Sir, the new world order based on the philosophy of non-violence initiated by Gandhiji and incorporated in the 1996 Delhi declaration–what happens to that commitment? We stand committed to that. It is true that we are having disarmament. Much has happened, much more needs to happen in the field of disarmament. The intermediate missiles more or less have been wiped out, and then there is sizeable reduction in the other missiles and so on. But there is nothing like total and complete disarmament yet in sight. Even today, the armaments that they have are (100) enough to destroy the world many many times over. So, what are we really talking about? We are talking about a very slow and very limited amount of disarmament that has been brought about. But what India stands for is total, complete disarmament and not only disarmament in the sense of not having nuclear arms, but a world which is free from nuclear weapons and also it is non-violent. If you completely destroy nuclear weapons today but after 10 years if another kind of weapon, which may not be called ‘nuclear’ but which may be something much more destructive (200) than a nuclear weapon, suddenly emerges from somewhere, from some power, then you have not really contributed to that world of non-violence which you talked about in 1996. Therefore, it is not merely the negative aspect of doing away with nuclear weapons, but positively creating a non-violent world to which President Gorbachev and Rajiv Gandhi committed their countries to in 1996. That commitment, Mr. Speaker, Sir, remains, and that commitment India will complete. So, it is not as if India is left without a role. Now, we have been again baffled (300) by what happened in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is a much larger country, much more powerful and very important country in world affairs, to which we have always been looking for friendship and support. Apart from what happens to the future of the Soviet Union about which I am not as pessimistic as some people are, I would like to say that in respect of our relations with the Soviet Union, about which some people might think that these relations may get shattered, our economic cooperation might be in doldrums, I believe this is only a passing phase. (400) The relations between our two countries are not merely based on a treaty or on certain agreements, but we have subscribed to certain principles, and I am quite sure that a large country like the Soviet Union Just cannot go to pieces and just disappear; it is not possible. They will certainly find a way of again consolidating the country, maybe on different lines, maybe in a different context, but I do not see anything beyond that happening, which would completely disrupt our relations either in the economic field or in the political field. I do not expect that. (500) I cannot spell out anything more, nor can any member spell out anything more than this at the moment, not even the friends abroad with whom I have had occasion to speak. Everyone seems to be equally uncertain; everyone seems to be hopeful this minute, not so hopeful the next minute. But we would say, as friends of the Soviet Union, that the relations between the two countries are not going to be disrupted. We will certainly continue the relationship. There may be certain lacunae, for instance, in the supplies, in exports and in the nitty gritty of our relations. (600) These are important; we cannot minimise the importance of these things. But I understand that whenever we have taken up any of these matters with the Soviet authorities, they have responded with whatever expedition that they could manage at the moment; maybe after two months, three months or four months, they would respond more expeditiously. There had never been a cold shouldering on whatever we have taken to them. There had never been a negative response from them and, therefore, we have nothing to worry about it except that we will have to wait for the time (700) when on the other side our friends are able to respond properly. That is all that I have to say about Indo-Soviet relationship. Sir, the role also has come up for some comments in the debate. I am sure that the UN has come into its own after all these changes. We have had a much more important role assigned to UN in the last two or three years and in this role, in the assigning of this role, in the expansion of the UN role, we also have contributed our bit. (800)
