SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE (CONTD.): The 123 Agreement is the product. There have been different stages. I don't say that you will be convinced by this argument; I have used this argument on earlier occasions also. But that does not mean that my argument is nullified, unless it is proven who is correct and who is not correct. The taste of the pudding is in its eating. I would like to submit most respectfully that I am repeating what I had said earlier. We are not bound by the Hyde Act. We are bound by the 123 Agreement, which is a bilateral agreement between India and the USA. If it fructifies, if it passes through all these stages, then it would be possible and it would be found in course of time, when it is put into operation, if it happens -- I am saying that because there are so many hurdles -- then we will know who was correct and who was not. Then we would have established the truth. Many presumptions were made on several issues. I am not going to the other issues which I remember. I had the privilege, fortunately or unfortunately, of being in the Government for quite some time with different Congress Prime Ministers. You have criticised many of our policies, but subsequently, it was established that we were correct and you were wrong. I am not saying that you would be proven wrong this time also, but let us try. We are sincerely trying. We require energy. We require technology. We want this country develop; nine to ten per cent GDP is absolutely necessary. That is necessary for the aam admi, for job, for health, for education, for removal of illiteracy, to have adequate resources, much more than what we can spend today. And if we have one area, I cannot ignore the political compulsions. Today, whether I am here or you are here, you won't be able to pass on the entire buck of the cost of imported energy to the consumer however grumbling the Finance Minister may be. Political wisdom and compulsions will not allow that to happen. Therefore, we shall have to go in for the cost-effective energy. Yes, it is proved; everybody admits that the nuclear energy establishment of the reactors is definitely costly. But the technology is moving ahead. It is advancing. When in this country, we had the first mobile phone, what was its cost, and what is the cost of a mobile phone today? With the advancement of the technology, I would like to submit most respectfully, Sir, that nuclear energy, if it appears to be too costly today, perhaps, it will not appear that costly tomorrow. And let us not confine ourselves only to today. Let us look at the future. Let us look at tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. (Ends)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now, the hon. Leader of Opposition wishes to seek a clarification.

THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (SHRI JASWANT SINGH): Mr. Chairman, Sir, it is not my intention at all to reopen or resume the debate that we have had since yesterday. I am very grateful to the hon. The Minister of External Affairs for the very valiant effort that he has made to covering the field in very general terms. I had some specific queries to ask, if only the Prime Minister would do us the courtesy of waiting while I ask clarifications. (Interruptions)

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: I am just informing you. He has a lunch commitment with the former Singapore Prime Minister, Lee Kuan. It is already time and, therefore, he had to rush.

SHRI JASWANT SINGH: I fully understand, Sir. I am grateful to the hon. Minister of External Affairs to have said this to us. But had the Prime Minister himself got up and said that he has a lunch to go to, the House would not have said, "No, you can't". These are the things... (Interruptions) (Followed by 2m/hk)


SHRI JASWANT SINGH (CONTD.): Because the debate concerns the hon. Prime Minister. This kind of taking the House for granted or offhandedly has intrigued and disappointed us earlier and continues to disappoint us. ..(Interruptions)..

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, go ahead, Sir. (Interruptions)

SHRI JASWANT SINGH: Sir, his continued silence other than yesterday..(Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. ...(Interruptions)..

SHRI JASWANT SINGH: Sir, as the hon. Minister for External Affairs said, we should not score debating points. I quite agree because the subject is far too important to simply sink to a level of debating points. But there is a very fine verse from the Ramacharita Manas, ָ ֤ , ָ֓ ָ ֮ Here, I may remind the hon. Minister for External Affairs that he has reinvented the reality of India's Nuclear Policy. It has never been. We have always admitted that it is practically not possible for any Government to have come into office and to have tested the nuclear devices that we tested in 1998. I shall not go into the entire history of the nuclear matter, Sir. But I do wish to correct because that is where the debating point comes in. ..(Interruptions)..

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, please. Silence please. ...(Interruptions)..

