־ָ (ײָ): ֳ֬ , ו ׾֬ ָ ֓ ֻ , ָ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ֵ ֵ , ֮֮ , ֮֮ ֬ ֮ ֵ ֵ ֬ ֮ ֟ ׻֋ ֯ ֤ ׯ֔ ׾֮֬ ӿ֮ , ֟ ֵ ׮֕ ָ ֋, ֛ ֟ ׾֬ ֵ , ִ ׮֕ ã֮ ָ ֟

, ֯ ֮֟ ָָ ã֮ , ֻߴ ָ , ֤֤ , ֤ ׮֕ ָ ָ ֵ ֻ ׾֬ ֵ , ֮ ָ , ֮ ֙ ָ ִ֣Ԯ , ָ ָ֕ ׮֕

, ֟ ֜֟ , ׸ ֻߴ ָ , ֻ֮ Ùߙ֮ , ִ ָ ׸ ֤ ֮ ֮ ֮֮ߵ ӡ , ָ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ , ֮ ֮ ֛ ևֱ, ֛ ֵ ֯ ִֻ֮ ִӤ ֲ , և ִӤ ׻֟ ֲ , ָ , ֮֟ ٙ 30 և׸ߕ ֮ ֻߴ ָ ֮ ֻ֮ ֯ և׸ Ù ָָ ֲֻ֟ և Ӿ׮ ֬ ָ , ו և׸ , ã֮ ָ ״ֻ և׸ߕ ָ , ָ , ִ և׸ ִӤ ֲ , , ׻֟ ֋, ָ֓ ֮ Ӥ ׻֟ ֲ ׻֟ ֲ ִֻ֮ Ӥ , և Ӥ , ָ ״ֻ֮ ֛ ևֱ ߱ ֣ -ûִ -և ֮ ֮ ֮ ֵ , ו֮֟ ֮ ֕ ֮֮ ֻ ׻֟ ִӤ ֲ ֣, ָ ָ ֟

, ֯ י ֮ ֕ ֜ ûִ ׾ ׾ֵֻ֪ , ִ ֕ ִֻ֮ 00 օ ״ֿ֮ , ؓ Ùֱ , -ؓ Ùֱ , ֣ ֱ ևֱ , ָ և ֮ ևֱ ־֮ ָ ߙ - և , , ִֻ֮ , ִ ָָ ֻ֟ ӕ׮ֵָ ֌ ߙ 20-25 ׾֮֬ ٙ 30 ׻֋ Ӹ פ ֯ ֮ ָ ֵֻ

, ָָ ֮ ִֵ-ִֵ ָ և׸ߕ Ùߙ֮ , ָָ ã֮ כ (3 ָ ָ)


־ָ (֟) : ֿԻ כ , ׾֮֬ ־֮ , ֤ , ֕ , ֻ ֯ ָ , ӿ֮ ׾֬ ! ֯ ֬ ֮ ִ , ֯ ֵ֤ , ֵ֤ ֯ ״ֻ֮ ֻօ , ֲֻ֟ ִֻ֮ ִ֕ ָ, և ִ֕ ָ, ִ֕ ָ ִו ֱ ֮ , ִו ֱ ָ , ֯ ? ֻ ִ֕ ׻֋ ִו ֱ ִו ֵ ֲ ֮ ִִ ִ֕ ָ ֯ ָ ׸ ָ elite , upper strata , ׻֋ ָ ٙ , ׸ ָ ֮ ֆ , ֯ ָ ..(ִֵ ә) , Ԯ , ֙ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ײָ ׯ֔ ־ ִӤ ִֻ֮ ׯ֔ ִֻ֮ ָ ߾ָ ָ ׻ , ֜ ו֋ ֯ ָ ׻֋ ֯ ֕ ָ ֮ ָ ? 80 ןֿ֟ ִֻ֮ , ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֬ (0 ..׸֮) : ־ָ , ֌ ו֋

־ָ : ֣ ևֱ ևֱ ׻֋ ֯ և׸ ֻ֮ Ùߙ , ִ և׸ , ו և׸ , և׸ ׸֮̾ , ֳ ֮ ֯ ߵ֟ ֳ ß ֮ ֋߅ - ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

DR. CHANDAN MITRA (NOMINATED): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I seek your indulgence because every time I get up to speak, usually, you are on the Chair. Sir, please be considerate...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): You see, I will caution you that your time is seven minutes. ...(Interruptions)...

DR. CHANDAN MITRA: I will try to conclude within that. Sir, I must also say that what I am going to say, very few others in this House will say. Therefore, I seek your indulgence. Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill in totality. This Bill should not have been brought. The earlier amendment too, which I had the privilege of voting against, should not have come because it is a divisive measure, which should not have been introduced after so many years of Independence. Sir, the introduction of new quotas, creating new categories, so many years after Independence and even so many years after the passage of the Mandal Commission's recommendations is totally uncalled for because apart from everything else, it shows the total failure, lack of commitment of the political class in this country to genuinely uplift the conditions of the poor and the backward of all communities in India.

