The House re-assembled after lunch at two
of the clock,
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair.
STATEMENT RE. INSTITUTION OF NATIONAL AWARDS FOR
OUSTANDING WORK DONE IN ERADICATING
UNTOUCHABILITY AND COMBATING ATROCITIES ON SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED
THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
EMPOWERMENT (SHRIMATI MEIRA KUMAR): Sir, I am glad to inform
this august House that the Government of India has decided to institute
National Awards to be given to Non-Governmental Organisations or Human Rights'
activists who have done outstanding fieldwork in the area of eradicating untouchability and in combating offences of atrocities
under the Prevention of Civil Rights Act, 1995 and the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Terrorists) Act of 1989. There shall be totally four awards every year
covering both the categories. Awards to
individual activists shall carry an amount of Rs.2 lakhs
and to an institution shall carry an amount of Rs.5 lakhs. The award will be given to outstanding NGOs
or Human Rights' activists in each of the four regions of the country, namely,
North, South, East and West for rendering yeoman service in the said
fields. More than one recipient or
organisation may share the award. The
award will be instituted in 2007, and would be given annually thereafter. The award is open to all Indian NGOs and
Human Rights' activists without any distinction or discrimination on ground of
race, sex, caste or creed. The Screening
Committee and finally, the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose
would consider the achievements of the NGOs or individual Human Rights'
activists nominated/recommended for Award by the prescribed authority. For the 2007 Award, the Screening Committee
and the Selection Committee would consider nominations received up to 31st
ÁÖß ¸üÖ×¿Ö¤ü †»¾Öß : ÃÖ¸ü, ´Öï ¤üÖê ×´Ö®Ö™ü
»ÖæÑÝÖÖ… It is a very important matter. ...(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö)...
I was permitted to raise the issue pertaining to beedi
Since yesterday I have been trying to raise this issue...
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now, there is a Bill for
introduction...(Interruptions) Let us go by the procedure...(Interruptions)
THE INDIAN RIFLES (REPEAL) BILL, 2006
MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI SHRIPRAKASH JAISWAL): Sir, I move for
leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Indian Rifles Act, 1920.
question was put and the motion was adopted.
SHRIPRAKASH JAISWAL: Sir, I introduce the
ÁÖß ¸üÖ×¿Ö¤ü †»¾Öß : ÃÖ¸ü, ´Öï
‡ÃÖ ÆüÖˆÃÖ ÛúÖê µÖÆü ²ÖŸÖÖ®ÖÖ “ÖÖÆüŸÖÖ ÆæÑü ×Ûú ...(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö)...
Sir, yesterday, I was permitted to raise an issue and today again, I
could not raise it...(Interruptions)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We will take it up tomorrow...(Interruptions) This is not Zero Hour...(Interruptions) I cannot allow you now...(Interruptions)
It pertains to human rights; two persons have already committed
suicide. That is why it was admitted
yesterday, and it was to be taken up during Zero Hour. But, unfortunately, we could not take it
ÁÖß ¸üÖ×¿Ö¤ü †»¾Öß : ÃÖ¸ü, ´Öï
¤üÖê ×´Ö®Ö™ü ´Öë ‡ÃÖ ÆüÖˆÃÖ ÛúÖê
µÖÆü ²ÖŸÖÖ®ÖÖ “ÖÖÆüŸÖÖ ÆæÑü ×Ûú ...(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö)...
ÁÖß ˆ¯ÖÃÖ³ÖÖ¯Ö×ŸÖ : No, no. ...(interruptions)ü...®ÖÆüà, ®ÖÆüà… ...(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö)...
ÁÖß ¸üÖ×¿Ö¤ü †»¾Öß : ˆ¢Ö¸ü ¯ÖÏ¤êü¿Ö
Ûêú »ÖÜÖ®Ö‰ú ´Öë Æü´ÖÖ¸êü ¾ÖÛÔúÃÖÔ, •ÖÖê ÃÖ¸üÛúÖ¸ü Ûêú
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: This is not Zero
¤êü×ÜÖ‹, †Ö¯Ö ÝÖ»ÖŸÖ ¯Ö¸ü´¯Ö¸üÖ
´ÖŸÖ ›üÖ×»Ö‹… ...(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö)... ÝÖ»ÖŸÖ ¯Ö¸ü´¯Ö¸üÖ ´ÖŸÖ ›üÖ×»Ö‹… ...(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö)... I am not allowing ...(interruptions)ü...
ÁÖß ˆ¯ÖÃÖ³ÖÖ¯Ö×ŸÖ : Nothing will go on
ÁÖß ¸üÖ×¿Ö¤ü †»¾Öß : *
ÁÖß ˆ¯ÖÃÖ³ÖÖ¯Ö×ŸÖ : †Ö¯Ö ®ÖÖê×™üÃÖ ×¤ü‹ ²ÖÝÖî¸ü ÛúÖê‡Ô
×¾ÖÂÖµÖ ®ÖÆüà ˆšüÖ ÃÖÛúŸÖê...(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö)...
