֮֕ן ֤ (֟): ״֮֙ ִֵ פ ֋, ֟ ֙ ֮ ֙ , ׻ ֌ֻև , ָ ׻֋ ֋ , ִ ֳ ֻ ֮ ׻֋ ָ ֋ ֲֻ֟ ֻ ֮ ֋, ָ ִ օ ָ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮֮ ָ ׻ ֮ ִ , ׻ ֮ ? ױ ׾ֳ ֮ ? ָ , ֙ ֙? (ִ֯)

׿š ֵָ (ײָ): ֳ֯ן , ׮ֻ ָ ָ֬ ֙ ֤ ֡ ֻ ׬ ן׾׬ֵ ׾ ֻ , ס ֨ן ׾ ֻ ָ, ו ׾µ ӳ־֮ֆ ׸ , ׌ ׮ֵ ִ

߮-ָ ־ֻ ֙ ִ֕, ָָ ӡ, ߮ ׻֋ ֮ ֵ ӡ ֤֟, Ͼ֤ ֌ֻ־֤ ָ ֮ ֵ֮ פ ֕ ֵ֮ ֓ և , ߴ ֓ և ֆ ֻֻ ֻ ֲָָ ָָ ֵ֮ ֟ ֟ ֣ ִ֮֬ ׮ ֋օ

-߮ Ͽ ָ ӡ ֮ ™ ָ֮ ָָ ԇ֮ ׻֋ ֮ ֿá ֻ , ׻ פ ß ܟֵָ , Ͼ֤ ֚ ֑֟ ß ֮ , ָָ ָ ָ ӳ߸ ׾ָ֓ ִ ֵ ? ָָ ָ ׾ָ֓ ִ Ͼ֤ ֚, ֤֟ ֚, ֌ֻ־֤ ֚ ׸֕ ֤ ֵԸ ?

ֳ֯ן , ײָ , , ָ ֌ֻ־֤ ֤ , ָ ֵֿ֯ ֵָ ֲֻ ׻֋ ֋ ꅠ ָ֮ , ֡ ֜ ִ֬ ֯ ֌ֻ־֤ ֚ ֤ ֵ ֟ , ו֮ ׮֬Ԯ֟ ߓ ֻ ܵ ֤ , ָ ׮֬Ԯ֟ ߓ ֻ ܵ ֤ , ָָ ߴ ֮և ֕ ָ ׮ִ ו֮֟ ֮֋ , ֮ֆ ־ ָָ ָ ׮ִ ӲӬ ؾ , ָָ ׾ָ֓ ָָ ָ ׾ָ֓ ָ ׸֕ 꿵-״ ־ ׻ֵ ֋ 꿵-״ ־ ֮ ֤ ִֻ֯ ֬׮ ָ ׻ ϵ ֋? ָָ Ͽ ָ ׾ָ֓ , ֮ , ֮ Ӿ ֌ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ (ִ֯) MCM/2B ָ


׾ ֤ (ײָ) : ֳ֯ן , ֮֯ ָ פ, ֟Ԯ ֮ ִ ֮֮ߵ ӡ , ֯ ־ֻ ־ֻ ֯ ִו ٣ ؓ֟ ׾ֵ ֌ֻ־֤ ֟ ֯ ֮֟ ֕ ׮ þ֣ ָ ֌ֻ־֤ ָָ ֛ ֮ ֟ ׻֋ ߻ ֱֻ ־֕ և ߅ פ ־ ָ ֻ ֌ֻ־פ ֲ ״ֻ ֲ ؛ ꅠ ֙֋ ֻ ߅ ָև , ֛ ׾ֵ ָ ֮ ָ ֛ ֟ ו ֙ ӓ Ϥ ִ - ָӛ, ֻ, , Ӭ Ϥ ֜, ֳ ָ ֌ֻ־֤ ϳ־ ֲ-ֲ ֮֟ ִ ֮ ׿ֿ ֜ ֻ־ ִ , ֤ ׸, ֮֟ ߅ כ ֻ־ ֱֻ ֮ ֋ ׾ֻ ׻ֲ֙ ִ ֮ פ ָָ ו֮֟ ܟ ֮֟ ֌ֻ־֤ ֱֻ ִ ִ֣Ԯ ״ֻ֮ , ״ֻ ֵօ ֕ ֙ ָ ׻֋ ֌ֻ־֤ ؓ֟ֆ ֻ ָָ ָև , ֯ ֺ ֮֮ ? (ִ֯)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Minister.

