May I, on this occasion, greet you now as the President of the twelfth Special Session of the General Assembly, which is also the Second Special Session on Disarmament. May I also take this opportunity of offering the felicitations of my delegation to the Secretary -General, His Excellency Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, as this is the first occasion after the commencement of his stewardship of this organization that I take the floor.

This General Assembly met four years ago in its First Special Session on Disarmament. Between then and now, the global strategic environment has deteriorated visibly and palpably. The chill of a new cold war affects us all. Détente is being eroded as all of us watch helplessly. Armament budgets of leading industrialized nations spiral upwards, unchecked, with induced effects elsewhere, New generations of nuclear, chemical and conventional weapons are being developed and deployed. These have greater lethality, accuracy and lesser flight time. Even as a convention to prohibit chemical weapons is being negotiated, deadlier gas weapons, we are being told, are to be produced and deployed. Sophisticated arms are flowing into certain countries and regions, their types and quantities bearing no relationship to the legitimate defense needs of the nations concerned. New facilities and forces are being created within the developing world, calculated to enable ever more rapid intervention by the mighty.

An enormous sense of insecurity and uncertainty oppresses the people of the world, in both the industrialized and the developing countries. The question today is shall we allow the nuclear weapon to be the destroyer of the world? This is not an academic question. The number of false alarms that have resulted in nuclear forces being placed on stepped up alert clearly indicate the risks involved, and warn mankind that, whatever the degree of sophistication attained in safeguard systems, the man-machine combination would not remain fail-safe for all time to come.

It is beyond dispute that the current nuclear arsenals can destroy the world many times over. There is now a wider awareness of the high probability of any use of nuclear weapons getting totally out of hand, and military strategists are near unanimous in conceding that it will be Impossible to maintain any effective command and control over a nuclear weapons exchange, within minutes of its commencement. Outstanding military commanders, scientists, policy makers including many who had earlier propounded these concepts, have now challenged the very notion that a nuclear war can be fought and won. The theories of wars involving nuclear weapons such as limited nuclear wars and wars In outer space etc. are fantasies but capable of leading to the reality of all-out nuclear war.

Nuclear weapons are not like other weapons whose use could be related to any definable or achievable objective, howsoever one may detest or disagree with that objective. For it is obvious that no objective or Interest on our earth could possibly be secured if, in the process, the destruction of the globe itself is involved. For three decades now, the world has been beguiled and conditioned to believe that nuclear weapons have helped preserve peace through deterrence and were not meant to be used. This has produced a strange paradox. If everyone comes to believe that nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction are not meant for use, these would at once lose their deterrence as the currency of terror. Perhaps realizing this, nuclear theology has had to come up with doctrines of counterforce, and limited nuclear war, and the linkage thesis. History teaches us that military and political strategies of so-called deterrence are often overtaken by weapons technologies and their actual use- in war. Given that the time needed for complete nuclear evisceration of the globe will be hardly an hour or two, most of these doctrines fall in the realm of esoteric and grim scenarios of a nuclear cult totally unrelated to the real world.

It is unfortunate that a number of States have sought to promote what they consider their own security, and the security of their allies and friends, by trying to invest nuclear weapons with special virtues or a new respectability, while paying lip sympathy to the objective of nuclear disarmament. Theories of nuclear deterrence come in the way of the objective of nuclear disarmament. It has been claimed that nuclear weapons have helped maintain world peace since 1945, that the European Continent has remained peaceful due to the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides of the divide, in such numbers and types that an approximate balance, parity or rough equivalence has been established. This logic, in addition to being basically flawed, is also macabre. It. implies that peace should forever remain hostage to nuclear weapons, and that the perceived security of some nations is to be equated with peace in the whole world. The UN study on nuclear weapons emphasizes, and rightly, the unacceptability of establishing a world system consisting of the two distinct categories of nuclear weapons States and non-nuclear weapons States. Such a system, it says, would always carry within itself the possibility of proliferation both of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon States and, in the long run, the seeds of its own destruction.

Nuclear war doctrines are, in essence, terrorism practiced by nation States. They are bases on subjecting populations of entire countries to the terror of obliteration. If nation States practice terrorism in their international dealings, can this fail to have a deep and unwholesome impact on individuals and societies'? If the Hague Convention dealing with protection of civilians in times of war is, in effect, thrown over-board in the context of nuclear war doctrines, would not other solemn international treaties and conventions In the field of disarmament also suffer the same fate?

