PREVIOUS HOUR

MKS-AKG/3.00/2H

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH (CONTD.): This conveys that the Report has been accepted by the Government, and SEBI has issued the guidelines. But I read in the newspaper an article written by Sucheta Dalal: "It is estimated that over 40 crore of PNs have been issued abroad by foreign brokers and are actively traded in some markets." Of course, apprehensions have been expressed. These subscriptions came......(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ramachandraiah, you have to conclude. You know that it is difficult for those who are making good points, but there is no time.

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: I will conclude, Sir.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please conclude.

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: Tax evaded domestic money. Sir, tax evaded domestic money has been routed through these PNs. ...(Interruptions)... You can give the reply, Sir. Sir, these are all the......(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please don't see towards Mr. Narayanasamy.

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: Mr. Narayanasamy is very eager to introduce his Private Member's Bill, but for that, after 3.30, time is there.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, no; you want to have the reply of the hon. Finance Minister also. Without his reply, if you want to participate......

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: I admit, Sir, that the economy is on strong fundamentals, and F.M. was very optimistic to get a ten per cent growth. We welcome it. We should achieve a growth rate of double digits. That is only the solution. F.M. should also take into consideration some constraining factors like rate of inflation. Oil prices have gone up 70 plus. And strong rupee. Strong rupee, I welcome it though it is not being welcomed by software companies. Sir, these constraining factors he has to also take into consideration. My request, Sir, is that regulator has to be made very, very strong in this country till this total transformation takes place. Unless this transformation is completed, regulator has to be provided with full autonomy. And they should be more strengthened. Then only we can achieve the target.And the second thing, Sir, of course is inflation. Last time also, I made a proposal about it. For increasing inflation, F.M. alone should not be made responsible. A separate Department has to be constituted to contain inflation. It covers the Commerce Department, the Agriculture Department and the Finance Ministry. As far as the Finance Ministry is concerned, they will indulge in these reactions, increasing the CRR ratio and setting the liquidity to the market. To that extent, they are successful. However, the shortcomings in the supply side.....(Time Bell)... These are all the things which have to be taken in a holistic way. A separate Department has to be constituted to take care of inflation. Inflation is going to be the biggest enemy, the constraining factor to achieve this growth rate. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Shri Arjun Kumar Sengupta. I just want to remind you about the time constraint.

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA (WEST BENGAL): Sir, in fact, if I had not been given the time constraint, I would have, probably, given a most reasoned defence of the Finance Minister's position. I can assure you that my defence of the Finance Minister's position would have been much better than many other defences that you would have actually talked about. Unfortunately, since I have this time constraint, I will be talking about a few things and, I hope, the Finance Minister would forgive me if they sound critical, but constructive criticisms because I am as much interested in the success of the Finance Minister as he himself or anybody else in the Congress Party is.

Sir, I would like to start with a simple point that the Finance Minister is a Finance Minister of a party or a Government which has come to power on a clear assurance that this Government will be fighting for, standing for promoting the welfare of the aam admi. It is not against growth. In fact, growth is very much welcome, but the criterion of the success of this Government is what it is doing for the aam admi. In 2004-05 when the elections were fought, the leader of the Congress Party went to the polls, talking about the difference between the Shining India and the India of the common masses. ...(Interruptions)...

DR. FAROOQ ABDULLAH: Sir, I am on a point of order. The hon. Member said "the Finance Minister of the Congress Party". I would like to correct him. He is Finance Minister of India, not only of your party.

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA: Your point is well taken. ...(Interruptions)...

DR. FAROOQ ABDULLAH: Your party might have elected. ...(Interruptions)... (Contd. by TMV/2J)

-MKS-TMV-SCH/2J/3.05

DR. FAROOQ ABDULLAH (CONTD.): When he sits on the Treasury Benches as Finance Minister, he is the Finance Minister of India. Don't forget that.

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA: That point is very well taken. I have very limited time. Let me make my points.

The whole question is that, at that time, it was not very clear what is the aam admi. We have now gone into a detailed analysis of this and we have been able to identify 77 per cent of our people who can be identified as aam admi who are living on a per capita per day consumption expenditure of Rs. 20. A little more than Rs.20 is the per capita consumption expenditure. This particular group of 77 per cent also contains 88 per cent of the Dalits, 80 per cent of the OBC and 84 per cent of the Muslims. I may be one or two points here and there, as far as the exact numbers are concerned. An overwhelming portion of the socially downtrodden and deprived population belongs to this group of 77 per cent. What we have to see is whether the Finance Minister has been successful in delivering to this group of people on the basis of which this Government was formed. I am afraid, a lot of things had happened. In fact, it is true that the total expenditure on the social programmes that the Finance Minister has provided has gone far beyond what had happened before. But we find, again and again, that whatever has happened, it has by-passed this poor downtrodden people. I have no time to go into the details. But the fact of the matter is that unless you adopt programmes which are targeted to this group, focussed on this group, you will not be able to deliver. If I may submit, yes, we are, of course, growing at a very high rate and it is a very good thing. But this high rate of growth is practically inevitable in India. All that the Government will have to do is to see that the reforms are not regressed and are not changed. In a country with this kind of rate of savings, in a country with this kind of foreign exchange, in a country with this kind of domestic market, nobody can prevent a high rate of growth. We have found that 24 per cent of our population has a huge consumption growth. This provides a large market in a world where import duty has come down and the whole world is inclined to come here, foreign investors and foreign good producers. Here, the twenty-four per cent pushes us very far. By the way, the rate of savings has increased. The rate of savings of this 24 per cent has increased. Seventy-seven per cent of our people have no savings at all. They just survive. They can't save anything. This is the world. It is very clear today that the world is divided today and the question is what we are doing for these downtrodden people. I can mention a number of things. I don't want to get into that. But some of the programmes will have to be now pinpointed. We have now suddenly entered into a mode of elections. What are we going to do? The time is very limited. But in this time, I would request the Finance Minister, to consider immediately to have a set programmes which are directly focussed on and targeted to them. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGP) is one of the programmes which is directly targeted to these people. It must be expanded. He is trying his best. But I think it can be expanded further. The other programme is the social security for the unorganised workers. But one illness in the family, one hospitalisation, one death of the bread-earner, one old age is sufficient to drive a poor family to destitution in our country and the Social Security Scheme must provide protection for them. These schemes are available. These schemes have been worked out and the Finance Minister must now come out openly to support them and say that we are for this poor people, for their social security.