SHRI JASWANT SINGH: The hon. External Affairs Minister spoke of the then Defence Minister, Mr. Venkataraman. He has written in his biography that the nuclear test was planned. Indeed, he was ready to go down into the borehole to test the entire machinery, etc. Let us not forget that he was the Defence Minister and the party which hon. Pranab Babu has served so admirably and with such great distinction for so many years. Sir, I don't want to pursue it further. The hon. Prime Minister and everybody in the Treasury Benches have said, indeed my senior colleague in the other House, Mr. Advani, has said, that it is important that we take the sense of the House on such an important issue. He himself cited WTO. Don't be in a hurry. I appeal to the Government, wait a bit, convince the House, carry the people and Parliament with you and if you have to have the sense of the House, it is clear since yesterday's debate that a very large part of the House, which may constitute the majority, is not with you and is not convinced. Do make an effort again. What is the hurry to go now to a Republican Government? If you are lauding a bi-partisan support there, why don't you work for a bi-partisan support here? That is the answer. I would be very grateful, Sir, if the hon. Minister would give us a reply to that because I don't see that bi-partisan support just now.


SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Sir. I compliment the External Affairs Minister for the valiant effort that he has made. But I must confess that he has left me not fully convinced. So, my opposition to the deal continues. And, I would like to only remind, and only like to remind, Sir, remember, there was a reference yesterday to the visit of former US President Bill Clinton to India and also a reference to the fact that he had arm twisted, that is, US Administration then, arm-twisted more than 30 countries into signing the CTBT, which even we were prepared, India, at that point of time. Well, it did not happen mercifully. That is good. But, nevertheless, when Bill Clinton went back to the United States of America, the US Congress rejected the CTBT, and then Clinton turned around to the world and said, "Yes, I forced you to sign the CTBT, but my Congress rejected it. Therefore, I am sorry. This is democracy at work". If that is democracy at work, Sir, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That is an old English saying. So, if that is democracy for the United States, this is democracy for us as well that here, majority of the House does not agree. And, therefore, I think, that in a very honourable way, we can actually tell the world that we are democratic people and we will abide by the democratic values.

(Contd. by 2n-KSK)




SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (CONTD): So, this is our appeal to the Government.

SHRI AMAR SINGH (UTTAR PRADESH): Sir, I associate myself with comrade Yechury.

SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: Sir, I need a specific clarification...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, do not interfere...(Interruptions). Mr. Siddiqui, you don't have the floor...(Interruptions). Will you please resume your place?...(Interruptions). This is not the subject under discussion.

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: Sir, first of all, I would like to respond to the common points which the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Yechury have made and Shri Amar Singh has also associated himself with Mr. Yechury about the sense of the House and give values to the democracy. Before that, I would like to make one point. I have no intention of joining the controversy, because the period which he has referred, I have great respect for former President, former Defence Minister, Mr. Venkataraman, who was my colleague. I worked with him during 1970s. When he was the Member of the Planning Commission, I was Minister here. In fact, I replaced him as the Finance Minister when he went to Defence. Please, remember, he was the Defence Minister from 1982 to 1984 till he was elected the Vice-President. The Prime Minister of the country was Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Am I to believe that Mrs. Indira Gandhi, under the pressure of the United States of America, succumbed and compelled and gave up the test? I am leaving it there. Sir, in respect of the sense of the House, we have never said that we will take the sense of the House. Let the process be completed. We have begun the process; the process is not yet complete. Let me complete....(Interruptions). Let me complete. This is most unfortunate that I have listened to them....(Interruptions).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please...(Interruptions).

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: What Mr. Yechury told...(Interruptions) is most unfortunate...(Interruptions).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members are requested to resume their places...(Interruptions).

SHRI JASWANT SINGH: Sir, we are walking out.

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: Sir, we are also walking out.

SHRI AMAR SINGH: Sir, we are walking out.

