Now, this might at first seem a reckless act on the part of the Government of India. But, sir, I would call attention to a statement in an Associated Press report which reads, `The Government said its testing was now complete and it was prepared to consider a ban on such nuclear testing.' 

Sir, this could be a statement of transcendent importance. It would be useful at this time, when tempers--and I use the word `temper'--are rising in the West, to recall the outrage when France carried out a series of underwater tests in the South Pacific in Mururoa Atoll on September 5, 1995, to the indignation of many other nations, but thereupon signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the following year. And, sir, it has not only signed that treaty, it has ratified it. 

The United States was among the convening nations in 1996 that signed the treaty, but this Senate has not ratified the treaty. 

The People's Republic of China followed much the same course in completing a series of tests and then agreeing to the test ban treaty. 

Just now the press is reporting all manner of administration officials are distressed that the Central Intelligence Agency did not report indications that these tests were about to take place and that somehow we were taken off guard. But I repeat a comment I made to Tim Weiner of the New York Times yesterday that it might help if the American foreign relations community would learn to read. 

The BJP Party, the Bharatiya Janata Party--now in office for essentially the first time--leads the ruling coalition and has long been militantly asserting that India was going to be a nuclear power like the other great powers of the world. It is the second most populous nation. In the election platform -- technically, a manifesto in the Indian-English usage--issued before the last election, the BJP had this to say: `The BJP rejects the notion of nuclear apartheid and will actively oppose attempts to impose a hegemonistic nuclear regime. . . We will not be dictated to by anybody in matters of security requirements and in the exercise of the nuclear option.' 

This is hugely important, as is indicated by the enormous ground swell of support in India itself in the aftermath of Monday's explosion. 

In the platform put together by the coalition that now governs in India, there is a statement, not quite as assertive, but not less so. This is the National Agenda for Governance, issued 18 March 1998. It says, `To ensure the security, territorial integrity and unity of India we will take all necessary steps and exercise all available options. Toward that end we will re-evaluate the nuclear policy and exercise the option to induct nuclear weapons.' That is an Indian-English term, `induct,' as in induction into the military. It means to bring them into an active place in the Nation's military arsenal. 

Now, the President, who is in Germany, announced today that we would impose the sanctions required under law, the Glenn amendment of 1994, directed against non-declared nuclear nations that begin nuclear testing. This is the law and the Indians knew it perfectly well, even if we have, perhaps, been insufficiently attentive to bringing to their minds the implications of the law. Chancellor Kohl--Germany being a large supplier of aid to India --was with President Clinton when this was said. We should not underestimate the degree to which this might just arouse further resentment in India. 

The law is there, but also the resentment is there. In this National Agenda for Governance that I just recited, there are a number of platform `planks,' you might say principles. The second on economy reads: `We will continue with the reform process to give a strong Swadeshi thrust to ensure that the national economy grows on the principle that India shall be built by Indians.' Swadeshi is a turn of the century term of the independence movement meaning self-reliance, use indigenous
materials, sweep imports out. 

They are not going to be as intimidated by sanctions as we may suppose. This is the first Hindu government in India in perhaps 800 years. We tend to forget that. When we go to visit India, distinguished persons are taken to view the Taj Mahal, the Red Fort, the India Gate. All those are monuments by conquerors --Islamic, then English. It is something we don't notice. They do. And after 50 years of Indian independence, founded by a secular government which denied all those things, there is now a Hindu government and its sensibilities need to be attended to if only as a matter of common sense. 

Do we want India in a system of nuclear arms control or don't we? I think we do. I think we ought to encourage them and explore the implications of the statement reported by the Associated Press. And while we are at it, it would do no great harm to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ourselves. 

So to explore the Indian offer here, suggesting the offer, seems to me, a matter of huge importance.