On the question of agriculture, I am absolutely certain that the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister have taken many steps to improve productivity of our agriculture. Unfortunately, almost all of them have gone beyond the reach of the small and marginal farmers who constitute 84 per cent of our agricultural household. (Contd. By VK/2K)

-TMV/VK-PSV/2K/3.10

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA (CONTD): I have tried my best to find what has been the credit situation of these people. We have 2003-04 figures which are terrible. But after that, in spite of doubling of the credit, very little information is available, which I can say, like the national survey, I can build upon. But the stray evidences show that there is a total mismanagement there. Very little credit is going to the small and marginal farmers. If a special scheme is not taken, adopted and moved in that direction, nothing will happen. During Shrimati Indira Gandhi's time, there were special programmes for small and marginal farmers. They have all been given up. They have all been amalgamated with others. You are finding only the bigger farmers to give the benefits. All the credit goes to the bigger farmers; all the fertilizer subsidies go to the bigger farmers. These are facts of life that we can actually find. I am putting forward this argument. It is perfectly possible to work out a number of such schemes, for example, industrial growth. Phenomenal industrial growth is taking place now. I am saying phenomenal deliberately - 8 to 9 per cent. But do you realise that this rate of growth of large industries produce more jobs? It is a totally jobless growth that we are having in our manufacturing sector; whereas, the job producing micro sector, small sector, artisans, etc., are striving. They do not have the raw material; they do not have the skill; they do not have the credit. We have SEZ programme. There is nothing against that. There may be some kind of problems. But they are meant for the rich people. Why can't we have SEZ programmes for the artisans' clusters? Why can't we have SEZ programmes for the poor, small and marginal units? That would give you an indication that this Government is committed to these poor people. I can go into the details. The Finance Minister is aware of that, but I do not want to go into that.

Sir, I would like to make two more points before I end. One is the Public Distribution System. This is one thing which will definitely have an impact on our poor people. Now this Public Distribution System has to expand. It has to cover not only foodgrains but other materials also. How do you do that? I remember the Finance Minister mentioned to my friend, Shrimati Brinda karat, that there is a difference between the CPM line and his line because he is a liberal and they are talking about State activities. Sir, I would like to request him to be a liberal in this particular case. Now, a very simple point. Let us have the Minimum Support Price at an attractive rate and let the FCI come to the market to take grains from any farmer at MSP, at any time in the season. If it is not immediately in the harvesting season, at a later date with some interests it can be provided. It is a pure market game. But they should also be allowed to sell to private traders. There should be no restrictions that you cannot sell to these people or that people because that is the only way to assure whether the farmers are getting better price. There is no problem at all if the farmers are not selling to the FCI, but selling to someone else. They are doing it because they are getting more money. But then the FCI should be in charge of the Public Distribution System. How is it possible to do that because they may not be able to procure enough? This is where the Finance Minister has such a huge amount of foreign exchange reserves. He can tell the FCI, "Go ahead. Only play a proper market game, import, do forward contracts so that you can get your foodgrains from outside only for the Public Distribution System, only for the buffer stocks. If you allow the FCI to play this game like any other trader, you will be able to find a proper answer to this question. You can help the farmers to get this money and, at the same time, you can get the price.

