PREVIOUS HOUR

TDB/1F/2.00

The House reassembled at two of the clock,

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair.

-----

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, it has been agreed by all that it is not under any rules, not under any precedent, but as a discussion, we are allowing the leaders of the political parties to speak five-five minutes on the subject which has been under discussion in the House from yesterday. Now, Shri Yashwant Sinhaji.

DEMAND FOR RECALLING INDIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.A.

FOR HIS ALLEGED REMARKS ON M.Ps.

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA (JHARKHAND): Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to speak on this subject. I am happy that sanity has finally prevailed and we are able to discuss as coolly as possible the import of the remarks which have been made by our Ambassador in Washington. Sir, the expression 'headless chickens' was a very colourful expression, and that is why it caught the imagination of this House and the media outside. But, that was just one remark or one of the remarks that the Ambassador made. There are many more remarks in the copy that we have, and they are all, if not equally colourful, perhaps, equally bad. Sir, he has come out openly in favour of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. He can. He is the Ambassador of India. But what is most objectionable is the fact that those of us who happen to be opposed to the deal have been upbraided by the Ambassador. And while, some of the remarks have been, in this report, assigned to him, some others, as we all know, have been assigned to senior diplomatic observers in Washington. Now, it is clear that these senior diplomatic observers are not from the U.K.; they are not from Japan. The senior diplomatic observers will be Indian diplomatic observers, and when there was a telephone conversation between this correspondent and the Ambassador, it is clear that it is the Ambassador who has made the remarks.

Sir, I will quote only a few of these remarks. He says, "Slam the critics of the Deal," particularly the BJP, saying, "They had obviously made up their minds to oppose the Agreement even before they saw the veritable iron clad 123 Agreement." And this is where I am mentioned, Sir, I don't feel myself distinguished by this mention, it is not like being mentioned in dispatches. "If you remember, people like former


Minister, Yashwant Sinha reacted even before they saw the text. So, obviously, they had made up their minds in advance irrespective of even what we got" Then, he goes on to say, "According to this observer, it was beyond his comprehension that the BJP could be so irresponsible with the statement such as abrogating the Agreement, if it assumed reins of power. The opposition is supposed to be responsible and here they are talking of, 'If we come to power, we will abrogate the Agreement.'" (Contd. by 1g-kgg)

kgg/1g/2.05

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA (Contd.): And finally, Sir, I would like to draw your attention to the remark which was made that the statement, such as those warning of abrogation of the agreement is absolutely going against, flying against your own national interest and the way you are perceived. It means, in other words, that all of us who happen to have another view on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal are acting against the national interest, which means that we are anti-national; and, therefore, we are unpatriotic people. We have no business opposing this deal if we are patriots of this great country, India! Sir, this is the dividing line today. This is the most painful part of it.

We have had discussions in this House, we have had divisions in Indian Parliament, but never before has the patriotism of those who are opposed or hold another view, has been commented upon or challenged. And it is not my friends sitting in the Treasury Benches who are challenging my patriotism. It is, unfortunately, the Ambassador of India in Washington who is saying that the BJP is not patriotic because we have said what we have said. So, apart from the 'headless chicken' remark, these are some of the most objectionable remarks which the Ambassador has made.

Now, I would like to mention to you from the proceedings of this House, what happened yesterday. The hon. Minister for External Affairs came here and made a statement. He read out the communication which had been sent by the Ambassador. And what did he say? He said, "I had off the record conversation with the correspondent and that he had been misunderstood or misquoted or quoted out of context. And then he says, "some other comments attributed to this off the record conversation were, however, made by me in my personal capacity". Then, the hon. Minister said, that if he received further information, he would come back to us.

Today, Sir, The Hindu has published what the correspondent said. The correspondent has very clearly said, "I unambiguously and unequivocally stand by my report and state categorically that nothing in it was deliberate, malicious or misunderstood or quoted or misquoted, because I have nothing but the highest respect for him"--that means, the Ambassador. So, the correspondent has denied this, this is neither quoted out of context nor is it misquoted nor is it deliberate or misrepresentation, nor is it off the record, nor is it personal; these are not personal remarks, Sir. When you are talking to any media person, all of us know, even in politics, more so in Government, that you have just one persona, and the Ambassador's persona is that he is the Ambassador of India in Washington. He does not have a personal capacity, especially when he is talking to the media. So, how does he say that they were his personal remarks, off-the-cuff remarks? They were not personal remarks, they were not off-the-cuff remarks. Yesterday, the External Affairs Minister told us that he has apologised unconditionally. He has said that if he has unwittingly said something, then he is apologising! He is putting a condition, it is not an unqualified apology, Sir.

