for India to adopt an approach that proactively pursues fair and equal status for people of Indian origin and their complete integration in the countries of their citizenship with its counterpart governments as part of foreign policy and diplomatic outreach.

The second case of debates in the parliament in the run up to the establishment of WTO in India in the 1990s, raised awareness among government circles and the industry in India, then a newly liberalized economy on the need to invest in building negotiating skills and capacity so as to be able to take informed positions and defend interests in international fora. An offshoot of the enhanced focus in Parliament on WTO matters in the 1990s was the birth of what is now described as economic diplomacy.

The debates in the Parliament also made the government seek changes through negotiations and coalition formation at the newly formed WTO, which were favourable to India and other developing countries, laying the basis for India to emerge as a voice of the Global South on trade issues at the forum.

The Parliament was assured at that time that despite the economic pangs of the early 90s in the backdrop of tumultuous changes in the world, like the collapse of the Soviet Union, the First Gulf War, German unification, emergence of not so friendly US as the sole superpower, India would strive to contribute in shaping the world's trade rules and not be content by being a mere rule taker, especially in sensitive areas like agriculture that impacted the well-being of its people and its food security.

The debate on WTO matters in the Parliament also brought home the point of the importance of the impact of trade policies on the national economy and their potential to contribute to the overall well-being of a people as well as for international cooperation, a thought that holds immense value in today's fractured world plagued by trade and tariff wars. Learning from history and the present, it is important that the rules of trade be rewritten so as to turn trade into a harbinger of peace and prosperity and not as a forerunner of wars, colonization and empire building, not as a tool to accumulate capital as a currency of power, which is the tragedy of human development. And India needs to make its contribution towards this.

The third case of the debate in the Parliament on the India-US nuclear deal made the government of the day explain its position and posture in negotiations which had implications for a sensitive area of national security, for the transformation of India's relationship with the US and consequently, its allies and partners, thus expanding India's circle of friends. It had implications for laying the foundation for the end of nuclear and technological apartheid for India, for India's acceptance as a responsible country in the global nuclear order.

The Parliament and the people of India were assured that this has been achieved while preserving India's principled and traditional position on the rejection of NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, based on enlightened self-interest and without diluting India's deep commitment to universal and verifiable disarmament. India believes that the NPT is a flawed basis of the global nuclear edifice and this has been India's consistent position since NPT's inception.

The Parliament appreciated that India's dialogue with the US, then the sole superpower, on the nuclear issue post Pokhran-II heralded the transformation of India from first an outlier of the global nuclear order, then a challenger to it and now a nuclear power that is being increasingly accepted and mainstreamed into the global nuclear regime, a process that continues to be underway today as a legacy of the India-US nuclear deal.

In the wake of the more than decade-long dialogue with the US post Pokhran-II and the assessment of successive governments to enhance the country's civil nuclear energy potential for which international cooperation was considered to be vital, the Parliament, being acutely conscious of the need to protect its citizens from nuclear accidents and learning from the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, felt duty-bound to enact the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act. It should also be said that since the deal, and in the backdrop of the current geopolitical turmoil and increased nuclear rhetoric, the existing global nuclear order has also begun to rumble and tumble, and the scenarios predicted are widely divergent.

Towards flashpoints, if we were to listen to the doomsday sayers or towards a nuclear renaissance, if we were to listen to the optimist. It is amidst this dichotomy and flux prevailing globally in the strategic and civil nuclear sector that discussions are now underway in India to amend the legislative framework of our nuclear sector, particularly its international cooperation dimension.

The Parliament will once again be called upon to exercise judgment to preclude a nuclear Bhopal gas tragedy or a Chernobyl in India of the 80s whose effects are felt till this date. The safety and lives of India's people is paramount and sacrosanct. Friends, the debate in the Parliament on WTO and on the India-US nuclear deal also raised important issues pertaining to limitations in Parliament's mandate and oversight flowing from the Constitution regarding prior consultation or ratification by legislature of international agreements.

These debates also raised issues related to sovereignty while entering into international agreements. Both these aspects need greater study and analysis. These three cases of intense Parliament debates on foreign policy issues have been eloquently elaborated upon by the author in this book, shepherding which has been a privilege for ICWA. I would like to end by pointing out that ICWA as a foreign policy institution is itself backed by an act of Parliament that the executive legislative interface is very much built into its governing structure and that it benefits and draws advantage from this guidance. Thank you for your attention.

Unidentified Speaker: May I now call the author, Shri K.V. Prasad, Senior Journalist, to kindly make his presentation about the book. Thank you.

K.V. Prasad: Good afternoon. Do you mind if I just remove the petal slide?

Unidentified Speaker: Yes, you can. Just push it in.

K.V. Prasad: Thank you. Thank you very much. That's fine. At the outset, I wish to thank the Indian Council for World Affairs on two counts. One for opposing faith in my project, which came soon after I ended my formal association with any news organization and provided the opportunity to study the intersection of Parliament and its interventions in crafting the country's foreign policy. My special thanks to Acting Director General, Ms. Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, for organizing this discussion and for her gracious words of welcome. Thank you, ma'am.

I am honoured that the Honourable Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Harivansh Narayan Singhji, and Mr. Shri Sujeet Kumar, Member of Parliament, consented to share their thoughts on the book and Ambassador T.C.A. Raghavan agreed to chair the event. Among the audience are some of my fellow travellers from the world of journalism and of course people with whom we interacted as journalists. Thank you very much.

Much before the constitution of the first parliament in 1952, members of the constituent assembly legislative, that is between 1947 and 1949 and the provisional parliament, its successor till 1952 May, were active participants in matters related to external affairs. With Prime Minister Nehru steering the policy, members were candid in conducting critical analysis and at times disagreeing with the course set.

In fact, I have found evidence in the records that the parliamentary committee, a standing committee on parliamentary and commonwealth was formed in 1947. But I could not trace a shed of paper in parliament library, even though some old-timers did mention there are some records and only in 1968 Journal of Indian Parliament I found reference that these were informal conversations with no record. So I am not too sure if still there is a shade of grey in between, but my research showed that there was a committee, it is recorded, but it is not found in the parliamentary record keeping anyway.

So early seeds of my interest in debates of constituent assembly on policy issues was sown in 1997, when as a correspondent in the Tribune, my editor, late Hari Jaisingh, put me on the job to dig into debates on various subjects for the special supplement the Tribune was bringing to mark the 50th year of independence. So every week there was a supplement and I was to go into debates to get some subjects for them.

However, my professional commitment as a reporter and correspondent for the Tribune and the Hindu kept me away from setting aside time to pursue any serious study requiring a disciplined approach. The change of circumstances toward the end of 2020 and a conversation with then DG Ambassador Raghavan and Director Research Niveditha Reddy and approval of the proposal by the council was an opportunity and ultimately resulted in my debut book.

I begin with a disclaimer. This book is not an academic exercise. It's having spent 30 years covering Parliament, both houses, I feel it is a place where politicians and political parties negotiate policy through parliamentary process in place, right? So the crucial interplay can be highly absorbing, especially as one covering Parliament to understand the finer aspects of negotiations on key issues between those holding diametrically opposing views.

Parliamentary foreign policy is too wide a canvas and diverse. To do justice to the breadth and depth of discussions, I chose the three debates, as you just mentioned, in separate decades. The deployment of IPKF, the Indian Peacekeeping Force, which became quite a contentious issue, as all of you will remember. India joining the WTO. And of course, the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement.

Now, the last agreement, I had the advantage of traveling to the United States and working as a fellow with the US Congress. I got a Fulbright Fellowship. And at the same time, the US Congress was debating. And I was working in the office of Congressman Jim McDermott, who was a founder of India Caucus. And he was a strong NPT believer. He voted against India Bill. So one could understand the dynamics at play all the time over there.

So it was a time when Congress was debating the issue. So these even spanned several governments, majority governments, minority governments, coalition governments. So you could see the breadth of Indian politics at play all the time. And the focus from my side was to examine whether parliamentary interventions forced the government to tweak the policy or it continued otherwise.