Sir, the Finance Minister keeps saying that we do not have money, which is correct. There is a budget constraint. We must accept that. We cannot accept on that point any kind of relaxation; because otherwise, the whole system might collapse. But then if I come to the details, is it really that difficult for the Finance Minister to accept that even after trying his best all the resources he has covered, he is unable to fund the whole thing? Please accept that if you had one more percentage of deficit financing, it would give you Rs. 44,000 to Rs. 45, 000 crores in your kitty. What will happen? (Contd. by KS/2L)

2l/3.15/-vk/ks

SHRI ARJUN KUMAR SENGUPTA (CONTD.): I want to put this thing. I am not supporting this. I am saying, do not make a fetish of your FRBM which we have imposed on ourselves for the purpose of discipline. But there are occasions when you may like to shift your ground not because of anything else, but because if that money is required to finance these pro-poor programmes, if that is required to finance social security programmes, if that is required to meet the unemployment problems, then this is very much worth considering. I am saying this because, with that kind of increase -- I have done my exercise; he has very competent people in his office; just do this exercise -- let us know what will happen to our country if there is one per cent increase in deficit financing. Nothing will happen to inflation. Something can happen to the interest rate, but not much. The country can actually accept it, at eight to nine per cent of growth rate. This is not going to do any great damage if we do it for one or two years. That gives you immediately an amount of money. I am only saying this because if you say that we do not have money for helping the poor, for giving these kinds of programmes to the poorer people because all our items are given up and we have an FRBM, then, I am saying, in that case, please look at your FRBM. Heavens will not fall if you accept one per cent additional deficit.

My final point, Finance Minister Saheb, is, please come up at this stage to the defence of the position on which you have become Finance Minister. That is all I want; we want the delivery to the poorer sections of the people and that is the way to move ahead in the future. (Ends)

SHRI D. RAJA (TAMIL NADU): Sir, I stand before you to express my party's concern on this Bill. Time is precious and time must be precious for the Government also. The UPA Government came to power with great expectations. We were hearing for some time that we were a 'Shining India'. When they were in power, we heard about 'India Shining'. Now, we talk about 'India Rising' and `India moving towards a double-digit GDP growth', `faster growth'; that has become the mantra of the UPA Government. But the Government has been continuing the same neo-liberal paradigm of development. This has widened the gulf between the rich and the poor in our country. I do not want to get into all the statistics. I must refer to what Shri Arjun Kumar Sengupta has said in his report. He says that 77 per cent of our population lives with a daily consumption level of Rs.20. That shows the level of disparity that has come into effect in our country after this neo-liberal economic policies were introduced. That is why I sincerely feel that the UPA Government will have to go in for mid-course corrections. There is a need for mid-course correction. This is not a simple political statement I am making on the floor of the House. I sincerely believe that the UPA Government should go in for mid-course correction of its policies because the same policies cannot continue. And here I must point out a few things for consideration.

I take up agriculture. The Government claims a target -- what they call `desired target` -- growth rate of 4 per cent in agriculture. But agriculture has become increasingly non-remunerative. Our farmers do not get remunerative price for their produce. They are in the grip of indebtedness. That is one of the major reasons for the continuous distress of farmers. Agriculture is in very deep crisis. Farmers do not get loans at a cheaper rate of interest. Now, even at 7 per cent loans are meant as short-term loans; they are advanced for crops; they are not given for the entire agricultural operation. (Contd. by 2m/tdb)

TDB-AKA/2M/3.20

SHRI D. RAJA (CONTD.): And I don't know why the Government is not giving some consideration to the recommendations made by the National Commission on Farmers where we find some very genuine recommendations in the interest of agriculture. Even if you take the question of subsidy, these subsidies are not given directly to farmers. The conditions of small and marginal farmers are miserable. The plight of these sections is really miserable. The condition of agricultural workers is still worse. It is the promise made by the UPA Government in its National Common Minimum Programme that this Government will come out with a protective, comprehensive central legislation for agricultural workers. We don't have a national minimum social security for poor and tiny people in this country. I don't know how far this Government can allow this situation to continue. On the one side, this Government claims that it is the Government of aam admi, or the Government of common people, poor people; on the other side, if you take the actual practice, that does not go in tune with their claims or promises. Take the conditions of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or the Other Backward Classes and minorities. Still they are looking for some support from the Government. The so-called sub-plan for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes -- in actual terms, many people have pointed out -- is not enough. In fact, there is no such plan in practice for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But, we claim that there is a sub-plan and we are demanding sub-plans for minorities also. Unless you address the concerns of Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims and Other Backward Classes, it cannot claim that it is for the common people of the country. What is the job of the Government? For whom is this Government there in the office? It is not that we can claim that we are producing some billionaires or some trillionaires and showcase them. This is the advantage of the Neo-Liberal policies. In fact, these Neo-Liberal policies have created some tiny islands of prosperity and some super-richer people in the country. The vast ocean of poverty must be understood by the Government. It should be understood by the Government that the conditions of people are worse. When I say this, I don't say that the UPA Government has not done anything. The UPA Government has brought the NREGA; the UPA Government has passed the RTI Act; the UPA Government has put the entire disinvestment programme on hold because of the resistance from the Left. But, it is not enough. A lot more could have been done by the UPA Government. Why the UPA Government failed to address these concerns of the poor people? That is my question. Now, when we talk about allocations and other things, the UPA Government should realise these things. Because of time constraint, I am not going into other issues But, there are several issues which have been touched by my previous speaker from the Left. In fact, I must endorse whatever has been spoken by my colleague from the Left. Even for the social sector, the National Common Minimum Programme claims...

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: You are supporting your colleague from the Left and not others. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI D. RAJA: I am doing this because we have some common positions. ...(Interruptions)...