Sir, in the Constitution, we made a solemn pledge. The solemn pledge was made that within ten years of the promulgation of the Constitution, the Government of India would undertake to provide free primary education to all children born in this country till the age of 14. Sir, more than 55 years after the promulgation of the Constitution, this pledge remains unfulfilled. And because we have failed to carry out this sacrosanct duty which we pledged in the Constitution, today we are looking for shortcuts and politically gainful ways of trying to circumvent this pledge. I demand an answer, Sir, from the Government, and those who have been in power: why is it that the primary job of providing education to every child born in this country since Independence has not been completed? (Contd. by 3c-kgg)


DR. CHANDAN MITRA (contd.): Why is it that the literacy rate in this country is still below 70 per cent, if you take men and women together? Why is it that the countries which became independent after we became independent have achieved 95, 99, 100 per cent literacy? Why have we failed to carry out this basic task, Sir? Having failed to do this, we now look at how to introduce quotas, reservations and create divisions in the society on grounds of caste, creed, community and so on and so forth. Is this the way we can help democracy prosper and grow in this country, Sir?

Sir, according to estimates made by various experts to upgrade primary education in this country and bring primary education levels in schools across the country in rural areas, tribal areas, backward areas, it would cost the Government Rs.50 lakh crores! Rs.50 lakh crores is not a small amount, I agree. But, the expenditure we incur annually in various areas, only if we channelise the wasteful expenditure that happens properly, only if the quantum of money allocated to education in our GDP were doubled, this figure would be achieved. The focus should have been on this and I would say that even at this late stage the Government should reconsider its entire approach to uplift the backward and under-privileged communities, and to bring them at par with those who have been privileged. The answer is not quotas. The answer is to upgrade everybody, to provide equality of opportunities to people across the board so that everybody comes up to a certain level and is capable of competing with the best in the country.

Sir, the introduction of new quotas after 55 years of the promulgation of the Constitution does not take into account the empowerment that has, in the meantime, happened in the communities. We all know, Sir, that it has happened. What is the need today to introduce these quotas when empowerment, we all know, has happened across the country and know that it is happening with every passing day. The empowerment is happening, Sir. Because, economic development has touched, maybe not satisfactorily but it has touched, the lives of people in the rural and backward areas also.

Sir, right at the outset, in the Constituent Assembly, the maker of our Constitution, the great Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, described quotas as a crutch and said that nobody should be dependent on the crutch beyond a point of time. The crutch is only to enable people to stand on their own feet, to walk on their own feet, and eventually the crutch has to be withdrawn. Dr. Ambedkar was of the view that after ten years the quotas should be reviewed and withdrawn. Now, instead, Sir, quotas after quotas are getting added because it is a very convenient political shortcut which fetches votes, but in the process, creates a caste consciousness and a division in the minds of the people, which no progressive democratic country ought to have.

Therefore, Sir, I would say, since I know that protest of the few is going to be steamrollered by the political parties, I would appeal to the Government, nevertheless, that please think of introducing some provision, whereby even after we introduce quotas, review and where you find that communities have been uplifted, or families have gone across the line of deprivation, you introduce a provision....

SHRI V. HANUMANTHA RAO: You enjoyed for several years and you say... (Interruptions) They have enjoyed it for several years. (Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): No, please. Please sit down. He has the right to say. (Interruptions) He is expressing his view, not your view. Why are you worried?

DR. CHANDAN MITRA: Therefore, I appeal to the Government to consider introducing a provision to review and wherever necessary de-reserve categories also so that newer people can, perhaps, get this benefit. Since this is going to be introduced and accepted anyway, at least, introduce a provision that those who are being brought under the ambit of this reservation now could, perhaps, be entitled to quota benefits for two generations, and, after two generations, the same family should not be entitled for quota provisions anymore.

We are told, every time we demand an economic criteria, that the Constitution does not allow it. Sir, Constitution has been changed more than a hundred times! Why cannot the Constitution be changed once more to provide for economic criteria so that the poor and backward of all communities, not just select communities, are entitled to some of these special enabling benefits? (Contd. by kls/3d)


DR. CHANDAN MITRA (CONTD): Sir, instead of considering this, why is the caste criterion drilled in again and again? Sir, my final observation is about the exclusion of minority institutions. As my colleague before me, who is not in the House just now, has very eloquently talked about this, what is the meaning of excluding certain minority institutions from the purview of this? So, why should this happen? They run some of the best institutions in the country. And Government institutions which are specifically for the uplift of the minorities are also very good institutions. If you are going to allow this and enforce this in other institutions, why are minority institutions are being left out? I know, Sir, when the Unaided Institution Bill comes, which the Minister is threatening to bring very soon, even that is going to have this provision 'to exclude'. Sir, before all this happens, I plead with the House, with all the Members and with those who are policy-makers, please consider all these implications of this runaway system of quotas based on caste. Sir, please consider introducing the provision of de-reservation, please consider introducing the economic criteria so that the poor and backward of all communities, irrespective of religion and caste, benefit from it. Thank you. (Ends)