(At this stage, some hon. Members left the Chamber)

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: It is most unfortunate that they are running out. If it happened, it happened in the case of CTBT. It is not for the first time that American Senate rejected the proposal of the President. If it rejects the proposal, 123 Agreement, on which I will take the sense of the House, you please tell me, on which I will take the sense of the House, because the Bill does not come. The Bill does not come to exist....(Interruptions). Why are these people making noise? What type of people they are? Therefore, there is no reason. They have no case. They have left. It is for them to decide. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The discussion on this subject is now concluded. Now, we go to the next item.




That the Bill to declare the institution known as the Jawaharlal Institute of Post-graduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, to be an institution of national importance and to provide for its incorporation and matters connected therewith, to be taken into consideration.

The question was proposed

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any Member desiring to speak may do so. Mr. Narayanasamy.

SHRI S.S. AHLUWALIA: Sir, Mr. Apte is here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Shri Balwant Apte.


MR. CHAIRMAN: No, one Member is present. (followed by 2o - sk)


SHRI BALAVANT ALIAS BAL APTE: Sir, I am very much here. I thought that my name would be called out and, therefore, I waited. It was not free for all. Or, was it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, go ahead.

SHRI BALAVANT ALIAS BAL APTE (MAHARASHTRA): Sir, I rise to give my views on this Bill, which, in the ultimate analysis, will be a good effort. But, the process, through which it has gone, painfully realises that this Government does not mean honest business. Sir, we need institute of excellence in medicine both for teaching and public service throughout the country. When the matter arose the other day, we were told that we could establish institutes only in Union Territories and nowhere else. But, the fact remains that entry 64 gives ample scope to the Central Government to establish such institutions throughout the country. In fact, the earlier Government had proposed to have six such institutes of excellence throughout the country which will give education as well as render effective public service in matters of medical treatment. For reasons best known to them, the present Government abandoned that excellent scheme, as it had tended to do with several other schemes and for the first three years of its governance, the country has suffered. The schemes for infrastructure development, for development of roads, for inter-linking of rivers, which were taking people on the road of progress, were halted irrationally in a manner which was totally partisan and, therefore, did not go with natural interest.


The establishment of the institutes also had the same fate. But now, probably the Government has woken up to the need for establishment of such institutes, and, therefore, has sought. ...(Interruptions).. Sir, in an empty House, I must, at least, have your attention.

The establishment of this institute, which was already there since 1964 as a statutory body, under the aegis of the Central Government, maybe with assured financial support, is sought by this Bill. Insofar as incorporation of this institute and its governance is concerned, the objects talk about academic autonomy and then the proposal shows that the autonomy which is termed to be academic will be illusory if the present structure is permitted to be hold. Sir, autonomy is not something which can be confined to determination of courses, particularly, in a medical institute where you train doctors and you render simultaneously excellent medical service to the people at large, particularly, to the have-nots. (Contd. by 2P-YSR)


SHRI BALAVANT ALIAS BAL APTE (CONTD.): Therefore, talking of academic autonomy is hollow if the institution is not fully autonomous. If you treat the full autonomy of an institute of medical education in a manner in which it ought not have to be done, every institute in the country will suffer the same tragedy as the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi has suffered during the last one year or more.

Sir, the institutes cannot depend upon the whims and fancies of the powers that be, particularly the Health Minister. They are not run by the persons whom he likes; and the persons whom he dislikes should not be removed.

This Bill guarantees one more empire to the Minister for Health to deal casually with personnel, to deal casually with dignified people, and to deal casually with persons who have medical excellence but who are poor in subserving him.

The attempt in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences by the Health Minister is a pointer to which this Government will tend to go, will stoop to go, to hamper both autonomy and service. I, therefore, believe that the present institute will also suffer the same tragedy as the institute in Delhi is suffering.

Sir, I had the privilege of reading the report of the Committee on this headed by Shri Amar Singh. It has also pointed out that this autonomy is very important. They, in fact, recommended in this Bill that the Minister should not be a Member of the Institute and should not be an ex officio President. The Bill provided this. Fortunately, some wisdom has dawned and they have removed the inclusion of the Minister. But the Secretary is very much there.

