֚ (֟) : ٣ ן ֳ ִ ֤ ״ֻ ? UPA ֢ ֋ և ֻ ֮ ٣ ן ִ ֤ ֮ ֳ׮֟ , ֮֮ ־ֿ ֕ ֮ ֟ , ָ , - Ӥ , ָ ָ ֜ , ״ֻ ֕ ٣ ן ִ ֤ ß , ו֮֟ և -և ֜ , ׯ֔ 10 ֻ ֜ , ֟ ֲ-ֲ ֢ ֟ , և ֣ ֟ ֟ ֵ֤ և -ִ֮ ֣ ..(־֮֬)..

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM): Have you looked at the figures recently? (Interruptions)

֚ : ו֋, ױ ֯ ׻֋օ ..(־֮֬)..

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: Have you looked at the figures before talking? (Interruptions)


SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: I will reply, but, I hope, you have looked at WPI from 1999-2000 to 2006-07. (Interruptions) I will give it to you if you want. Please look at that. Please look at those figures and then make a statement.

SHRI SURENDRA LATH: I am talking of the...(Interruptions)... I am not talking about inflation rate, etc. (Interruptions)

, ׮־ ֵ֜ ֮ 7 ןֿ֟ ֕ ָ և ֕ , ָ֯י  ֮ ֱ , ָ ֮֮ ־ֿ , ָָ ٿֵֻ ֮ פ ֵ , ׬ֿ , ׾ֿ Ù , ָ ָָ ֲ ֛ ָև֮ , 20 ָ פ ֵ , 12-13 ןֿ֟ ׬ ָ ָ ٿֵֻ ֮ ֋ ָָ ן ָ ֮ 7 ָ ָ ֲֻ ֮ ֟ և ֕ ֟ ֵ: 70 ןֿ֟ ָ֯י ִ֬ פ ֟ ָ֯י ֲֻ ֟ , , ֲ֛ ֣ әֻ כו֙ ִ֬ ֵ , ֕ ָ , 7 ןֿ֟ ֕ ָ ֲֻ , ֮ ֮ ָև ָָ , ֕ ָָ ָ ֻ ֵ , ֕ ָָ ֮ ָև ִ֣ ֮ ָև ֮ ָ, ֕ ָ ָ 7 ןֿ֟ ָ ֲֻ ֮ ֱ ٿֵֻ 7 ָ ֕ ָ , ֵ֤ ָָ ֵ֟ , ײ֛ , ָ ִ ָ ֵ֟ ָָ ָ ָ ִ֬ ׬ִ ֮ פ ָ ֕ ֻ֟ ָ , ָ ֮ ׻֋ ָָ ָ ֮ ָָ ָָ ָ ׬ ֵ֟ ֲֻ ֋, ו ָ ׬ ׬ ֳ ֮ ָָ ָ֮ ׸־ ֱ כ ׾׳֮ NGOs ִ և և և ׮Ե ׻ֵ

('3m/sch' ָ ָ)


֚ (֟): ָ ־ֵ ֕߆ ִ ֮ - ־և ׬ ? ã֋ پ ٕ֕ ִ 20% 30% ָָ ãֆ ֮֟ ֵ ׬ָ ֕߆, ָ ֵ , ׻֋ ָ֓ ָ ֕ ֮ ֟ ׻֋ ֲ֕

, ָָ ֮ ֵ ٣ ן ֵ ٣ ֮֮ ß־ ٣ ãׯ֟ , ֵ֟ ֵ , ִ֬ ָָ ֵ ֮ , ݵ ֟ ֮ , ו ָ 60% ֮֟ ׮ֳԸ , ֻ ֮ ?

ָ ߛ߯ ָ ֤ ֮ ֛ ֤֮ ו ֻ ָ ׾ֱ , ֻ ָ ߛ߯ ֟ ו ֻ ֟ , ֻ ָ ߛ߯ ֜ ֟ ֕ ߛ߯ ָ ׮ֳԸ , ߋ ָָ ֮ ֣״ ֻ ״֟ , ߓ , ו ָ ãָ , , ֜ ָ ֛ ֡ ֪ ֤֣ ִ ָ ֵ֟ ֿ ֟ ֮ ֮ ֻ ֕֙ ֮ ֟ , ׾֢ ӡ ׮׿֟ ֯ ׮Ե ꅠ