¯Ö¸ü •ÖÖ¸üß )
ÁÖß ˆ¯ÖÃÖ³ÖÖ¯Ö×ŸÖ (ÛÎú´ÖÖÝÖŸÖ) : †Ö¯Ö ®ÖÖê×™üÃÖ ¤üß×•Ö‹… ®ÖÖê×™üÃÖ Ûêú ²ÖÝÖî¸ü Ûãú”û ®ÖÆüà ÛúÆü
ÃÖÛúŸÖê… .. (¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö) ..
†Ö¯Ö ®ÖÖê×™üÃÖ ¤üß×•Ö‹… ..(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö).. ²Öî×šü‹, ®ÖÖ¸üÖµÖÞÖÃÖÖ´Öß •Öß… Please sit
down. ..(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö).. †Ö¯Ö ³Öß ²Öî×šü‹, ¿ÖÖ×Æü¤ü ×ÃÖ×§üÛúß •Öß… ... (¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö) .. µÖÆü ŒµÖÖ Æîü? †Ö¯Ö ²Öî×šü‹… ..(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö).. ®ÖÖ¸üÖµÖÞÖÃÖÖ´Öß •Öß, ®ÖÖê×™üÃÖ “ÖÖ×Æü‹… ..(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö) .. ¿ÖÖ×Æü¤ü ×ÃÖ×§üÛúß •Öß, Please sit down. (¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö) ..
®ÖÆüà, ®ÖÆüà, ¸üÖ×¿Ö¤ü †»¾Öß •Öß, †Ö¯Ö ®ÖÖê×™üÃÖ ¤üß×•Ö‹… Please give the
notice. .. (¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö)
.. ¯»Öß•Ö, ®ÖÖ¸üÖµÖÞÖÃÖÖ´Öß
•Öß… ..(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö).. †Ö¯Ö ®ÖÖê×™üÃÖ ¤üß×•Ö‹… Please give the notice. ..(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö) .. ØÛú×›üµÖÖ
ÃÖÖÆü²Ö, †Ö¯ÖÛúÖ ×²Ö»Ö Æîü,
†Ö¯Ö ²ÖÖê×»Ö‹… ..(¾µÖ¾Ö¬ÖÖ®Ö)
Kyndiah, please move the Bill. (Interruptions)
Let us take up the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order Amendment Bill, 2006.
(SCHEDULED TRIBES) ORDER
AMENDMENT BILL, 2006
THE MINISTER OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS (SHRI P.R.
Sir, I beg to move:-
Bill further to amend the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 to modify the
Scheduled Tribes in the State of Bihar, be taken
The question was put and the motion was
* Not recorded.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We shall now take up
clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.
Clause 2 was added to the Bill.
Clause 1, the Enacting Formula and the
Title were added to the Bill.
SHRI P.R. KYNDIAH: Sir, I move:-
That the Bill be passed.
The motion was adopted.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Let us take up the
Short Duration Discussion. (interruptions) What is this? Without giving notice you want
to raise it..
(Interruptions) You are from the
ruling group. This is not good. (Interruptions)
Without giving notice, you cannot raise the matter. (Interruptions) Why
are you not giving notice? (Interruptions) Mr. Narayanasamy,
Let us take up the Short Duration Discussion. Shri Arun Jaitley.
(Interruptions).... (Followed by 2o/tdb)
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr.
Narayanasamy, please take your seat. ...(Interruptions)... Now, we take up the Short Duration
Discussion. Shri Arun Jaitley is to raise the Short Duration Discussion.
SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Are they the UPA
partners? The Samajwadi Party is helping the Congress
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: I am just asking
this question, Sir.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Let
us discuss the internal security. ...(Interruptions)...
Mr. Siddiqui, please maintain the decorum of this
SHORT DURATION DISCUSSION ON INTERNAL
SCENARIO IN THE COUNTRY
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (GUJARAT): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, my gratitude to you for
permitting us to raise the important issue for discussion on the internal
security situation of the country. Sir, the UPA Government now has been in
power for almost two-and-a-half years, and during its tenure in power, we, in
the opposition, have several reasons to be disappointed with the performance of
this Government. There are several fronts in which the Government has certainly
not lived up to the popular expectations. We have had virtually, because of the
ideological struggle between the Congress Party and the Left, a paralysis in
the economic decision-making process of the country. We have seen in the last
two-and-a-half years gross constitutional improprieties committed for partisan
reasons in Jharkhand, in Goa, in Bihar; we
have seen the dilution of the Prime Ministerial authority; we have seen the
criminalisation of the Council of Ministers. We have seen pronouncements by
members of the Council of Ministers, not in the direction of any higher
standards of governance, but intended really to harden caste and religious
identities of this country. We have also seen the abrogation of an effort to
pursue an independent foreign policy. Now, if we look at the overall
performance of the UPA Government, these are the broad heads which have
disappointed the whole country. But, if there is the largest single failure of
this Government, it is certainly the management of the country's internal security.