These are the facts, Sir, which have emerged. Yesterday, when I pressed my notice for breach of privilege, the hon. Chairman ruled that it was premature. I abided by that, Sir. Today, I am pressing that notice of breach of privilege, because it is not any more premature, everything has been said and done on this issue. All the statements are before us. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition made a very important point when he said that he served the Republic. He does not merely serve a political party, he does not serve merely the Government. He is the representative of the Republic of India in Washington. He, therefore, carries a certain responsibility on his head. (Contd. by kls/1h)

KLS/1H-2.10

SHRI YASHWANT SINHA (CONTD): He cannot, therefore, identify himself with just one point of view and then make all kinds of remarks against all those of us who happen to be either in the Opposition or in the other side and tell us that we have no business of saying or doing what we are doing. Sir, if this kind of interference is made by serving officials, and I am saying this with a great sense of responsibility because I myself served in the Civil Services for 24 years and I know what the rules of the game are, the bureaucracy is supposed to be nameless, it is supposed to be faceless, it is supposed to be entirely in the background, it is not supposed to take political sides in a political debate and, if this is the manner in which the bureaucracy of this country will start taking sides in political debates, Sir, then I am sorry to say that it will be a very sad day for our parliamentary democracy. Therefore, Sir, I have moved a notice of breach of privilege. I had suggested yesterday which I think received wide support because an issue of breach of privilege has never been a contentious issue in this House, and I would like to tell you when I joined this House, Sir, many years ago as a new Member I was once arrested and put in prison in Chandigarh and leaders of all political parties, I will be intricate 'the leaders of all political parties' cutting across political parties line, everyone stood up in this House, I was not even present, and decided to take action against the Chandigarh Administration for the manner in which I was treated by them. Then I quoted yesterday how the whole House converted itself into a Committee of Privilege, we had called the former member here to the Bar of the Hosue, and he was admonished by the Chair. Now I am repeating, Sir, my demand is (1) that the Ambassador should be recalled forthwith. He should not be allowed to stay in Washington in the present capacity even for one day. He says he made tactless remarks. Should we have a tactless Ambassador in an important world capital like Washington at this point of time? The second demand that I am making is, again I am repeating that this House, Sir, convert itself into a Committee of Privilege and the Ambassador after he has been recalled should be produced before the House. He should appear at the Bar of the House, Sir. (Time-bell) Sir, my request to you that you ought to admonish him on behalf of all the Members of Parliament because it is our honour, our dignity, Sir, of which you are the protector, which has been sullied, which is at stake. Thank you. (ENDS)

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (PUDUCHERRY): Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I heard with rapt attention our senior colleague Yashwant Sinhaji. He was basing his entire argument on a newspaper report and also on the Rediff report which has been there. We have been hearing the voice from the hon. Members from various sides. Sir, I would like to submit that first of all the authenticity of that version whether it was official briefing or not has to be confirmed. The hon. External Affairs Minister yesterday morning and also in the evening when he came told this august House that if he made that statement it is unpardonable. He also made an observation to that effect. Sir, when the issue of this nature has been raised and in this august House some of the hon. Members are trying to twist the facts saying that the reference, which he has made saying headless chicken, he is referring to the Members of Parliament with which I totally disagree. I also went through the total version, which has been there, and it has not been specifically referred to the hon. Members of Parliament. Sir, I would like to submit two issues. One, when the hon. External Affairs Minister came to this House and after talking to him he clearly stated in this House that he did not make an official Press conference and when he was talking on the sidelines with the correspondent which was quoted, sometimes it was misquoted. He said that he has been quoted out of context. This is number one. He also said that if he hurt the sentiments of the hon. Members of Parliament he apologises.

(Contd by 1J/sss)

-KLS/SSS-PSV/1J/2.15

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): When he came to that level and it was told by the hon. Foreign Affairs Minister in this august House and the Members of Parliament were going on harping upon the same issue again and again and imputing themselves that the version has been imputed on them, it is quite unfortunate. I would like to say, Sir, in this august House that there are a number of issues, which are concerning the people of this country, and they have to be discussed in this august House. But, unfortunately, in the name of one small issue, minor issue, every issue of importance to the public has been just ignored and we are discussing an issue -- they may consider it relevant -- which according to me is a trivial issue. Therefore, Sir, I submit to the august House, first of all, let them verify. They are only quoting the newspaper reports. They are building their argument only on the basis of newspaper reports and saying that this was told and that was told. Therefore, Sir, I submit that unless and until authentic version of the Ambassador is known, we cannot draw any conclusions, we cannot come to any conclusion, we cannot draw any judgment on this issue. Therefore, Sir, I submit that -- whatever Shri Yaswant Sinha said -- if he made a personal reference and if he has made it against the hon. Ex-Foreign Affairs Minister it is regrettable, if it has been there. I agree with you. Unless and until the authenticity is proved we cannot argue on it. Thank you. (Ends)