DR. P.C. ALEXANDER (MAHARASHTRA): Sir, because of the limitations of time I will not go into the question whether reservation is justifiable or necessary. I will not go into the issue raised by my learned friend who spoke just before me about the need for resorting to other measures to meet the objective that is sought to be achieved. As far as I am concerned, as far as this Bill is concerned, this is within article 15 (4) and 15 (5). We recently amended the Constitution and it provides for reservation in the educational institutions. But the point I wish to make today is, the Bill, as it is introduced, is defeating the very purpose of the amendment of article 15 and insertion of article 5. I will devote my speech entirely for that issue. What is it that we are striving to achieve? It is to provide equal opportunity for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, and the Other Backward Classes who have suffered educational backwardness, social backwardness for long years. What is that we are trying today with this subject in view? You reserve 27 per cent and allow the creamy layer to be getting the benefit of this 27 per cent. I venture to say before this House with the long experience as administrator of educational policies and programmes and of social service policy and reforms that if this Bill in this form is implemented, the really deserving poor backward class members will never get the benefit of this Bill. Have you ever gone into the question why they are not able to get into the IIMs or IITs or engineering or medical colleges easily? The root cause of this is that they are not able to send their children to right schools, to the good schools. They can afford to send them only to poor schools, which have no teachers, no laboratories, no libraries, no playgrounds, and which have no building sometimes. And when they come out with very poor results, they are expected to compete with the others belonging to the affluent sections of the OBC who are able to send their children to St. Columbus School or Cathedral School in Bombay or any such places, arrange for special tuition for their children. Sir, I venture to suggest, to say, to prophesise that at the end of a couple of years, you will find the children of the richer classes in the OBC group, the children of the IAS and IPS officers, judges, lawyers will benefit more because the 27 per cent will be reserved for their children and the poor OBCs will continue to be disadvantaged because they will continue to fail to get the qualifying marks to compete when there is no written test. If there is a written test, they will fail to pass. (Contd by 3E)


DR. P. C. ALEXANDER (CONTD.): The real programme should be, while providing for reservation of 27 per cent for OBC, say it is strictly for the poor people, the less advantaged among them and use the money that is intended to develop the OBCs and the backward classes to make them come to the good schools and to provide them aids and assistance to ensure that they come out well in the examination. Instead of caring for their education, instead of ensuring that they are able to have a level-playing field when they pass out of the schools, you are just saying 27 per cent is for OBCs. You can make platform speeches and you will fool these innocent and ignorant people. They will also be told by their peers, "we have got from the Parliament 27 per cent reservation for you" while the reservation will be safely in their own pockets. This is what is going to happen and I wish to make this position very clear. Take the case of Muslims of which we heard a lot today. The poor people among the Muslims, the weavers and others have been included in the OBC group. Take the case of Christians, the converts from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. They have been put in the OBC group. I can assure you, these poor Muslims and poor Christians who are now in the OBC group will continue to be poor educationally and socially because they are not going to get the benefit of it. My second point, Sir, is, we are going ahead with a Bill which is clearly violative of the directions and decisions of the Supreme Court. You can tell me well that direction or that decision was with reference to admission in Government services. But the principle on which the Supreme Court delivered the judgment is very important. The principle was that it violates article 14, equality before law and equal protection of law and the Supreme Court went to the extent of saying that unequals cannot be treated as equals and therefore, article 14 is violated. So, that principle is valid. If it is valid for Government services, it is valid for admission to education institutions. What is sauce for the goose, as the Englishmen say, is sauce for the gander also knowing pretty well that this is going against the decision of the Supreme Court. We have gone ahead simply saying that '27 per cent reservation but Creamy Layer is included'. I heard a very cynical argument in favour of this and that is 'we know this is against the Supreme Court ruling, ultimately, let the court say that this is wrong. This is a very nasty way, if I may say so, a very unkind, very uncivilised way of just exploiting, getting political advantages from the situation. Of course, the Supreme Court may over a period or after some time say that this is ultra vires. You may put it in the Ninth Schedule because they say that it is already in the Supreme Court judgment that it is against the basic structure of the Constitution. What will you do then? I am running short of time and therefore, I will very quickly finish off with two or three more points which I will mention. Sir, I don't understand why hundreds and thousands of crores are being spent for adding...

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: The Supreme Court has said in its judgement that it is not against the basic structure of the Constitution.

DR. P. C. ALEXANDER: I am not yielding.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P. J. KURIEN): He is not yielding. He is not yielding. (Interruptions) He is not yielding. You can note down.