After two-and-a-half years of the UPA being in power, an average citizen is
asking himself a question, not merely in areas which were traditionally
infested with terrorism, but even in other parts of the country, that are we
really sitting on a mine field, with the helpless Government, unable to have
any action or response to the developing situation? The question, Sir, is, is India
safe in the hands of the UPA? And, if we see the performance of this
Government, we go back disappointed with a great sense of insecurity that with
instances of terrorism and disturbance to internal security increasing by the
day, the Government is merely a helpless spectator. Every time any major
incident of sabotage or attack or terrorist violence takes place, we see the
leaders of this Government, the hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Home Minister
with the usual kind of cliches and templates that
this is condemnable; the Government and the country will have zero-tolerance to
terrorism. But, after these usual templates in terrorism, this Government then
sits back and waits for the next attack to take place. This has been the
history of the last two-and-a-half years. Today, we have the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, the situation in Assam again erupting its fall out
in various other parts of the country, and now you have a complete zone of
violence emerging from the left wing extremism. (Contd. by
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (contd.): If you look at the pronouncements of the Government and
even the latest document that they have circulated, you will find that there is
nothing which inspires the real confidence among the people.
two-and-a-half years have seen internal security crumbling under this
Government, if not collapsing. We are disappointed but not surprised. I went
back to see what is often quoted -- National Common Minimum Programme -- as to
what the UPA had to say on the subject; because, there, when you refer to the
National Common Minimum Programme, they ask for a strict enforcement.
As I said, we
are disappointed with the internal security situation but we are not surprised
because the 24-page document virtually made no reference to the management of
the country's internal security! The management of the internal security in
this country is not a UPA priority! There is no mention of what the national
strategy has to be to deal with terrorism, what the way forward has to be in
order to ease the situation in Jammu and Kashmir,
on how the Left Wing extremism has to be combated, what is the long-term
strategy as far as Jammu and Kashmir
is concerned. The National Common Minimum Programme of the UPA did not spare
much time or attention to all this. It is, therefore, understandable that the UPA's approach of inaction to this situation does not bring
in turmoil within the UPA or its supporting parties in the Left. Because, as we said, we are disappointed but not surprised because
this is certainly not an area of the UPA priority. Are the UPA, the hon.
Prime Minister, the hon. Home Minister, Sir, living in denial about what
exactly the situation of the country is? We do not think that they are really
unaware of what is happening. When I say they are not unaware, all security and
intelligence agencies have a close approach to the eyes and ears of the Prime Minister
and the Home Minister. And professional as they are, I have no doubt that our
agencies have been keeping the highest functionaries of the Government informed
as to what the ground-level situation today in the country is. We have a
situation where the Prime Minister and the Home Minister and the entire
Government pretend to be in denial of this. They are in denial of the existence
of this problem because virtually it now appears that the crux of the problem
is not that there is any lack of advisers in the intelligence or security
agencies to professionally advise the Government on how the situation has to be
tackled, but the real problem is the own approach of the UPA. If hard decisions
are not to be taken, if terrorism and the deteriorating internal security
situation is to be dealt with by kid gloves and the
punch to be delivered must only have a velvet coating, then I am afraid, a
Government of this time will never be able to effectively tackle the internal
security of the country.
The point for the
Government and the UPA is, Sir, that internal security
has to be tackled on security considerations. But the approach of the UPA is:
Can I make political capital out of it and in fighting terrorism, can I use
that fight against terrorism also into an instrument of vote bank politics? So,
security is not to be tackled on security considerations but security is to be
tackled on vote bank considerations. And, if this is the approach of the UPA,
then you will have the kind of shameful incidents which took place last week
repeated by the day.
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD): Has it ever
happened, Sir, in the 59 years of Indian history after Independence that an exasperated head of an
intelligence agency chooses a public platform to deliver his views? These are all agencies, which very quietly
advise the Government on the steps to be taken.
But then even those heads of the intelligence agencies, -- and I refer
to the speech made by the Director of IB -- realise that it is a case where the
Government is not merely to be rapped on its knuckles but it is to be knocked
on its head. Before the entire country,
and television and media the Government is to be advised that all your existing
traditional legal architectures for dealing with terrorism have failed and,
therefore, think of a solution, which is commensurate WITH the problem that we
are seeking to tackle. But then this
would have no effect on a Government whose priority is not national security;
whose priority is vote bank politics.