ֳ֯ : ָ

ָ (ָ Ϥ): ֮־֤, ֳ֯ן օ - ֮ ֣ ֿ־ӟ ֮ ֌־ ָ ָ ָ ֌ ֣ 0 ִֵָ ֯ ֌־ օ ֮ ֌־ כ ׸ ָ ָ כ ׸ ָ ָ ֮ ֮־ ֮֮ ָ ֟ ִ ֟ ֟ ָ ֤ 滵 ִֵ ™ ֟ ֛ ™ , ֤ ִ֮ ׸ ֣ ֣ ֤ ִ֮ ׸ ֯ օ ָ ֤ ׸ ֤ , ֵ-ֻ , ֋߅

־ֻ כ ׸ , ָ ָ כ ׸ ֻ֟ ֮֟ , ֲ ױ ֮֮ߵ ֤֕ ִ ֮֓ ֻ֟ ָ ֻ֟ , ֮֮ߵ ׾֤ ӡ ֱ ֟ ִ ֮֓ ? ָ ֻ֟ , ױ ׻֋ , ֟ ׻֋ , ֻ֟ ? ִ ֯ע

֌־ כ ִ, 000, ֿ־ӟ ֮, ִ כ ? ֲ ֤ ָ ֻ֟ ֟ , ֻ֟ , ֣ ֮ ׻֋ ֻןֵ ֤ פ ִָ֓ ֡ ֮ ִָ֓ ֡ ָ֡ ׻֋ ֟ ׬ָ , ֤֕ ָ֡ ֮֟-ִֻ֟ ׬ָ ? - ָ֡ ? ו֮֟ ֲ-ןš ™ߵ ֲָ , ֲ ֮֮ߵ ֤֕ - ֲָ ֱֻ ׻ , ֟ ֲָ -- ׻ ֲָ ָ֕ ֵֻ֮ , ӛ-00 ׌ֵָ ߻ ׾ֹ כ ֈ ֯ ָ֕ , ףֵ ִ ִ כ ß֮ ֤֕ 60 ֻ ֤ և ָ ֣ Ӥ ָ , Ͽӟ ֙ , և ָ ãן և , ִֵָ , , Ӥ ָ , ֿ־ӟ ֮ -- ֿ־ӟ , ו ֮֯ ֻ ֻ , ֻ , ֻ Ӆ ִ ֟ ֻ ֵ ֟ ֻ ֵ ִ ֟֋ ֤֕ 60 ֻ ֤ þ׳ִ֮ ֋! ֟֋ ֯ ֜ ָ ֮־ ! (1/000 ָ ֿ:)

-SSS/NBR-HMS/1K/2.20.

ָ (֟) : ֟֋ ֤ ֻ ֻ? ֯ ָ֕ ִֻ , ָ֕ ִֻ ִ׮ָ֟ ӯϤ׵ , ִֻ ֤ ׸ ִֻ ֿ־ӟ ֮ , ָ ֣ ֤ ִֻ ߴ֟ Ӥ ָ Ͽӟ ֙ , ֲ Ͽӟ ֙ ֿ־ӟ ֮ ָ ֋ ׯ׾ֻ ֮ ִ֣Ԯ , ׌ þֵ tactless , tacts ֟ , ֛ ָ֟ ׸ tactless ֤ ֯ tactfull ֤ ו֋ tactless ֤ և ֯ և ֮ ֲ ֻ֟ ֮ ֓և ֟, ֮ ֲ ֻ֟ ֮ ָ֬ ֕ ו֋ ֤֕ ׬ָ

ֳ֯ן , ָ ֣ ִֵָ ֲ ֕ ֵ֮ פ , ֵ֮ ֤ ֤ ו ֜ օ ֯ ãן, ָ ָ , " ָ ָ , ß օ" - ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

SHRI PRASANTA CHATTERJEE (WEST BENGAL): Sir, India's Ambassador to the U.S., Mr. Ronen Sen, attacked the Indian Parliament and the Parliamentarians. What for? It is because we are discussing and many of us are opposing the Indo-US Nuclear deal. It is because of that our ambassador has attacked the Parliamentarians. This is highly objectionable. Already, our party has strongly condemned these utterances and acts of the Indian ambassador in the U.S. They are highly defamatory, highly objectionable and it is against the Indian Parliament. What he has remarked, apart from headless chickens, in an interview, not within the four walls of his bedroom, is, "I can understand such a debate immediately after the Independence. But, sixty years after the Independence, I am really bothered that sixty years after Independence they are so insecure that we have not grown up. This is lack of confidence and lack of self-respect." Mr. Narayanasamy, you don't feel shame. But, we feel shame for this. We should take note of it...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Nothing will go on record...(Interruptions)...֋, כ , ֯ ִ ׮֋