DR. P. C. ALEXANDER: You can argue with anybody. I am only quoting from the judgment. Sir, this spending Rs. 17,000 crores or whatever amount is needed for adding the seats in the Engineering colleges, IIMs and IITs is reversing our priorities. If you have the money for education, spend it on schools. Spend it on the rural areas for primary schools; spend it on the schools, which are poorly starved in the urban areas. Instead of doing that, you spend it by adding to the numbers because you want to appease the so-called poorer sections in the higher castes. So, we have taken care of you and you tell the backward classes we are taking care of all of you. This is where we land ourselves in trouble. We have cash resources. They should be spent where priorities are fixed clearly in our eyes and we don't want to do that. (Contd. by NBR/3F)


DR. P.C. ALEXANDER (CONTD.): I ask you one question. The hon. Minister should reply to me if he has time. Why should we dismiss the recommendation of the Standing Committee? It says that if 27 per cent quota is not filled up with the OBCs, it will go to the affluent sections in the OBC, it can go to the creamy layer within the OBC. It will not go to others. It is such a sensible recommendation. But, we said, 'no.' I read in the newspapers that the Chairman of the Committee -- I don't know; it is called by a funny name -- Mr. Veerappa Moily...

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: It is the Oversight Committee.

DR. P.C. ALEXANDER: Yes, it is the Oversight Committee. I always laugh at the name of this Committee within myself. Mr. Moily has gone on record that he has recommended against the creamy layer. When we appoint Committees and when we have the Sanding Committee, we accept whatever is convenient from their recommendations and omit whatever is inconvenient. This is not the way when we have to deal with the fate of the poor classes of the OBCs and SCs/STs. I want to go on record. I am not against keeping the creamy layer entitled as far as the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are concerned. It will take a little more time for them to separate creamy layer. We should appoint a Commission to identify the OBCs in the country. So, appoint a Commission to identify the criteria which is needed for deciding the creamy layer. Instead of facing these tasks, we find easy loopholes, and create in that process more loopholes in the law and in the Bill. Thank you. (Ends)

SHRI SU. THIRUNAVUKKARASAR (MADHYA PRADESH): Thank you very much, Sir, for giving me this opportunity.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): But, be brief. You have to be brief.

SHRI SU. THIRUNAVUKKARASAR: Sir, I will touch only a few points.

First of all, this delayed justice of the last sixty years is now being made as not a denied justice by passing this Bill, at least, now.

Sir, I rise to support the Bill. But, at the same time, I want to give a few suggestions as well. Due to lack of time, I don't want to make a lengthy speech. Sir, some hon. Members have already mentioned about the logic behind fixation of 27 per cent. What is the logic behind 27 per cent for OBCs? Sir, the total population of the OBCs in the country now is between 60 per cent and 65 per cent. If you take Tamil Nadu, it is 90 per cent; the average can be 80 to 85 per cent. Even, based on the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, 54 per cent are backward in the country. Now, it has reached between 60 per cent and 65 per cent. So, conveniently, we can say that because of the judgment of the S.C. we are fixing it at 27 per cent. My first objection is to the limitation of reservation at 27 per cent. It should be increased. And, for this, amendment to the Constitution should be made. The reservation should be in proportion to the population of not only OBCs, but also SCs and STs which are 15 per cent and 7.5 per cent respectively. The total reservation should match with population and the amendment should be made to the Constitution accordingly. (CONTD. BY VP "3G")


SHRI SU. THIRUNAVUKKARASAR (CONTD.): Secondly, we have already wasted a lot of time. We have already wasted one year. It should have come last year itself. I do not know the reason why we wasted last one year. Sir, in the Bill, as some other Members have also mentioned, in the third line, the word, 'certain' should be deleted. At page 3, section 4, sub-clause (b), it is mentioned: "the institutions of excellence, research institutions, institutions of national and strategic importance specified in the Schedule of this Act". Sir, I want that sub-clause(b) should be deleted. Sir, full 27 per cent reservation should be implemented at one go; at one stretch. I do not know why you are implementing it in three phases and want to implement it in over a period of three years. It should be implemented in the year 2007 itself.

There should not be any reduction or dilution in the reservation of quantum of seats for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the OBCs irrespective of increase in total number of seats. So, in the total existing seats reservation is there. In the additional seats, if you dilute it, then, where is the question of implementing reservation? So, there should not be any kind of reduction or dilution in the number of seats increased. This is the second point.

The benefit of reservation to SCs, STs, and OBCs should be extended to all the private, religious, and linguistic minority educational institutions. It should be applied to all the institutions; all linguistic minority educational institutions and all minority institutions. If anybody goes from one border to another border, i.e. from Andhra border to Karnataka border, from Karnataka border to Kerala border, and start institutions, they get full privilege. In a medical college, they get 100 or 150 seats. So, you cannot touch it. There is no reservation in the linguistic minority institutions. This is the third point.

The fourth point is this. There is exemption to 18 institutions of excellence. I do not know what is the logic behind it. Why do you want to give exemption? Do you mean to say that eighty per cent of the total population do not have brains or intelligence to go to all these research institutions or institutions of excellence? When will you allow them to go to these institutions? How long are you going to deprive them of their rights?