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL): Sir, certain queries have been made by the hon. Members. I would reply to those queries first. Mr. Sunil Mahato was given Y-category security and he was having two PSOs and five commandos with him. The second question asked was whether he had informed the district police. (Interruptions)

SHRI DIGVIJAY SINGH: The first question is not answered. (Interruptions) ֯ ֋, ֮ ֤ ӡ ֋ ָ ֋ ֙ãֻ ָ ֋, ֮֮ ? ...(־֮֬)

ӟ ֛פ : ־ֲ

ֳ֯ן : , ־ֻ ־ֲ ֋օ

פݾֵ֕ : ־ֻ ӡ ֋ ָ ֋ ֙ãֻ ָ ֋, ָ ־ֻ ...(־֮֬)

ֳ֯ן : ֮ ו֋

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Sir, the second query was whether the district police was informed or not. We have received the written information from the State Government. In that written information, nothing is written about the information given or not given by Mr. Mahato to the district police. But, I am told by my officers -- on telephone they did tell them -- that no information was given to the district police by the officers. (Interruptions)

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA: The State Home Minister personally went to the site. What is the information -- if this basic information has not been collected by them? What is the use of such agencies? (Interruptions)

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Sir, I don't understand. If you don't want to hear, tell me, I will sit down. (Interruptions) If you don't want to hear, I have no objection in sitting down. ...(Interruptions)... The question asked was whether information was given or not and the information which is given to us is that, information was not given. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA: But you did not say that. Sir, he did not say as clearly as he is saying now. He was trying to hide behind the State Government's information.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: But whose information I can rely upon?

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA: Your own Minister, who went there. (Interruptions) What was Mr. Jaiswal doing there? Why did you send your Minister of State?

00 ׻ֵ : ӱ ֋ ......(־֮֬)

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: I don't know whether you want to hear me or not. ...(Interruptions)... Then, why are you objecting every now and then? I expect some kind of cooperation from, at least, senior Members and former Ministers. ...(Interruptions)... I am categorically saying that in written statement this point was not mentioned, but in the talk which officers had with the officers in the State, they have said that this information was not given.

Then, Sir, the third question which was asked was: "What is the kind of help that would be given to the members of the police who have died in this." The information which we have received is that they are likely to get Rs.8 lakh of insurance and other things also.

(Contd. by RSS/2c)


SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL (CONTD.): In all, each family of the police personnel who has been killed, is likely to get Rs. 10 lakhs.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: What about employment?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: That is for the State Government to decide. I am saying that this is the kind of monetary help which will be given, and definitely, the policy of the Government is to help the members of the families in other ways also, when the police people die in protecting others. Now, sometimes, the job is given, sometimes, the house is given, sometimes, admission is given to the educational institution, and many other types of facilities are provided to the survivors.

Thirdly, a very important question was raised relating to the intelligence. I think, in order to contain any violent activity or terrorist activity, nothing is as useful as the intelligence is. The intelligence is collected by the Government of India, and it is made available to the State Governments also. But the information which is collected by the Government of India and given to the State Governments, is of a different nature. Now, they are in a position to find out the directions which the naxalites or the terrorists or any other kind of persons intending to create some violence are going to take; whether they are going to attack the politicians or the policemen or businessmen or some important installations like the railways, and things like that. Now, that kind of information is available. But that information, though it gives help to the police in the State, it does not fully help them because the time and the place where these incidents are likely to occur, are not known to the policemen in the State also. That is why it has become necessary to strengthen not only the intelligence agencies at the national level, but the intelligence agencies at the State level also, and there has been no meeting which we had with the hon. Chief Minister, Home Minister, the Chief Secretaries and the DGs, in which we have not discussed the importance of intelligence-collecting machinery.

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ : ָ, ֮ ֯ ֙ ֮ ㆻ ־ֲ ӡ ؙ ֟ , ֙ ӲӬ ֵ ־ֻ ֵ ֯ ֋, ־ֲ ㆻ ־ֲ ֮ ? -ֈ ..(־֮֬)..

פݾֵ֕ : ָ, ־ֻ ӡ ָ þֵ ֋? ..(־֮֬).. פ ? ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֯ן : ֯ ֮ ו֋ ..(־֮֬)..

SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA: You don't want to hear the Minister...(Interruptions)...You people want to go...(Interruptions)... You are not interested in listening to the reply of the Home Minister....(Interruptions)...You were not interested in listening to the measures for the safety of the people. You do not want to listen....(Interruptions).... You are only interested in politics....(Interruptions)...

(At this stage some Hon. Members left the Chamber.)

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Sir, we have been asking the State Governments to strengthen their special branches. Sir, you know very well that in the States, the special branches are responsible for collecting the information and providing the information, and we have also said that you prepare the plan, we will also prepare the plan, and whatever help is required to be given for strengthening the special branches collecting the intelligence, would be given. Now, this is an issue which is really very important, and we have taken it up, and I am happy to say that some State Governments have made provisions in their budgets, giving some more money to the police, and providing funds for strengthening their special branches. But, other State Governments have to do it, and probably, they would do it. This is a question which is not directly connected with this issue. I have replied to the queries made, and then, I am taking up the issues which have been raised by the hon. Members, and then, if I am allowed, I will refer to the policy which we should follow.

(contd. by 2d)


SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL (CONTD.): So, the incident will be discussed; the issues will be discussed, and the policy will also be discussed. We would be very happy to receive the guidance, to receive the views, of the hon. Members, so that we can make use of them and we can strengthen our machinery.

The fifth point which was made was: Are you depending only on the police force? Are you doing something to strengthen the economy of the people living over there? Are you doing something to help in some other ways or not? Sir, I have given, in great detail, as to what kind of steps have been taken by the Government of India and what kind of money has been given to the State Governments to strengthen and help the people in these States. We have schemes. Employment Guarantee Scheme is one of the Schemes. Then, providing mid-day-meals is another thing. And, then, we are giving funds to the State Governments to talk to the people who want to give up this kind of activity and join the mainstream. The work will be given....(Interruptions).

SHRI PENUMALLI MADHU: Sir, alienation of tribal lands is one of the biggest problems.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: We have passed the law. It is you, the hon. Members, who have spoken about that. We have passed that law, and we would be using that law. Now, these things are being done, but it is not necessary for me to go into all these details.

Now, about modernisation and all those things, Sir, well, I thought that when I speak about the details of the incident, they would be asking: "What have you been doing to help the State Governments to strengthen their machinery to contain these kinds of practices?" That is why I have given the information in my written statement also. But, I am sure that this kind of information is not going to cover all the points, and it will not be possible to cover all the points in a discussion of this nature. If any other kind of discussion is allowed on this point, we will be only happy to put the entire picture before the House so that they can know. Now, some people say that you talk to them, but some people say that you don't talk to them. We are willing to talk to anybody who abjures violence. We are not willing to talk to those who are taking the arms in their hands and are trying to control the situation, but talking is not prohibited. But talking to the persons who are not going to abjure violence is not going to help. And that is not the kind of policy we are following. We are not taking up the positions in extreme. We are not saying that only guns will solve the problem. We are not saying that only talks will solve the problem. We are not saying that only economic development will solve the problem. This problem has to be tackled by adopting different routes to reach the goal, the routes to provide peace and tranquillity in the society.

Sir, about modernisation and all those things, I think, I will discuss it. Now, as far as the security that is to be provided to the hon. Members is concerned, some hon. Members have raised this issue. Sir, you had also called a meeting, and we had the opportunity, given by you, to discuss this issue, and we have explained. Our policy with respect to this is to err on the safer side. If we have the information that somebody's life is likely to be threatened, or if somebody's life is in danger, we would like to give the security to those persons. There are persons who are wanting security, and there are persons who are not wanting security also. But this task has to be performed by the State Governments. And if we send our policemen to provide security to them, there are so many problems. We have received objections from the State Governments saying why are you doing this. And some PILs, and some cases also, have been filed in the High Court and the Supreme Court. But this issue we would like to deal with in a proper manner, and if anything has to be done in this respect, Sir, you will also guide us; the hon. Members will guide us. Hon. Prime Minister is, certainly, guiding us, and he has been telling us that wherever possible, wherever necessary, we should be giving security to the legislators; not only to the Members of the Parliament but of the other Legislatures also. That would be our policy. But on this, we have not come to any final conclusion. There is a Blue Book, and there is a Yellow Book.