Within 48 hours came the response from the hon. Prime Minister that the
Government has no such intention of enacting any tough law to deal with
terrorism. It is a shameful incident, as
I said, which has taken place.
THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI SHIVRAJ
May I say something, Sir? The information, which is being given to this
House, is incorrect. The hon. Member is quoting from the newspapers and
speaking here. He has not read the
speeches made either by the Prime Minister or the Director General. This kind of misleading will not help the
country in controlling the security situation.
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Sir, I am extremely grateful to the hon. Home
Minister for his intervention. In fact,
the intervention just proves the point we are making. The intervention proves that not what some
newspapers tried to interpret as, what camera showed, the exact phraseology
from the mouth of the author and the orator that the existing legal architectures
have not delivered, to deal with this situation we require a radical solution,
we require a radical law, but then a Government, as I said, whose priority is
not national security, whose priority merely is how to use a soft-on-terror
approach as an instrument of vote bank politics, will not even understand this
loud and clear message that came from the head of an intelligence agency. So, what is being interpreted in the
intervention of the hon. Home Minister, I am sure he will elaborate it when he
responds to this debate, is exactly the difficulty that we find with this
Government. Sir, what is the magnitude
of the problem? Sir, we had a situation
17 or 18 years ago where Pakistan
realised very clearly that in conventional warfare it had not succeeded, and,
therefore, it resorted to an alternative tactic. It saw the emergence of sabotage and
terrorist attacks in India
through cross border terrorism. Today you find that these are not attacks,
which are merely confined to Jammu
You have a situation where the attacks and the networks are not merely
limited to the State on which Pakistan
has its eyes but today you have ISI modules, which have been expanding along
the length and breadth of this country. The network exists if he sees some of
the attacks, in Maharashtra, for instance, in
different towns, the kind of recoveries which are being made and the kind of
recoveries and explosives which are not being made by our security agencies and
the State security agencies. How many recoveries have been made from
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Gujarat, Goa, Uttar Pradesh,
Bihar and West Bengal?
(Contd by 2R)
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): The network has expanded all across the country. The targets, today, are clearly chosen. And, let us be very clear how the targets are
chosen. The targets of principal
terrorist attacks are chosen very carefully so as to destroy the economic,
religious and social fabric of the Indian society. So, let us just take the major attacks which
have taken place in the last one year or one-and-a-half years. Sir, 5th July, 2005, the chosen
target was Ayodhya.
They felt that it represented an important religious symbol as far as India
was concerned. On the eve of Diwali last year -- 29th October, 2005 -- it was
Delhi, the political capital of India. On the eve of Diwali,
when security forces are on a high alert, they have proved that they can attack
our political capital. Then, they have
chosen Bangalore, the technological hub of India,
on 28th December, 2005. Each
of these targets is carefully chosen.
Then, 7th March, 2006, Varanasi,
attack against a religious and cultural hub of India. Next one is, Nagpur, an attempted attack on the
headquarters of the RSS. Then, Sir, on 1st
June, 2006, it is Mumbai. On 11th
July, 2006, again, the effort was to attack the commercial hub of India. Thereafter, Malegaon -- a town in which minority
community is in majority. And,
therefore, the target of attack was the minority itself so that some kind of
upheaval could be created in the country itself. Each one of these major attacks, which are
believed to be attacks inspired and planned across the border, are not in the
traditional areas -- Jammu and
Kashmir -- where terrorist attacks took place. The network and the art of violence are now
spreading. They can almost choose
targets at will. And, when they choose
targets at will, they attack. And what
has been our response? First, let us see
the strength behind these attacks.
Traditionally, we have said that it is done entirely from across the
border. Most of these are even, today,
planned across the border. Our police
agencies have been trying to collect evidence.
But, then, you find reports coming in that there is also an
indigenisation of terror taking place.
From what was initially a support only for logistics by local groups,
you have to face an unfortunate reality and the reality being that these cross
border attacks are also being supported at places by home-grown
terrorists. Let us not forget that the
centre of activities has also shifted.
The fencing across the Western border has made it a little difficult to
have infiltration. And, therefore, a
large amount of infiltration is taking place from these open borders of Nepal and Bangladesh. And, from Nepal, it is of both kinds -- not
only the ISI but also the Leftwing Extremists.
you have an open border. My party, for
the last two to three decades has been speaking in terms of illegal immigration
that is taking place. Now, you find
these attacks taking place by that route.
If you have 20 million illegal migrant population,
it is possible for these miscreants, these terrorists, to come and mix with the
local population, since they look like Indians.