Therefore, Sir, my first submission before you is that the concept of autonomy is not merely determining courses; the concept of autonomy includes the administration of the institution, particularly because it is at the same time a teaching institution as well as an institution for public service. This autonomy has to be ensured. After the Report of the Standing Committee, the amendments, which are sought to be made here, are, in a way, very cosmetic. Only one clause is changed.

Therefore, I would urge upon the Government to go back on this Bill and bring a Bill which will establish an autonomous institution of excellence which this country needs.

In so far as the administrative autonomy is concerned, it always depends upon the finances which an institution gets. Those who pay the piper, they say, call the tune. (Contd. by RSS/2Q)


SHRI BALAVANT ALIAS BAL APTE (CONTD.): That should not be the situation. The financial support to the institutions should be granted and the Ministry has only that role to play. The Ministry cannot determine things, and therefore, to ensure this autonomy, the appointment of persons on the Governing Body, the appointment of the Director, should be through a process which will ensure that that autonomy is fully protected.

Secondly, Sir, in so far as the functioning of the Institute is concerned, the employees, the staff and the students are the essential part of an institution. In fact, if an institution is academic, then the student is at the centre of the institution. Today, if the administration does not think about the welfare of the students and the staff, particularly in a medical institution, the residents, then the administration goes haywire, the interests suffer, the institute suffers, the students suffer, and the public suffers. Therefore, it is imperative that these interests are represented in the administration. Participation is really the gravamen of any democracy, of any governance, and therefore, I would urge that the governance of this Institute should include the representatives of the employees, the staff and the students. Sir, my submission to this House is that unless you do it, time and again, there will be disruption in the activities. The resident doctors have genuine grievances, and those grievances are never addressed unless they go on strike, and if they go on strike, then it is a step against the people, because a medical doctor is considered to be a God, and therefore, they suffer both ways. The people are against them and the administration is against them. All over the country, in so far as public hospitals are concerned, the resident doctors work much more than what they are paid for. I know in most of these hospitals, the resident doctors work almost for 24 hours continuously. They are always on 24 hours duty, and they are not looked after, and a time comes when they consolidate and agitate. If this particular malady is to be addressed, I would urge that they should be represented effectively in the management so that they will be responsible and their grievances will also be addressed. With these, I would suggest that the Government should not proceed with this Bill without making proper amendments. Thank you. (Ends)

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (PUDUCHERRY): Hon'ble Vice-Chairman, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry Bill, 2007. Sir, I am from Puducherry. I know the Institute very well. I am grateful to the late Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who was a visionary, who thought that in southern parts of the country, there should be a medical institute of excellence. In fact, Sir, all attempts were made to bring that Institute to Tamil Nadu, but Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru intervened and said that Institute of Clinical Excellence, the Research Institute, should be in Puducherry. Earlier, it was Pondicherry. Amar Singhi is the Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare. He knows about it. He could not go there. His team went there. I was also a member of the Advisory Committee of this Institute. This Institute has been catering to the needs of the patients, not only from Puducherry, but also from Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Karnataka. The daily outdoor patients, who come there for medical treatment, their number is more than 5,000.

(contd. by 2r)


SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): Apart from that, the in-patient facilities and various other faculties have been started. Research work has also been started. But the budget allocation for the Institute was not up to the expectations. The Director, who has been appointed earlier, even the Government of India gave money, was not able to acquire equipment for surgeries, especially, for heart surgery, orthopaedics and even for ophthalmology. They were not able to do it because of the cumbersome procedures. For every sanction, the file has to go to the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs, and by the time the file returns back the cost of equipment will go up, at least, by 50 per cent within six months. Even in the case of appointment of professors, assistant professor and the staff, it takes a lot of time. I have made in this august House several submissions stating that the doctors, who have been appointed there from the all-India quota, go to JIPMER because there is a doctors' quota in the Institute for the admission of their children. They work there for six months and after getting admission for their children in the Institute, they get transferred to another place. They don't stay there. Minimum 50 per cent of the posts at the levels of professors, assistant professors and lecturers are lying vacant. Therefore, time and again, we have been pleading with the Government of India that more powers should be given to this Institute. Considering that, I am grateful to the hon. Minister for taking a lot of interest. Apart from that, certain obstacles have been created to prevent this Institute from becoming autonomous. We also know that and that is why this Bill has been brought to this august House. This Bill was brought for the purpose of giving autonomous status to the Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research. There was some agitation and there were some apprehensions in the mind of the employees who are working there. They have been saying that their service conditions will be changed and there will not be regular growth for the Institute. They have these apprehensions. From time to time, discussions were held between the employees and the medical authorities at the Joint Secretary and the Director levels. They met the employees and they tried to remove the apprehensions in their mind. I would like to submit that, as a person coming from that area, we will not compromise on three things: (1) better patient care; (2) employees' interests; (3) Institute's interests. On these three things there should not be any compromise because it is the only Institute in the entire South India which equals the AIIMS and the PG Institute at Chandigarh. When the employees met me, I made it clear to them that their service conditions would be protected; there would be no victimisation; regular opportunities for promotion of the employees would not be hampered. In the case of JIPMER, for all-India competition, there are several examination centres in the whole country. They write all-India examination and the students are selected through this examination. There are 75 seats. For other States, the quota has been fixed at 20. The local boys and girls are selected because only the top students go to this Institute. That should be protected. I would request the hon. Minister that since the Institute is located there, the local students' interests should not be compromised. The minimum of 20 seats for other States, as has been continuing, should be continued by the hon. Minister. I would like to request him to maintain that.(Contd. by VK/2S)


SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD): Sir, the hon. Minster comes from a place which is just 20 kilometres away from this Institute. He is also interested in developing this Institute. The employees want that this Institute should become par excellence. We, Members of Parliament, also want that this Institute should cater to the needs of the patients not only in Puducherry but also South India. Poor patients are getting treatment there. We are very much concerned about it. The hon. Minister was saying that poor patients should be treated free of cost. I am very glad to know it. I would request the hon. Minister to clarify it. The policy of the UPA Government under the National Health Mission is that the poorer sections of the society should be given free treatment. I would request the hon. Minister to confirm whether this aspect is being taken care of or not. The hon. Chairman of the Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare stated that this Institute is of national importance. Yes, this Institute is of national importance. There is a clause in the Bill which says that two Members of Parliament from that State, one from Lok Sabha and one from Rajya Sabha, will become members of this Institute for the purpose of giving proper advice. But the Standing Committee made a recommendation that it should not be the two Members of Parliament from that State, these two Members should be from among the Members of Parliament throughout the country. I do not know why Shri Amar Singh is angry with me. A person coming from the State is normally there in the....(Interruptions). That is what I am saying. He does not want Narayanasamy to be there. That may be the reason.

SHRI AMAR SINGH: Sir, I want to clarify one thing.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Mr. Narayanasamy, are you yielding?

SHRI AMAR SINGH: He has mentioned my name.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: I have mentioned about the Committee.

SHRI AMAR SINGH: I want to clarify it. Sir, you are also, incidentally, esteemed Member of the Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare. This Committee functions very democratically. I simply do what a majority of the Members want me to do. I will be very happy if my esteemed colleague and my friend is there in the Committee. I don't have anything against him. The interest of Puducherry is supreme in my mind.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, I would like to submit that there is a Central University in Puducherry. In that University, Members of Parliament from that State are the members to give advice. That is the system we follow everywhere. This is the system which we have been following. The objection of the hon. Member is also...

SHRI BALAVANT ALIAS BAL APTE: Sir, you are giving more time to the Treasury Benches. When I was speaking, you rang the bell in five minutes.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, my Party has 18 minutes.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Narayanasamy, just a minute. Please sit down. This is very unfair to cast aspersions on the Chair. Since you raised this point, listen to me. Your Party had 12 minutes and the time you have taken is 13 minutes, from 2.15 p.m. to 2.28 p.m. While you were speaking, your Party gave another name to me directly and requested that he should also be called. I agreed. You should understand that you have exhausted your Party's time and taken one minute more and then you are complaining. Your Party gave another name also. The Congress Party has 18 minutes. Mr. Narayanasamy started at 2.28 p.m. He has taken only 11 minutes. Now, he has got seven minutes more. Actually, he would have concluded before that. Now you have made me to stop him, he will take another seven minutes.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, I want five minutes more because I am from that area. (Followed by 2T)


THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Mr. Apte, as per your requirement, I should not call your party colleague because your party's time has already been exhausted. But the Chair has some discretion, and we try to accommodate maximum speakers. So, don't question the Chair. That is what I am telling you.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, there is one area where we are proud of our Institute. The students, who are selected for this Institute, are poor children. It was the mission of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru that children coming from the rural areas should get medical education. That is being continued. Even the fee, that is collected from the students, does not exceed more than Rs.10,000 per year, including the hostel facilities. We cannot imagine this kind of a fee structure in today's world where medical education has become a very costly affair. But, in this Institute, this low fee structure has been maintained for years together. Therefore, I want the hon. Minister to see to it that the fee structure is not altered. A lot of improvements have to be done in this Institute because this is not only an ordinary medical college, but it is also a medical Education and Research Institute. In this Research Institute, medical research should be given prime importance by the authorities. When the hon. Minister makes it an autonomous body, the allocation of funds should not be a problem. I am indeed glad that the hon. Minister had allocated more funds from his Ministry even earlier. But I want the special attention of the hon. Minister to make it on par with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the PGIMER at Chandigarh because, as the hon. Minister himself said, these are the three Institutes in which a lot of research work is being done. Several faculties have been opened in the other two Institutes, and the hon. Minister should bring JIPMER on par with the other Institutes, which are there in the North India.

Another point is that you have given the candidates two options; they can either continue as employees of this Institute, or, they can also become Government servants. You have given them these options because there is a recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee that the employees should be given one year's time instead of six months. This may kindly be considered by the Government because one year is a sufficient time, instead of six months, and, on this, I entirely agree with the hon. Committee.

Sir, a recommendation has been made that the hon. Minister should not be the Chairman of the Institute, which has been accepted by the Government. As far as the Director or the Chairman is concerned, he is going to be a professional. And the Government is accepting this.

Further, I would like the hon. Minister to lay special emphasis on three or four areas. No.1 is the neuro surgery. As we all know, a lot of accident cases are coming there. So, neuro surgery should be given prime importance by the Government. Secondly, a lot of poor patients come there for heart surgery. As it is, this hospital extends free treatment for heart surgery to the poor people. But, unfortunately, the doctors, are giving them time for operation in 2011 and 2012. How can a heart patient keep himself alive for seven to eight years without proper treatment? I want the hon. Minister to see to it that this Department is strengthened, and there should be more number of doctors in this Department. In other countries, we find that they have got facilities for heart surgery even in the interior places. The third is the Orthopaedics Department. This Department is doing a good job. I want the hon. Minister to see to it that this Department is strengthened, considering the amount of fatal cases that are coming here. (Continued by 2U)


THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P. J. KURIEN): Mr. Barun Mukherjee.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, the Orthopaedics Department ...(interruption)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Don't speak with your back turned to the Chair. There are certain ...(Interruptions)... I don't know why..(Interruption)...

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, surely, more patients, especially physically handicapped patients, would get treatment from the hospital.

Then, Sir, there are a lot of path labs in the hospital. More facilities need to be provided. I am not a Doctor; the hon. Minister is a Doctor. He knows how to improve the institute.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Please conclude.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, the Government of India is giving Rs. 500 crores for AIIMS and about Rs. 300 crores to PGI, Chandigarh. The allocation that has been made for JIPMER, even though it is a research institute, is less. I would like the hon. Minister to see to it that the allocation of funds towards developing the institute is increased.


SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, I shall make just one more point and then conclude.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Now, your party's time is over. Whatever time you take now is extra.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, I would like the hon. Minister to introduce more Post Graduate courses. That is very important here, because when you make it a research institute, there should be more Post Graduate courses so that students passing out from there could go in for research work. Therefore, there should be more Post Graduate courses to which students can be admitted.