(Contd. by TMV/2E)


SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL (CONTD.): Now, the Yellow Book lays down the policy which provides as to how the security can be provided to the legislators and other important persons in the society. We are following that Yellow Book. If anything has to be added to that Yellow Book or any other kind of policy has to be adopted, we are open to consider that policy. I don't have to say anything more than this on this issue.

ֳ֯ן : ӡ , ָ֮ օ ָӛ ו ָ ãן , ֳ ֟ ָ rich minerals , ֛-֛ ָ֮ פ ֛֯ ־ ә ֌ֻև ֙ , ֯ ֻ ָ֮ ָ ãןֵ ֌׸ և , ֌׸ ֵԯ ?

׿־ָ֕ . י : ָ, ָ ָ ֌׸ և , Ù ־֮Դ ߅ ֮ ....(־֮֬)....

ֳ֯ן : Ù ־֮Դ , ֯ ֮ ֲ ֟և ָ circumstances .. ֌׸ և , ֌׸ և և , ֵԯ ?

׿־ָ֕ . י : ָ, PSOs ӓ ӛ ֣ ꅠ ָ - ָ ֮ ֌׸ ....(־֮֬)....

ֳ֯ן : ֮ , - ָ ֟ ...(־֮֬)... - ָ ֟ օ circumstances , ו֮֠ circumstances , ֤ ָ ֟ , ֌׸ ֻ֟ և և , ֵԯ ?

׿־ָ֕ . י : ָ, ֯ ֻ֟ ׻֋ ֮ ֲ ָ ә׻֕ ֣ ֟֓ߟ , ֌׸ և , ֵԯ ....(־֮֬)....

ֳ֯ן : ....... ֯ , ״׮Ù .. ו ָ ֌׸ և և circumstances , ֵԯ ?

׿־ָ֕ . י : ָ, ֯ ֣ argue ...(־֮֬)....

ֳ֯ן : Argue

׿־ָ֕ . י : it is not given to me to argue with the Presiding Officer.

ֳ֯ן : , , argue ...(־֮֬)....

׿־ָ֕ . י : ָ ־ֻ ־ֲ ֲ ֵ ֯ ֌׸ ֵԯ ̸֕ ֟ , ֵԯ פև ֤ ׻֋?

ֳ֯ן : ....(־֮֬)...

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: Sir, my question about inter-State... (Interruptions)...

DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE: Has any arrest been made so far?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: I will come to that. There is a very important question raised by an hon. Member and that question relates to the cooperation and coordination among States and between the Union and the States. I think that this is one of the most important questions. This question has to be considered by us in a proper manner. Now it is becoming very difficult for the State police to go to the adjoining States or the neighbouring States to take action against them. That is why we have asked them to have an understanding and agreement among themselves and under that agreement to issue instructions to the police to consider the matters relating to the movement of police from one State to the other to take action against them. This is what we have asked. But more than that, there is an idea floated that if these things are happening not only between two States but also more than two States and if there are offences taking place which have ramifications throughout the country, what the Union Government would do? Now this is really a very important question. This question is before the Supreme Court also and the Supreme Court has not given a decision on this point. But the Supreme Court has asked the Soli Sorabjee Committee to give its view to them to decide this issue. The National Human Rights Commission has also given information to them. We have been considering this question: Can we evolve a concept under which it becomes possible for the Union Government to cooperate with the State Governments to control this kind of things? (Contd. by VK/2F)


SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL (CONTD): If a law is made saying that certain kinds of crimes can be treated as federal crimes and in certain kinds of cases, the Union police should be allowed to take action against them, it will be very, very helpful. This is an issue on which we shall have to crystallise our views and the State Governments have to cooperate with us. If the State Governments don't cooperate, then, it becomes very difficult.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: Sir, that was not at all my point of trying to take away any of the powers that the State Governments have on this issue. My only point was this. Where two State Governments are involved, is there any mechanism that the Central Government can set up to further enable the State Governments' cooperation with each other? That is my simple point.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: If that is the point, I think, the first point was equally important and probably more important. This is exactly what is happening. When we put this issue before our colleagues from the States, they have their reservations. When they have reservations, it becomes very difficult. We do have a mechanism here. There is a mechanism under which the Home Secretary speaks to the Chief Secretary; the Special Secretary (Security) also speaks to the DGs and the Home Minister speaks to the Chief Ministers. The Government has constituted an Empowered Committee to deal with these matters, of which some of the Ministers of the Union Government, some of the Chief Ministers of the States which are affected by terrorist movements, are also members. They can sit there and decide. What we have been insisting upon is they should prepare a plan as to how they would like to deal with it. They should mention in the plan as to how they will cooperate with the neighbouring States. Then according to that agreement they should issue instructions to the police. This kind of a mechanism is already there. (Interruptions). (Ends)