Sir, reservation is not a concession, but, it is the constitutional right given to the economically weaker sections of the society. It is not a concession. So, all these 18 institutions which are mentioned in the Bill should be deleted. They should be open to SCs, STs and OBCs. (Time-bell).

Sir, I will mention only one or two points. After fixing the numbers in percentages, there are chances for the people to go to the High Court or the Supreme Court. Recently, in the last year, in the last exam of the UPSC, the Backward Class people belonging to the SC, ST and OBC category were denied seats in the merit list. As a result, in all the 47 seats in IAS, IPS and in the first class service of this country they were denied seats and it was reported in many newspapers also. The Government has not done anything to address this problem. The same kind of problem may also arise in the future also.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J.KURIEN): Please conclude now.

SHRI SU. THIRUNAVUKKARASAR: In the merit list also SCs, STs and OBCs should be included. (Continued by 3H)


SHRI SU. THIRUNAVUKKARASAR (CONTD.): get involved with the others on merit. Sir, this is another thing you have to take into consideration.

Finally, Sir, a suitable legislation should also be there to monitor and implement this legislation. As far as these amendments are concerned, there is no provision to monitor these, or, to control these, or, to take any kind of action against the defaulters. So, Sir, some provision should be there in the law to control the officials and authorities who wantonly violate the reservation provision. (Time-bell ) Sir, these are my viewpoints and these should be taken into consideration by the hon. Minister. Thank you. (Ends)

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY ( PONDICHERRY): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I thank you for having given me the opportunity to support this historic legislation, the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Bill, 2006, as has been said by Shri Janardhana Poojary. Sir, the Government has taken a bold decision by bringing forward this Bill in this Session of Parliament. Sir, it is the commitment of the UPA Government that the people who are socially and educationally backward -- the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the OBCs and the minorities -- will be given priority by this Government. I am very happy that the commitment made by the UPA Government has been fulfilled by the hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Congress President, the hon. Minister of Human Resource Development and all our other constituents, especially, Dr. Kalaignar, Dr. Ramdoss, all other leaders, Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav, and also, the Left Parties. All of them have fulfilled that commitment to the people of this country...(Interruptions).. Sir, cutting across Party lines, hon. Members of Parliament are supporting this Bill. I am very grateful to all of them. Sir, the demand for reservation of 27 per cent, if we go through history, was a struggle by the oppressed class against the privileged class. Now, Sir, I would like to say that this amendment by the hon. Minister is only the tip of the iceberg. We have a long way to go. It is not that we have achieved it by way of right; only by fighting with those forces, slowly and one by one, the oppressed class has got this advantage. Sir, I would like to tell the hon. Minister my own experience. Sir, in educational institutions in the Southern States, because of the reservation that is available to the SCs/STs and OBCs, a child belonging to a poor family, whether a boy or a girl, whose father is a labourer, gets admission in medical colleges; they get admission in the engineering colleges. This is the social justice. It is not the privilege of only the people who are upper strata in society. They have got that advantage. But, today, when these people come and say that, "Sir, my child has got admission in the medical college", we feel proud about that. This is what our country needs. The people who are in the lower strata of society should also rise and should be able to compete with the other people. For that, opportunities have to be given. Therefore, Sir, I submit that a level-playing field should be there. For those communities, there should be a level-playing field. The people who are the privileged class go to convent schools, they get higher education; then, how can a boy or a girl who studied in a village or a college which is Government-owned, compete with the people who got higher education, better education, or, convent education. Therefore, I say, Sir, that this Bill would bring a level playing field between the people who are in the upper strata of society and who are in the oppressed class. Sir, when the hon. Minister-- because Poojaryji read-- announced that he will bring a legislation in this House, I know that various kinds of remarks were made by media and also other sections of the people . Sir, the one thing I know is that 80 per cent of the people in this country have to be given recognition. (Contd. by 3J/PB)


SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): Now, the hon. Minister has taken this step. We know, Sir, when Shri V.P. Singhji had brought forward a measure to give 27 per cent reservation to these people in getting employment in Government and public sectors undertakings, etc., how he was opposed. Everybody knows how his Government was thrown out. Now, it was only the Congress Government which implemented the 27 per cent reservation in providing employment opportunities. ...(Interruptions)... No; he could not implement it. His Government was thrown out. But it was the Congress Government, under Narsimha Raoji, which implemented it. It was he who implemented it. It is on record; it was done by the Congress Government. I would like to make that very clear.

Sir, I have got two-three things which I would like to tell the hon. Minister. Sir, while implementing this provision in the institutions of higher learning, kindly see to it that the reservation is given in one go. That is what I want. If there are 100 seats, give 27 per cent to OBCs, 15 per cent to SCs and 7.5 per cent to STs. Kindly give it. Let us not wait for the Veerappa Moily Committee's report. That will dilute the whole thing. I want the hon. Minister to consider it.