The factors varied. In case of the IPKF, following the change of guard at home with the National Front Government of Vishwanath Pratap Singh, Prime Minister, bringing back the troops committed by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Since then, this is my conclusion, that India has not put military boots on the ground except participation in the UN peacekeeping forces or the human disaster relief works that we are asked to.

The WWF debate began when VP Singh was the Commerce Minister under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. And of course, India joined the new trade order under Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao, in 1995, much against the debate. If you remember, most of us were there. There was debate inside the house and very equally debates outside the house with activist groups leading more charge and holding separate events, which I, as a reporter, used to cover both inside and outside. So it gives you a different perspective.

And of course, the first time I remember, states started questioning the right of parliament and right of the government of India to sign agreements which would have a bearing on states, especially in agriculture, some of which came back during the debate on the US nuclear deal. And of course, as you know, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh takes his government in pursuing a policy towards the US nuclear deal policy.

This situation changed a couple of years. All these three debates show that the government of the day did what it think it's required to do. But this situation changed a couple of years later when the opposition forced the hand to write in laws, compensation claims in the Civil Nuclear Liabilities Damages Act, which now the government is planning to revisit after 14 years. And part of it was not just Chernobyl, because the debates also had the impact of the Fukushima 2011 nuclear reactor.

Because in Parliament, members of Parliament were concerned that in 1984, there was inadequate compensation of the Bhopal gas tragedy. And if you remember the famous case of ambulance chasers, they were referred to that because lawyers from other countries were trying to help you out. And this whole compensation thing got warped up. And then, while the laws were being still debated and written, the act, the bill, Fukushima happened. So it suddenly changed the whole perspective of the way Parliament started looking at it. Anyway, we are now going to have a debate on it again very soon, if not in the monsoon session, maybe by the winter session.

So the conclusion, as I said, the governments of the day decide the course they thought was in the best interest of the country, underscoring that the opposition can have its say. The government will have its way. So recently, post Operation Sindoor, the government sent multi-party delegations to over 30 countries to articulate India's stand. Historically, as early as 1947, members of the Constituent Assembly Legislative sought to know from Prime Minister Nehru, how could they join delegations India was sending overseas? And this was in the November 1947.

And by then, almost 70 delegations had visited to various countries. So members of Parliament wanted to know from Prime Minister whether they could join. Well, I will not state how Prime Minister Nehru responded. Why? In the hope that at least this might kindle your curiosity to read the book, among the many other recorded instances. Is there a case for greater involvement of members of Parliament on foreign policy issues? It appears the debate around it has started again.

Why do I say so? There are two aspects. I recall an instance when a former foreign secretary, in one of the lecture series in Parliament organized in 2007 at the time, he agreed with the members of the electorate that the MEA should have greater engagement with members of Parliament. This was his assessment. I think this could be answered by Mr. Sujeet Kumar, who is attached to the Consultative Committee of MEA, who obviously has greater insight of the consultation process. I do feel there can be a greater institutional engagement of Indian parliamentarians and their counterparts elsewhere.

In the year 2019, the joint statement issued by India and the United States after a meeting between the foreign ministers. There was a reference to exchange visits between parliamentarians and congressional delegations. But then, of course, subsequent, that reference was not there. So I have no reason to believe it has moved forward. Of course, I just read that the recent meeting of Estimates Committee where Harivanshji was present, I read a report that there is a talk of reviving the parliamentary friendship groups.

Now, this was an exercise that began in, I think, around 2004 and 2005 by then speaker Mr. Somnath Chatterjee. So in between it went into a lull, but I just read that report. Maybe you could refer to it sometime later. So over the decade, the debate and thought beyond foreign policy issues have moved away from the confines of the South Block and seeped in across various universities, think tanks, and the ever-growing community of scholars who are focused in niche areas. I do hope this book generates greater interest among all of them. Thank you once again.

Unidentified Speaker: Thank you. Thank you, sir. May I now request Ambassador T.C.A. Raghavan to conduct the proceedings? Thank you.

T.C.A. Raghavan: Thank you. Shri Harivansh Narayan Singhji, Honorable Deputy Chairman Rajya Sabha, Shri Sujeet Kumar, Honorable Member of Parliament and Member Consultative Committee of the Ministry of External Affairs, Ms. Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Acting Director General, ICWA, K.V. Prasad, the author of the book. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

May I begin by, first of all, expressing a certain sense of being greatly gratified that the ICWA has published this book on the Indian Parliament and its role in shaping foreign policy. I recall on a number of occasions in interactions with the Standing Committee of the Ministry of External Affairs, the question which used to be put to us in the Council was, why are not more members of Parliament involved in your activities?

And I recall on one occasion, I was subjected to a close cross-examination on this by then Chairperson of the Standing Committee because and his point, which was very valid, was that the Council, the ICWA, when it was set up, was not set up as a purely research or academic body and it was also not set up purely as a policy practitioner's body, but the idea was to create a platform in which policy practitioners, academics and researchers and eminent people in public life interact and synergize with each other. Because the feeling of those who created the council, the ICWA in the 1940s, their view was that only through such interaction can we develop an Indian perspective on international affairs.

So this emphasis on involving people in public life or eminent personalities of public life in the activities of the council was a central aspect of the establishment of the ICWA. So it's a matter of some gratification for all of us who have been associated with the ICWA that we have a book on the Indian parliament and its role in shaping the foreign policy of India. And to discuss the book, we have two eminent personalities of our public life today, Shri Harivansh Narayan Singhji, Honorable Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, and Shri Sujeet Kumar.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the ICWA on its publications program. The publications program of the ICWA is one of its flagship pillars. Because there are many books on foreign policy which come out. But the ICWA picks up those areas which otherwise may not interest trade publishers. And the idea is to encourage research and encourage debate into those areas of international affairs and foreign policy which the council feels should be addressed. And there should be a greater discussion about those particular areas and those particular aspects of our external world today.

I'd also like to congratulate the author, Shri K.V. Prasad, for this fine work. This is very evidently a labor of love and the consequence of both his deep research and knowledge, but also his experience as a journalist with a deep knowledge of both external relations, international affairs and of the functioning of the Indian parliament. I think these different aspects give this book a special character which you will encounter as you look into the different anecdotes and different illustrations which are there in its chapters.

The early chapters of the book provide an excellent overview of the historical background through which the interface between the parliament of India and Indian foreign policy developed. The meat of the book, as he explained, is in the three case studies which pertain to the IPKF in Sri Lanka, the entry of India into the WTO, and finally the conclusion of the civil nuclear agreement with the United States.

In the examination of each of these issues and in the discussion of each of these issues in our parliament, numerous constitutional and legal points emerged which remain with us in different ways to this day. And one very important question which comes up periodically in this book is of the role of our states in the formulation of foreign policy in a federal structure. This is a central question for anyone who has looked at India's neighborhood. How states can play a role in creating a more rounded foreign policy approach, I think that's something which we need to reflect upon a great deal.

In my own experience, for instance, you cannot think of a foreign policy with regard to Bangladesh or with regard to Nepal or with regard to Bhutan without bringing into the equation the perspective of states such as Assam or West Bengal or Bihar or Uttar Pradesh. Similarly, and this is a somewhat extreme example, but in the case of Pakistan, we cannot really think of a well-rounded policy without bringing into the equation the perspectives of states such as Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, or Punjab.

One example of, for instance, policy towards Pakistan is that of the Kartarpur Sahib visa-free corridor. The visa-free corridor was opened at a time when the India-Pakistan relationship was on a downturn and it was on a serious downturn after August 2019. But despite that, you find a visa-free corridor being established to allow Sikh pilgrims to go into Pakistan to the Kartarpur Sahib Gurdwara. And it was quite a significant step forward at that particular time.