So, detection becomes extremely difficult. Therefore, with this illegal migration taking
place along Bangladesh
borer, it has almost become very easy for them to shift their hubs as the
fencing has created a little difficulty in crossing the border as far as the
Western borders are concerned. But, what
is disappointing and a disillusionment for the country
is not the fact that these attacks are taking place. These targets are clearly chosen. How much prior information do our
intelligence agencies have with regard to these attacks. There are hundreds of these attacks and these
ISI modules which our intelligence agencies in the past have cracked.
ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): But if you can have an attack like the one on 11th
July, 2006 in
Mumbai, where at seven different places, almost by a minute, explosions were made, dozens of people must have been involved in this
operation of sabotage. They had picked
up different stations, different trains, different people who must have
transported them, who must have funded them, who must have placed the material
in various local trains. And, despite
the fact that the involvement is of such a large number of people, did we have
advance intelligence information that these attacks are taking place at any of
these places? The security response has
been poor. In 1993, when Mumbai was
attacked, within days, if I remember correctly, at that time, the whole case
was cracked up. When our former Prime
Minister, hon. Shri Rajiv Gandhi, was assassinated,
within less than 24 hours our intelligence agencies, I remember, had drawn out
the sketch and given to the newspapers that it was a lady, with a belt around
her waist, who had done it. Our security
experts created that incident which eventually proved to be true within less
than 24 hours. When the Akshardham
Temple was attacked,
within hours, a whole night operation liquidated and the people who were
virtually behind the logistical support were arrested. When this Parliament was attacked, the
investigation response was that within 24 to 48 hours the response started
coming out who were the possible and what was the manner in which the attack
had been planned. But when the political
executive of the day treats this as a non-priority item, it does inflict upon
our intelligence agencies and our security responses also. Today, if you were
to categorically ask us who was behind the Malegon
attack, who was behind Mumbai attack of 11th
July, information are trickling in, but the response has been completely
inadequate even months after the incidents had taken place. What is the plight of those, as far as
liquidations of some of these people are concerned, who face our security
forces in these encounters? Are they
increasing or decreasing? What is the
response with regard to their prosecution and their convictions, and to the
quality of evidence that has to be collected against them? There are several questions which will arise,
where the Government by its inadequate response, by its negative response has
lowered the national morale as far as the fight against terror is
concerned. When I said that the CMP of
the UPA did not give any details on how to fight terrorism, they can say that,
probably, one of the only items that were there in the CMP was that 'the anti-terrorism
law, the POTA, will be repealed'. That
was the only real response that the UPA had in its CMP in its fight against
terrorism. You repealed the POTA. It was a law that was intended against
terrorists. But you campaigned that it
was not against terrorists, it was against a particular community. Thereafter, you repealed the POTA. Now, what has happened thereafter? It is even now not too late to realise your
mistake. Obviously, the agencies must
have advised the Government, and the Home Ministry said that there were several
aspects in the POTA, such as, interception of communications, ban on
organizations, confiscation of terrorist properties, defining terrorism. All these are areas which, from the POTA, we
will lift bodily and put in another law, called the Unlawful Activities Act. So, a large number of these provisions were
bodily lifted from the POTA and put in the Unlawful Activities Act. But, there were two important provisions. I
make an important point here, and if the Government does not have the honesty
to accept that even today, then, perhaps, even when it is already too late, the
Government is not willing to see the reality. (Contd. by 1t -- VP)
ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): The two significant points in POTA were: one, it had
special bail provisions, which made bail extremely difficult, if not
impossible. Unless the court was satisfied that the accused is virtually
innocent, bail was not to be granted.
The second aspect was that confessions made to a police officer of high
seniority were admissible as evidence.
And when they were admissible as evidence, they could be treated as
evidence. But after the judgement of the Supreme Court in the TADA case,
safeguards were introduced in the POTA that within 24 hours of the confession,
the accused is to be produced before the Magistrate, and he can always deny to
the Magistrate that he never made the confession. Then, the Magistrate can then direct the
medical examination of the accused.
These are the various safeguards in the law itself. Now, when POTA was enacted, Sir, these two
special provisions along with others, were not merely in POTA.
Several State Governments said that POTA deals with terrorism, and we
want the same power to deal with organised crime. So, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, they all asked for the same permission. The Governments successively started giving
them permission. So, you had the same
law not for terrorists, but for organised mafias. For terrorists we must make effort to see
that their civil liberties are safeguarded, but for organised mafia no such
consideration is required. This was an
illogical approach of this Government.
But let us see what happened thereafter.
The Rajasthan Government and the Gujarat Government asked for the same
law, verbatim. Their assemblies passed
the same law as MCOCA, and the Karnataka law and Andhra law. For over two years this Government says, 'no
such permission will be granted, we are still examining it.' These two States have not been permitted even
to enact these laws against organised crimes.