Sir, a lot of arguments have been made. Dr. Alexander who is a very seasoned leader and also a very good bureaucrat, was arguing against giving reservation to the creamy layer. I would like to bring to his notice the observations made by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru while framing the Constitution. When the discussion was going on in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru made an observation about the creamy layer concept. They said, 'the Indian Constitution identifies the backward classes on the basis of their social and educational backwardness and has purposely excluded the term "economic criteria" and said that it will dilute the concept of social justice for which reservation is implemented." This is what Pandit Nehru and Dr. Ambedkar said. Therefore, Sir, the concept of creamy layer is only an illusion to exclude those communities from getting the benefit of reservation. This is a ploy created by a section of the society in this country to see that the people who belong to the lowest strata of society, whether they are SCs/STs or minorities, do not come up. This is a ploy created by a particular section of the society. They created a wedge in order to see that these communities do not come up. This is the thing that has been done.

Sir, though the Standing Committee has made certain observations, I am very happy that the hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Minister, the hon. Congress President and all our UPA leaders decided that the concept of creamy layer should not be there. They saw to it that the people who belong to the lowest strata of the society, the OBCs, the SCs, STs, should get 27 per cent reservation. I welcome the step that has been taken.

(MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair.)

Sir, I would like to add one more thing. What Shri Thirunavukkarasar has said is also a fact. Under Section 4, the Government is excluding some of the institutions. I want the hon. Minister to consider this. Why do we exclude some of these institutions? These people should also compete. They should also be given opportunity. They will also come up. Today, Sir, kindly see who are the people who are fairing well in IAS or IPS. When opportunity is given, they will prove themselves. The people belonging to SC/STs, OBCs and minorities will prove themselves. They were not given the opportunity by one group in this country. Now, when the shackles are being broken, they are agitating; they are instigating the students to agitate. That is what is happening today. Sir, I am pained to say that only ten per cent of the population wants to rule this country. That will not happen. There is going be a revolution in this country.

Therefore, Sir, I support the Bill as moved by the hon. Minister. I want the hon. Minister to consider some of the amendments brought forward by me. He may bring it after some time, so that the lowest strata of the society will get the advantage. Thank you very much, Sir.


MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, this debate has to be concluded by four o'clock as has already been agreed. All the political parties have exhausted their time. ...(Interruptions)... Those who have not exhausted their time, I will give them an opportunity. I am telling this about those political parties which have exhausted their time. ...(Interruptions)... You are not a political party in the sense that you come under 'Others'. ...(Interruptions)... No; Mr. Malaisamy, your party's time is over. I am sorry. All those parties which have exhausted their time, I am afraid, I will not be able to accommodate them because another Bill, namely, the Tribal Bill, has to be taken up. Now, Shri Sanjay Raut. ...(Interruptions)...

(Followed by 3k/SCH)


PROF. P.J. KURIEN: The Congress Party has not exhausted its time.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Congress Party is left with only ten minutes.

PROF. P.J. KURIEN: So, I can have five minutes.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You need to cooperate if we have to complete the agenda. I would request all of you to cooperate.

DR. K. MALAISAMY: Sir, I am ... (Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Even 'Others' will be given a chance according to the time available. You will have to please adhere to the time limit. Mr. Sanjay Raut, you have three minutes.

DR. K. MALAISAMY: Sir, I have given my name.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You have given your name, but your party's time is over. You know that it is according to party's time, Dr. Malaisamy.

ӕֵ ֈ (ָ™): ߴ֮, ֯ ֳָ ֮֯ ֮ ִֵ פօ . . ꌕꮛ ֟ , ָ ֤ ׾ָ֓ ֮ ֤ ֮ ָ ־ ׾֬ ָ ֓ , ֮֕ן ֟ . ִ ӛָ , ֯ ןֳ ݵ֟ ן ׾ֿ ֻ , ָ . ֲ ׾֮֬ ׮ִԟ ֟ꅠ ָ ֮֮ , ױ ֕ ß֮ ֮֕ן ָ ָ ֟ פև

֙, ׿־ ׻֟ ׯ֔ ֕ ãן ֮ן ֟ ֻ פ ֮־ָ ָ֤ ו̤ , ן ֤ ֟ ׾ , ֕ ו ָ ָ ֮֕ן ֻ , ׾ָ ׻֋ ֟ ָָ ã֋ , Ùߙ ָָ ֓ ֻ֟ , ִ ׻֋ 27 ֤ ֵ ָ ֋օ ֮֮ ׮Ե ֟ߵ ָ֬ ָ ә ֵ ֡ ׮Ե ׾ָ ß ָ ָ ֋ ָָ ֡ ָ ך ָ , ߵָ , Ӥָ֮ ־֮ , ִ ֮ , ָָ ִ֮ ׿ֿ ֡ ָ ׾ָ ָ ֋ , ֱ ָָ ׮Ե ָ ׸ ֮֟

ֲ ֛ ֤֕ 60 ֤ ֲ ָ ֺ ֛ ָ ׾ ֟ ָ ־֮ ֲ ֤ , ִ 36 ֤ ֮ܵ 20 40 , ֲֻ֟ ֜ ׸ ָ ִ և ָ ן ֮֯ ֓ ֋?