And there are other examples also of how the role of the states in foreign policy is something which we constantly have to keep in mind. This, of course, comes out very, very prominently in the case of Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. And there are many other examples also. The other question, for instance, which comes up periodically is whether parliamentary approval is required before specific foreign policy initiatives are taken or before specific regimes or international agreements are entered into. These are issues which have been debated numerous times in our parliament and will continue to be debated in the future also.

But I think the interesting part in the book is that through these case studies, we see a wide cross section of modern Indian history because it is really from the 1980s till the end of the first decade of this century that you see the parliament foreign policy interface and it gives an opportunity to see the working of both Indian democracy and also as to how foreign policy is made in a democratic environment.

I'd like to quote briefly from a small couple of sentences which from this book, "Members of Parliament in India have over the last seven and a half decades made continuous efforts to leave an imprint on the country's foreign policy. Parliamentarians also kept on exploring opportunities for institutional interactions between MPs and their counterparts from other countries, including those in the neighborhood."

Platforms such as the UN General Assembly, the International Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, parliamentary delegations visiting other countries really provide examples of how this interactions between parliamentarians, between people's representatives of different countries play such an important role in the shaping of foreign policy today, not just in India, but in many countries across the world.

I don't wish to take too much time because I'm especially keen to hear Shri Harivansh Narayan Singhji and Shri Sujeet Kumarji because I'd like to hear very much their perspectives on this book and also about the role of members of parliament in institutions such as the ICWA and as to how the synergy between academics and researchers, between practitioners and people's representatives can be enhanced and increased in the future. Thank you very much.

Unidentified Speaker: Thank you so much, sir. Now, may I request Shri Harivansh Narayan Singh, Honorable Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha, to make his remarks. Thank you.

Harivansh Narayan Singh: यहाँ मौजूद हमारे Honourable Member Parliament, Sujit Kumarji, Consultative Committee हमारे Foreign Ministry के, और Ambassador T.C.A. Raghavanji, ex-DG ICWA, and I think की Pakistan हमारे last आपका assignment था as a, कुछ आयुक्त K.V. Prasadji, वरिष्ठ पत्रकार और लेखक, Shri Nutan Kapoor Mahawarji, In-charge, DG ICWA, सभागार में उपस्थित अनेक वरिष्ठ लोगोको में देख रहा हूँ, हमारे वरिष्ठ Vinodji थे, अभी शायद मौजूद नहीं, बड़े जाने माने पत्रकार और सभी मित्रो, नमस्कार. सबसे पहले में इस पुस्तक के लिए Indian Parliament Shaping Foreign Policy लिखने के लिए K.V. Prasadji जी को बहुत बधाई देना चाहूँगा और इसको छापने के लिए ICWA को भी.

इस अवसर पर दरअसल में आपको confess करू की मैं तो सुनने आया अपने senior diplomat, Raghavan sahab को, क्योंकि उनका में पाठक भी हूँ. और हमारे आत्मीया मित्र Sujitji, इनको दुनिया की बहुत important organizations में भी काम करने का अनुभव हैं और विदेश निति पर ख़ास तौर से वे सिर्फ सदस्य ही नहीं, बहुत सारी चीजों को वो आपको बताएँगे. Raghavan sahab, जिनकी अनेक बड़ी important किताबे हैं, जिन्हें हम सब ने एक पाठक के तौर पे देखा है, जैसे The People Next Door Pakistan, The History Men, मेरे लिए बड़ा fascinating रहा उसको पढ़ना, बहुत वर्षो पहले, Circle of Freedom, Friendship, Love and Loyalty, कुछ ही दिनों पहले very interesting facts, Attendant Lords, Bairam Khan and Abdur Rahman, Courtiers and Poets in Mughal India, उस दौर की politics को समझने में, it is very full of insightful information, जहा पर ऐसे व्यक्ति जानकार हो हमारे Sujit Kumarji वो बहुत सारी चीज़े बताएँगे, पर में भारतीय संसद की क्या भूमिका रही है, ख़ास तौर से विदेश निति के संदर्भ में इसपर तीन important case studies के द्वारा बहुत गंभीरता से अध्ययन करने के लिए पुनः ICWA को और K.V. Prasadji को धन्यवाद् देता हूँ और इस पुस्तक के लिए, Indian Parliament Shaping: Foreign Policy लिखने के लिए उनसे बेहतर कोई और पत्रकार नहीं हो सकता था, क्योंकि तीन decades का उनका लम्बा अनुभव हैं. उन्होंने तीन दशको तक संसद की नियम और प्रक्रिया उसके साथ साथ भारतीय संसद के अपने mandate के अनुसार कैसे वो काम करती है इसकी गहरी जानकारी उन्होंने हासिल की है, और policy making उनमेसे एक है, इसीलिए इस किताब के साथ उन्होंने बहुत justice किया, विषय के साथ, और संसद के तीन अलग अलग ख़ास तौर से तीन aspects, geo-security, geo-economics, and geo-strategic बेहसों पर नए ढंग से काम करके तथ्य बताये हैं, साथ ही संविधान सभा और provisional parliament के सदस्यों ने हमारी विदेश निति के बारे में किस तरह से जो उन्होंने सीमा तय की थी उससे आगे जाकर के बढ़ने का प्रयास किया उन बहसों से बहुत स्पष्ट है.

उन्होंने जैसा आपने सुना, की खास तौर से Sri Lanka, भारतीय शान्ति सेना और WTO में भारत के प्रवेश और civil nuclear liability, इन तीन केसों के माध्यम से, तीन अलग अलग समय में, three decades में, क्या किस रूप में संसद ने चर्चा की, उसका क्या असर रहा ये बड़ा important case study एक तरफ से तीनो है. ये पुस्तक एक किसम से सांसदो ने किस तरह सरकारी नीतियों पर प्रभाव डाला है, उनकी बहस और चर्चा और प्रस्ताव के माध्यम से क्या असर पड़ा है इसका एक गंभीर अध्ययन है.

Shri Prasad ने बड़े realistic ढ़ंग से निष्कर्ष निकला है की Civil Nuclear Liability Act के मामले को छोड़ करके किस तरह से सरकार ने राष्ट्रीय हित में अपना काम किया और महत्वपूर्ण ढंग से भारत के हितो के लिए उन्होंने अपने कदम उठाये. यह किताब हमारे खास तौर से विज्ञान, राजनीति और अंतरराष्ट्रीय, international relations के जो विद्वान और छात्र है उनके लिए बहुत ही important resource book हैं. हाल ही में हमारे जो member parliament delegation तीस देशो में गए Operation Sindoor के बाद, जिनमे सभी पार्टियों के माननीय सदस्यों का delegation था. इसमें, parliament का role foreign policy और diplomacy में कितने महत्वपूर्ण ढंग से रेखांकित हुआ ये foreign policy हमारे national interest का reflection है.

यह parliament का forum, national, international interest decide करने का सबसे श्रेष्ठ माध्यम है. सरकार की अन्य मंत्रालय की तरह ही विदेश मंत्रायल के काम काज की निगरानी भी parliament करती हैं. Foreign policy का एक बड़ा व्यव्हारिक पक्ष है diplomacy. आप समझ सकते है की देश के अन्दर एक informed consciousness बनाना और अंतराष्ट्रीय मुद्दों पर एक जुट रुख रखना हमारी diplomacy का कितना  challenging और important हिस्सा है, काम है. संसद ने अपनी स्थापना से parliamentary diplomacy को institutionalize करने का प्रयत्न किया. अंतरराष्ट्रीय parliamentary forums भी है जैसे BRICS Parliamentary Forum, G20 Parliamentary Forum, IPU, CPA, अलग अलग.