ֵָ : כևÙ 껛 , DMK ִ ָ օ ..(־֮֬).. BALCO, NALCO, Neyveli Lignite Corporation. כևÙ, דָ֤ , ָָ , DMK , ׮׬ ִ և, ׻֋ 껛

SHRI D. RAJA: ...(Interruptions)... You talked about disinvestment, and I am coming to the DMK. ...(Interruptions)... When the Neyveli Lignite Corporation was listed for disinvestment, the DMK came out strongly against that disinvestment. That is what from the Left we have been fighting. There are other forces also who align with the Left in protecting the interests of the public sector. What I am trying to say is, now the Government will have to concentrate and should have concentrated on other issues like social sector. The National Common Minimum Programme promises that six per cent of the GDP will be spent on education. (Contd. by 2n-kgg)

kgg-nb/2n/3.25

SHRI D. RAJA (CONTD.): Now, what is happening to education or Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, or the right to education? All we talk. But when it comes to actual practice, what is happening? That is what the Government will have to address.

The National Common Minimum Programme again declares two to three per cent of GDP will be spent on health. Now, what is happening? What is the spending on health? What is the spending on education? On the question of price rise, inflation has been raised. I hear what the Finance Minister keeps on telling, "Whatever fiscal measures, monetary measures required for controlling, moderating the inflation are being taken." But, actually, it does not reflect on the overall price situation in the country. The prices keep shooting up and the common people are finding it very difficult. In this regard, the public distribution system should be streamlined and strengthened and the Government should take necessary measures on how to strengthen the public distribution system.

Finally, Sir, because of time constraint, I am just running. The poor and the toiling people need support and there is a need for some kind of national minimum social security for the poor and the toiling people. The NREGA must be universalised. It is good that the Prime Minister spoke on Independence Day that the NREGA will become a country-wide programme. But in the last Budget, only Rs.700 crores was increased for the 330 districts. I do not know with this ad hocapproach or tokenism, how can we move forward. When we think of India to emerge as a real economic power, when we think of 21st century should be India's century, this approach cannot help us. The overall approach should be changed. The Government should go in for mid-course corrections, the neo-liberal economic paradigm must have some very tangible drastic shift and the same neo-liberal pursuit policies cannot help a country like India. As a developing country like India, it needs some policy shift and the UPA Government should realise with a sense of urgency. When the UPA Government completed three years, when it has entered the fourth year, it is a very crucial year. This Government needs to amend its policies, needs to go in for mid-course corrections. Otherwise, whatever claims that have been made in the National Common Minimum Programme, they will remain claims, they cannot become a reality. The people or the common toiling people cannot forgive this Government and this is what I would like to say. Thank you.

(Ends)

׻ (׸) : ֳ֯ן , ֮֯ ײֻ ָ ֮ פ, ׻֋ ֯ ֮־֤ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֤ ר, GDP ר, ׮ִ ר ӿ, ָ֯, , real estate, ֲ ר ֟ , ׻֋ ֬և

֮־ָ, ֟ ß֮ Ӿ , ò ֲ֤ ׸ ֮ ֻ , , ִ֤ ֮ ר , ֮֟ פ ֟օ ִ ӓֻ ֮ ïֻ֟ ֮֋ ֋, ֮ ֋, ׾ָ֓ ׾ֵ ר, ֮ , ָ 1985 .. MLA , ֯ ָָ ߱ ״׮Ù ֵָ ן־ָ ָ ߚ ֣֯֯և ֯ ָָ ָ ָ ֤ , ֮ , ֮ ׬ָ פ ֙ ™ ָ ִ׮֟ ֤ 26,000 ֋ ֮ ֟ ԅ 10,000 ֋ ׸ֵ ִֻ, ֛ ߲ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ׾ֵ ֵ ָ ׮׿֟ ӳ߸ ׾ָ֓ ֮ ֛ ָ֮ ׻֋ ֮ ֯֟ ֤ ֵ֟, ֮֟ ß֮ Ӥ ߕ̻ ־, ָָ ֵ , ߕ̻ ־ פ, ־ ֕ ֛ ֟ , ׸ֵ 2 ֋ ߙ ֻ֟ ֟ ׻֋ ׻ ? ֯ HPCL, BPCL, IPCL ָ ־ ֮֯ ֵ ? ֯ ӟָ 2O/VNK ָ ֿ:

-NB/VNK-SSS/2o/3.30

׻ (֟) : ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֛ ֮ ִ֮ ֮֕ן ֛ ָ, ֛ ָ ߙ ֟ , ֮ ָ ֛ ׬׸ ֲֻ ֮֟ ן ֤ , ֤ ־ֲ֤ ר ֤ , ֛ כ ֻ , ָ Ӿֿ߻֟ ָ Ӿֿ߻

֮־ָ, ֮֮ߵ ӡ ָ Ϭ֮ ָ ֮־֬Ԯ , ӡ ֮ ָ ֟֋ ֮ և ֓և ׸֮֋ ß֮ Ӥ և ? ָ ״ ָ ֮ , ӕָ ״ ָ ֮ , ֻ ָ־ ֻ ״ ֲָ ֟ , ״ Ը ֮֮ ׻֋ Ӭ פ ִ ֵ ֮ ߕ Ӿ֬Ԯ և և և, ֋-֋ ߕ ? ֈ ӟָ ־ָ ֮ ָ ׸ָ 13 ָ , ָ Ϥ 9 ָ ׸ ӕֲ 8 ָ ֟ և , ׻֋ ִ ֮ ßָ ָ