ָ, ָ-ָ ָ ׾֮֬ ֟ ֟ , ו . ֲ ֵ֮ . ֲ ָ™ ָ™ ֵ , ׻֋ ׾ָ֓ ָ ָ֮ ֮ ׮֕ þ֣ ׻֋ ָ-ָ ׾֮֬ , ָ-ָ ß ֮ ׸֮̾ ֮ ָ ׾֮֬ וֵ և և , ֵ֤ ֯ ֤ օ . ֲ ָ ֟ ֺ , פ ֯ ָ ָ ֱ ֻ ׻֋ , 60 ֻ ֟ ִ . ׾֮֬ ֱֻ

ָ ׾֮֬ ָ ֻ , ָ ׾֮֬ ? , ٣ ִו ӟ ׯ֔ , ֮֜ ׻֋ ָָ ׾ֿ ϵ ߅ ֲֻ֟ ֱ ׸֮̾ , ִ ֟ ֟ ֱ ׸֮̾ ֟ ֮, reservation is no solution. ָ ™ 50 , ֮ ֳ 60 ֻ ׸֮̾ ֻ 滛 Ù 滛 և ׻֋ ֳ 22.5 ֤ ߙ ׸̾ , ָ ֯ ״ֵָ Ùߙ ֋ ׸֮̾ ߙ ֻ ו֮ ׻֋ ׸֮̾ , ָ ֡ ָ ״ֿ֮ ׻ֵ , ִ ׻ֵָ ֤ 3L/MCM ָ ָ


ӕֵ ֈ (֟) : ֟ ו֮ ׻֋ ָ ״ֻ֮ , יև ױ֋ , 껵㋙ ָָ ֤ ֟ ָ ֟ , ָָ ֮ ֮֕ן ָ, ׿־ ָ ָ ֟ ָ ֱֻ ¯ϓָ ִ֮ ־ã , ִ֮ ֵ ֟ ֮ ׾ֻ ֮ ֮ ꅠ ֟ ִ֮ ֵ ֟ , ֯ .....(־֮֬)

ֳ֯ן : ֯ ׻֋, և

ӕֵ ֈ : ָ, ָ ֟ ִו ֵ ָ֬ ָ ׯ֔ ֮ ׻֙ ״ֻ֮ ߓ ָ , ָ ֮ , ß֮ ֓ ֣ ִ֕ ֓֟ , ו ָ ֳ ״ֻ֟ , ִ֕ ָ߲ ֲ , ٣ ָ֬ ָ ָ ״ֻ֮ ָ ֺ , Ù ָ ָ߲ ׯ֮֔֯ ֟ ן ֟օ ָ߲ Ù ֟߅ ָ߲ ׻֟ ׯ֔ ߸ , ֮ ן , ָ ָ ֣ פ ֻ ן ߅ ֮ , ߔ , , ֟ ֋ ָ, և Ù 껵 ֓ ֕ ָ ֓ ָ ִ ן ִו ׯ֮֔ ָ֬ ֟ ֮֕ן ֻ ֕ ָ Ӿ ֋ Ӿ , ֯ ֮

ֳ֯ן : ֻ ӌ ו֋

ӕֵ ֈ : Ӿ ֟־ָ ؓ֟ ׾ֵ ן ־ã֠ ֱ ־ã , ׻֋ ִו ֤֟ ֮ ֤֟ ֵ ָ ֯ ָ Ӿ ֋ 1946 ß֮ ֱ ә ֵ , ֕ ß֮ ן ָ֬ ָ ׻ֵ ә , ӛ ֤ ׻֋ ֤ ֻ ֻ -ִ ֮֕ן ָ ֳ ֮ ָ ֮ ָ ֮֓ ִ֕ ָ , ן ָ ꅠ ןָ֮ ָ Ùߙ֮ .....(־֮֬)

ֳ֯ן : ֯ ӌ ו֋

ӕֵ ֈ : ןָ ָ ו֋, ָ ֻ ٣ ָ֬ ָ , 30 ֤ ֮֟ ֕ ָ߲ ߓ ָ ן־֤ ֟ ׻֋ ֻ ֋ ֤ ׌ ן ָ֬ ָ ָ , ֮֕ן ָ ן ָ֬ ָ , ׌ ֮ ִ ִ֮ ן ׻ ֲ ֛ ֮ , ֯ և....(־֮֬) (ִ֯)

֮ ֻ ӛ : ָ׻ ָ ִ ָ , .....(־֮֬)

ӕֵ ֈ : ׻֋ ָ .....(־֮֬) ן ־ã ֱֻ

ֳ֯ן : ӛ , ֯ ך

SHRI RAHUL BAJAJ (MAHARASHTRA): Mr. Chairman, Sir, we, independents, and especially those who are opposing this Bill, do not get enough time for obvious reasons. I stand with great amount of trepidation. But in all humility and with the courage of my convictions to oppose this Bill, as has been done by my friends Dr. Chandan Mitra, Dr. Alexander and Shri Sanjay Raut, I am very sincerely for all assistance to economically and socially backward people. My company, Bajaj Auto, has employees 36 per cent of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBCs. But every one was selected on merits. I am against discrimination against any category of people in any form whatsoever.