इसमें भी लगातार हमारे संसद जाते है और दुनिया के challenging issue पे वो debate, अलग अलग प्रस्तावो पर बात करते है, इससे वो दुनिया के जनमत को भी प्रभावित करने की कोशिश करते है. मैं याद दिलाना चाहूँगा की 16 August 1948 को संविधान सभा में कैसे प्रधानमंत्री Jawaharlal Nehru जी ने Indian Parliamentary Groups के गठन का प्रस्ताव पेश किया. IPG का गठन 1949 में हुआ तबसे IPG ने parliamentary diplomacy में अपने mandate को expand किया. यहाँ समूह विदेशी सांसदों के साथ delegations, goodwill, missions, correspondence, documents, आदि., के आदान प्रदान के माध्यम से भारत की संसद और दुनिया की अन्य सांसदों से बीच एक प्रभावी link के रूप में काम करता है. यह Inter-Parliamentary Union और भारत की Commonwealth Parliamentary Association की main branch के रूप में भी काम करता है, उसमे MPs का बड़ा ही महत्वपूर्ण role हैं.

में दूसरी एक बात और जोड़ना चाहूँगा इसमें, पिछले 10 वर्षो में एक संसद के रूप में या Deputy Chairman के रूप में मुझे, जितने इस तरह के conferences को जाने का मौका मिला उसमे एक तथ्य मेरे सामने जो आया मैं आपसे share करना चाहूँगा. बहुत पहले लगभग 2013 के आसपास मैंने एक किताब पढ़ी थी Lee Kuan Yew के ऊपर. The Grand Master's Insights on China, the United States, and the World. वो एक तरह का interview और अलग अलग selections हैं, उनके विचारो का, उनसे बातचीत का तीन लोगो ने किया था जिसकी भूमिका Henry Kissinger ने लिखी. Graham Ellison, Robert D. Blackwell, and Ali Wain. Very interesting book. 2013, आजसे लगभग12-13 वर्ष पहले लगभग मैंने पढ़ी.

आज जब में आपकी किताब के लिए आ रहा था तो उसके तथ्य कही मेरे दिमाग में आये, पिछले 10-12 वर्षो में international forums पर important मंच पर, कही जगह Sujitji के साथ रहते हुए भी जो मने realize किया की अंततः foreign policy में क्या पिछले 30-40 सालो में बदलाव आया हैं. उस पुस्तक में, the future of China, the future of the United States, the future of US-China relations, the future of India, the future of geopolitics and globalization बहुत ही insightful विचार है. मैं कई बार सोचता हूँ की दुनिया के international forums पर जिन issues को हम debate करते है, discuss करते है, उनपे आपके अन्दर की आर्थिक ताकत आज कितना असर डालती है.

मेरे मन में सवाल होता है की हमारे पड़ोस का देश अगर 1978 में, जो बड़ा important phase हम लोगो ने दुनिया में सुना की, whether the cat is black or white till it catches mice, अगर नहीं होता, वो policy change नहीं होती, तो आज... और  economic size में आपसे पांच गुना बड़ा नहीं होता, तो आज उसके यहाँ Uyghur issue, human rights issues, और अनेक ऐसे मुल्क मिलते है, में दुनिया के कही platforms पे, जिन देशो से उसके अपने निजी MOU हैं, rare earth minerals से लेकर अनेक चीजों पर, which is not in the public domain. उनका क्या असर होता है?

में मानता हूँ, आजकी तारीख में, हमारी पीढ़ी जब बड़ी हो रही थी, वो Non-Alignment Movement, political ideology, किस तरह से असर डालती थी, उस दौर में हम पल और बढ़ रहे थे. हम जब बिलकुल, क्या आपको बताऊ, जिसे आप rural India कहते है, उन इलाको में थे तब भी Vietnam सवाल गूंजता था. तो ideology कैसे politics को किसी हद तक प्रभावित करती थी, हमारे जीवन में भी. पर आज, किसी देश का economic power आपका चाहे जो भी multilateral institutions है, the way they talk, जिनके पास ये economic power का confidence है, that is entirely different from those countries जिनके पास ये नहीं है. तो economic power आज की तारीख में किस तरह चीजों पर गहरा असर डाल रहा है ये एक बड़ा important element है.

और हमारे members parliament, आम तौर पे इन सारी चीजों पर जब भी मैं देखता हूँ चाहे हमारे यहाँ किसी debate पर, या हमारे यहाँ different अपने जो parliament में, जिसका आपने उल्लेख किया हैं, question hour से लेकर zero hour से लेकर के, और अनेक चीजों पर अपने states के context में सवाल उठाते है. जबसे South के states nuclear power plant के बारे में सवाल उठाते है. Bihar वगैरा के लोग, जो Nepal संदर्भ में अपनी बात कहते है जो Raghavan साहब के रहे थे. Bengal, या पड़ोस के देश Bangladesh के बारे में concerned हैं. South जो Sri Lanka के बारे में हैं, इन सब चीजों के बारे में, अंततः इनके voice को reflect करते हुए चीज़े जो parliament में आती है, कोई सरकार उनको ignore नहीं कर सकता. They have to make a consensus for that.

लेकिन इन सब के पीछे आपकी economic might कैसे चीजों पर असर डालती है, में last चीज़ आपसे कहना चाहूँगा, COVID के दौरान. COVID के शुरू में जब हम लोग international delegation में जाते थे, जब भारत टीका नहीं बना रहा था, तो किस तरह का perception था? और जब भारत टीका बनाने लगा किस तरह से दुनिया के दुसरे मुल्क, उनको लगा की विश्वसनीय टीका हमारे यहाँ बन रहा है तो क्या उसका असर हुआ.

आपने देखा Davos में, जब वो बैठक हो रही थी 2 साल पहले, तो pharmaceutical company, जो दुनिया के बड़ी नामी है, में किसी का नाम नहीं ले रहा, किस तरह से पत्रकारों ने पूछा, किस तरह से sovereignty उनकी, वो बंधक बनाने की बात कर रहे थे टीका देने के बजाय जिसमे भारत भी शामिल था. हमारे यहाँ हमारे scientists किताब शायद, ICHR के director ने लिखी हैं, बहुत ही बेहतर किताब जिसपे film बनी, The Vaccine War. It's worth reading.

अगर हमारी economic might, हमारा research, हमारा scientific जो R&D हैं, ये दुनिया अगर ताकत बनता हैं, that has a kind of different influence on our foreign affairs. आपने बहुत अच्छी किताब लिखी इसके लिए में पुनः बधाई देते हुए और मैंने जैसा कहा में तो Raghavan साहब और and Sujit जी को सुनाने आया हु, experts के बीच आया हूँ. बहुत बहुत धन्यवाद्.

Unidentified Speaker: Thank you, sir. May I now request Mr. Sujeet Kumarji, Honorable Member of Parliament, to kindly make his remarks.

Sujeet Kumar: Honorable Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Shri Harivanshji, and I am blessed to receive his guidance on a daily basis in the Parliament. Ambassador Raghavanji, one of our most distinguished diplomats, the author of the book, Shri Prasad, Madam Nutan Kapoor, friends, good afternoon, namaskar. I also have an ICWA connection. I am on the governing council of ICWA. We just not mentioned, so I thought I should make it public.

First of all, at the outset, let me congratulate Shri K.V. Prasadji for the scholarly and intellectual work. Though he said that this book is not academic, it's not academic oriented, that was his own confession. But given that there is very little literature on this subject, on the interface of foreign policy and Indian Parliament, I think this is a very, very scholarly work that highlights the constitutional, historical, and political role played by the Indian Parliament in influencing our national foreign policy. And honestly, less is known to the outer world about the work of the Indian Parliament in shaping our foreign policy.

So my sincere compliment to you and my gratitude and since a compliment to ICWA for publishing this book and also my thanks to you for inviting me. It's an honor and pleasure to be here today. Also, I feel that Mr. Prasad, you had some prophecy while writing the book because of the recent developments. And the Book Discussion that we're having today in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, in the aftermath of our delegations going around the world, telling our narrative to the world and also in the light of the recent statement made by Honorable Om Birlaji, sir, you were there, when he said that it's time for us to revive our Parliamentary Friendship Group.