, ָ Ծ־ã ָ ֱ פ 10% 12% ר ,  ן ֟ , ָ ׾ ֳ ֮ ןֿ֟ ״ֻ ? ֕ ׾ ָ ֻ , ָ ֛ ܵ ֻ-״׻ֵָ֮ ֻ ײ׻ֵָ֮ ָ , ָ֮ ӯע ֿ ר , ݵ ֟ ִ ֤ - ׾ ֳ ד֟ - 60% ׸ָ ֣ Ϥ 80% 90% ׸ָ ײֻ֕ ֋ 60% ־ ߮ ֮ ֲֻ ׬ӿ ־ þã ד֟ ׾֬֋ ֲֻ ֳ ׻֋ ֣״ ׿ ֲֻ ֋ ֕ 60% ݵ ״ ן ָ ׮ֳԸ 70% ָ ׮ֳԸ , ׾ ִ ֵ ֕ ָ ܵ ֮ ֟ ϴ֟ ׾ ֳ ״֟

ָ ־ ӓ־ ֮ ݵָ ӓ־ ֮ ָ , ָָ ֵ ָ ֣״֋ ? ݵ ֟ þ֬߮֟ 60 ֤ ֣״ֆ ֵ ֋ ֕ ֣״ ִ֕ ׌ , ִ֕ ֲ ׮ֻ֓ ֵ֤֮ ָ ֛ , ׾ ױ ֻ-״׮ֵָ֮ ֻ-ײ׻ֵָ֮ ָ , ָ ׮Ե ־ֿ 3N/MCM ָ ָ


֚ (֟) : ָָ ֮ ֻ ֕֙ 11 ӓ־ ֮ ֮֮ ִ ֟ ָ ָָ ׮׿֟ ֮ ָָ ֮ ָ ָ פ֮ , ֕ - ֤ ֲ ׬ ָ ֮ Ӥ ָָ ֮֋ ֻ և ֕ ״֟ , ֮֮ߵ ӡ - פ ֟ ֋օ , - ֲֻ֟ 7 8 ןֿ֟ ״ֻ , 15 18 ןֿ֟ כ ֕ 30 ןֿ֟ ָ - ׬ ֮֜ , ׾ ֲֻ֟ 30 ןֿ֟ ֮֜ ֺ , - ֕ ָ ֲֻ ֮ ־ֿ ׾ֿ - 12 15 ןֿ֟ ָ ֲֻ , ֲ ֛-֛ 6 8 ןֿ֟ ָ ֲֻ ֵ ־ֿ - ֛ ֡ ָ ֮ 8 10 ָ ָ ֲֻ ֵ ֋ ־ - և ־ֿ ָָ ֮ ֟ ֣ ֮ ֲ - , ו֮ ֮֮ ֿ߮ ֵ , Ӿ-Ӿ ָ ܵ ָ֮ וִ֮ ָ ״ֻ֟ ֲ ֵ ֲ ָ߲ ֲ , ֲ ָ ָָ 16 ָ և և - ֕ ֛-֛ ֻ ֻ֮ ׮ֵ ֣ ןֵ֟ ֛ ֕ ָ וִ ׬ ׬ ָ ״ֻ , և ״ֻ֮ , ו ֻֻ֮߮ ׮ֵ ֲֻ , ָָ ֮ - և ׻֋

, ָָ ֮ ֕ ٣ ׸ãןֵ ָ פ֮ ٣ ãן ֕ ׾ ו ֳ ׾ֿ ֕ ß , ִ ֤ ß ֿ ָָ ֮ ֻ פ ׾ֵ ָ ׾ָ֓ , ֮ ֻ ֕֙ ֟ ָ ֣ ֲ ֕ ֲ , ֲ ߓ ֵ֤֮ ֤ ֛ , ׾ ֳ ֤ , ָ ؓ֟ , ָָ ֻ ֛-֛ ֯ןֵ, ֻ״׻ֵ֮, ֻײ׻ֵ֮ ֳ ָ ٣ ־ã ߅

(3o ָ ֿ:)


֚ (֟) : ָ ٣ ־ã ߅ ׬ ָָ ֮ ֟ ֮ ֻ פ ָָ ִ ֤ ֟ , ִ ֤ ׾ ֳ ״ֻ, ָ ؓ֟ , ֮ ֟ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA (RAJASTHAN): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I rise to support the Appropriation No. 5 Bill and the Appropriation No. 6 Bill. I wish my hon. colleague could have said whether he supports these Bills or not. He has said everything, but neither did he oppose the Bills nor did he support the Bills.