The basic fact is that the struggle for disarmament in the nuclear age cannot be waged on the basis of concepts of a pre-nuclear age. Before the advent of nuclear weapons, disarmament was a question hinging on a balanced limitation or reduction of arms. In the nuclear age, obviously, this is no longer valid, since the stake involved here is the very survival of mankind.

It is pertinent to remind ourselves that the UN Charter was drawn up when the world was n6t yet aware of the real potential and significance of nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed the catastrophic effects of the use of nuclear weapons, and, at its very first session, the first resolution adopted by the General Assembly drew attention to the grave danger from nuclear weapons and the imperative need for nuclear disarmament. For years, the international community groped for a new concept of disarmament which would make sense in the nuclear age. Such thinking crystallized eventually in the historic Resolution 1358(XIV) of November 1959, when the UN General Assembly unanimously declared that the goal of disarmament efforts in this nuclear age can be none other than the achievement of General and Complete Disarmament (GCD) under effective international control. This means that disarmament has to be general i.e., to cover all countries; that it has to be complete i.e., to apply to all weapons systems and lastly; and that this General and Complete Disarmament has to be implemented under strict and effective international control.

In spite of this most significant, unequivocal and unanimous affirmation by the International community, the arms race has only gathered greater momentum and the sense of insecurity of the world has grown enormously. The preponderant number of the armed conflicts waged in the 37 years since the Second World War have taken place in the developing world and have generally been the result of Great Power Involvement, direct or Indirect. We are deeply distressed, that even as we meet here now, wars are raging in Lebanon, in the South Atlantic and between Iraq and Iran. Insecurity today oppresses more and more non-aligned countries, as local conflicts in the developing world become increasingly structured into Great Power designs.

This sense of insecurity is not restricted to the developing world alone. In the developed countries too, no Government or individual can now feel free of the great anxiety and fear for the possible outbreak of a nuclear war, since such a war would engulf all States. The recent spontaneous and mammoth demonstrations and increasingly popular movements, most of them free from political or party motivation, opposing all nuclear weapons per se, bear testimony to the newly awakened realization in those countries that the so-called stability of deterrence cannot be depended upon. This realization represents a crucial change in old beliefs and is by itself becoming a powerful force in the struggle for disarmament.

The first and most urgent step in the efforts to root out the menace of nuclear weapons is to agree immediately upon the total prohibition of their use. While there is the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibiting the use of both chemical and biological weapons, and there are on going negotiations to prohibit inter-alia, the use of radiological weapons, it is strange that banning of the use of nuclear weapons has not been seriously considered so far. However, at the Initiative of the non-aligned countries, including India, the General Assembly has repeatedly declared the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons as a violation of the UN Charter and a crime against humanity. It is gratifying that this proposition has already been accepted by two of the five nuclear weapons States. What is now required is an internationally binding treaty or Convention which will provide concrete form to this commitment, on the model of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which prohibits the use in war of biological and chemical weapons and which has indeed been adhered to by all the Great Powers and the overwhelming majority of other States. Convinced that the opportunity provided by the SSOD-II should be utilized for proposing similar concrete measures in the field of disarmament, India is separately tabling a draft Convention seeking to prohibit the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. We commend it for urgent and serious consideration by all States.

The prohibition of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons will provide an indispensable basis for further concrete measures towards nuclear disarmament. In the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, it would be unrealistic to look for absolute parity, or total agreement on the existence of parity in the destructive capabilities of the two major nuclear arsenals. Various declaratory statements and proposals for cuts, freezes and control measures have been put forward. These have been met by counter-proposals, at least partly meant to neutralize one another, and retain the propaganda advantage. This has by now become a continuing dialogue and is changing so rapidly in substance that it is impossible to make any value judgments. Thus, while the dialogue may continue, it is evident that the first step should be to freeze the present nuclear arsenals and not to add to them. Any attempt by one side to redress a perceived imbalance would generate a corresponding reaction from the other side, thus initiating a further upward spiral in the nuclear arms race. The logic of a freeze, therefore, is unassailable, as an earnest to subsequent cuts.