So I think it's very prophetic that we're having this Book Discussion in the light of this recent development. And if I were you, I would have put a question mark at the end of the title of the book. Indian Parliament shaping foreign policy. So whether the Indian Parliament shapes foreign policy is something that I'll deliberate on. I'm a huge votary and a huge advocate of greater interaction between MEA and our parliament.

Unfortunately, that's not the case today. Let me be very honest with you. I've been telling anyone who is willing to listen including ICWA, think tanks, the diplomatic corps and of course during the consultative meeting of the MEA that there should be far greater interaction between our parliament members and the geopolitical community which is happening but not to the extent what is required.

So often times I think the blame lies on both the sides. Parliamentarians particularly members of the Lok Sabha because of their constituency work, because of their political engagement otherwise are unable to devote as much time to issues of foreign policy because frankly, it doesn't get you vote unless the border states. If it's Tripura or Bengal then okay, issues pertaining to Bangladesh might fetch you some votes. If it's Tamil Nadu then it can, issues of fishermen getting arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy or issues of LTTE or the plight of the Tamils in Sri Lanka might arouse passion in Tamil Nadu.

But otherwise, if you talk of foreign policy or world affairs or international relations in your constituency frankly it's not going to help you win elections. So to that extent our politicians and the political class is rather diffident in devoting time to foreign policy. And equally culpable is the MEA and the wider ecosystem which, I don't know why but has been rather reluctant to engage with parliamentarians.

So oftentimes it becomes like preaching to the converted and this is something which I have been going around trying to tell that it's extremely necessary given the recent developments, given the fact that executive accountability to the legislature is part of our constitution. In our constitutional scheme of things, the executive is accountable to the legislature. Through various parliamentary tools, through various parliamentary interventions whether it's the question hour or parliamentary committees or through short discussions, which was mentioned by Mr. Prasad.

So we have in our political scheme of things the executive accountability to the legislature, which is actually pronounced in pretty much every other aspect of policy making less so in the arena of foreign policy. Yes, Mr. Prasad in his book has highlighted, has critically examined three case studies, which gives a clue as to the relevance and the importance and the depth of discussions that happened during those critical phases and the impact which the parliament could make or could not make in the outcome of those three landmark events of those decades.

But apart from political compulsions, apart from the fact that members of parliament have multiple commitments and a typical member of parliament of the Lok Sabha represents anywhere between 15 lakh to 30 lakh, 35 lakh people. So that's a huge commitment, which is necessary for the constituency. But beyond that, MPs also adopt an approach towards foreign policy which is dictated by political compulsions, which is dictated by the approach of their political party.

To give a classic example, and that has been elaborated at length during the Indo-US nuclear deal, the behavior of certain political parties on the floor of the house was dictated by the political compulsions, by the ideology of the particular party to which the member belonged to or to the need of the hour.

But the role of parliament in foreign policymaking has always agitated members of parliament, right from the very beginning, whether it's with regards to India's, whether India should join the commonwealth or not. The China and Tibet policy of the then Prime Minister Nehru, the Indo-China war of 1962.

And in fact, I'm a huge critic of Pandit Nehru, but I must acknowledge that he was a democrat at heart. And after the 1962 debacle, there was of course, discussion in the parliament about the causes of the war and members of the opposition parties and even some members of the Congress party, his own party colleagues, bitterly attacked Pandit Nehru on his China policy, particularly on his punch shield doctrine and on his advocacy of giving the UN Security Council the permanent seat to China. So that came under attack in the parliamentary debates. But I must mention that the Indian parliament passed a resolution on the 8th of November, 1962, which resolved to drive out the aggressor from the sacred soil of India.

So I think this is on the first resolution that the Indian Parliament passed, at least with regards to any foreign policy issue or any strategic issue. And then, of course, the East Pakistan crisis of 1971, which led to the creation of Bangladesh and we know the outcome. And none other than Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, very much by Bharat Ratna, hailed on the floor of the house, Mrs. Gandhi as Durga. This is true bipartisanship, true statesmanship.

And then, of course, the three case studies, there were elaborate consultations, discussions, intervention by members on the floor of the houses, both the houses, the sending of the Indian peacekeeping force to Sri Lanka. And that not only changed the geopolitical outcome of the subcontinent, but also changed the political dynamics within the country. And the revelations are felt even today. The two main political parties in Tamil Nadu, the DMK and the AIADMK, they keep changing their political affiliations based on, of course, political compulsions, but also on the happenings in the island nation.

Now, why did I say that if I were the author, I would have put a question mark at the end of the title? It's because members cutting across party lines have argued and have demanded greater executive accountability to the parliament in crafting of our foreign policy and also in the execution or implementation of the foreign policy.

Now, this has come up time and again intermittently, until as late as the first decade of the 21st century. And I'll quote the then Lok Sabha speaker, Somnath Chatterjee. Lok Sabha speaker, Somnath Chatterjee's ruling, rejecting the demand for voting on the Indo-US nuclear deal puts the parliament's role in foreign policy matters into perspective.

As Chatterjee stated, and "there is no requirement to obtain, see, there's no requirement, this is Somnath Chatterjee, as the speaker of the Lok Sabha, there is no requirement to obtain ratification of the parliament for any treaty or agreement for its operation or enforcement." Parliament can only discuss any treaty or agreement entered into by the government without affecting its finality or enforceability. He ruled that the issue, the Indo-US nuclear deal is, because the opposition parties then, BJP and the left parties, they were demanding that there should be a vote on this.

So he ruled that the issue would be discussed under Rule 193 of the Lok Sabha, which had no provision for voting. This principle that the Parliament can only discuss any treaty or agreement without any right to vote. This has also been affirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India, which said that the power of entering into a treaty is an inherent power of the sovereign power of the state under Article 73 of the Indian Constitution. Subject to the provision of the Constitution, the executive power of the Union extends to the matter concerning which Parliament has the power to make laws. Our Constitution makes no provision making legislation a condition for the entry into any international treaty in times of either war or peace.

So we have two authoritative pronouncements, one by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and one by the Honorable Supreme Court, which has more or less settled that yes, the Parliament can debate, deliberate, discuss on any international treaty or agreement, but cannot claim or cannot demand that there should be a vote on any treaty or any agreement which the executive is entitled to pursue.

However, if any international treaty or agreement, or if the Government of India has entered into any treaty or agreement, will it be automatically applicable in the Indian soil? That's a big if. Here I'd like to quote another judgment of the Supreme Court, that is Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel vs Union Of India. Here, the Honorable Supreme Court has said that, in terms, I'm quoting the Honorable Supreme Court, in terms the article deals with legislative power, thereby power is conferred upon the Parliament which it may not otherwise possess.

But it does not seek to circumscribe the extent of the executive power conferred by Article 73. The exercise of this power must be supported by legislation only if, in consequence of the exercise, rights of citizens or others are restricted or any laws are modified. So only to give effect, so any international obligation or treaty will come into effect in India and the Parliament has the right to bring any law if rights of the citizens of the country are affected or any law has to be modified.

So there is actually a bit of paradox here, that on the one hand we talk of executive accountability to the legislature, on the one hand we talk of the primacy that should be given to Indian Parliament and to the members of Parliament in shaping our policies, because at the end of the day the Parliament is the voice of we the people of India. And on the other hand, the primacy that has been given under Article 73 and has been affirmed by the judicial pronouncements and by the ruling of the speaker of the Lok Sabha to the executive.

So there is this paradox which I think has not been researched in depth. So to that extent, I feel, Mr. Prasad, that your book will catalyze greater conversation in this area. And I sincerely compliment you for that. And I did mention about our current speaker of the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birlaji, who has actually initiated a conversation about institutionalizing our foreign policy, or at least our inter-parliamentary diplomacy, by stressing that we should reignite the parliamentary friendship groups which have actually become dormant for the last two decades.

So, because inter-parliamentary diplomacy is a very, very powerful tool. Based on my own personal experience, I can tell you, I have had the good fortune of visiting many countries as a member of parliament on various delegations. And I can tell you the effectiveness and the efficacy of these inter-parliamentary delegations. It not only leads to greater socio-cultural political ties between the two countries, it also leads to sharing of knowledge. It also leads to greater awareness in the host countries about the current developments in India.