֚ : ֮ ׾ָ ׾ָ , ֲֻ֟ ..(־֮֬)..

ӟ ֛פ : ֯ ׸Ù ֯ ֟ ֬ ֻ߅ ֯ ߕ ן ו֋ ָ ֟ ָ ָ ׾ָ ױ ? ׻֋ ֮֯ ׾ָ , ֯ ׬ָ օ Sir, before I come to the main subject of supplementary demands, I fully support hon. Lath's suggestions in regard to the small scale industry. But that is not the subject matter today. I will not go into the details of the issue, except the issue which relates to the Finance Ministry. The hon. Member has mentioned about closure of units due to finance problems. I would like to inform the hon. Member that from 1998 to 2004, till the NDA Government was there, the total loan to the small scale industry was 17 per cent of the total credit. I am not going to waste your time by giving figures of all the years. I do have these figures. I want to tell you that in these six years, from 1998 to 2004, when the NDA Government was ruling the country, what they had done for the SSI was, they had reduced the percentage from 17.5 per cent to 9 per cent. These are all statistics which are known to you, but you do not want to mention them. Not only the percentage has gone down. Similarly, the number of units, which were supported by banks, was 32 lakhs and in 2004, they came down to 16 lakhs. My friend from the same group of people says that you have to look after the SSI. They asked, "What has the hon. Minister done? What has the UPA Government done for the SSI?" After this Government has come to power, the first thing that the hon. Minister has done is, he has made a statement in the House that in totality, every PSU bank will give 20 per cent more funding on the total amount. Supposing, it is Rs. 100 crores by one bank, it will be Rs. 120 crores next year. It will be increased every year. That is what has happened. The result is, in 2005, instead of 16 lakhs, 16.74 lakh units got credit. This year, the number has increased to 17.5 lakhs. This is what the Finance Ministry has already done. I fully agree that the general credit is going up by 30 per cent and the total percentage of credit is definitely going down. For that I have been approaching the hon. Finance Minister continuously. It is because more credit has gone to the service sector.

SHRI SURENDRA LATH: That is what I have said.

SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA: I request you not to interrupt.

SHRI SURENDRA LATH: I am saying this because you have quoted me.

SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA: I have quoted you because you spoke before me. (Followed by 3P)


SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA: I am not quoting him from out of the wind. ֯ ָ כӛ˕ ֯ Sir, when he also mentioned about micro finance, I am telling you from experience that Self-Help Groups are a boon to the country. There is 100 per cent recovery. There is no NPA from Self-Help Groups. Let us not unnecessarily oppose every policy of the Government, even if it is helping the smallest people, the poorest people. He says, ִ ֤ ׻֋ ִ ֤ ־ã ׻֋ 껱 ֻ ß֮ ֟ , Ӿ-Ӿ ֟ - ֤״ֵ , ֲ ֮ ֻ , ֵ ֟ ִ ֮ ֵ ֯ ָ әÙ ֛ ? פ ָ ֋ ֋ ֮ ֛ ֤ ֲ 껱 ֟ , әÙ ״ֻ֟ ָ ֲָ 껱 ֻ ֛֛ , ֲָ ֟֋ ïױ ֛֛ ? ....(־֮֬)...

SHRI SURENDRA LATH: I am talking about NGOs.

ӟ ֛פ : 껱 ... ... 껱 ... ־ ... , ֟ օ ־ ֮֟

This is a great boon to them. Let us not oppose it for the sake of opposition, and if by chance, the hon. Minister decides to change the policy because you are opposing it, then, it will hurt lakhs and lakhs of small people in the villages. I request you not to listen to him on this issue. ֵ Կ ֟ ֜ ֟ ֯ ֈ , ָ ֈ , כ֮ ױ ֻ , ֻ ֮ ֟ ֮֟

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): You address the Chair.

SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA: This is the last point which I have to mention with reference to what he has spoken. I have to mention them because he is talking things which are not relevant. He mentioned about mehangai. We have talked about this mehangai; we have this price rise for discussion. In fact, it was only partially discussed. With the kind of growth of GDP, in two years' time, since the UPA Government has come into power, inflation is only 5 per cent. The growth rate was only half of it, but the growth now is 8 per cent, 9 per cent and 10 per cent. When the growth rate was three per cent or four per cent, the inflation was more than 5 per cent. The average inflation between 1998-2004 was 5.35 per cent or something like that.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM): I will give the figures; you go ahead.

SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA: The hon. Minister says that he would give the figures. He will give the detailed figures. He is worried that if I give all the information, what will he give? Don't worry, Mr. Minister, you have much more intelligence, much more information, than me, and you can articulate much better things. But since I am standing, I have to also speak something. I am only defending you.

Sir, now, I come to the Supplementary Demands. Mr. Minister, when we talk of Supplementary Demands, this has come for the second time this year itself. I think it has become a practice of all the Finance Ministers year after year that they bring Supplementary Demands every year. I don't know if this kind of planning gives a good image to the Finance Ministry. Whoever is doing it, whichever Government is doing it, why should we have Supplementary Demands? This year too we have come with it twice. We brought it once in the Monsoon Session and we have come again, in this Session. (Continued by 3Q)


SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA: Every year there are two Supplementary Demands.

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: Every year, there are three Supplementary demands.

SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA: That is what I am saying. Why do you want to have Supplementary Demands? You have presented a Budget; it is for one year; it is not for ten years. If we cannot predict for one year, what is the point? I can understand if there is a calamity or there is some big change in the situation in the country and we need Supplementary Demands. I will go into the details of Demands also. But, with your transparency, Sir, if we can have even a five-year Budget, and then we have Supplementary Demands, I can understand that. But I do not understand, having an annual Budget, and still bringing forward Supplementary Demands. I was just wondering if our wives started giving us their supplementary demands every three months, what would happen to us. We will be doomed. Sir, I was also wondering, Sir, whether this was a good and healthy practice or not. It has been observed that the budgetary allocations remain uncommitted and still the Supplementary Demands are sought in every Session. I would, therefore, demand that Supplementary Demands must be accompanied with a Ministry-wise statement of utilisation of budgetary grants. We will support you, Sir, but let me tell you we really do not have much information. We will support you because we are your strong followers. In this respect, may I also refer to a study conducted by a Washington-based Centre for Budget and Policy Priorities, with inputs from an Indian study group, Centre for Budget and Governance Analysis, New Delhi? This study has developed an Open Budget Index to assess the transparency, quantity and quality of information provided in Government's Budget Documents. And India is placed 17th, with a score of 52 per cent on the Index, meaning thereby, while Government does share some information, yet the Budget is still not comprehendible to all. So, you can say, with more information we can probably do better. I urge upon the hon. Minister to look into the report and also examine its recommendations, if you think they are worthwhile, and to also assess the Budget layouts of other countries that have performed better than us on these indices.

Sir, I would like to submit that, like the Annual Demands for Grants, the Supplementary Demands should be examined by Department Related Parliamentary Committees, against the Annual Outcome Budgets. I also recommend that Supplementary Demands and Outcome Budgets too should be posted on the Finance Ministry's website. If these are already posted, well and good. If not, please put them on the website.

Sir, the hon. Minister mentioned about the Supplementary Demands of Rs.21000 crores. He also mentioned about some ten thousand crores or so, which has been balanced, and the figure is Rs.11,000 crores. Statistically, this is right. But if this demand of Rs.21,000 crores had not been there, this ten thousand crores which he has balanced, probably, would have been used somewhere else. It would have been balanced somewhere else. So, I do not know, how far this balancing is right because, at the moment, we are talking only of Demands, not of resources. The demand is Rs.21,000 crores. Let us not misunderstand the whole thing. The demand for Rs.21,000 crores remains the same. How it is adjusted is a separate issue. You will adjust this ten thousand crores also. But it does not mean that the demand becomes zero. The demand remains the same.