MR. CHAIRMAN: This matter is over. Hon. Members, there will be no lunch hour today. Now further discussion on the Motion of Thanks on the President's Address.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (SHRI JASWANT SINGH): Mr. Chairman, Sir, we are resuming the discussion on the Motion of Thanks on the President's Address to the Joint Session of both the Houses. I find that both the hon. Mover of the Motion, as also the seconder of the Motion have found it inconvenient to be present in the House. Sir, that is quite a standard for the Treasury Benches. Not for that reason, but for other reasons, I am unable to lend my support to the Motion that was moved by the hon. Maharaja of Kashmir and seconded by hon. Raashid Alvi. I recognise the complexity of governance in the present day because when this entire system of Motion of Thanks and Joint Session first got introduced, governance and Governments by themselves were much simpler. It is a far more complex exercise now and every Ministry of the Government expects two or three lines to be included in the Motion, which renders the entire text of the Motion as almost incoherent. But I have different reasons for not being able to support this Motion. It is a matter of great regret and sorrow to me that my difficulties of supporting this Motion as also the complexity of governance are compounded by the fact that the Leader of the Congress Party is today acting as the principal opposition to the Government. (Contd. by 2G)


SHRI JASWANT SINGH (contd.): And it is the leaders who have found it necessary to send communications in writing to the hon. Prime Minister, who is the Head of the Government. It does raise questions in our mind as to what the respective functions is of the hon. Prime Minister and the Leader of the Congress (I) Party which has formed the Government, and it has raised queries which, I think, some others also have raised. Is it because the hon. Prime Minister and the Leader of the Congress (I) party are no longer on speaking terms that we have this situation? It is a highly unusual situation that the Leader of the Ruling Party should communicate with the Head of the Government and then send those communications to the Press, selectively, of course. This is a very interesting and an unusual situation. That is why the difficulties arise. If the hon. the Prime Minister is following the leader, then, the difficulty arises if the followers cannot lead. And, how are we to support the Motion of the followers?

For the past many decades now, I have had the benefit of listening to hon. Maharaja Saheb of Kashmir, who sadly is not present here. I have always been struck by the fact; rather, he seems to hold either a permanent or a seasoned ticket on the 'line of least resistance'. I have heard him justify his position no matter what the position that he is required to justify is, and he chooses selectively one or two Sanskrit slokas to confound us all. But whenever the "Opportunity Express" comes his way, the Maharaja Saheb of Kashmir is always on it...

ֳ֯ן : "ָ֕ " ׻

THE MINISTER OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (SHRI PRIYARANJAN DASMUNSI): We have data of Dr. Karan Singh, who sacrificed his Maharajaship during Smt. Indira's tenure on bank nationalisation and abolition of privy purses. It is a historic act...(Interruptions) He is the only Maharaja who did not join the bandwagon, and accepted the law of the land.

ֳ֯ן : כ "ָ֕" ֟օ

SHRI JASWANT SINGH: Sir, I hope you would not mind me saying that if Nawab Sahebs can be Nawabs, if Maulanas can be Maulvis and if Bhairon Singh Danusujji can be Thakurs, then, Maharaja Kashmir can certainly be the Maharaja of Kashmir. As I was saying, I found his remarkable ability in Maharaja Saheb of Kashmir that he is always on the "Opportunity Express", no matter which Opportunity Express it is. But you just peel off the ribbons and you take the wrapped paper and the brown paper away and the rest of the covering, then, in the "Guinness phrases of compromise", you will find nothing. I will give two examples; I found it typical. First of all, his speech comprised of sentiments as if this Government has rediscovered the wheel, and I was astonished -- I do not know what to call it -- when he termed the nine per cent growth rate of the country as a sacred growth rate. I felt astonished and I do not know whether to call it sick or whether to call it sycophantic, but the growth rate of the country is the compound of everyone's effort, and, thereafter, for him to say that the meeting between the Foreign Ministers of China, Russia and India was a structured meeting. But it was not the first ever, Sir. The first ever meeting goes long back, quite a few years back. I do not want to reduce it to the first person, singular,