The Centre is sitting on it. Sir,
ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This entire argument is to try them under
ordinary law. We all know that if the
assassins of Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi had been tried
under an ordinary law, without the benefits of those admissible confessions
under TADA, what the judgement would have been?
We now have a series of pronouncements from a Mumbai court in relation
to the 1993 blasts. Let the Home
Minister do an independent exercise in this Ministry that without the benefit
of the evidence provisions in TADA, how many of these accused would have been
convicted, and how many would have gone scot-free. Most of them would have gone scot-free. If under the Parliament attack case, and the Akshardham case, quick convictions were possible, this was
one of the legal instruments for fighting terrorism. But, then, as I said, the proof of the
pudding is in the eating. Today, you
have a Congress-NCP Government in Maharashtra. You don't have POTA because you thought POTA
violates civil liberties. You had the
incident of 11th July. You
arrested some people. Why have you not
tried them under the ordinary law? If
your political argument was so correct, why were those arrested for 11th
July 2006 incident in Maharashtra, a State
ruled by the Congress and the NCP, not tried under the ordinary law? They know that under the ordinary law these
two advantages that the investigation has against terrorists will not be
available. So, they have now formed a
new device. We opposed POTA for
political reasons, so we cannot bring POTA back. Ordinary law will be
insufficient to deal with them. So, now, there is a localised law of POTA
called MCOCA, which is not meant against terrorists, but which is meant to be
used against organised mafia. So, all
the terrorists who have so far been arrested in the 11th July incident, try them under MCOCA, so that the benefit of a
hard law is available to the prosecution.
And the reasons why you have done this is very
clear. You know that soft law will not work, and ordinary law will not
work. But, yet, because the policy of
the UPA is, "my vote bank should not be affected, I will, ostensibly, keep
misleading the minorities of this country by repeatedly telling them that POTA
was against you." (Cont. by PK/1U)
ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): Therefore, I repealed
it and I am not bringing it back. But,
then, how do I handle terrorism when I know that ordinary law cannot handle
it? Well, in Maharashtra,
we are doing it under MCOCA. But, what
will you do in the other States, God forbid, if such an incident takes
place? This, Sir, is the real dichotomy
in the approach as far as this Government is concerned, that as a Government it
does not want to have all the powers on as to how to fight terrorism itself. Post-Kargil, Sir,
there was an expert committee which was set up, which had given a detailed
report on various issues. And, you had a
very high-powered GoM of the Government of
India which went into all those issues.
The Leader of the Opposition was an important Member of the GoM and on the advice of the GoM
you had various kinds of institutions within the Government which had been set
up, where intelligence coordination, processing of that intelligence, thinking
in terms of steps as to how to deal with each emerging situation, each one of
them was planned and Governmental systems within agencies were created. You had the Intelligence Coordination Group,
you had the technological committees, because of the technologies used by these
militants, you had the National Technology Research Organisation, and you had
joined Task Forces on processing this intelligence. We are disappointed, Sir, that though not
abolished, most of these agencies have really become
non-functional. They have really become
defunct. Good work was done by that
Committee which went into all the entire issue post-Kargil
and gave a detailed report on the management of various issues including
internal security, and, thereafter, a high-powered Group of Ministers spent
months and months together in recommendations and in creating institutions
which were required for this country. You have a Government to respond where
each one of these institutions created has become defunct! What is the political approach of the
Government? Let us look at the political
approach as far as each of the issues is concerned. You wanted a healing touch in Jammu and Kashmir. The PDP-Congress coalition was formed, then,
as a result of a democratic process, a popular Government has come in; power
must go to the people and let us have a healing touch as far as the State is
concerned. Today, you have within the
State uncertainty because the two coalition partners are virtually at a cold war with each
other, if not a real war. The Central
Government appears to be virtually clueless on how to deal with the situation,
except for making formal announcements from time to time; and announcements of
the kind that let us have a round-table conference. You had a first round-table conference, which
gave you some security inputs, and then, you had a second round-table
conference. Even groups like Hurriyat did not have command. I don't expect Hurriyat
and the Government to agree, but, at least, they could discuss. When the
NDA was in power, they came and discussed and said, "we have disagreed", but we at least have a confidence
that this Government is honestly dealing with us. The Hurriyat said, "no useful
purpose is going to be served in even discussing with you." The round-table conference, I am not so sure,
was called after necessary security inputs from the intelligence agencies or
the different security agencies. Had
proper homework and the build up to the round-table conference been done? It
remained a square-table conference where the corners needed a lot more bending
before the conference could be held, but nothing of the kind was done. And you finally had only some friendly groups
coming and discussing, giving suggestions, and going away, and nothing came out
of it. And, then, because you had to
show that there was some input coming out of the round-table conference, you
made an announcement of setting up different groups. The people, who have
taken training in Pakistan
and have come back, how is their rehabilitation possible? (Contd. by 1W/PB)
ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): Well, we would have
been very happy if, at least, one group had an explicit item on its agenda that
'you have almost had an ethnic cleansing for the last fifteen years, the Kashmiri
Pandits who have been driven away from the
Valley, their problem will also be discussed.'