Now, Sir, if you look at these demands, out of Rs.21,800 crores, only Rs.1360 crores are meant for capital expenditure. The remaining amount is for revenue expenditure. I do not think it is a very healthy practice, Sir. I would like to draw the attention, through your, Sir, of the hon. Minister, to this chart which has been given in the Bill; it mentions: `Atomic Energy', 192 crores; (Contd. by 3r/tdb)


SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA (CONTD.): For Nuclear Power Schemes, under the revenue expenditure, there is a provision of Rs.116 crores. But, the capital expenditure for the Nuclear Power Scheme is only Rs.1,00,000, means Rs. 1 lakh. I don't know what is this capital expenditure of Rs. 1 lakh. Similarly, Sir, there is the Department of Fertilisers, -- I think, probably, it may be the revenue expenditure for subsidy -- there is a provision of Rs.1,400 crores. I think, we can plan this subsidy in the beginning of the year, in a much better way. My suggestion is, no Supplementary Demands should be required for meeting the expenditure on subsidies. We all know that the hon. Minister has been very successful in augmenting the resources, but that does not mean that we spend it. Resource augmentation is good, but we have to save that; we have to use it somewhere else, or, at least, it should be used for such expenses which can be planned at the beginning of the year. It should have been planned at that time.

Similarly, Sir, for the Ministry of Coal, there is a provision of Rs.131 crores for revenue expenditure. I can't understand why this kind of revenue expenditure should be demanded now, and not at the beginning of the year. Sir, for the Ministry of Defence, there is a provision of Rs.64 crores for revenue expenditure, and for capital expenditure, it is only Rs.4.96 crores. These are all figures given by the hon. Minister himself. I can go ahead with all these things, but I would not go into more details. But the fact remains that out of so much expenditure, Rs.1360 crores is only for capital expenditure, and the balance of about Rs.20,000 crores is for revenue expenditure. It has to be seen whether it is a healthy practice.

Sir, another thing that comes to my mind is, the details of Rs.249 crores that are being charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. Sir, the Supplementary Demands of the Ministries like Commerce, Posts, Food and Public Distribution, Environment & Forests are being charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and not voted by the Parliament. If you charge this on the Consolidated Fund of India, then, it is not voted by Parliament. What do you mean by charging it on the Consolidated Fund of India? Why don't we vote it in Parliament? The funds meant for these Ministries should be voted by the Parliament. It is not a very secret account, like the Department of Space. I am not questioning that. If that had been debited to the Consolidated Fund of India, I would have no problem. Similarly, capital outlay on Defence services is Rs.49 crores. I won't question that because that can be due to various reasons. But, as far as expenditures of other Ministries are concerned, I wish it would not have gone to the Consolidated Fund of India, but it should have been voted by the Parliament. Further, Sir, a sum of Rs.195 crores of the revenue expenditure is being granted in this Supplementary Demands as a charged expenditure and not to be voted by Parliament. That also doesn't look very logical from my point of view. But, I am sure, the hon. Minister will make it logical when he replies to the debate.

Sir, I want to know from the hon. Finance Minister whether it is true that certain State Governments, -- because the State Governments are going to get Rs.4,131 crores -- have diverted the Central Government grants and assistance into their public accounts, thereby avoiding the legislative scrutiny by their own Legislative Assemblies. What steps are being taken by the Centre to check such tendencies? Sir, what is happening is this. There is no accountability for these kinds of funds. If the hon. Minister can explain it, then, I will really be obliged, and I will appreciate it.

Sir, just before this, the discussion was going on on the Prevention of Child Marriage Bill. For that, I would just like to give one figure. I don't want to discuss it in detail. Sir, the unemployment rate for females is found to be much higher than that for males in urban areas. That is the reason for child marriage. The unemployment rate for females is much higher. (Contd. by 3s-sss)


SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA (CONTD.): If that can be looked into by different policies, it will be a great help. Now, Sir, time comes for congratulating our Minister. I congratulate him for augmenting the resources which is unprecedented. Unprecedented, because it is just by not collecting more funds in every sector, whether it is income tax or excise duty and all services, but also widening the net, more assessees. So I must fully support him and fully congratulate him for this. I would only like to tell him 2-3 things on this. One is, on the withdrawal tax. Withdrawal tax, the hon. Minister has mentioned in his Budget Speech that it is for trailing. It is not augmentation of revenue. It is basically trailing the black money. I request him to share this information. In his experience of one and a half years or nearly more than 20 months, what kind of trailing has been done? How many people have been caught? If there are two or three or four or five, is it really worthwhile because this has become very cumbersome particularly in the villages where small, small people are suffering? The bankers are themselves suffering. So, please either justify this or as already assured, indirectly or directly, in the next Budget, withdraw this tax. Similarly FBT, the Fringe Benefit Tax, if it is for augmentation of revenue, I am with you, but if the same revenue can be augmented by taxing the same corporate in a different manner it will be a great help because most of the people are very unhappy about this kind of tax. It is a very unpopular tax. Tax is in any case unpopular, but this particular tax is very unpopular. Therefore, the hon. Minister may consider this aspect also. Next I come to the point on litigation. Sir, what is happening? There are thousands of cases pending in Supreme Court, High Court, Lower courts in appeals not because the assessee is going for these appeals. It is because the Department is going for appeals against its own decision. It is the Department's assessment done at the lowest level, which is wrong, considered wrong by, assesses. He goes to the higher authority, that is, the Commissioner and the Commissioner gives assessment in favour of assesses. The department does not accept it. Department does not believe their own officers. They go to the appellate authority. Even the appellate authority has got one of the officers sitting in the bench from their department and still the decision of the appellate authority is also not accepted by the Government. They go to the High Court. They go to the Supreme Court. The result is, forget about how much cost it has incurred by paying to different legal luminaries in the country, but how much time is wasted, how much harassment is done to the ordinary assessee by not trusting their own people! I request the hon. Minister to look into this aspect. Let us not file the cases for the sake of filing like largely opposing for the sake of opposing.

ֵָ : ֛פ , , not opposition for Opposition sake.

ӟ ֛פ : , ֯ ֣ ֯ ִ ׻ֵ

ָ֕ : ֲ ֮֯ opposition פ, ֛ ֋

ֳ֬ (. .. ׸֮) : ״. , ֯ ך Mr. Pany, you need not explain.

. ִ ӛָ : ִ , ׻֋ ֛ ֋ ִ

ӟ ֛פ : , ֚ ִ ׻֋ ׻ֵ ִ ֮ , ֯ ִ ֮ ꅠ Like this, litigations should be reduced, at least by the Government. I can understand ordinary citizens going there. (Contd by USY/3T)


SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA (CONTD.): But why does the Government go in for litigations one after the other. Another point that I would like to make on this issue is, please make a study how many cases the Government has taken to the High Court and the Supreme Court; and, how many decisions have been taken, by these authorities, in favour of the Government. That is only miniscule, a small percentage. That will show that the first decision taken by the original officer was wrong, and further decision to go to the court, without any reasonable basis was also wrong. Should we burden our Judiciary with this kind of attitude of the Executive? This aspect has to be seen. How many man-hours are we wasting in this kind of litigation?

The economic situation, as per the hon. Member, is definitely very good. Nobody can question that. He himself has said, "The economic situation is good, but it has not reached the aam aadmi." It is just not possible. If the economic situation is good, it has got to percolate to the aam aadmi. But, maybe it is not percolating with the same speed, as desired. But let it happen. If there is growth in the country, things will improve. Who will say that the roads, which are made all over the country, are meant only for the rich? Are they meant only for the individuals? They are meant for everybody. Does this facility not go to the aam aadmi. It does go to the aam aadmi. Does the Employment Guarantee Scheme not go to the aam aadmi? It is meant only for the aam aadmi. Two hundred districts are covered by it. It requires resources. The Government has provided resources. The primary schools are for the aam aadmi, for the villages. The Primary Health Centres are for the aam aadmi. I can go on counting such things. I am not going into those details because that is not the subject matter of discussion, today. The growth, generally speaking, is very good. The hon. Prime Minister recently said, "Now, we can dare for the GDP growth of 14 per cent." The GDP growth of 14 per cent in two years! Had the NDA even thought, even in their dreams, of 14 per cent GDP growth? No! Our Prime Minister, our Finance Minister not only dream of it, but they are planning for it. And, this growth will not only go to the rich, but will definitely percolate to the poorest of the poor. (Interruptions) Sir, this fact has been recognized by the World Competitive Year Book, 2006 also. On the Competitive Index, based on 300 economic criteria, India jumped from the 50th position to the 29th in 2006. This has happened in just two years! This is not a mean achievement. It has been recognized that India has got resilience to withstand the economic cycles that occur in liberating economies. This has been confirmed by the world leaders, independent world leaders, not by our Government. India ranks 15th in the Asia pacific region, 10th in the thirty economies, with population more than 20 million, and 5th in twenty-five economies with per capital GDP less than 10,000 dollars. These are not mean achievements in two years. I request all of you to support him so that there can be more growth. We should support him, the entire House should support him for his economic policies so that we can go wholeheartedly and more and more effective growth can take place. (Contd. by 3 u -- VP)


SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA (CONTD.): That will go to the aam admi, let us not worry about it. In that case, of course, the agricultural sector is not developing as much as it should develop. I think, for this also, the entire responsibility is of the NDA because in agriculture, gestation period is very long. Development in that cannot take place in one or two years. Whatever our Governments did before 1998 or before 1996, they have spoiled that during their period. The result is that there is shortage of food. The result is that production in agriculture has gone down. But, now, when this Government has come, they are making new policies and taking new policy initiatives. I am sure, we will have a second Green Revolution very shortly, and you will find that India will again have surplus food despite increase in demand and increase in per capita consumption. This is what this Government is going to achieve.

The latest NSSO Survey poses an alarming picture though. The rate of unemployment is much higher among educated youth as compared to those with low level of education. These figures do not augur well for an economy targeting to peg at a double-digit growth rate in the years to come. This is only a warning to the hon. Minister. These are sectors of low and slow returns on massive investment. The Government will have to lead the way and make investments lucrative. Whatever may be the investments, Sir, and whoever has got the money, whether he has got Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 2 lakhs, one billion or one million, he would like to invest in what is lucrative. The Government has to find methods to see that not only the Government investment is lucrative, but investments of ordinary citizens are also lucrative.

Sir, we can discuss this point. It is not a budget discussion. I just want to request the hon. Minister to kindly see once more whether -- he himself has agreed that every year the supplementary demands come -- these kinds of situations can be reduced. Particularly, he can have better and bigger vision so that we do not need to have supplementary demands. This will help in augmenting the economy better. Then, every citizen can also know that this extra expenditure will not be made by the Government. With these words, I once again support the Bill. Thank you very much, Sir. (Ends)

DR. K. MALAISAMY (TAMIL NADU): Thank you Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, for permitting me to speak on this subject on behalf of the AIADMK, namely, the Second Supplementary Demands for Grants. After listening to the earlier speakers, Mr. Surendra Lath, followed by Mr. Santosh Bagrodia, I feel that my task has been made fairly easier in as much as they have covered a number of points which I wanted to appeal to the Chair. With the result, I will, as quickly as possible and as briefly as possible, try to balance a lengthy speech made by Mr. Santosh Bagrodia.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): It is good that you will not repeat the points.

DR. K. MALAISAMY: Sir, I will touch the points very briefly. I will underline a few points which I feel are significant and should be brought to the notice of our hon. Minister. Sir, we have been listening to the hon. Minister, who has been nice enough to tell what for he has come, how he is going to ask for and seek the sanction of this Parliament for an additional expenditure of Rs. 21,823 crores out of which Rs. 11,444 crores is the net cash outflow. (Continued by PK/3W)


DR. K. MALAISAMY (CONTD.): ...whereas he said that the balance of Rs.10,378 crores could be made up by way of enhanced receipts, recoveries and savings, etc. We were able to listen to him. Sir, we have understood what the object of the Budget is. The Budget is a tool of administration and the basis of orderly finance. It is a powerful instrument of social and economic policies. Not only that, it helps a lot, particularly, in a State like our welfare State, in promoting the welfare measures under the Budget. Sir, as a student of management, I had been taught as to what was meant by satisfactory service. Satisfactory service means and includes continuous service, timely service, adequate service and equitable service. This is the object with which a comprehensive Budget should be made for. These are the backgrounds under which the main Budget is prepared, followed by the supplementary demands. Sir, now, with this background, the object of the Budget is to do this, this and this, particularly, to eliminate poverty, to eliminate unemployment, under-employment and to eliminate inequality in the distribution of wealth, status and so many things. Not only that, the Budget should ensure happiness, comfort, and everything to the people. This is the totality of the object of the Budget. While so, I am inclined to ask whether that object has been achieved, either through your main Budget or through your second Supplementary Budget. This is my core question, which I would like to ask. Shri Santosh Bagrodia highlighted what all had been done. On the other side, they were pulling down all. Sir, as far as I am concerned, I am neither here nor there; I am in between. This is the stand I have taken. In other words, what are the best aspects, I am willing to appreciate. But there are highlights and grey sides. As far as the hon. Minister is concerned, by virtue of his word power, and vocabulary, he may be able to articulate and justify what are the things that are highlighted.