(Continued by 2H)


SHRI JASWANT SINGH (CONTD.): So, I was not convinced by what he said. And, as for the hon. the Seconder of the Motion, when I heard him, declaiming his views with fluent insincerity, I could not help but reflect, Sir, that is it a good or a bad thing that we no longer have quality control in politics. And that being the situation, the first appointment that I had was to go through this Speech, Sir, after it had been delivered, and I start, Sir, by the last paragraph, the paragraph number 58. Permit me to quote, "The reform of Government, making it more transparent and responsive, and the elimination of the cancer of corruption..." It goes on, Sir, I won't read the entire paragraph. "The Right to Information Act is one means of empowering our citizens, etc., etc..." There are questionable syntaxes here, but that is a different matter altogether. And, it is very sad, Sir, that just as the hon. the President was perhaps reading out the last paragraph, and you, Sir, in also about laying the very same speech, the shabby drama of Quottrocchi was being played. I think this whole question of right to information and information being withheld from the country, from the Parliament, from the Parliamentarians, from the citizens, do not match. Sir, as if that was not enough, may I also share, Sir, that one of the partners to this Alliance, the Government of West Bengal, has consistently refused to divulge and come out with their current plan of industrialisation. A retired civil servant has pieced together facts from various sources to write that the West Bengal Government has plans to acquire over 140000 acres of agriculture land in nine districts of Bengal, and never in the history of industrialisation of Bengal has so much agriculture area been acquired at any one time by the Government for the purpose of setting up units by private parties for private gains. It is understandable why under the guise of the Right to Information Act, the partners in today's arrangement of governance should be denying information to the country for one reason or another.

I have also found, Sir, that this Address to the Joint Session was either insensitive or it was indifferent or it suffered from amnesia. Paragraph 2, Sir, refers to Panipat and paragraph 42 refers to Assam; it has taken 40 paragraphs to finally come to Assam. It is as if paragraph 2 and Panipat certainly must be referred to as a matter of concern, that is everyone's point, but that Assam should come as an afterthought to this Government is negligence. Assam, Sir, is the State which has returned the hon. Prime Minister to Parliament. It is not that that parochial concern ought to have persuaded him to mention Assam. You have mentioned Assam in paragraph 42, but there is no mention of ULFA. And, if in the second paragraph itself Panipat comes and the ULFA is forgotten 40 paragraphs later and it is left out, it does make us wonder as to what the priorities of this Government are. Over 70 Indian citizens were killed in Assam in Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, and they were killed not because of terrorism as because of insurgency. (Contd. by 2j-kgg)


SHRI JASWANT SINGH (Contd.): And I do charge this Government over the kind of the very -- I do not know what adjective to use -- for the manner in which Assam has been neglected by the very representative of Assam in our House. I was led, therefore, to the conclusion, Sir, generally speaking, when this entire speech is read in totality or heard, for this Government or the arrangement of this Government, truth is so important that they must always protect the truth by a whole battalion of untruth, and what is presented to us is only the untruth and truth remains somewhere disguised under the protection of untruth. This, Sir, is another reason for my difficulties in going along with the mover of the Motion of Thanks.

Sir, the hon. mover of the Motion of Thanks spoke lyrically as is given to was the 9 per cent growth. It would have done well, Sir, if he had spent a little time on inflation. The President's Address does talk of inflation. It is a principal concern. It is really largely on account of mismanagement on the supply-side. It is not a competition here, Sir, as to at which stage we had what rate of the Wholesale Price Index. The question here is of mismanagement on the supply-side. We have had a situation in which shortage, for example in wheat, or shortage in pulses was clearly, it could be seen, was coming. Procurement had fallen. I would not go into the figure because earlier, during the Question Hour, this very matter has been referred to. A very learned economist questioned, when the wheat procurement fell in January of 2006, and by April, another off-take from that very same wheat stock had further depleted the stocks, when further procurement did not cross even 9MT, then the forewarning to the Government was clear enough. And because it did not act in time, it is not sufficient reason for the Government to now say, "We imported", or "We did this". You acted but you acted when it was not timely. You acted too late and you acted in a manner that has caused great distress to the country. Sir, it is not a question who won the election, hon. the Prime Minister found in his wisdom to advise the country that the inflation must be fought by the State Governments. I found it an astonishing observation; which is, the Prime Minister is handing over the responsibility of the management of the economy to the States of the Union. How are the States to manage inflation if the mismanagement on the supply-side is gross, and is at the Central-level? There are two commodities which are unique to India. We are the only country in the world of a billion-plus citizens which does not use animal fat for cooking. It is a cultural and a civilisational requirement. We are the only country in the world that has more vegetarians by way of food habit than any other country in the world. Pulses, dal, therefore, is an essential requirement. I am told, Sir, that pulses, dal, had gone up to Rs.80 a kilo. I face this problem every day from my wife, Sir. I am not very knowledgeable on the daily fluctuations of prices, but I am sufficiently knowledgeable about the malfunctioning of the Government. And I do charge, Sir, that along with delayed responses the factor that has caused problem to us is also because the ailment and the remedy are not matching. I am not going to an economic dissertation on that, Sir. (Contd. by kls/2k)