Early this year, India had proposed, in its communication to the Secretary General, the concept of a freeze on nuclear weapons. This proposal provided for a complete stoppage of any further production of such weapons, combined with a complete cut-off in the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes. These combined measures would mean that no more nuclear weapons would then be produced anywhere in the world and nuclear facilities everywhere, whether in nuclear weapons States, would become peaceful and stay peaceful for all time. An identical system of international safeguards - be it called fullscope safeguards or the complete fuel cycle safeguards -could thereafter be accepted by the nuclear weapons States themselves, for the simple reason that there will no longer be any pretext, excuse or ground for them to refuse international safeguards on their own facilities. The freeze would need to be immediately followed by a reduction in existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and would thus constitute the first concrete step in an integrated approach to nuclear disarmament.

It is also our strong belief, Mr. President, that in addition to such a freeze, steps should be taken for an immediate suspension of all nuclear weapons tests in all environments by all nuclear weapon States, pending a comprehensive Test Ban. The demand for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty dates back to over two decades, and springs from two underlying objectives -first, to prevent the radioactive pollution of the human environment and second, to slow down the nuclear arms race, since testing will not be available for developing new designs or the regeneration of existing weapons stocks. For the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to be truly comprehensive, it would also have to take into account the effect of newer isotope separation technologies on weapons production and development.

In the Final Document of the first Special Session on Disarmament, references have been made to Nuclear- Weapon-Free Zones and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Government of India believes that the Nuclear Weapon Free Zone idea has become unrealistic. Even in Latin America it has not been accepted without reservations by some countries of the region, and by the nuclear-weapon States. With Israel and South Africa generally believed to be in possession of nuclear weapons, it is equally unrealistic to envisage nuclear weapon free zones in West Asia and Africa. For how does the existence of clandestine nuclear arsenals reconcile with the Nuclear Weapon Free Zone concept? In any event, the movement and deployment of nuclear weapons in various regions of the world by the nuclear weapons States are fundamentally irreconcilable with the very idea of nuclear weapon free zones. These, Mr. President, are the concrete and practical aspects to be borne in mind. But even more important is the question of principle. We cannot subscribe to the legitimization of the possession of nuclear weapons by a few Powers by agreeing to live under their professedly benign protection in the guise of a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. Peace, Mr. President, Is Indivisible; so is nuclear disarmament - It cannot be piecemeal In terms of geographical extent. India, therefore, believes that the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons.

The General Assembly, as the conscience of the international community, has laid down that the highest priority in the field of disarmament should be accorded to nuclear disarmament and to elimination of all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, be they biological, chemical, radiological or any other. Despite this, efforts have been made and are still being made in certain quarters to distort these priorities and to shift the focus from nuclear weapons to conventional weapons. The spurious reasoning that is advanced in this connection is that it does not matter to a man whether he is killed by a nuclear weapon or a conventional weapon since he would be dead in either case!

This basically flawed approach has been used, firstly, to suggest that nuclear and conventional disarmament be given the same importance, and secondly, that instead of a global approach, which alone is relevant to the fundamental objectives of elimination of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, there should be a regional approach. There is also an attempt to create further confusion by over-emphasizing questions like confidence building measures, studies in verification techniques and new institutional arrangements in disarmament. Mr. President, Sir, I would, like to state categorically that while every item could be assigned its legitimate place, any attempt to tamper with accepted priorities, under any pretext or argument, should be promptly rejected. It is absurd to suggest that while nuclear stockpiles keep on mounting, mankind has first to think of banning rifles and machine guns on the plea that these also cause death. The accepted priority and emphasis on nuclear disarmament must, therefore, never be allowed to be diluted, eroded or whittled away.

It is India's conviction, therefore, that the focus of disarmament must be clearly directed on nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. This is not to say that an ever-spiraling arms race in the so-called conventional weapons, and the increasing sophistication in these weapons systems, Is not a matter for concern. General and Complete Disarmament encompasses the eventual elimination of all weapons of war. This is our goal. However, as the Final Document of SSOD-I recognizes, the priorities shall be nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, conventional weapons and reduction of armed forces.

It is a bizarre game which the world is witnessing today, in the name of disarmament. The effort is, In fact, to move towards more armaments rather than less. The expression 'arms control' which Is In current usage in certain quarters carries the unacceptable implications of control without disarmament and the concept of a given group of countries gaining the permanent capacity, or locus standi, to control all other countries in the matter of Possessing arms. This is further illustrated by the exclusive use of the expression "arms limitation" in the context of the Great Powers, which obviously differs from arms control. This is not merely a matter of semantics but quite clearly a matter of substance. One wonders then whether the game of disarmament in the nuclear age is, inter alia, an effort by the Great Powers to control smaller countries - shall we say one of the modem versions of colonialism and imperialism?