But that was not a priority item.
Let us look at the honesty of this Government. I have read in the newspapers today that you
are going to give seven lakh rupees in Gujarat to some people who were affected. Are you willing to follow the same yardstick
with regard to those three-and-a-half lakh to four lakh people who, as a result of the ethnic cleansing, have
been moved out of the Valley? Well, that doesn't suit your politics. And, therefore, when you had the round-table
conference, you started announcing groups, and, let me tell you, Sir, we are
now moving towards one of the more dangerous areas. One of the groups is, 'to deal
with the Centre-State constitutional relationship.' The group, which is to deal with the
Centre-State constitutional relationship, is not going to resolve the
problem. Before you go and give gestures
or statements of this kind, let us effectively argue today, what part of the Kashmir problem is attributable to the fact that within
the Valley, the Assembly has inadequate powers. Compared to the rest of the
country which is more peaceful, if there is one State where the Assembly and
the Government have disproportionately higher powers in the distribution of
power in a federal politics, it is Jammu & Kashmir. The problem is terrorism, the problem is
cross-border terrorism; the problem is economic. Instead of addressing that problem, you set
up a group, how to reconsider and review the constitutional relationship
between Jammu & Kashmir and India.
And, even before the group has started functioning, you already have a problem
at hand. Your alliance partner is
saying, 'self-rule' and our stand in that group is going to be self-rule.' The other important political party in the
State, the National Conference, is saying, 'pre-1953 status'. Sir, I repeat the
question that I had asked myself, is any part of the Kashmir problem
attributable to the fact that the Kashmir Government or the Kashmir Assembly
has lesser, inadequate powers? Instead
of addressing that problem in a frontal manner, you want to give some contrary
political signals, and, therefore, just as we are repenting over our mistake of
the 1950s, you now want to create a second round of mistakes that Indian
generations over the next
hundred, two hundred years would start repenting and say,
whatever is the present constitutional relationship, let us further loosen
it. This is your approach as far as
Jammu & Kashmir is concerned.
How much more time would be required by you? Why I am asking this is because the time
allotted to you is over.
Sir, another ten minutes. I am
Please conclude. I have to remind you because the time allotted to you
You come out with ad hoc kind of solutions. The Pakistani Foreign Minister is on a
personal visit to India. The same hon. gentleman, some two months ago,
on Pakistani television gave an interview saying, 'The Government of India has
given us "a non-paper", not a formal document, but a
"non-paper". And, a
'non-paper' really speaks in terms of the pre-1953 situation. Now, whether this has been given by some bad
channel diplomacy or not, we do not know.
But are these the kind of solutions that you are trying to find from
this? And, coupled
with this, Sir, kindly see when we are on Kashmir,
the entire drift in the country's foreign policy which has taken place. The obvious effort of Pakistan over the past few decades was that the
centrality of the foreign policy issue should be Kashmir. Pakistan always said 'it is a
disputed territory and, therefore, this should be the centrality of the issue.'
President Musharraf, when he came for the Agra
Summit, said, 'this is the core issue.'
What happened during the six years of the NDA Government? Globally and bilaterally, the centrality was
acquired by cross-border terrorism. (Contd. by 1x/SKC)
ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): Indian diplomacy was
at its peak when it said that globally, if there was one issue of
internationalisation between India
it was cross-border terrorism. Pakistan
wanted to internationalise Kashmir while we
wanted to internationalise cross-border terrorism; and the world started
listening to us during those six years. And today, when at Havana, and on the
way back, our distinguished Prime Minister says that Pakistan is also a victim
of terror and that all terrorist groups in Pakistan are, in fact, autonomous of
the Pakistani Government, then, this is exactly the kind of argument that
Pakistan has been using all these years -- 'if somebody uses or misuses my soil
it is without my consent; we are also honestly trying'. President Musharraff says, 'there have been attempts on my life
also'. Where was the occasion for us to abandon our declared foreign policy of
internationalising cross-border terrorism, placing voluminous evidence of
cross-border terrorism? Instead of saying that today, instead of cross-border
terrorism, the internationalised issue is again Kashmir, because on terrorism
now, the difference between the Government of India's policy and Pakistan's
declared policy has almost been obliterated.
Sir, the issue is not only Kashmir.
The second difficult area is Assam,
which is emerging once again. Since the attacks and blasts which took place in
the Fancy Bazaar of Guwahati and the repeated attacks
thereafter, what kind of serious inputs are we having when we say that we will
call a People's Consultation Group which would start mediating, that the
People's Consultation Group would have talks and in those talks not even the
lowest rung of ULFA would participate? In the talks with the People's
Consultation Group, through the group with the Government of India, not even
the lowest rung of Ulfa leadership has participated.