Not only that, he has got the knack of telling things as if it is real when things really do not exist. Even imaginary things can be nicely explained by him, as if they are in existence. ..(Interruptions). Sir, as far as the physical achievements are concerned, the object of the Government is to eliminate poverty. I am inclined to ask the hon. Minister what the totality of poverty in the country is and how much has been reduced. Now, according to the figures available with us, still, about 38 per cent of the total population is under Below Poverty Line. Below Poverty Line itself is more than 38 per cent. Independence has been there for decades and decades. It is very unfortunate that many of the people are holding the opinion that the poor are becoming poorer and the rich people are becoming richer. In that situation, I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether you are eliminating poverty, whether you are enriching the poor; it is not so. On the other hand, if I go with Shri Santosh Bagrodia, the totality of the GDP growth is good. I have got a pat on the back for that. On the other hand, I would like to know whether you are able to reduce the fiscal deficit. No; it is not at all encouraging. It is not that much encouraging. So, there is one plus point and one minus point. Now, coming back to my point, whether the problem of unemployment has been solved; no. It has been increasing day by day. So, poverty has not been eliminated, the problem of unemployment has not been solved; and, these are the major problems. (Contd. by 3X/SKC)


DR. K. MALAISAMY (CONTD.): Coming to the farmers, the prices are rising and we have come across umpteen number of cases throughout the length and breadth of the country of farmers committing suicide. You cannot deny that. Sir, the hon. Minister may try to say that we have simplified the procedure, we have provided loans for fertilizers and so on. All these things will be highlighted, but the fact remains, and the ground reality is, that it does not reach the farmer. What is wrong with the system? Is it the failure of the system or human failure? I am not going into those details at all. Your intentions may be good, but somehow or the other, it does not reach the poor. This is the way I look at it.

Sir, coming to some of the other areas, as far as fiscal deficit is concerned, we see that the Non-Plan expenditure, the Revenue Expenditure and the Government expenditure are going upwards. Now, the bureaucracy has an understanding with the Ministry; they have got the knack of converting the non-Revenue Expenditure into capital expenditure when the non-Plan expenditure is going up. I don't know whether this kind of exercise is adopted in the Central Government or it is done in the State Government.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM): That can't be done in the Government of India.

DR. K. MALAISAMY: Sir, coming to public sector undertakings, in the banks, you are trying to reduce the shareholding in the name of private participation. With your objective of disinvestment and encouraging private participation, or bringing them under a joint sector, or whatever it is, you have taken a stand and you are making an attempt in that direction. But I would like to ask, how far you have gone. This is your philosophy, this is your objective and this is your ideology. To what extent have you succeeded? That is the first point. At the same time, India being a welfare state, will this policy be running counter to that principle? I would like to ask whether you are still in favour of the welfare state as you go ahead with the policy, (Time-bell) as your Left, Front and Communist friends wish, or you are still insisting on disinvestment and privatisation.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Are they not your friends?

DR. K. MALAISAMY: They are your political friends. They may be your allies but on certain aspects they are not.

Sir, coming to Plan outlay, you have made allocations. But we find that in the field of education, health, rural development, rural housing, etc. either allocations are not made at all, or, even if they are made, they are inadequate. I would like to know what are your priorities. When you set priorities do you go by the proper norms or not?

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Dr. Malaisamy, please conclude...(Interruption)... You are not listening to me. You need to conclude...(Interruptions)... Mr. Pany, sometimes you may speak. They have been allotted one-and-a-half hours' time. Now they have got ten minutes. What can I do? It is on the basis of parties.

DR. K. MALAISAMY: Sir, a number of people have not spoken.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is not the case. Please conclude. This is an Appropriation Bill. We are not conducting a total debate on this ....(Interruption)...

DR. K. MALAISAMY: Now, that is the problem.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, it is not. Just a minute, Dr. Malaisamy. Now, it is 5 o'clock. There is also Half-an-Hour Discussion. I would like to take the sense of the House as to whether we could dispense with the Half-an-Hour Discussion and continue with the debate.

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: Sir, we shall conclude the debate.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is what I am saying.

SHRI MATILAL SARKAR: Sir, I shall need five to ten minutes.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is not possible, Mr. Sarkar, because otherwise we will not be able to complete. So, the sense of the House is that we shall continue with the debate and conclude it. The Minister, Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar, could lay his papers.

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR: Sir, I am a servant of the House.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may lay your papers.