In the same manner, all too often, the focus has been on horizontal proliferation, as if to suggest that nuclear weapons in the possession of certain chosen States are somehow permissible or safe, but that they should not be allowed to fall in the hands of others. Ever since 1964 India has stressed that all proliferation of nuclear weapons, be it horizontal or vertical, must be stopped simultaneously, within the framework of the same international instrument. Every one accepts that ever since 1945, the continuing proliferation of nuclear weapons has been primarily due to the fact that vertical proliferation by the then existing nuclear weapons States has not been stopped, checked or inhibited until now. The concept of non-proliferation is rooted in the history of disarmament. This history has demonstrated that efforts o n restraining the emergence of a larger number of nuclear weapon powers will only succeed if the existing nuclear weapon powers themselves accept the same discipline, as they demand of others. To us this is a matter of principle. Unfortunately, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as it emerged, was based on the faulty notion of checking horizontal proliferation alone, without placing simultaneous and equal curbs on the existing nuclear weapons States. Under Article VI of the Treaty, there was an obligation upon the nuclear weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals. This obligation has been treated by the nuclear weapons States as non-binding and merely hortatory or good-faith declaration. In actual fact. their arsenals have more than doubled, and now threaten to proliferate at a still faster pace. This has been the main reason why the NPT has proved to be such a fragile instrument. The disillusionment among the signatories is all too evident.

Then there is the spatial dimension. As the nuclear weapon States deploy more and more weapons around larger areas of the world, the sense of insecurity of non--nuclear nations correspondingly increases. Deployment of nuclear weapon carriers in bases and areas such as the Indian Ocean cannot but have grave implications for the security of the non-nuclear weapons States of the region.

The recently announced resumption of strategic arms limitation and reduction talks between the Soviet Union and the United States is a welcome development. However, it is essential that the scope of these talks should be enlarged to cover all nuclear weapons systems. Besides, a commitment by the USA and the USSR to abide by the treaties already entered into could open up prospects for more comprehensive efforts leading to nuclear disarmament and the relaxation of International tensions.

Mr. President, let me now turn to another major Issue - the relationship between disarmament and development. Much has already been said about this and I would not like to repeat the statistics already available and known regarding the extent to which developmental and welfare activities can be supported by a channeling of resources away from armaments. The hard facts, telling as they are, have been reiterated time and again; yet the impact, I am afraid, has been regrettably negligible. The vested interests whose purpose it is to produce weapons of mass destruction as also some of the governments which help to sustain them, evidently could not care less for the immense cost of what they are engaged in.

The study by the UN inter-governmental experts group reiterates the basic fact that the arms race on the one hand, and development on the other, are in a competitive relationship, particularly In terms of scarce resources, and also in the vital dimension of correct attitudes and perceptions. The arms race has complicated the process of stabilizing the international monetary system, aggravated the balance of payment problems and distorted the desired evolution of healthy international exchange in a period of growing economic inter-dependence. On the other hand the catalytic effects of arms limitation and disarmament are bound to broaden the base of détente and lead to the channeling of some of the released resources for the benefit of the developing countries.

The UN study highlights the negative impact of military expenditure on capital formation and employment. In regard to Inflation, the study finds that expanded military production leading to increased demand for various inputs, tends to create shortages, particularly in situations of inelastic supply, and exerts an upward pressure on the general price level by pushing up costs of production. This is corroborated by historical experience. Since the military sector is highly capital-intensive, it is estimated that on an average, two working places could be created in the civil sector of the economy in lieu of each one in the military sector.

Discussing global inter-dependence, the UN report urges that it is in the overall self-interest of all the major groups in the world to bridge the existing economic and political divisions. Conversely, if each of the major groups, either by choice or due to lack of choice, endeavors to pursue growth and development with minimum Interaction with the others, the outcome will be distinctly second-best for all. Attitudes and perceptions underlying the arms race emanate from North-South as well as East-West Interactions; hence they come in the way of global economic development. We in the developing world are fully convinced that our own continuing development is symbiotically related to the sustained development of the industrialized part of the world. Hence our interests, and our stake in policies pursued in the industrialized world which would sustain their growth, increase International trade, transfer of technology and financial flows.