We suddenly say there would be a ceasefire and, in the face of that ceasefire
we declare there, we find violence erupting again and Assam going back to a situation
from which we decided to rescue it back.
Sir, let us look at the approach of the Government. When we
speak in terms of internal security, my entire emphasis in the debate is not
merely on one case of Afzal Guru; it is only an
illustration as to what the attitude of the Government is going to be. Somebody
tries to attack this most vital institution of Indian democracy, the Indian
Parliament; he conspires in that and after he conspires in that, the courts of
law uphold his conviction -- three courts, one after the other, find there is
adequate evidence. He tries to virtually
annihilate the entire political leadership of India. This attack, if it had
succeeded, if our security guards had not laid down their lives, if these 12
doors had not been closed, even if one door had remained open, a very large
number of us present here today may not have been there, with the kinds of
weapons those people had. We don't have armed security inside Parliament....
(Interruptions)... Is that why you are
rewarding the gentleman concerned?
Sir, today, in such a situation, can there be any scope for
a debate whether in these kinds of cases the power of clemency has to be
exercised? There have been cases which the Government may go on considering
indefinitely but there are cases where the Governments in the past disposed of
such cases within hours. In the case of the assassins of Gen. Vaidya the clemency application was disposed of within
hours. (interruption) Sir, if these are the issues, the issue is
SHIVRAJ VISHWANATH PATIL: Rajiv Gandhi's case
was kept with the Government continuously for five years.
ARUN JAITLEY: Sir, let this be a lesson that there has
to be some time-bound system within the Government, within the highest
Constitutional functionaries of the Government, to dispose this off. Otherwise,
it is reflective of the kind of national intent that we have. The issues are
not merely of this kind. When I speak of Kashmir
or the North-East, what is emerging now as an even more serious problem?
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): We normally speak of North-East or Kashmir. Where do we stand as far as Left-Wing
extremism in India
is concerned? ..(Interruptions)..
SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: We
are not escorting terrorists.
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY:
Sir, as far as the acts of ..(Interruptions).. Those who are accused of killing your leader, you
inducted them in the Cabinet. ..(Interruptions).. If
you want a discussion at that level, you will get a response back.
..(Interruptions).. One of the accused in the killing
of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi is a part of your Council
of Ministers. ..(Interruptions).. If you want a debate
at this level, you will get it back. ..(Interruptions)..
SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: We
are prepared for discussion. ..(Interruptions).. If it
is a challenge, we are ready for discussion. ..(Interruptions)..
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
When your turn comes, you can answer. ..(Interruptions)..
Please sit down. ..(Interruptions).. Please sit down.
..(Interruptions).. Please don't interrupt.
..(Interruptions).. Mr. Jaitley,
please conclude. ..(Interruptions).. †Ö¯Ö ²Öî×šü‹, •Öê™ü»Öß •Öß
•ÖÖê ÛúÆëüÝÖê, ¾ÖÆüß ×¸üÛúÖò›Ôü ´Öë
SHRI ARUN JAITELY:
Sir, it is a very important subject. I,
therefore, do not want to bring it down to the level of these kinds of attacks
for comments. Let us now just consider
where do we stand as far as Left-Wing extremism or Maoism,
that we call it, is concerned. Punjab was a troubled State; Jammu & Kashmir is a
troubled State and some areas of North-East are troubled. Together between them, they occupy about 12
per cent of the geographical area of this country. The population that they involve is almost 5
per cent of this country, maybe a little less than that. I am mentioning this to just give you an idea
of the spread of Left-Wing extremism that has taken place. Today, right from the border of Assam till down deep south,
you have 40 per cent of India's
geographical area, 35 per cent of population, whose habitable areas are
directly or indirectly affected by Naxalism. You have thick forests in these areas,
occupying 19 per cent of our total forest area or mineral resources, the
economic life-line. The width or size of
this area is two-and-a-half times of the size of entire Bangladesh. These are the areas in
which parallel Governments are running or their primacies are being
established. Sir, if
we read some of the Maoist literature, it tells us the effort where they claim
to have succeeded, and they use the phrase "Creation of a Compact
Revolutionary Zone." It is
called CRZ. I don't know whether your SEZs may see the light of day or not, but the CRZ is
already there. These Compact
Revolutionary Zones from the border of Nepal
cover Jharkhand, Bihar, parts of Madhya Pradesh,
Orissa, Chhattisgarh, parts of Karnataka and a lot of Andhra Pradesh. These are all areas which are parts of the
Compact Revolutionary Zones.
(Contd. by 1z/KSK)