SHRI PRASANTA CHATTERJEE: He has further said, "In the near future we will see quoting about President Bush." We know President Bush. We have seen him in Iraq and Iran. The naval joint exercises are going on. We know him. We know the American people. Even Mr. Bush has little in the hearts of his own countrymen with what he is doing now. He has further said, "In near future we will see such a friend and supporter as this President, absolutely there is none."

(CONTD. BY USY "1L")

-NBR-USY/KLG/1l/2.25

SHRI PRASANTA CHATTERJEE (CONTD.): He is not a friend of Indian Parliament; he is a friend of President Bush. The question arises: Whose Ambassador he is? We wanted to know this since yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition had every right to speak, but you did not give him an opportunity to speak. Shri Sitaram Yechury was also here. He also wanted to speak yesterday. But he too could not speak. We would like to know what action the Government is proposing to take against him. Why is he there even today? After hearing Shri V. Narayanasamy, I regret to say that I could not find in his speech what the External Affairs Minister, Shri Pranab Mukherjee has said, "His remarks are unacceptable". He was holding the brief for Mr. Sen. Whom should we believe? Mr. Pranab Mukherjee's statement that what he said was unacceptable to the Cabinet? We would like to know what is the decision of this Government. Our party wants to know this. Mr. Sen has admitted that he had actually made the derogatory remarks against the hon. Members of Parliament. He had personally said this. So, we demand that Mr. Sen be called back forthwith and should be asked to explain his conduct on this floor. I also want to know from the hon. Minister of External Affairs what action he proposes to take against him to uphold the dignity of this House and the dignity of the hon. Members. I have also given, along with some Members, a Privilege Motion against him.

(Ends)

DR. V. MAITREYAN (TAMIL NADU): Mr. Deputy Chairman, thank you for the response, even though a delayed response. At least, there was a delayed response. But from what I could gather from Mr. Narayanasamy's reaction, I am very confident what the response of the Government is going to be towards this official. Probably, we can expect, in the coming days, that Mr. Ronen Sen may be promoted or may be given some awards. That may be the response of this Government, I presume. The official has made derogatory remarks against parties, opposing the nuclear deal. By his remark, he has taken over the onerous responsibility of being the spokesperson of the United States of America, the U.S. President, George Bush, and also the spokesperson for the pro-nuclear deal lobby. Other officials of the Government are also dabbling in the affairs, as far as this nuclear deal is concerned. Why is this happening? I don't think that we can take these remarks, by the Indian Ambassador in the US and other officials, as off the cuff remarks of some officials. And, I see, this view cannot be taken in isolation. There is a saying '֣ ֕ ֣ ϕ' And, our Prime Minister is on record saying that those who are supporting this nuclear deal are patriots. What does that mean? Are we, who are opposing this Bill, least patriotic or unpatriotic and * (Interruptions) I say this with all the might at my command that... (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No; no, don't use this expression.

DR. V. MAITREYAN: No, Sir, it is on record. I can't withdraw that.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, it is not on record because it is unparliamentary. (Interruptions)

*Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

 

DR. V. MAITREYAN: I say it with all the might at my command that my party leader, Madam Jayalalitha, my colleagues in my party, my colleagues in the UNPA, my colleagues in the NDA, my colleagues in the Left, and I are all patriots. I want to say և ֻ ; ָ ָ , ָ ָ ֻ ָ ָ ֛ פ י , י I strongly condemn the remarks made by the Indian Ambassador. And, I demand -- this demand has already been made, but there has been no action from the Government side -- that the Indian Ambassador should be recalled forthwith and necessary action be initiated against him. A Privilege Motion should be initiated against him at the earliest, not like the other Privilege Motions, which are kept pending for months and years. I place these views for active consideration and a proper and quick response from the Government. (Ends) (Followed by 1m -- VP)

-USY/VP/2.30/1M

SHRI D. RAJA (TAMIL NADU): Sir, finally, some order could be established in this august House and a meaningful debate has been allowed.

I now come to the subject. It is well-known that the Left is opposed to the Indo-U.S. Nuclear Agreement. We oppose the Agreement. In fact, we have asked the Government not to proceed further with operationalising the Agreement. When there is a debate on the entire Agreement, the Left will be able to place its viewpoints once again.