The industrialized world is apprehensive about the withholding of scarce raw materials and sources of energy. If only they would divert their research and development efforts from defense even partially, some of these problems would not remain as intractable as they appear today. Sustained development of the North has to be tied up to the accelerated development of the South. International relations must not be pursued in terms of conflict and competition, or of gaining supremacy in nuclear strategic arsenals or conventional capability. The cooperative approach alone, as envisaged In the New International Economic Order, more particularly by the Non-aligned Movement, can provide long-term answers and solutions. It certainly merits serious consideration by all States.

The Final Document of the First Special Session on Disarmament makes a reference to the need for reduction in military budgets, strengthening peace and security at lower level of forces and limitations on the flow of conventional weapons. These are desirable objectives to which nobody can take exception. We support all of them. However, if the arms race is to be stopped and reversed, it must be addressed on a global basis and from that end of the spectrum where it is most intense and sophisticated. And the beginning must be made with the nuclear arms race.

Common people everywhere have grasped this simple but fundamental truth. It is the governments who have been unwilling or unable to face it. Mobilization of world public opinion in this context has been an important factor in disarmament efforts. We commend, therefore, the idea of the World Disarmament Campaign. As a token of our support to it, and in response to the statement made by the distinguished President of the General Assembly, I am pleased to announce that India will contribute one million rupees to the Campaign.

Mr. President, my Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, was keenly looking forward to participating personally in this Special Session. Since she has been unable to do so she has asked me to convey a personal message from her to this august gathering. With your permission, I shall now read out Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's message: I quote

"I wanted to participate in this Second Special Session on Disarmament of the General Assembly, for I have long held strong views on this vital subject. My voice is raised in the cause of peace.

Men and women have put up with inequality and injustice, submitted to exploitation, and tolerated the disintegration of their environment. They have even gone to war, displaying courage, fortitude and gallantry of a high order. All this and more they have endured. There has been protest, resistance, even revolution in one part or another. But never has a feeling so deeply affected people, across divisions of class, political ideology and even of international frontiers. It may not yet encompass the whole of the human race, but its numbers are increasing. Those who pause to think, cannot but be acutely aware that inhumanity is the result of decisions and actions of humans themselves. Never before has humankind as a whole faced the possibility of its destruction by the weapons that some States claim to need for their security. The danger of nuclear war is Inherent in the very dynamics of the arms race and in what is known as deterrence. It is said that cities are targeted for nuclear attack, because that is regarded as the ultimate form of deterrence. The total accumulation of destructive radioactive power is more than enough to eliminate all forms of life several times over. This new barbarism -nuclear war - entails the destruction not only of warring countries but also the peoples of the non-aligned and neutral ones.

The situation today is far more critical and the need for action more compelling than in 1978. How can this Session follow up the declaration of the first Session? I venture to propose the following concrete programs of action:

First, The Session should negotiate a binding convention on the non-use of nuclear weapons;

Second,  As a first step towards the eventual cutting on  existing stockpiles, there must be a freeze on nuclear weapons, providing for the total  stoppage of any further production of nuclear  weapons, combined with a cut-off in the production of
fissionable material for weapons purposes;

Third, Immediate suspension of all nuclear weapons tests;

Fourth, Towards this objective. disarmament  negotiations must once again revert to the task of achieving a Treaty on General and  Complete Disarmament, within an agreed time-frame as was discussed between the USA  and USSR in the Agreed Principles and Draft Treaties of the early sixties. Although the  problems involved have become far more complex, the basic approach and the principles then formulated could still provide  a basis for meaningful negotiations;

and Fifth The United Nations and its Specialized Agencies should take the lead in educating the public on the dangers of nuclear war, on the harmful effects of the arms race on the world economy, as well as the positive aspects of disarmament and its link with development.

We urge the Great Powers to start negotiations with determination to reach agreement. The prospects of an early accord may seem discouraging from the particular point of view of one side or the other. But the path to peace and security cannot and does not lie through an arms race or theories of deterrence. Intricate calculations of security and Insecurity merely generate irrational fear and suspicion in policy-makers and in the public at large. On behalf of the growing world community which is calling for peace, I appeal to leaders of all nuclear weapon powers and their allies to help pull the world back from the precipice. Let us all cooperate to save humanity. In a war, the dominant thought is to win. Can we do less for peace?" Unquote.