֮־ָ, ֟ , ֮ ֻ ֓ ײ ֲ ד֯ ָ֕ ֟ ֋ ֟ ӟָ ? ָָ ֻ֟ ֯ , ֮֯ ֮ ֮ ׮֕ ׮ֵ ֪֮ ָߤ ן ߅ ֻ֟ , ֮ ֳ ו ִֵ ֻ , ִֵ ֮ ֻ ׻֋ ֮ ֪֮ ִ ֜־ ״ֻ ִ ֯ ָָ ִ֤ ׻֋ ׮ֵ artificial , ָ֕ ־ ָ ֟ ֕ ָ ֯ ָߤ , ׮׿֟ ־ ָ օ ׻֋ ֯ ׮֕ ׮ֵ ו֋

֯ SEZ ֋ SEZ ֵ֤ ? ֮־ָ, Democratic set-up , ֮ ֮֟ ָָ, ֮֟ ָ, ֮֟ ׻֋ SEZ ׻֋ ? SEZ ֮֯ , ִ ֮֟ Ӥ ָ֮ ֟ ִ߮ ֯ , ִ߮ ֋ ײ ֤ ִֻ֯ ֯ , ֯ ֵ֤֠ Ԯ, Ԯ Ԯ ָ֮ ֟և, ִ ֤ ֵ֤ ״ֻ? , ֯ ֮֯ ֻ֓ , ָӓֻ , ӕֲ , ׸ Ù ֟ ֋ ָ ֯ן ֛ ׸ָ פ ֯ ֻ և, ֵ֤ ֵ ֮֟ ״ֻ? ו ֮֟ ָָ , ֮֟ ״ֻ?

֮־ָ, ֯ ֜ פ և, ֛ ִ֮ ™ߵ օ ִ ֤ ָ , ֤֟֟ ™ ӯן ߅ ֮֯ և פ, ֯ ֻ֮և ָ ֋ ָ ֯ ֵ֮ ִ , ֻ֮և , IRDP , TRYSEM , ֮ ß ֕ ָ ֟ ֳ ִ , ָָ , և , ׾֤ (ִֵ ә) , ״֮֙

ֳ֯ן : -, ӓ-֟ ״֮֙ ֋

׻ : , ֮֯ ָ ײֻ ֵօ ֯ ָ߱ ֮֯ ָ ֲ , ָ ֯ ָָ ֲ ָ ־ , ׾֤ ӓ ֋, ӓ ָ ֋ ָ ֙ ָ , ֮ , ֲֻ֟ օ ֮־ָ, ָ , ß־ ו ָ߱ , ֯ ӛÙ , ӛÙ ֟ ֋߅

֮־ָ, ֮֯ ֮ פ, ֯ ׻֋ ֬և ֡ ֯ ֳָ ֮֯ ß פ, ָ ֣-֣ ֯ ֲ ֤ ָ ָߤ , ׻֋ ִ߮, ָ ָ ֟ , ֲ ֮ , , פ ָߤ , ִ߮ ָ ֟ ? ֯ ߕ ׸ָ , ו ߕ ָ ֮֯ פ ֮ ׌ ֵԻֵ ӛÙ ֲ ߻ִ , ָ ߻ִ , ֲ ֮ ָ, ִ߮ ߻ִ , ? ֯ ֻ , ֻ ߴ ӿ ֯ ָ ֜ ֵօ (2/֯ ָ ֿ:)

MP-NBR/2P/3.35

׻ (֟) : ֯ ֙ , ׯ֔ ָָ ֮֯ ֯ ֻ ߴ և, ֮ ן ֤֯ֆ ֓ ֮־ָ, ִ , וִ ֯ , ן׸׌ ָ ֛ ֮ ֳ ׸ָ ߅ ָ ֻ ߴ , ֯ 75 ָ ֤ , ׮׿֟ ֯ ׸ָ ֋߅

֮־ָ, ߵֻ Ù ִֻ , ֮֯ ߵֻ Ù ֜֋ꅠ ֯ -߮ ֟ ׾ִ֮ ߵֻ Ù פ־և ? ֮ , ָߤ ֤ ִ ֮ ֟ ? ָ ֮ ֕ ߵֻ Ù ֮

֮־ָ, ֟ ׿ þã ָ ׿ ִֻ , ֯ ״֙ ׮־֙ ׮־֙ ֤ ָ֬ ֮ ׮־֙ ߅ ֯ ... ֛ ֕֙ ֟ ? - ֋, - ֋ , ׯ֮֙ ֮־ָ, ִ ֟ ָ ִ׮֟ ֣ Ù ָ֮ ꅠ ׾ֹ ֵԾ ֯ ߚ , ֯ ֤ ִ֮ ֓ ֮ , ָ֕ , ָ ׾ֳ ꋛ ? ׯ֔ ֻ Ù ָ֮ , - ֋ ϟ ֻ Ԯ ֤ Ùߙ ֋ ׾ֳ ֵԾ ,

ִ ֱֻ օ AICTE פ ֻ ִ ֻ ꅠ ֮־ָ, ֕ ָ߲ ֓ ֻ ֟օ ֯ AICTE ã֮֯ ֮֯ , ֻ ܾ֮ ֯ ....(ִֵ ә).... ֲ ֤ ... Ù ָ֮ ֵ Ù ָ֮ ֮ ֤ ִ ߙ ֋, ֛ ָ ׮ֻ ֲָָ ֵ פօ פ AICTE ׬ָ ֟ ï֮ ֤ , ׻֋ ָ ֻ ֲ ֈػ ֟ , ß֮ Ԯ כ ӕ׮ֵظ , ו֮ ֤ ֮֟ և, ߙ ִ 녠 ֯ ӓ ָ ֮־ָ, ֤ ֓ ִ֤ ֟ .....(־֮֬)...