Here the subject which has come under question or under debate is this. What did our Ambassador speak in Washington? Yesterday, the Minister made a statement or gave a clarification in which he said that the veracity of it would be found. I wonder why the Government could not check the veracity of the Ambassador's statement till this minute. But the Ambassador has given some apology. This apology is not enough. It is not convincing at all. It is of no use blaming it on the media. Indeed, it is known that the Ambassador spoke such things. I agree with some of my colleagues, but, it is not an issue whether the expression is colourful or not colourful. That is not the important issue which I find because yesterday also somebody called me and said, "You are also one of the headless chickens." I said, "First of all, I am not a chicken. Secondly, I come from a place, that is, that part of the country where people were supposed to have ten heads. Maybe, the other nine heads are haunting the Ambassador." Whatever it may be, joke apart, the problem here is that the Ambassador represents the Government of India. The Ambassador represents our great nation; India. He should know what he speaks and what he does. He should not cross the limits. He should not exceed his brief. As my colleague read out, this is the portion which is really wounded everybody. It has really hurt the strong feelings not only of the Members sitting here but also the people outside the Parliament. I am really bothered about this portion. " ....60 years after Independence, they are so insecure, that we have not grown up, this lack of confidence and lack of self-respect." I do not know how the Government understands this statement. How can the Ambassador say that sixty years after Independence, we have not grown, we have not gained confidence and we have not gained self-respect? Then, what is the role of the Ambassador serving in such a country, the United States of America, with whom we are trying to have an Agreement? I think, this is the most derogatory and objectionable thing that the Ambassador has spoken. This is highly condemnable. Nobody should have spoken such a thing, particularly, our Ambassador. He should not have spoken such things.

The entire House, I think, even the Government cannot tolerate this. I agree with the Minister when he said that it is unacceptable and unwarranted. He did not go to the extent of condemning it. He thought he would check the veracity of the statement. By this time, the External Affairs Minister and the Government must have checked the veracity of the Ambassador's statement. So, having said this, I think, the situation is so untenable that the Ambassador cannot continue as Ambassador in Washington. The situation is so untenable. I do not understand why the Government is still reluctant to make a statement that the Government would actively consider to pursue some course of action that includes the recall of the Ambassador forthwith. I do not know why there is reluctance on the part of the Government.

(Continued by PK/1N)

PK/NB/1N/2.35

SHRI D. RAJA (CONTD.): Because it is not an individual's issue, it is not one party issue, it is nation's pride, it is nation's image in the comity of the outside world. After 60 years of Independence, if Ambassador says, "we have not grown; we have not gained self-confidence; we have not gained self-respect", what sort of image he is creating for India in the United States of America, or, in the outside world! This is the issue this House has to take note of. (Time-bell) I think the Government will have to pursue a course of action that includes recall of Ambassador, and there should not be any more reluctance. The Government should come out forthwith what it proposes to do with the Ambassador. This situation cannot be allowed to continue like this. I sincerely appeal to the Government that it should come out with a proposal and tell the House, tell the Nation, that this Government doesn't tolerate such utterances of any Government servant. In case of the Ambassador who is serving in the United States of America, he must be called back.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please conclude.

SHRI D. RAJA: Sir, I would like to say one small thing that I have given a Notice for Privilege. I do not know what is the position of that Privilege? I think the Chair will give due consideration to that Motion. Several other Motions are also there. The Chair should give due consideration. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