And I can give you an example. Most of you know that we are a highly digitized nation. And in fact, on the Prime Minister has articulated our goal of becoming a USD 1 trillion digital economy by 2030. And we are actually on the way to reach that goal. And one of the key element of this digital aspiration that we have is our real-time payment capability. And when I tell to my non-Indian friends, particularly to my European friends, that last year, India had INR 200 billion UPI transactions. UPI is this real-time digital payment. INR 200 billion.

First of all, they say INR 200 million, that's a big number. So I tell them, my friend, it's not INR 200 million, it's INR 200 billion. They say, INR 200 billion transactions in a single year? I said, yes. That's the capability of our country that we are talking about. And this can happen only in such informal, inter-parliamentary settings. So this is why I'm a huge votary of institutionalizing parliamentary diplomacy. And this multi-party delegation that was sent by our Honorable Prime Minister is a classic example of the potential and the effectiveness of such inter-parliamentary delegations, and parliamentary diplomacy.

So I'll conclude by giving a call to my fellow parliamentarians, my colleagues. And sir is here. So with his permission, I would like to say that I think the Indian parliament should reclaim the democratic space in India's foreign policy, in the shaping and the execution of India's foreign policy. Because the parliament is the voice of the people. And truly speaking, diplomacy should be democratized.

When the prime minister took the G20 beyond Delhi to almost 200 destinations, that was true democratization of diplomacy. And that's what, as a democratic nation, as the largest democracy on Earth, that's what it should be. So thank you, Mr. Prasad, for this illuminating book. And I sincerely hope that it will not be the last project of yours in this area. And this will stimulate more conversations. And I urge ICWA to organize more discussions on this area, particularly on the interface of diplomacy in the parliament. And thank you for having us. Thank you.

Unidentified Speaker: Thank you, sir. And now may I request the chair to moderate the question and answer.

T.C.A. Raghavan: Thank you very much. We have heard two very thought-provoking and incisive remarks from Honorable Shri Harivansh Narayan Singhji and Shri Sujeet Kumarji. And we've also heard a very, very good summary of the main trust of the Book under Discussion today. So if there are any, I'm sure there will be many questions. May I request you to be brief and also identify yourself. And if required, you can also mention who you would like from the panel to answer the question. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yeah.

Unidentified Participant: Really, we had a very illuminating discussion on this book. Incidentally, first of all, I must congratulate Prasadji, for his book. We are old friends. In fact, I had the fortune of reviewing this book in the Business Standard. And I have a mixed background. That's why I feel provoked to take a little bit more time. I'm a retired officer from the Parliament Secretariat and also a scholar working on China and other fields.

So Sujeet, Prasadji alluded to the parliamentary resolution on China on 8 December 1962. That resolution was, in fact, relating to the declaration of national emergency. And the reference to China was a partial. But then normally, we, I mean, that resolution there. Now, this resolution is a sort of handicap for our negotiation. Reason being, we took a pledge that unless we dislodge those that are occupied, that there won't be any talk.

But look, immediately after passing the resolution, India agreed to the ceasefire by China. So where is the sanctity of that resolution? It was just the heated debate, the desirability of the heated debate in Poland. Should we do or shouldn't we do it? But this was raised by eminent lawyers, like many lawyers and diplomats have raised this issue. Is it good or not? So that is a handicap, because when you negotiate, so that is why when the opposition parties are demanding for a no-hold-bar discussion in the parliament, should we do it? The government is now dodging it. The reason being that they will embarrass government.

So when we have other formats, like standing committees, consultative committees, my point is that it involves certain sensitivities, certain secrecy. Those things are there. So I would like to know from the Honorable Deputy Chairman and Sujeet Kumarji whether is it not that the consultative committee or some other mechanism cannot be perhaps a better platform to discuss these issues rather than on the floor of the house, because these debates are televised. And there will be a hardening attitude.

T.C.A. Raghavan: Thank you.

Sujeet Kumar: Actually, I completely agree with you, Dr. Das. The consultative committee has a couple of times discussed the China issue post-Galwan. I've been a member of the committee since 2020, and that's the time when Galwan happened. So at least half a dozen times, the Honorable Minister has briefed the committee. And as you rightly pointed, some of the discussions are should not happen on the floor of the house, because it's televised. And some of these are actually sensitive matters.

So from a strategic point of view, from a diplomatic point of view, and it better than anyone else that the border negotiations are ongoing, so a lot of things could not have been said in public, particularly in a vibrant democracy like ours where every word would be dissected and probably misunderstood and misrepresented by the opposing parties. So the members have been taken into confidence by the ministry. That I can assure you. And whether there should be greater discussion on this issue, the Honorable Minister made a statement both in Lok Sabha and in Rajya Sabha on the issue, Galwan and the post-Galwan negotiations discussions. He has made a statement.

So I think the government is not dodging a discussion on this. Given the sensitivity and sensibility, I think it's better that this should be discussed behind closed doors. Just I'll add one point, sir.

Harivansh Narayan Singh: I'm a very relevant point, sir. Thank you.

Sujeet Kumar: Sir, can I just add one?

T.C.A. Raghavan: Yes.

Sujeet Kumar: In fact, I'll give an example. Eight of our ex-naval officers were arrested by the Qatari establishment on charges of spying, right? On espionage. And I was the one who raised this issue. I asked this to the Honourable Minister, that eight of our ex-national heroes are behind bars in Qatar, and MEA is not forthcoming as to what their crime is, are they in good condition because their family members have apprehension that they have been tortured, and why is MEA, and probably I could do it because I was in a different party then. So that I must admit.

But the Honourable Minister very categorically said that, no, we are seized of the matter, we are in touch with the families and with the Qatari establishment and I assure the House that the negotiations, the discussions are happening at the highest level. And very soon we should see some breakthrough and we'll be welcoming our countrymen. And that's what happened. And he said, please don't persist with this matter further. That's all I can say. So as members, we have to be cognizant and we have to be respectful of our national interests. And how far can we discuss any matter, we need to know that and respect that boundary.

T.C.A. Raghavan: Thank you, yes.

Rohit K Mishra: I also have a mixed background. I'm part of Parliament Secretariat, had the opportunity to serve as Deputy Chairman, sir. And currently I'm additional PS2 Minister of State for External Affairs, Mr. Kirti Vadan Singh. So my question is to Mr. K.V. Prasad. Fortunately, I also had the opportunity to do a course under him. So my question is to Mr. K.V. Prasad.

Sir, what is your, of course you have used the case study method, what was your criteria of selecting the three case studies? You could have chosen India-China war which was debated at length for 200 hours, more than 200 hours and luminaries like Pandit Hriday Nath Kunzru of Sapru House, Acharya Kriplani, so many luminaries had participated in debate, Tibet war, Acharya Kriplani was there, Ram Manohar Lohia was there and Kargil war. So what was your criteria of selecting these debates?

K.V. Prasad: Thank you. One, let me say, on the Sino-Indian war, there has been a lot of literature. So I thought I will be investing too much time in something which has already been debated and discussed in a variety of places. In fact, Dr. Das himself has been a scholar with IDSA on the same subject. So he has published some papers on that too.

And secondly, my familiarity with these three debates was also because I was around the same time reporting on these issues. So it was much easier for me to go and invest time and get out and had some personal knowledge of the negotiations at that point of time. In fact, I was prompted to share an anecdote here. You were mentioning on foreign policy not getting votes, right? And I should confess that this was when the nuclear deal was happening and I was covering the left parties and the Congress parties for the Hindu.

And at one point of time, I was in discussion with a senior left party leader and he threw his hands in exasperation. So I do admit foreign policy is not a priority. But having said that, it also has now expanded because today no parliamentarian can say I'm not going to involve I mean, you have an NRI community, you have an OCI community almost in every state. And what gets affected, so a member of parliament automatically gets drawn into those issues. And those are on the aspect of it.