SHRI JASWANT SINGH (CONTD): But it would be a great error to work on the basis that simply because we handed over the economy growing at 8.4 per cent of the GDP, Sir. It would have been an error on our part as it is an error on your part to think that 9 per cent plus growth of the GDP means everything under this is perfectly satisfactory. It is not so. I tried to educate myself on this from my learned colleague and friend, hon. Arun Shourie, and I was struck by what he cited to me as an example. He cited the example of Japan. Japan had marvellous rates of growth but it was getting hollowed recently, but a great deal of it was misuse of money, mal-use of money on account of spiralling property prices. Please be cautioned if we are also somewhere not going down that very same path. I do not refer to the erratic behaviour of the stock exchange but roughly about 55 per cent of our economy is already globalised. We cannot have the benefits of globalisation and not suffer the minus effects of globalisation. If Shanghai falls by seven or eight per cent, the whole of the rest global stock exchanges have had a problem. And if Bombay Stock Exchange has fallen by almost 2000 points, then it is a pointer, Sir. It is a pointer that a great deal of it could be speculative and it is a caution. It is a timely caution. But if the Government were to respond to this caution in the fashion in which it has responded to the inflation that hit the country, to the shortage of essentials like wheat or pulses, then we are in for some difficult times. Sir, I have refrained in the past three years or so to speak on the economy or to speak on matters related to the security of the country for a very good reason because I have served in those very Ministries and in the sense because I have served I have a continuing sense of responsibility as also loyalty to those Ministries. But I do wish to say a few things ...(Interruptions)... Sir, I do wish to share a few thoughts about Defence. My good friend, the hon. the Defence Minister, whom I have known for many years is, a man of great gentility and a gentleman, he is both way a gentle man and also a gentleman. But I wish to share with him that it is very necessary for us to reassess the threat to the country. We need also -- I would not elaborate these, Sir, because time will not permit me -- to be very clear in our mind about the nature of warfare that has altered beyond recognition and in the context of the threat that we face and the nature of warfare, it is essential, Sir, that the role of Army, Navy and Air Force is redefined. It is timely, it is necessary, that we do so now. I also appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister present here that over the decades in the manner in which we have gone about with this great and grave responsibility, the equipment procurement system and methods have been so paralysed by what I call the C-3 paralysis -- CBI, C&AG as also the Vigilance Commissioner. But now no decisions are forthcoming on the civil service. We have paralysed the decision-making in the Ministry of Defence with the result that we have paralysed the Defence preparedness of our country. It is very important that all political parties sit together and come to a decision about how it is important that the Central Bureau of Investigation being not used as a political tool by one party or another. You use it to your preferences. (Contd by 2L)