. ִ ӛָ (ײָ) : ֮֮ߵ ֳ֯ן , ֲ ֯ ֮־֤ ֮֮ߵ ֤ ֮־֤ , ֮ ֯ ִ ֳ ֮ ן֯ ֤ ֵԾ ֻ

ֳ֯ן , ִָ֓֡ ָ ָ ֤֕ , ֤ ָ ֟ , ו֮ ִ֮ ֟ ִ׮֟ ֟ ָ ֟ ֓և , ֛ ֮ߵ ֟ , ָ ָָ ׾֤ ӡ ֮־֤ ֤ ־֮ ֟ ָ, ֱ ָ, ׻ ָ ֤ ӲӬ ï™ פ ֕ , unacceptable unwarranted ָָ ֟ ӳ߸ ׻ֵ ӲӬ ӓ ֤ ֵԾ , ָָ ֿ , ָ ׾ , ָ ִֵ, ãן recall ֟ ֱֻ ֤ ֵԾ ֟ , , ָ ֱ , ֲָ ֱ , ֱ ֋ ֋, ֯ ָָ ָ ו֋ ָָ ָ ӓ ãן ï™ ָ ִ ֓և , ִ ֤ ִ֮ ֟ , ׮׿֟ ֱֻ ֵԾ , ָ ֟ ֮ ֮ ֱ ָָ ӲӬ ֵԾ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY (ANDHRA PRADESH):Sir, we feel that the Indo-US nuclear deal is detrimental to our national interest. Many public representatives who are present in this august House are opposing the deal. We are not happy with the statement made by the hon. Prime Minister in this regard. He said, "This is the final decision. We cannot go back." I think in a coalition era, there is no word called "last word", but, still, he chose to say that it is the final agreement; there is no question of going back. It is up to the UPA constituents to support or oppose the deal. As far as we are concerned, we are in UNPA, we oppose the deal itself. As the things stand, what made the Ambassador to make derogatory remarks against the people who are opposing the Bill? He says, "If the deal is not through, our credibility will be zero." He thinks that we are not patriotic to the nation. We expect an immediate action from the Government on the remarks made by the Ambassador. The comments are not only unwarranted but also uncalled for. Sir, we are not here to hear his teachings or preachings. We expect an action from the Government. He should be called back immediately for his misconduct, and this issue should also be viewed from the angle of breach of privilege. Thank you.

(Ends) (Followed by 1O)

-NB/VNK-PB/1O/02.40

פݾֵ֕ (ָӛ) : ֳ֯ן , ֮ ֤֕ ֱֻ ֮ ׻֋ ֛ ׻֋ ֤ ֲ ֤֕ ָ ָ 100 ן׮׬֟ , ָָ ן׮׬ ׯ֔ פ ו ָ ֻ ָ ָָ ֟ ֿ־ӟ ֮ , ָ ֟ ֟ , ִ֓ ײֻ , ו֮ ֟ ו ֛ ֮ ֵ֮ ? ׾֤ ׾ֳ ֮ ֤׬ָ - ִ ָ֙ ָ ִ ֿ ָ ֵ֤ PMO ֿ ָ successor ֤ , ָ ֿ֤ successor , ָ׬ָ (־֮֬)

SHRI S.S. AHLUWALIA: They were working together. ...(Interruptions)...

פݾֵ֕ : (־֮֬) PMO ֲ ֯ Joint Secretary ֮ (־֮֬)

ָ : ֣ (־֮֬)

פݾֵ֕ : ֯ ֻ ֋, ֤ continue ֋ (־֮֬) ֤ ֻ ֋ ױ ֋ (־֮֬) ֻ ֋ ָ ֋ ֤ Ϭ֮ סֵ ֣ ֳ֯ן , ֟ ו ׻֋ ֕ ִ ֟, ֵ֮ , ָָ ׻֋ ֵ֮ ֟ ֟ ׻֋ ו context ֟ ֤֕ , ֟ ָ ֤֕ , ׸ ֤֕ ָָ ӡ , - և ֯ ל ֮ ִָ֤ ֤ , ִ ֮ transparency ָ ׸ ֮ ֛ פ פֵ פ , ֲֻ֟ ָ פ ׸ ™ן ׸ ֛ פ ָ ֤֕ ֟ ִ ֟ ? ™ן ָ ߮ (־֮֬) ™ן ָ ߮ , ֳ֯ן , ו֮ ӵ㌟ ™ӑ ֟ weapon of mass destruction , ׻֋ ָ ֻ ™ן ָ ָ ֤֕ ߮ ָ ֤ ֤õ ָ ߮ ֤֕ ޛ ׻֋ ׻֋ ָ֟ ו ֤֕ ָ ׾ֿ , ֤֕, ֤֕ ֵ ֟ ׻֋ և , כ և ? ָ ׾֤ ӡ כ ׻֋ ֟ և ָ כ ֟ כ ֱֻ כ ֟ headless chicken ֟ ִָ֤ ? ֳ֯ן , ֯ ӓ-ӓ, - ָ ֋ ׻֋ ֮ ֮ ֤ ֤õ ֤ ޛ ׮ֻ פ ׻֋ ִ ֲ ׻֋ ֲ ֤ ׸ ֮֜ ׻֋ ןֲ֨ ֤ ׸ ָ֮ ֻ * ֿ־ӟ ֮ ָ ׻֟ , ֿ־ӟ ֮ ׻֋ Ӥ և ָ 12-12 ә ֛ , ׻֋ 6-6 ә ֛ ֤֕ ֟ ֲ ָ 60 ֻ ֮ , ? ֮֟օ ָָ , ӳ߸ ָָ ָ , ָ * ֓ ָ 0 ֕ ? ֟ ? ֯ ָ ϿדŮ ִ , ֻ 17-18 ֻ ׌ ׌֟ ֮֟ , ׌ , ָ օ 0 ֕ ֯ ֟ , ֤ ֮֟ , ָָ ֮ ֺ ָ ֤ ׻֋ ֮֯ ִ և * ֵ֟ פ ֟ ֟֟ ֟ פ ֟֟ (1/֯ ָ ֿ:)