ֳ֯ן : ׻ , ֟ ו֋

׻ : ִ֯ ֮־ָ, ֮ ִ֯ ֋, ׻֋ ֟

ֳ֯ן : , ֮ ִ֯

׻ : ֯ ֯ ו֋ ִ ïֻ֟ ֮֋, ׿ ã֋Ӡ , ֓ ׮ֿ ׿ , ׸ֻ Ù , ꅠ ֯ ו֋, SEZ ֟ ֮և ֯ ִ ӓֻ ïֻ֟ ֮֮ ָ ״ֻ, ߴָ ֋օ ֯ ֮֟ ֮־ָ, ֵ֤ ֯ ֟ , ֮ ֋ ־ ߛ ֮ ײ֮, ֮ ֓ ײ֮, ד֟ և ־ פ ֕ ֯ ֛ ֻ ־֕ SEZ ֮ , ָ ׾ , ׻֋? ֮ ָ ָ ֟ ? ֮־ָ, Ӿ ָ ָ ָ ן ֋օ ָ ן ֮ , ִ֮ ן ֮ , ֮ ֆ ָָ , ָ֬ ָ ָ߲ ֮ ִ ו֋, ֯ ֮־ָ, ױ ֮ ֮ ֓ ו֋, ֮ ָ , , օ ֯ ׿ֵ֟ , ׿ֵ֟ , ׿ֵ֟ , ָ ֯ ׿ֵ֟ , ֯ ֤ , ֯ ָָ ֤ , ӳ߸ ו֋ ֱֻ ӓ և, - ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I am grateful to Shri Ramdas Agarwal and eight other hon. Members who have participated in this debate. I am sorry that the debate is a very short debate, only about two hours. And, I realise that I would have to, with the same discipline, reply in about 5-10 minutes. The Supplementary Demands for Grants, approximately, a little over Rs. 20,000 crores, under which we asked for cash outflow of Rs. 10,000 crores. (CONTD. BY 2Q)

-NBR-USY/2Q/3.40

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (CONTD.): Each of the heads, for which we ask more money, is the head, I believe, justified. On which, there is really no quarrel or no complaint. Mainly, Rs. 15,000 crores have been provided to fertilizers, out of which Rs. 6,550 crores have been provided by cash and the balance by way of bonds, which I will address in a moment. This is really a measure to ensure that our farmers are not denied fertilizers in time and in adequate quantities. Rs. 1,300 crores additional Central assistance is for externally aided projects. Each of the externally aided projects is implemented in one State or the other in this country. Therefore, Rs. 1,300 crores have really been transferred to the States for implementing their projects. Out of Rs. 800 crores, Rs. 200 crores is for the National Food Security Mission; Rs. 300 is additional reimbursement of losses on procurement of mustard; and remaining is additional Central assistance to State Plans. So, the entire Rs. 800 crores is, again, agriculture related. Rs. 352 crores have been provided to revive ITIs, which is the pan, I believe, we have, now, to revive our ITIs. Rs. 300 crores have been provided to settle pending claims of exporters. Rs. 300 crores have been provided for the Sampurana Grameen Rozgar Yojana's additional requirement. Rs. 236 crores are for establishment of ITIs and for the skill development initiative. Each one of them is related to a sector of India's economy -- agriculture, industry, food security, Grameen Rozgar Yojana, exports -- for which all of you have spoken, and all of you have said, "Deserve support". So, I don't think that we are asking money for anything which is unjustified. There are three other items also, which, I think, are also equally justified. Rs. 200 crores are for the additional battalions of the ITBP; Rs. 145 crores are for the Common Wealth Games; and Rs. 106 crores are for additional relief to the Gujarat communal riot victims of 2002. So, simply on the basis of justification, I think, every pie, which I ask, is justified; every pie, which I ask, is for a worthwhile cause.

It is true that we are issuing bonds for about Rs. 7,550 crores towards fertilizer subsidy. But it is not for the first time that the bonds are being issued. For example, in 1999, bonds worth Rs. 7,732 crores were issued to bail out the UTI from 1999-2003; in 2002-03, bonds worth Rs. 299 crores were issued to help exporters who had lost money in Iraq; between 2001 and 2004, oil bonds worth Rs. 9,349 crores were issued to oil companies. So, what we are doing is nothing unusual. Bonds are issued. We can only provide a certain amount of cash. Where we cannot provide cash, still money has to be provided to either the FCI or the oil companies or the UTI. Bonds had been issued in the past and bonds are being issued here.