Sir, I am grateful for the efforts made by the hon. Minister to develop this institute. This Bill would help poor patients, the students and also the employees. I would like the hon. Minister to give categorical assurance that the employees will not be victimized and that their interests would be safeguarded. Ultimately, as I said, instead of six months they should make it one year in respect of other Government servants or employees of this institute.

With these words, I support the Bill and I would like the House to unanimously approve the Bill. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

SHRI AMAR SINGH: Sir, I have to go for a meeting of the Health Committee and so, I would like to speak first.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Amar Singh.

ָ (ָ Ϥ): ֤ߵ ֳ֬ , ײֻ ֤ ֕ ֵ ָ ֙ ֮ ãֵ ״ן ָ ֤ ֙ ָ , ו ֮֮ߵ ֤õ þֵ ֯ ו֮ ָ ָ ׸š ֣ ִֵָ ׾ßָ , ֳ ָ ֮ ֮ ׸ ׾ßָ ֵ֟ ׸š ֣ ߴ֟ Ӥ ָ -- ײֻ ֺ ֵ , ִ Ù ׸ ֱ ִ֮֟ , וִ֮ ϴ ֮֮ߵ ӡ , þֵ֢֟, ִֵ ֋, ָ פ ֵ , Ӥ , ִֵָ ֣ ֳ ֤õ ֤ ָָ ִ ֤־ ֮ , ֛ ֤ ֣ ...(־֮֬)...

֤ߵ ֵ ӡֵֻ ֕ ӡ ( ֓) : ײ֮ כߕ̮

ָ : , ײ֮ כߕ̮ ...(־֮֬)... ײ֮ כߕ̮ : ß־ ָ ײ֮ כߕ̮ ׻ֵ , ֤־ ֵ , ׻֋ ײ֮ ֮־֤ , ֟ ִֵָ , ִ Ùߙ ָ߲ ָߕ ֣ ָ߲ ׾֪٣ֵ ֟, ֟ ָ ׾ָ֓ ׻֋ ֵ ֳ ֮ ֮ ׸ Ӥٳ֟ ӡ ָ ״֡ ׌ , ֟ ִֻ Ù , וִ , ָ ֣ וִ ֤ ן׮׬֟ .. (2/000 ָ ֿ:)


ָ (֟) : , ֻ mandatory Ù ׸ ָָ ֮, ָ Ù ׸ ֮֮ ָָ ֮ ִ֮֮ ײֻ ֮ , ױ ֯ ִ֬ ָָ Ù ־ã ִ֯ , ֱ ִֵ ֛ , ִ ֛ ֮֕ן , Ù ֳ ִ ײ֮ ֮֕ן ִ ݵ ֯ ָ ֤õ ֤ ָ߲ ֟ ӟִ֕ , ֜և-׻և ֤ ֺ ָ ֕ ־ã ֻ֟ , ָ ָָ ֟ ו ֮֮ פ

, ֮֮ߵ ӡ , ׮־ ָ ֮ Ӥ Ͼע ֋ ֳ ֣ ֻ֮ Ͼע ֋ ֤ ׾־֤ בָ ע ֻ , ֱ ֓֟ ֻ ãן ֵ֟ ׻֋ ׾֮֟ -- Ù ßןֵ ָ ׸š ֣ Ӥ ָ ֤־ ֟ , ָ ָָ ײ֮ , ָ ֣ , ׾ָ֓-׾ִֿ ײֻ ֺ ֤ Ù ֳ ֤õ ֮-ִ֮ , ָ ־֮ֆ כ ָ߲ ־֮ֆ ֮- - ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT (WEST BENGAL): Sir, it is a very unfortunate situation that on behalf of my party, I cannot extend support to the Bill in its present form. I have already spoken to the Minister, this morning, and I had informed the Government also yesterday that in its present form, the Bill is unacceptable to us. Why is that so, Sir? I would just like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that for the last two years, there has been an agitation going on in Puducherry, cutting across party lines, driven by the concerns of the people of Puducherry, that an Institute, which has served...(Interruptions)...