But that was primarily my concern because I had covered this, so I had some inside experience of negotiations which went on, especially on the nuclear deal, both from the Indian perspective and the American perspective. So it gave a unique opportunity. That was the primary criteria. Thank you.

T.C.A. Raghavan: Thank you. Yes, the lady. Maybe we'll take two, three questions together. Yes, please.

Unidentified Participant: Good evening to everyone. Truly it's been insightful being a part of the discussion and I am, I would say, one of the younger people here and I'm much less learned, so please bear with me if I make any mistakes or misspeak. My question is in reference to so you did allude to and refer to the Sindoor Operation, but I wanted to focus on something that's current and ongoing as well, so I could get inside of all the panel members here.

So currently the situation with Iran and Israel which is currently happening. Again, US has once again proven the fact that it continues to be in chokehold in terms of economic and political power involving itself in situations and maybe problems that maybe an insight from them isn't required in, which continues to weaken India's position as we are an economic global power, yet we are considered as one of the developing nations.

We are considered to be the voice of Global South, as you guys mentioned, but at the same time we are also expected to represent ourselves and the interests of Global South. My question is how does one, since economic problems contain a lot of foreign policy, how do we as a nation proceed further in issues where, for example, in terms of Iraq, Iran and Israel, oil is something that is continuously in question. India had the great foresight of understanding that Middle East is a region not only in political turmoil, but we had the consciousness to actively get Russia involved so that now our dependency on oil from the Middle East has decreased by a decent amount.

My question is, as members of, obviously as you guys represent academics as well as people who are already participating in policy practising, how do you possess such sort of foresight into seeing and predicting that in a global state where there is constant political turmoil in multiple parts of the nation, how do you navigate this challenging process of policy making and how do you proceed forward ensuring that India is not put in a position where there is extreme dependency on any nation, considering oftentimes we are not backed up by nations because of our hostile neighbours as well as our growing dominance. So that's my question.

T.C.A. Raghavan: Thank you. Let's take one or two more questions. Yes.

Manish Jha: Manish Jha, Centre for Global India Insights. Sujeetji, you are co-chair of the IPAC, Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. Do you see a cross-party consensus in Indian Parliament on dealing with China? And when we are talking about reviving friendship groups, what role can friendship groups play in turning around adversarial relations, say for example with China or Pakistan? Thank you.

T.C.A. Raghavan: We'll take a third question. Yes.

Unidentified Participant: Hello. Greetings of the evening to the honourable panel. My name is Walter and like my friend here I'm also young. I'm a lawyer and I worked with the Ministry of External Affairs, especially in the Legal and Treaties Division. And in my experience there, I would like to pose in front to the panel a question about how going forward, given India's assertiveness in its economic might, as Sir had pointed out and its influence, where in times of WTO, we had to actually take what the global countries were telling us, this is what you should do. And we didn't have a lot of negotiating power.

Now that we do, what is the scope of when we are negotiating multilateral treaties, either in climate change or, let's say, in international criminal law, which I worked on, when I noticed that we didn't have a lot of parliamentary support, even though parliaments were lawmakers. And that is their forte.

So in international law and going for all these agreements which require a lot of drafting expertise and consensus across multiple interests, what experiences can we learn from WTO, the example in the case study, or going forward, how do we ensure that there is a lot of dialogue between the parliamentarians, special academics, as well as those who are actually in the foreign policy apparatus? Thank you.

T.C.A. Raghavan: On the question of how can India secure its interests, this is a generic question, generic issue, which all countries confront. Because in the world today, and not just today, it's always been the case, there are never any perfect choices. You always have to make trade-offs. You have to make certain judgment calls. And you have to also undertake a certain amount of course correction from time to time. How do we ensure that all this is taking place in a robust manner? And there are many answers. One of them is to have what was referred to earlier as domain knowledge, to have a core of highly trained and competent professionals like we do.

But to my mind, one of the most important things in the context of this book is also how do you have a vibrant public debate? If there is a vibrant public debate on any issue which involves choices, you can be pretty sure that the government will make a more informed and a better choice. But may I now ask Shri Sujeet Kumar to respond to the question about friendship groups? And then perhaps Shri Harivansh Narayan Singh, that can we leverage friendship groups?

Sujeet Kumar: I think the question was asked in the context of China and the IPAC. So IPAC, for those who are unaware of what it is, it's called the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. So this was started in 2020 by a group of parliamentarians who we got together, MPs from about 18, 20 countries, all democratic countries to call the bluff of China on human rights, on its expansionist designs, on its abysmal records in Xinjiang, East Turkestan, and in Tibet.

When the whole world was busy fighting the Coronavirus, again, which was unleashed by China onto the world, China kept pushing its expansionist ambitions. So that was the original thought process behind setting up this IPAC. And yes, I'm one of the co-chair, and then there's another co-chair. He was with the Congress Party before, but now he has joined BJP.

So now both the co-chairs are from BJP, but the bylaw of the IPAC is that at least one of the co-chairs should be from the opposition party. So we need to correct that. But the larger issue of consensus, yes, I think by and large, there is consensus on foreign policy matters within the country. Yes, there could be internal differences, there could be argument about the way of handling a particular issue, but I think we are fortunate that in the last 75 years, by and large, we have seen broader all-party consensus on issues, whether it's pertaining to Bangladesh, China or US or our equation with the two major blocs during the Cold War. So to that extent, we are fortunate.

But as Ambassador Raghavan mentioned, because we are a democracy, because national interest is paramount, whichever party or coalition is there in the government, so there has to be informed decision. So the government of the day should be put to scrutiny. Unless it's an extremely sensitive or a strategic issue, I think the government of the day should be put into scrutiny by the public. And that can happen only when there is a massive consultation, debate, which is happening, actually. You switch on your TV and you will know what a noisy democracy we are. So to that extent, we are extremely fortunate.

T.C.A. Raghavan: That's absolutely true. One of the one thing which one learns is that a lot of wisdom comes after retirement. And one bit of wisdom which has, come to me, is that, when you're sitting in the Ministry of External Affairs, you think that foreign policy is being made, in Delhi. But wisdom tells you that that is wrong. Actually, foreign policy is being made in many different, places, and Delhi is just one of those, places. And, all public figures, whether they are members of parliament or otherwise active in public life, play an enormous role, in the making of foreign policy.

And when one interacts with our senior ministers and so on, we think that as officials, we are the only ones giving inputs. But, actually, they are receiving inputs from a very vast range of, sources and different kinds of inputs. So the official input is only one part of the process of decision, making. But as I said, sometimes wisdom comes only after retirement. Can we take one more round of or if there are any more questions, What's your question answer? Yes. What's your quest no. Was about the role of domain knowledge.

Unidentified Participant: I think how best can parliament I mean, how best can parliamentarians interact more with the ministry officials who are actually in debates, especially going forward as, in areas like international criminal law, which is being negotiated. And now that we have the negotiating power, which we didn't have during WTO 1995.

So I want to know that okay. Now that we're having this discussion, what can we do? How can we help our ambassadors or our special representatives in all of these things and use our legislative experience? We are lawmakers at the end of the day. How that how can that help?

T.C.A. Raghavan: No. Thank you. Yeah. That's a good question. In fact, it's something which has often intrigued me that how much, access to domain knowledge and expertise do Members of Parliament have within Parliament? I think it is much more now than it used to be, and there are many fora which have been set up, but perhaps you would like to give some comments on this. Do members of Parliament have sufficient expertise available?

Sujeet Kumar: Actually, as politicians, we get less credit for the knowledge and wisdom we carry than do, but on a serious note, I think, Indian Parliament, you have to see the wealth of experience and knowledge they have. These are people, some of them have been elected six times, seven times. Each of them is representing 3 million people, approximately, on average. Many of them have excelled in other walks of life. So, a lot of experience, yes, they may not know the intricacies of trade negotiation, or they may not know exactly what AI is and what are the possibilities of AI.