Sir, I don't want to get into an ideological debate, but I must defend that it is liberal economic policies that have brought about a paradigm shift in this country, a dramatic transformation in the state of India's economy. I know some friends won't agree with that. They will characterise us with 'neo liberal'. I don't know what 'neo liberal' is. I understand the liberalisation that we began in 1991. And, clearly, by any account, by any measure, by any standard, the GDP growth, the foreign exchange reserves, savings, investments, production, productivity, incremental capital output ratio, per capita income, India's economy, in 2007 are many, many times stronger than what it was in 1991 or pre-1991. (Contd. by 2R -- PK)

-USY/PK/2R/3.45

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (CONTD.): Sir, I make no apology for liberal policies, but liberal policies do not mean that the policies should not be inclusive. Liberal policies do not exclude the poor people. Liberal policies are not intended to keep out the poor, keep the poor always poor and help only a small section of the people. How would you test a Government? I have been asked what you have done for education; what you have done for health care. This debate has to be done at two levels. The first is how much toll we set by these sectors and how much money we provide. That is the first level of debate. The next level of debate is how is that money being used. Has it been used efficiently, prudently, wisely and delivered goods and services to the targeted sections? Let me deal with the first part first. I am giving two sets of figures in two columns. The first set talks about the last year of the NDA Government. The second set of figures talks about the fourth year of the UPA Government. This is not meant as a criticism of anyone; this is a statement of facts. You may draw your own inferences. For agriculture, in 2003-04, Rs.3262 crores were provided; in the current year, we are providing Rs.8090 crores. For education, one hon. Member also put a question, in 2003-04, Rs.7024 crores were provided; in the current year, we are providing Rs.28,672 crores. It is four times the amount that was provided only four years ago. For health sector, Rs.6,983 crores were provided in 2003-04; this year, we are providing Rs.14,384 crores. For drinking water, Rs.2,750 crores were provided; this year, we are providing Rs.7,560 crores. One question was put about Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. In 2003-04, what was provided was Rs.1951 crores; in the current year, it is Rs.10,671 crores. Sir, I can go on with such figures. The point is, money is being provided. I think Dr. Arjun Kumar Sengupta hinted as much. Money is being provided. We have been able to raise large resources and collect more taxes. I compliment taxpayers. They have become more compliant with tax laws. The tax administration has become more efficient. We are collecting more revenues. We are providing them revenues. After we allocate all tax revenues and non-tax revenues, we still borrowed Rs.1,50,948 crores to provide for our Plans. Sir, no one can say we are not providing adequate money. So, I think, of the first level of debate this Government deserves credit, that is, providing money. Now we go to the next level of debate. Despite all this money, why are the roads not being built faster? Today, I saw a Statement by the Minister of Rural Development that roughly 20-25 per cent of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sarak Yojna is not quality road, is sub-standard. Each one of us has a State, a district, a constituency. We know that there are sub-standard works in road building, substandard works in desilting of tanks, sub-standard buildings are put up for schools, sub-standard works in PWD. The point is this cannot be addressed in the Ministry of Finance. This cannot be addressed in Delhi. This has to be addressed by the implementing agencies. Every one of these programmes is implemented at the State level, either by the District administration or by Department of the State or by a specialised agency. There are difficulties...(Interruptions)..

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: What about the review? (Interruptions)..

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM: Just a moment. There are problems. There is some amount of corruption. There is a great degree of inefficiency; that is why, we said we are no longer satisfied with outlays. We are concerned about the outcomes and at our insistence every Ministry is now placing before Parliament what is called an Outcome Budget.

(Contd. by 2S/PB)

PB/2S/3.50

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (CONTD.): In the month of May-June, an outcome Budget is placed. But, I think, the Parliament should call each Ministry and Department to task and debate the outcome Budget. In fact, the time spent on debating the Supplementary Budget should actually be devoted to debate the outcome Budget. Each Ministry must be asked to explain what the outcomes are, and if they fall short of outcomes, they must be asked to explain why they fall short of outcomes. My earnest plea, Sir, is, we must be proud of our growth. China is proud of its growth. There are 120 countries which envy our growth. If China can be proud of 10 per cent or 11 per cent growth, why should we not be proud of 8 or 9 per cent growth? It is this growth which is giving us revenues; growth is the fountain head of all these revenues. If India was growing at four or four-and-a-half per cent, we will not have these revenues at all and we would not be able to allocate this money. So, my earnest plea is, growth is an imperative; inclusive growth is equally imperative. We must work on inclusive growth. Growth must become a given in this country. This country must grow at eight to nine per cent over the next 20-25 years, and we must repair our system so that this growth becomes an inclusive growth.