Our temple, in my home town Wardha, Laxmi Narayan Temple which was built by my grandfather Jamnalalji in 1908, was the first temple in India -- we are proud of that -- to be opened to, what we now call, Dalits, and at that time we called them * in 1927.

(Contd. by 3m/GSP)


SHRI RAHUL BAJAJ (CONTD.): And, we are proud of that. It is still open to everybody. (Interruptions)

Ӭ ֤֕: ָ, * ֲ ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֯ן: ֵԾ ׮ֻ ꅠ ..(־֮֬).. * ֲ ׮ֻ ו֋ ..(־֮֬)..

SHRI RAHUL BAJAJ: I am sorry. (Interruptions) I withdraw it. (Interruptions)

ֳ֯ן: ֟ ..(־֮֬)..

֕֕: ֯ ֵ֤ ָ Ù ׮ֵ ֌ ֻ , ֵ֤ ײָ banias are included in the OBC. פ ֟ ֙... ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֯ן: , , ֯ כ ֌ ..(־֮֬).. Don't interrupt him. (Interruptions) These are his views. Let him express. Mandalji, please...(Interruptions) ӛ , , ֯ ו֋ ٻִֵә , ֮ ׾ָ֓ ֮ ׬ָ ֮ ׾ָ֓ ..(־֮֬)..

ָ : ָ, ׮ֵ ָ Ù  ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֯ן: ֯ כ ָ ֟ և ..(־֮֬)..


* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

SHRI RAHUL BAJAJ: Sir, I believe that enough has been said about the direction in which our reservation policy has been going. We all agree with the objective that India should be one.

While supporting the Bill, some hon. Member mentioned here that we should eliminate the caste and have one society. Sir, I fully agree that we should eliminate the caste and have one India, one society, which we can be proud of, to fight with the rest of the world, instead of fighting amongst ourselves. Whether the reservation divides the people, whether it is against merits, enough has been said about this. I don't want to say more about that. All I would like to say that in a globalised world today, there are no entitlements. Everybody has to earn his place in the society. And, if we have 50 per cent -- in the South, I know it is much higher -- entitlements and reservations, I am afraid, we are creating a society which does not learn to compete hard, and, does not want to compete with the rest of the world.

The need, as has been mentioned, Sir, is for better education at all levels starting from the primary school, I repeat, better education for everyone. It should have happened in 1950, 1952 or 1953. I am not blaming anybody. They were our Governments. We all form the Governments? I have always voted in the Parliamentary elections, at least. They were our Governments. We are responsible. Sir, even my autorickshaw drivers do not want to send their children to the Government school. Somebody just mentioned they have no buildings, no blackboards, no laboratories, and, no teachers. I think that the shortage of funds cannot be a justification for lack of primary education, which is the requirement of our Constitution. I was the Chairman of IIT, Bombay for three years. But that is not relevant here. I don't say that we should delay it. I know the Bill will be passed almost unanimously. I know that. But, today, we should, at least, take a pledge that every child in this country will get good primary education till the age of 14 years at whatever cost. Education and primary health should get the first preference. We will not be able to do that without infrastructure; that physical infrastructure, social infrastructure is what is needed. And, if we do not provide that infrastructure, this reservation would continue for another sixty years. Otherwise, we will have, in ten to twelve years time, people from all categories, including Dalits, coming into IITs with their head held high that they have come on merit as some of them are coming today also. I agree that there is no monopoly of brains with any category of people. There is no question, and, I am completely against the capitation fees resulting in quotas for the rich and the privileged. That is as bad as any other quota. They should come in on merit and not on the basis of quota. I have only one thing to say that data shows that there is not much to choose between OBCs and the non-reserved category, whether on income, whether on education or on the basis of employment. Hence, I understand creamy layer for SCs and STs but I have not understood the logic of creamy layers for OBCs. We should have a moral compass, differentiating between right and wrong. Long ago, Gurudev Tagore said, "Ekla Chalo Re; be not afraid to walk alone, if you are on the side of the right". I am alone, and, almost alone. I do not know what my feeble voice of dissent amounts to, but not to express it at crucial times, not to express it in the Parliament, is for me, inexcusable.

Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I conclude by calling upon this august House -- though I know that this Bill will be passed -- to search its soul and do what is right; right for the downtrodden, right for the poor, right for the Scheduled Caste, and, right for the Scheduled Tribe. I am humbly, but firmly, against this Bill. Thank you, Sir. (ENDS)

(Followed by 3n-sk)