1p/2.45/-pb-skc-mp

פݾֵ֕ (֟) : ß , פ פ ֟֟ ֟ ֟ ֟֟ ֱ ו֋ ִֵָ , ֲ ֯ ß ָ ֢ , ֟ ֯ ׻֋ ֕ ֢ , ָ ׻֋ ֯ ֤֕ , ָ-ָ ә ֿ־ӟ ֮ ׻֋ ֛ և ָ ! ׻֋ :-: ә ֛ ֕ ֮ ֜ ! ִֵ ֲ ֮־֮ ֕

--------------------------------------------------------

* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

֮ ֮֜ ׻֋ ָ ִ֓ ֤ ׸ ֮ ִ֓ ָ ϕ֟ӡ ׌ ָָ ֮ , * ӛ ׻֋.... פ פ... ׻֋ ׸ ָ ֤֕ , ֤ ָ , ֤ ־֮

ֳ֯ן , ִֵָ , ֮֟օ ֤ ܵ , ֲ ־֮ , ׻֋ ָָ ָ ֯ ϕ֟ӡ ߮ , ָ ֯ ߮ , ֤ ׸ ֻܵ ֟ ӡ ֮֓ ׻֋ * ֤֕ ֯ ֵ ֋ ֿ־ӟ ֮ ָ ֛ , ֯ ֮ , ֤ ә-֙ ו֋, ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

SHRI R. SHUNMUGASUNDARAM (TAMIL NADU): Sir, we are one on this issue. We are one in condemning the irresponsible statement made by any Ambassador of India. Whether he has said 'headless chickens' or 'tailless monkeys', the phrases are not important. What is of importance is that he should have exercised some restraint. In democracy, divergent views are highly valued, respected and discussed. Nobody can condemn that, and especially, a representative of the largest democracy of the world.

Sir, we are really proud to be a democratic country where we respect opposing views, but I only wish this discussion, which is taking place today, had taken place yesterday in a calmer atmosphere. Whatever it is, I am happy that this discussion is taking place and all of us are condemning this statement in one voice.

Sir, I would also say that if such a statement has been made by

--------------------------------------------------------

* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

the Ambassador of India, holding this august House or any Member in contempt, we should not hesitate in calling him, condemning him and in taking appropriate action. Yesterday, the hon. Minister for External Affairs had made a statement. He had said that he condemned that particular statement. We welcome that. Shri Yechury, on behalf of the CPI(M), had made a request that it should be properly followed up.

Therefore, Sir, we wish to state that if the statement made by the envoy is found to be true, then it is a matter of great insult to our parliamentary system that makes it a privilege issue and he should be called and reprimanded before this hon. House. (Ends)

DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (WEST BENGAL): Sir, it came as a shock to all of us that the Indian Ambassador posted at Washington dared to make such statements about parliamentarians, particularly when the Parliament Session is on and the debate is on about the Indo-US Nuclear deal. He has made such remarks at this juncture and it goes against the prestige of this august House. It is no more an issue whether or not he has made such a statement. (Contd. by 1q/hk)

HK-SC/1q/2.50

DR. BARUN MUKHERJEE (CONTD.): There is no categorical denial of the fact and the Ambassador himself after his statement has not categorically denied that he has not said it. He simply tried to escape by saying that he has been misquoted. I feel that it is not proper. When somebody makes some statement and when he is on the wrong foot, he only makes the media scapegoat. It is not a fair business. We appreciate that the hon. External Affairs Minister made the statement yesterday saying that his statement is unwarranted and unacceptable. Following his statement the Government must take immediate steps against the Ambassador. Sitting in Washington, he should not make such remarks. I wonder whether he is making the Government policies or the Government here in the Cabinet is making policies. He has definitely crossed his limits and we must not tolerate it. Merely by apologising, the matter cannot be ended as such because then it will be very easy for someone to make offence and say that he apologises. Once he has made some wrong statement, once he has gone beyond his jurisdiction and once he has made so derogatory a remark about Parliament, I think, some sort of necessary action must be taken against him. He should be immediately recalled. We wonder why the Government is still waiting for it. The more the delay will be there, the more the controversy will start. So, it is high time for the Government to take action. We demand that the Ambassador should be recalled immediately and necessary action should be taken against him. (Ends)