Sir, now let me very quickly answer the points raised by a number of Members on a number of issues. There was a reference to Swaminathan Committee report, a reference to what we are doing in agriculture. There is lack of time, but I will quickly read a portion from the Swaminathan Committee Report. In paragraph 1.2.1, the report says and I quote, "Fortunately, several initiatives have been taken during the last two years, i.e., two years of the UPA period -- because the Government report is of October, 2006 -- to reverse the downward trend in agricultural production and to find permanent solution to agrarian crisis." Dr. Swaminathan lists eleven measures taken by this Government, namely, first, Bharat Nirman; second, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme; third, National Horticulture Mission; fourth, Expansion of Agricultural Credit; fifth, Lowering of Interest Rates; sixth, National Rainfed Area Authority; seventh, National Fisheries Development Board; eighth, Changes in the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Act; ninth Integrated Food Law; tenth, Warehouse Receipt Act and eleventh, Knowledge connectivity through 100,000 rural farming service centres. Sir, measures have been taken and the Prime Minister on the 15th of August announced two major measures, namely, a National Food Security Mission which will cost us about Rs. 4800 crores and an additional Central assistance to States for agriculture which will cost us Rs. 25,000 crores. The Cabinet has cleared it; we have announced it and the part of the money that is provided is for the National Food Security Mission and for the Additional Central Assistance to States. We are doing, I believe, from the fiscal point of view, enough for agriculture. Now what needs to be done is, better seeds, better fertilisers, better water management practices, go back to their own training and visit extension work. All this has to be done at the ground level and I think, there is an equal responsibility -- and I say equal responsibility upon the State Governments and the Central Government -- to implement these measures so that agricultural growth can increase, at least, four per cent. Sir, what is the problem of our agriculture? The problem of our agriculture is that there is stagnation in the area under irrigation. The total area under foodgrain cultivation is stagnated between 120 million and 125 million hectares. There is stagnation in production. The production of wheat has stagnated between 68 million and 73 million tonnes. Then, there is stagnation in the production of rice. The production of rice is stagnated between 85 and 91 million tonnes. This is for the period 1998-99 to 2006-07. (Contd. by 2t/SKC)

2t/3.55/skc

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM (CONTD.): We want to reverse this stagnation. Area under foodgrain must be expanded; production must be enhanced and productivity must be enhanced, and that is why the Prime Minister and the Government have announced additional Central assistance and a National Food Security Mission. I am sure the results would be visible if we supplement it sincerely and efficiently.

Sir, apprehensions were expressed about a number of items. For example, reference was made to an EPZ in Surat which was converted to an SEZ. My information is, the Surat EPZ was converted to an SEZ on 1st November 2000 along with Kandla and two others. (Interruption)

Reference was made about Minimum Support Price of wheat and paddy. In 1998-99, MSP for wheat was Rs. 550 and when the NDA laid down office, it was increased to Rs. 630; in a period of six years it went up from Rs. 550 to Rs. 630. Last year we gave Rs. 750; in a period of three years we have increased it by Rs. 120. The MSP for paddy in 1998-99 was Rs. 440. When the NDA laid down office, it was Rs. 550. We have raised it from Rs. 550 to Rs. 645. So, I think our Government's approach to MSP has been liberal and when we take this decision, we take into account the CACP recommendation and we also take into account the felt requirements of our farmers and we fix an appropriate MSP. It cannot be said that our Government has been parsimonious or niggardly in fixing an MSP for our farmers.

Sir, there was some reference to India's capital market being owned or dominated by foreigners. That is not correct. FII inflows cumulative until 31st July was 16 billion US dollars. The market cap of BSE is Rs. 35,45,000 crores; the market cap of NSE is Rs. 33,67,00 crores. As a proportion, FIIs holding in the BSE is only 15.4 per cent and in NSE it is 16.2 per cent. The bulk 85 per cent of the market cap is held by Indian investors, big and small.

Sir, there was some reference to the Economic Advisory Council's Report that RD target is unlikely to be achieved. One of the things of which I am truly proud is fiscal discipline. I recognise Dr. Arjun Kumar Sengupta's argument that we could stretch the fiscal deficit by another per cent and he asked me -- not that he does not know the answer; he knows the answer better than I do -- what will be the consequences if fiscal deficit is stretched by one per cent? I would not get into an argument on that; we shall debate what will happen if fiscal deficit is stretched by another per cent. But the fact is, the NDA inherited a fiscal deficit of 4.8 per cent and after six years, reduced it to 4.5 per cent. In fact, even that 4.5 per cent is due to a lucky Finance Minister like Mr. Jaswant Singh, because in the previous year, instead of reducing the fiscal deficit, it was left hanging at 5.9 per cent. Anyway, I give credit for the entire six years as 4.8 per cent to 4.5 per cent. We have reduced it from 4.5 per cent and this year, we will achieve the target of 3.3 per cent. So, we are adhering to the FRBM passed by Parliament. FRBM Act was not passed by this Government; it was passed by the previous Lok Sabha and approved by the Rajya Sabha then.

On the Revenue Deficit side, NDA inherited 3.1 per cent and left it at 3.6 per cent. So, it was not fiscal discipline, it was fiscal indiscipline! Be that as it may, we have reduced it from 3.6 per cent and this year, we hope to achieve 1.5 per cent. The question that was asked is pertinent -- can I eliminate this 1.5 next year? I am going to try; so far I have been on target, I am going to try to eliminate revenue deficit. But if the revenue deficit takes one more year to eliminate, I am sure Dr. Arjun Kumar Sengupta is not going to complain! So, it may take one more year to eliminate revenue deficit but the fiscal deficit target of 3per cent will be achieved in 2008-09, and I am going to make every effort to eliminate revenue deficit by 2008-09. (Contd. by 2u/hk)

PREVIOUS HOUR