Our current phase of relations with Nepal is going through perhaps its worst phase ever. The anti-Indian sentiment in Nepal is growing. Even Indian TV channels, I am told, have been put off air. Sir, we are close to handing over Nepal to China on a platter. I say this because there are serious concerns on which I will come to shortly.
The Madhesis are being killed and their legitimate rights are being thwarted. Now, this is the situation, Deputy Chairman sir, in which this Calling Attention Motion has been raised. I agree, sir, that the problem is a complex one. Our relations, as the minister herself said in her statement, are bound by geography, culture, history and politics. We have a long and porous border.
Writing a sustainable, inclusive Constitution that gives due recognition to the country's social diversity is obviously a great necessity in the improvement of India-Nepal relations. We accept that.
Now, sir, I have eight or nine questions as clarifications to ask the hon'ble minister through you. Firstly, sir, when I ask these questions, I want to assure the minister and the House, I ask these questions with a constructive approach.
The attitude and approach is to find a solution because the matter is of strategic and critical importance.
My first question is: What has been the quality of our efforts and the role of diplomacy in resolving this matter which has been festering now for months? I particularly refer to three particular interventions that happened between June 2015 and September 2015. In June 2015, the hon'ble external affairs minister visited Nepal for the international donors' conference. We are told, I think, on August 25, the prime minister had a telephonic conversation with the prime minister of Nepal. On September 18, if I am not mistaken, our foreign secretary went as a special envoy. I want to ask the minister that knowing the criticality of the exercise, was there the fullest investment required of our diplomatic establishment and political leadership.
Again, I want to reiterate with a constructive spirit, what were we doing between June 25 and August 25 between the visit of the foreign minister and the telephonic call with the prime minister. My second question, sir, is that the visit of the foreign secretary as a special envoy - he is an exceptionally capable officer and has been a colleague of mine - but, certainly, he was not carrying when he went, he did not have the heft, the weightage of a political envoy, and his visit took place at a time when two days before the Constitution was to be promulgated and after it was adopted. My point, sir, is that if we needed to have a special envoy, did the special envoy need to go at this late stage and could a special envoy not have been appointed right from the beginning when we saw the crisis emerging? This is a suggestion for the future because we want a resolution to the problem.
Sir, I also want to ask the question whether the prime minister himself has invested sufficient attention in this issue. I raise this question because, as we all know, given the prime minister's activism in foreign policy, a great many initiatives of the government emanate from his threshold. I am afraid, sir, it appears to me that the eye of the prime minister and, therefore, of the foreign policy establishment, was not on the ball. Sir, please do not look at the watch because... (Interruptions)
Deputy chairman: Five minutes!... (interruptions)
Pavan Varma: What is this, sir? I cannot finish it in five minutes... (interruptions)... I have taken three minutes only.
Deputy chairman: Now, what to do?... (interruptions).
Pavan Varma: Sir, I am the first speaker... (interruptions).
Deputy chairman: I have 11 names... (interruptions).
Jesudasu Seelam: He has initiated the discussion, sir.
Deputy chairman: So what? That is why I gave him five minutes... (interruptions)... That is why I gave him five minutes.
Pavan Varma: No, sir... (interruptions)... This is not fair, sir.
Deputy chairman: That is why I gave him five minutes.
Karan Singh: Sir, I have a submission... (interruptions)... I have a submission. (Interruptions)... Sir, the Nepal situation is extremely important and crucial. We cannot rush through a debate like this in two minutes and three minutes. We have a great deal to say... (interruptions).
Deputy chairman: It is not a debate... (interruptions).
Karan Singh: Some of us have been involved all our lives in Nepal. You have to give more time, I am sorry... (interruptions)
Deputy chairman: One second! (Interruptions)... Dr Karan Singhji is a very senior leader. (Interruptions)... No, sit down! (Interruptions)... Let me say... (interruptions).
Anand Sharma: This is not doing justice to the discussion... (interruptions)... If a Member has initiated... (interruptions).
Deputy chairman: See, it is not a debate. (Interruptions)... It is a Calling Attention... (interruptions).
Pavan Varma: Sir, I am asking my clarification... (interruptions).
Deputy chairman: No, listen... (interruptions)... In that case, the point is, it is not a debate. It is a Calling Attention... (interruptions)... Only one hour is allotted for that. I have 11 names with me given by various parties... (interruptions)... I want that each should be given three minutes... (interruptions)... That is what I am saying... (interruptions).
Anand Sharma: Increase the time... (interruptions).
Deputy chairman: Otherwise, when one hour is over, I will have to stop it... (interruptions).
D P Tripathi: Sir, he is the mover... (interruptions).
Deputy chairman: Mover will be given five minutes... (interruptions)... Others will be given two or three minutes.
Anand Sharma: Please increase the time... (interruptions).
Edited excerpts from a speech by Janata Dal (United) MP Pavan Varma during a discussion, "On Calling Attention To Situation In Nepal And State Of Indo-Nepal Relations", in the Rajya Sabha, December 4