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Can you yield for a minute? It is not cutting across party lines. ...(Interruptions)...


SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: I am not yielding. Why should I yield to Mr. Narayanasamy who has already taken so much time of the House? Now, he wants to encroach on my time. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Let us not give wrong information to the House. ...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): No, no; Mr. Narayanasamy. She is not yielding. ...(Interruptions)... Please...(Interruptions)...

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: Sir, I am giving the correct information. He may not be there. But, I want to say, Sir, that for two years, there has been this popular agitation, cutting across party lines, on the issue of this Bill. Now, in the case of a Bill which is for the autonomy of the institution and a Bill which is going to help the Institute and which is supposed to help the people of that area, normally, there should not be an agitation against such a Bill. So, where does the gap come? Why is it that today in public perception, in Puducherry, the aam aadmi and the people of that area believe that this Bill is not going to benefit them? In fact, it is going to take away some of the facilities that they enjoy. Shri Amar Singhji has very correctly pointed to the Standing Committee's Report, and I entirely share his views that once the Standing Committee gives recommendations, the Government should give far more attention and seriousness to those recommendations, more so, when they coincide with the feelings of the people of that particular area. There are three basic issues of this Bill which have not been reflected, and therefore, I oppose the Bill. The first point is that this Institute is unique in the sense that generally in India, where, due to privatisation policies, the provision of health has become more or less an instrument for profit and loot of the people, this Institute, because of the instinctive devotion of the faculty, of the doctors, of the staff and the policies of successive Governments of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, has ensured that the poor people of a much larger region can get healthcare free of cost.

(Contd. by 2x-kgg)


SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT (contd.): I know, Mr. Narayanasamy has talked about the UPA Government's policies to ensure cheap health care for the BPL card-holders, etc. But we know that even in the capital of this country, user fees are being charged even from the poor people. In fact, it is extremely difficult now for the poor people to access free health care. The uniqueness of the institute in Puducherry is that it is providing such care.

If you look at the objects of the institute, Sir, I would draw the attention of the Members to clause 13. From (a) to (o), all kinds of objects have been mentioned in this Bill. However, the basic object for this institute is well known and it is reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, namely, "this institute has been providing quality education and excellent patient care delivery services over the years." It is there in the Objects and Reasons. But if you look at the objects of the institute, it is missing, entirely. Now, what do the people there feel? The people there feel that with the pressure of private medical hospitals in that area, because the poor people are getting access to free health care, there is a very powerful lobby working which wants to undermine public health care in this country, and, at present, one of the targets in that entire region is this institute. Therefore, it may be a coincidence, it may be inadvertent that there is an absence of this object. I do not want to attribute motives to anybody. That is why, I have moved a very specific amendment saying, "In the objects of the institute, please include the object of excellent patient care free of cost."

The Minister told me that he cannot say 'free of cost' that he can say 'for poor patients'. I said okay; you can say 'for poor patients', but I do not want it in the rules, it has to be in the objects of the institute so that nobody else comes and undermines public health care. I am sure the Minister is very committed to public health care and he has no problem in saying that, but it could not be done.

Now, the second point. The other unique feature of this institute is the local poor people in that area, their students, have two important facilities through this institute. One, there is a specific reservation. That is, at least 20 seats out of 75 are given for the local people. That is what is the present situation. Why poor people can access it is, this is the one institute where you can get your entire education for the cost of just Rs.10,000! In Tamil Nadu, in Puducherry, in South India, in general, there is a large number of medical colleges and we know about it. This House had an occasion to discuss the loot which goes on in the name of capitation fee and how many families have fallen into debt, how many suicides have been there of children of families who could not continue paying such exorbitant fees in the name of capitation. Therefore, they are to either drop out or they could not access medical education.

Therefore, both these aspects are very crucial to the unique character of JIPMER. I have spoken to him after I have moved the amendments and requested him to at least ensure that these unique features of an institute, in the absence of a guarantee in the Act, are not eroded by anybody having given an opportunity to. What is the harm when you are having an Act to ensure that the existing facilities are protected? (Contd. by sss/2y)