׸ ־ָ (ָ™) : ֳ֯ן , ֤ ־֮ ֮ ֯ ֤ ֟ ֟ ֤ ׸ ־ֻ , ִ , ָ ָ ָ ָ ϟָ ֵ ֋ ִ֟ ֲ ֕ ֟ ï™ ָ ֤֕ ָ ֟ ָָ ֱֻ ֵԾ ߅ ִ֟ ֟ ֟ ֮ ֓և ֮ ָ ֤֕ ָ ֟ ו ֕ ֤ ־֮ ֿ ֱֻ ֵԾ ִ ָ ֺ ֟ ײֻ ֓ ָ ӡ ֤ ׸ ־ֻ ׻֋ ָָ ֻ ֻ ֟ ֟ ֮ ֟ ֵ֮ פ , ִ ֮ ֓և ֱ ָ ֵ֮ ֤ ֱ ִ֟ ִ ֡ ָ ֻ֟, ֤֕ ָ, ו֮ ָָ ִ ׬ ־ , ָ ָ -וִָ֮ ֟ ֱֻ ֵԾ (ִ֯)

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI (MAHARASHTRA): Thank you, Sir. Unfortunately, Sir, I don't have the advantage of the paper that Shri Yashwant Sinha was referring to, that Shri Chatterjee also had in his hands and so what Shri Digvijay Singhji was referring to. I do see the point that Shri Narayanasamyji made that there is little proof that has come before the House and we are dealing with a blue-eyed boy of the Indian Foreign Service and, therefore, we ought to be more careful.

(Contd. by 1r/KSK)

MCM-KSK/1R/2-55

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI (CONTD): I think, what words he actually used for the Parliamentarians or for any other person, is not a matter of importance. Whether he said it to the media in a formal press conference or in a private conversation or private discussion is also not important. The fact that cannot be denied by even Mr. Narayanasamy is that he was responsible for an act of indiscretion which, in diplomatic circles, is called faux pas, which has actually resulted in disturbance of this House for three days and which has, certainly, resulted in India's image outside being tarnished. I think recall of the Ambassador is extremely important not only to uphold the prestige of this House but even to give a message in the United States that this Parliament cannot be taken for granted and the decision that we make will finally be made in this House. So, I support the immediate recall of the Ambassador.

(Ends)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs, Shri Suresh Pachouri.

SHRI ARUN SHOURIE: Sir.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: See, it has been agreed that only the leaders of the political parties will speak. We had a useful debate. There are other Members who also want to speak on this issue...(Interruptions). Please, co-operate.

֤ߵ ֵ ӡֵֻ ֕ ӡ ( ֓) : ֳ֯ן , ֤ ֕ ֤õ ִ׮֟ ֿ־ӟ ֮ ָ ֟ ׸ ָߵ ֤֕ ף֟ יֵ ן ִ׮֟ ֤õ ֮ ֮־ ֌ ֤ߵ ֵ ֕ ӡ ֵ֟ ֟ ֤ ֤õ ִ֮ Ͽ , ֤ ׸ Ͽ , ָ ס ־ã ׾ֿ֟ ֲ ãן ׮ٴ֟ ֤ , ָ ֤ ֮ ֮֕ן ٙ ߴֆ ָ ִד֟ ֋ ׻֋ ֟ ֕ ָ ֤ ִ׮֟ ֤õ , ֟ ӳ߸ ֟ ֟ 000 ָָ Ͽ , ֲ ֤ ֤õ ִ֮ þ׳ִ֮ ֟ ֋, ֤ ׸ ֟ ֋ ָָ ֤ ӳ߸ ߅ ֤֕ , ָ֓ ׵֟ Ͽ , ֲ ֮ וִָ Ծ ׮־ ׾֮֬ ֵָ ֮ ֟ ֮ Ծ ׮־ ֟ ֮ ֟ ֮ ָ׵֟ ׮־ ֮ ӵ״֟ ֵפ , ֟ ָ֬ ֟ ֜֟ ֟ ֻ ״֟ , ֤֕ ״֟ , ֮֕ן ֙ כ , ָ ֲ ӳ߸ ֻ ׸ִֵ ָ ֮ ֮־ ֌ ײ֮ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ֋ , ׾ֵ ָָ ֮֯ ׮֤֮ פ ָ ֮֯ ֟ ׯߛ ֯ ֟ ֮ ן , ָ 238(v) ו ӛ ָ š-918 ָ ֡ ִָ֓ ֡ ׿֟ ֟ ֲ ֻ substantiate , ָ ׾ָ֓ ׾ִֿ ֋, ו ֮֯ ָ ֟ ߅ (1S ָ ֿ:)

PREVIOUS HOUR