SHRI JASWANT SINGH (CONTD.): When it is convenient to get some ministers of yours, who are your allies or related to you or close to you, you get them exonerated and no more appeals can be filed against them. But you will file an appeal against a person, a friend, whom I have known for so many decades because you charge him on the persuasions of your allies and ask the Central Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Prime Minister, Sir, you were good enough the other day to share on the television screen and you said, "I affirm solemnly". It is not necessary to affirm solemnly at all. You could have simply said, "I say". It did not carry conviction. The CBI is being used as a tool of the ruling party and the CBI is therefore, being misused and if you use that for defence procurement weapons, then it will not work. I do appeal to the Defence Minister to re-examine this question and I am sorry that the former Defence Minister had in fact sent so many cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation. You are not then inquiring into the political leadership alone. You begin to inquire and bring to a stop the entire decision making system. Sir, please also reflect on what the role of the Army, Navy and the Air Force is going to be and in that, now that it has become common knowledge, please pay particular attention to the challenge of the Indian Air Force. Of the total number of squadrons that we ought to have, it is minimal to what it ought to be. Our projections would cross 50 squadrons, but in actual reality it is not even 29 squadrons and of those 29 squadrons, the equipment state is very bad. One more thing, Sir, we are perhaps the only country in the world which is indulging in a luxury of a multiple variety of aircraft. It is not sustainable. We have the MiG family, we have the Tikhonov family, we have the Sukhoi family, we have Jaguar, we have Mirages, we have Light Combat Aircraft. I am not talking of the different requirements of the Army, Navy and the Air Force. Even within the Air Force, this is required. The Navy says they need MiG 29-K. That is the aircraft that would be operational and I had worked with Admiral Gorshokov, renamed Vikramiditya. No other aircraft will work. It is very important for long term planning that this great diversity of aircraft, no country in the world is today in a position to afford it. I know that this Government or the previous Government had inherited the situation and the situation born of circumstances but it is our responsibility to begin to address it, that is why I name it. I am not going into the Army's requirements of helicopters and how the Navy should no longer be content to operate between the Straits of Malacca and the 7-degree channel and Sri Lanka. We will have to make our presence well enough known. So, it is in the threats I wish to share with all seriousness with the House, what is called a String of Pearls strategy of the People's Republic of China. It is to contain India. If we don't voice it and if we don't recognise it, we are not recognising a reality. The extension of the Railway line to Lhasa, the extension of road communication from Myanmar, the lease on Caucus Island, negotiations on the port of Chittagong with Bangladesh, also the initial moves with the Sri Lankan Government, the Construction of Port of Gwadar, the strategic alliance with Pakistan is a string of pearls around India. (Contd. by NBR/2M)


SHRI JASWANT SINGH (CONTD.): It is necessary that we recognize it and necessary that we address it, not always move away from it. I find, Sir, that on the nuclear question, the speech is silent. I wish to share only one thought. Strategically, the challenge is profound, because, as the global non-proliferation regime is flawed, it is inadequate to the purpose and it is discriminatory, continuously discriminatory, against India. What 1998 did was to break this flaw, break the monopoly of the P-5 and N-5. What we are now trying to do is to enter this world to get the benefits of the world, therefore, also simultaneously acquire the dishonesty of the arrangement. It is a profound challenge. This challenge can only be addressed by India and it cannot be addressed fully by us, unless the total nuclear question is debated and discussed in its totality, not as a contention between the Government and the Opposition, but as a challenge that the whole country is today facing. The answer, Sir, to pass it off as only an energy-related question would be a grave error. And, I, therefore, also leave a thought on the question of missile development, because of the various developments that are taking place on the front of missile, this is not unknown to the Government; it is not unknown to very many eminent Indians what the actual state of our missiles and our missile developments are. It is very important that we have taken note of it. This also has to be inter-related with the question of whether it should be manned aircraft or missile which should eventually go into aerial Defence of the country. These are the questions that we have to begin to address and ask ourselves, because it is the beginning of the 21st Century and when we plan for Defence, we have to plan, at least, for twenty years from now.

Sir, I will have to share a few thoughts. I run through whatever I have to say. It is a subject by itself requires a discussion. We had a discussion last year. So, we cannot repeat it. But the challenges on the front of Foreign Policy to India are monumental. They are historical. Our response, I am sorry to say, is timorous, it is tentative and it is apologetic. Sir, India currently is surrounded by a whole chain of either collapsed countries or countries that are on the edge of collapse, existing civil wars or incipient civil wars. We have witnessed the shattering silences of the Government on the great inhumanities of Guantanamo or Abu Gharib or CIA's clandestine flight carrying citizens of one country to another, to an unknown destination. I am disturbed by the immobility of the Government of India in the face of corrugation and coiled instability of the Middle East. Our neighbour, Pakistan, recently, hosted a conference of five Sunni countries. We are witnessing a great Shia-Sunni divide being demonstrated in Iraq. It is on account of one of the most profound foreign policy failure and that is the failure of the US intervention in Iraq and, if you permit to me to say so, in Afghanistan.