CHAPTER – 4
WORKING OF THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Rajya Sabha, 25 May 1976
EDITORIAL NOTE
In his reply to the Debate, Y. B. Chavan reiterated India’s firm commitment to non-alignment. Welcoming the detente, he stated that detente should really not be confined to one particular continent or one particular situation, that it should not become merely a technique of crisis management but that it should be a genuine movement which can be made applicable to all the continents and all the situations and all the tensions in the world.
In that context, the non-aligned movement had played a very important role in preserving independence of newly liberated countries and in strengthening the liberation movements in the struggle against imperialism, colonialism and racialism. The movement had also been in the vanguard of the struggle for securing a new and just international economic order.
Y. B. Chavan explained at length his perception of India’s foreign policy which while looking after the India’s national interest also worked within the international framework. For him, “The international framework of any foreign policy and its national framework, really speaking are organically inter-connected.” Chavan explained at length India’s relationships with Pakistan and assured the House that the Simla Agreement of 1972 was the only basis on which relations with Pakistan could be established on a proper basis.
Chavan emphasized that the success and the strength of India’s foreign policy depended upon the strength of our internal, economic and scientific policies. He stated, ‘If we strengthen them, we will be strengthening India and the Indian people and it is the strength of the Indian people that would make the indian foreign policy a strong foreign policy and a successful foreign policy.”
Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, it was a very happy experience of listen to the very interesting, instructive and useful debate on the foreign policy and on the working of the External Affairs Ministry for the last two days. I must say this, discussion was a discussion in depth, as they call it, taking into account all the aspects of our foreign policy. I must, therefore, compliment the Members. To say “compliment the Members” may rather appear presumptuous. I thank the Members for the interest they took in the problems of the foreign policy and, at the same time, for making their very constructive suggestions. I must also say that the debtate was of a very high quality, which is quite befitting this bonourable and learned House. I can assure the Members that we shall give serious consideration to the various suggestion they have made.
To us in the Ministry who have inevitably to work under the pressure of day-to-day events, a debate in the House is like a touchstone, though I must say that we always try to see the problems in the foreign policy in all its perspective. But, sometimes, a discussion in Parliament gives us an added and valuable opportunity to see this whole thing again in perspective. When some collective assessment emerges, it certainly gives some new dimension to the judgment. Therefore, I must thank you for the general debate and its quality. One thing I must say that the debate has, in a way, reaffirmed the broad national consensus on our foreign policy which normally transcends party politics and cuts across party lines. It has been my experience this time also. To that extent, I can say that there is some sort of a sense of fulfillment of expectation.