So, yes, those things can be acquired, but overall, as sir rightly said, as Harivansh sir said, that first and foremost, we are here to represent and to enhance the national interest, nation first. That is non-negotiable. Now, technical expertise, we have the best of diplomatic corps in our country, Ambassador Raghavan and his colleagues. We have the finest diplomats in the country, Madam Nutan Kapoor. So, they are there to do the final negotiations and to carry forward the broader direction and guidance of the Parliament.

So, I think, yes, domain knowledge is necessary. I think, I did mention that there should be far greater interaction, engagement between the Parliament and MEA establishment, all think tanks working in this area. But to expect that the MPs or the Parliament will have integrated domain knowledge, I think it's a bit too much. As I said, our job is to ensure that our nation's interest is reflected through the foreign policy. The people that we represent, whether it's the state of Odisha, where I come from, or the people of the constituency that have sent the MP to Delhi, their interests are protected.

Harivansh Narayan Singh: राघवन साहब के अनुमति से में एक point add करना चाहूँगा. आज की तारीख में बहुत कम लोग उनको जानते है, मैं एक anecdote आपको बता रहा हूँ आपके question के उत्तर में. हमारे देश में एक दादा धर्माधिकारी हुए.  वो संविधान सभा में थे, बड़े freedom fighter थे, Gandhiji के बड़े close थे, कुछ लोगो ने आज़ादी मिलने के बाद, they opted for Sarvodaya, other social service, मतलब वो उसमे चले गए. वो एक बात कहा करते थे, उन्होंने एक किताब लिखी Sarvodaya Darshan, की बहुत भरपूर उसमे लिखा की philosophers ने दुनिया में बहुत दर्शन दिए समाज को कैसे बदला जाये. Economists ने, Marx वगैरा सबने theories दिया समझ को इस रूप में हम आगे ले जाये, पर समाज को बदला rule करने वाले लोगों ने. पहले के ज़माने में वो चाहे राजा होते हो, आज वो Parliamentarians हैं, आप पसंद करें ना करें. 

दूसरा fact हैं, के जो domain experts हैं, और आज कल की तारीख में अगर आप पूछे की AI के बारे में हम क्या जानते है, I must accept that हम बहुत नहीं जानते. पर जिस तरह से technology laid दुनिया आज की तारीख में हो गयी है, पहले ideology. हमारी मोटी समझ है की ideology पहले दुनिया को बदलती थी, now technology का बड़ा serious impact हैं चीजों को बदलने में. तो parliament में जब भी हम legal law-making process में जाते हैं, तो बहुत सारे ऐसे institutions हैं, parliament खुद भी develop कर रहा हैं इन tricky subjects पर कैसे हमे briefings दी जाये, domain experts कैसे आये हमको समझाए. 

अंततः, layman की भाषा में सारी चीजों को पूरे देश के सामने रखने का काम इन्ही parliamentarians का हैं, तब उसके उसमे favor क्या, public opinion बनती है उसपे सरकार निर्णय ले सकती है, लेकिन definitely, चाहे वो WTO जैसे हों, artificial intelligence, और ये बहुत सारी ऐसी चीज़े हैं जो issues आते हैं parliament में. अब तो में देखता हूँ की parliamentarians के अन्दर irrespective of party, एक बड़ा समूह हैं जो इन चीजों  को जानना चाहता हैं, सुनना चाहता हैं. तो I think की ये process हैं इसका.

K.V. Prasad: Just a quick point. You mentioned about WTO negotiations. It's not that we did not negotiate. In fact, the negotiations were very strict. But there were two very specific aspects. Probably Dr. Raghavan and others in foreign services agree, Indian Foreign Service was not geared up at that point of time to deal with the trade negotiations. And that we depended on the Commerce Ministry to get into it. So it was not that it was not negotiated. The only thing is they were very tricky.

And I did mention in the book, because I got the benefit of one of the senior parliamentarians guiding me, that Dr. Manmohan Singh, as the Finance Minister, was very keen that India join the WTO. He said we should not miss the bus. Because we have missed the bus in economic reforms. We joined very late. That was his understanding. And he actually had arranged briefings regularly for parliamentarians by Commerce Ministry officials to understand the intricacies of each of those agreements that were being negotiated. So that was one. So I disagree with that particular. Probably you have arrived at a conclusion. That's your choice.

Number two, that helped you when you went in for the nuclear deal. In fact, I did quote in the book, former Foreign Secretary Mr. Shyam Saran did mention that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave very clear headlines. He said, come what may, these lines, you have to stop at this point of time. So it was our negotiation teams, as Dr. Raghavan and others would know, they know where they stand and to what extent they would go. So it's not that you learn from every experience.

And on a final note I would like to add, sir, having worked in the U.S. Congress, let me tell you they are not the brightest of everybody. I know that. But they have advantage of a very professional staff who come from different worlds, who actually do the work. And one of the things which I did as a staffer was we worked for votes. We reached across to people. And I remember while we were discussing, on South Asia there was a hearing and three international South Asian experts, including a professor who is no longer alive, Professor Stephen Cohen, he had come and I was just chatting up with him.

So suddenly he says, because the nuclear deal was up and down, up and down, there was a lot of opposition at home, he says, Prasad, what does this Mulayam Singh Yadav know about nuclear issues? Because he was opposing. So I said, Professor, can I say something? He says, yes. He says, when I started preparing for my role on the Hill, the first lesson we were told, the United States of America has 435 secretaries of state, which means every secretary has a right on foreign policy. I said, he's a leader of a political party, which is supporting the government. So he said, I see your point. And I don't know, it just changed the perspective for them.

And in many cases the Congress people say, oh, I don't know on this issue, I'll go with you. They do that. So it's not that, because they have a very professionally trained staff who help them out and we work with them as a team. Many times the words don't work for you, that's okay. So I don't know, probably the Indian Parliament at some point of time would also take benefit of professional staff, it helps the domain experts are briefing you, but beyond that they help you to size up things differently. Thank you.

T.C.A. Raghavan: And there are many details one can go into them. But I think one common point is there in Kargil and now, that as former Prime Minister Vajpayee said, you can't change your neighbors. Some people think we can change Pakistan by trading with them, by holding out the hand of friendship. Other people think that by using military force, we'll change. It's not in our power to change Pakistan. The people of Pakistan can change Pakistan. We have to deal with Pakistan as it is, not as how we would like it to be.

So that realism has remained the same, I think. That you have to keep your neighborhood very high in your priority. Or you can never take your eyes off it. I think that part is the same. I think that we'll discuss later. But may I, again, before the vote of thanks is delivered, first of all, congratulate Mr. Prasad again for this wonderful book. And thank ICWA for this book and for the publications program. But most of all, thank Shri Harivansh Narayan Singhji and Shri Sujit Singhji for spending so much time with us and giving us such opportunity to also interact with them in such detail. Thank you very much.

Unidentified Participant: Thank you, sir. Everybody here would agree that it was a very stimulating discussion. On behalf of the council, I take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the Honorable Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Shri Harivansh Narayan Singhji, and Honorable Member of Parliament and Member Consultative Committee of Ministry of External Affairs, Shri Sujit Kumarji, for taking time out to take part in this discussion and give us their insightful comments. We also express our sincere thanks to Ambassador Raghavan for chairing the discussion. We take this opportunity to thank our audience and our guests for joining us today. I invite you all to join us for high tea at the foyer. Thank you so much.

*****

List of Participants

1. Ms. Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Acting Director General & Additional Secretary, Indian Council of World Affairs
2. Shri K.V. Prasad, Senior Journalist, Author
3. Amb TCA Raghavan, Former Director General, Indian Council of World Affairs and Former High Commissioner of India to Pakistan; Chair
4. Shri Harivansh Narayan Singh, Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha
5. Shri Sujeet Kumar, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha and Member, Consultative Committee for Ministry of External Affairs