SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK (CONTD.): You may get shocked if you agree with me. You cannot get shocked if you do not agree with me. Now, what is the present law if a Member of a House associates with any other political party in their activities as per the Supreme Court judgment which is the law of the land? It is defection. There are a number of cases. If I associate with other parties and go for campaigning it is defection because Supreme Court has interpreted that way, whether it is right or wrong. Now, in coalition politics each one of us goes, we canvass for others. There is no exemption made in the Tenth Schedule for this purpose. Constitution does not recognise this system of coalition, whereas the judgment is still there. What does it mean? It means that we all are disqualified. So, if you agree with me, some thinking has to be done.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Does Constitution recognise only single party rule?

SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK: I am talking about the Tenth Schedule. I am very clear in what I have said. It is a Constitutional provision. The moment such a judgment comes we should try to nullify that judgment. We do not dare to do it. We should bring Constitutional amendment and say, "we don't agree". Nobody does it. In Ravi Naik's case, it is Goa's case, it had been decided that conduct is important. If your code shows that you are associating with any other political party, you are voluntarily giving up membership of the party and, hence, you are finished. So, some exemption requires to be done if you are functioning in a coalition Government where you have to go for campaigning for each other. Or, would you like to leave it that way? Therefore, Sir, I have not contemplated on what should be the amendments. I have not given any thought to that except one or two States which I am mentioning because that requires a lot of insight. But, in principle, some regulation is required. As far as oath is also concerned, some new form of oath is required in this Constitution. In some Directive Principles also, certain amendments have to be done and things cannot be covered under Constitutional amendment because there maybe so many functioning of political parties, or it cannot be incorporated in black and white or it cannot be incorporated in the Constitution. Certain things have to be enumerated in a code of conduct and, therefore, my submission is that there must be a Constitutional amendment; add a new chapter to regulate some part of it; and certain other parts should be included in the code of conduct. In this manner, let us function as a good coalition Government and help the nation. Thank you, very much. (Ends)

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD (BIHAR): Hon. Vice-Chairman, Sir, it is good that my good friend, Shri Shantaram Laxman Naik has today given us an occasion to reflect the working of our democracy and the shape of Government that we would like to have. Sir, today I want to raise the debate to a little higher level with a view to introspect as to how our democracy has functioned, what lessons we have learnt and what are the remedial measures which we need to undertake. Sir, when India became free and we had a Constitution in the year 1950, on 24th January to be precise, it was concluded and promulgated on 25th of January, 1950. We had one party rule. Congress was in power at the Centre. Congress was in power in the entire country. I can say that running a democratic Government needs a democratic character and a democratic spirit. When I say that, I will be failing in my duty if I do not appreciate Jawaharlal Nehru. Particularly after the death of Sardar Patel, he having emerged as an unquestioned leader of the Congress Party in the nation... (Contd. by SKC/2M)


SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD (CONTD.): He had every opportunity waiting for him to turn into a quasi-dictator. It was a small Opposition; the Opposition parties were small. But he had a commitment to democracy. That compliment I need to give him as a student of Indian History. He respected Parliament and he respected democratic behaviour. But I cannot say that with the same degree of certainty about his successors even in the Congress Party. Having said that, with the passage of time, there appeared decline in the Congress Party. For the first time, a Leftist party -- there was no CPM then -- came to power in Kerala in 1957. But they were not allowed to survive. I would say, the first constitutional indiscretion was committed in the year 1958 when the Left Government in Kerala was dismissed, Namboodripad...(Interruption)..

PROF. P.J. KURIEN : You may not be knowing what happened during that period in Kerala. You are saying it without knowing about it. We have experienced it. I was a student and we have experienced the tyranny.

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Sir, I respect your seniority and your experience. Still, I would say, as a student of Constitution and Indian Political History, you cannot justify the dismissal of that Government; I say that again.

Having said that, what was the image then? Political parties had come in; the PSP was there, SSP was there, Jan Sangh was there, Left was there. There were jeers at the Congress Party; I remember, when the Jan Sangh Party acquired a corporation, they used to say, 'you are fit to govern the corporation, but not the State or the nation'. A great qualitative shift came in the year...(interruption)..

PROF. P.J. KURIEN: Article 356 was put to use by the Morarji Desai Government. Was not your party a part of that? Don't try to say it only for the Congress Party....(Interruptions)...

ֵָ : ֯ ָ ך

׾ ֤ : ׸֮ , ֟ ׮ ֋; Let us keep the debate at a little higher level.

ӡֵֻ ֕ ӡ ( ֿ߯ ֵ־ֻ) : ָ, -ֵָ , ֵ - ֜

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: It is done once in a while.

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: To Nehru only and not to your party and other leaders!

Now, Sir, thereafter, there was a watershed in Indian Politics in 1967 when Opposition parties came to power in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal and many other States and also in Madhya Pradesh after some time. South still remained under their control. Yes, in 1967, DMK came to power in Tamil Nadu -- a State for which I am the in-charge of my party now. Now, those governments continued for some time and then got dissolved; there were defections. Now, what happened was that a concerted attempt was made from Delhi -- by our friends and others, who were in the ruling parties -- to convey that the Opposition could not continue in Government for long and therefore, they should not waste their votes. We heard about this campaign. At some places, people accepted it and Congress came back to power; at some others, they did not. But this great churning process in the States of non-Congress parties coming to power continued unabated.

Sir, thereafter, we all heard what happened during Emergency, how Jaiprakashji was put in jail, and before that the JP Movement, during which I had the honour of going to jail and other things are too well-known. Then came the defeat of Mrs. Gandhi in 1977 and Janata Party came to power. Then started a second campaign. They have all got the right to campaign; after all, in democracy, there is the political process. What happened was, a campaign was launched that 'all right, the Opposition can rule a State but it can never rule at the Centre. Even if you vote for them and they come to power, your votes would be a waste; it will be a short-lived government'. And they had certain empirical evidence in their favour. The Janata Party Government of Morarjibhai lasted a short period. This is not the occasion to go into how it happened and when it happened. (Contd. by 2n/hk)


SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD (CONTD.): How it happened? What happened? Today is not the occasion to go into that. Then Charan Singh's Government, then V.P. Singh's Government, then Chandrasekar's Government, then Mr. Deve Gowda's Government and Mr. Gujral's Government came. They used to support the Government from outside and also used to ensure it fell. That is a different matter at all. But they had empirical evidence in their favour to contend that non-Congress Opposition parties cannot rule the Centre and give stability. The second myth was also exploded, Sir, when Mr. Vajpayee and NDA Government came there and gave a stable Government of five years, which my friend Mr. Naik also acknowledged. Sir, what is the bottom line today? One of the greatest lessons of our democracy is that the people of the country today acknowledge and recognise their power that they can unseat any Government, State Government or the Central Government. People ask us in some seminars, why we don't have any JP-revolution type phenomena again now. I say, people of the country have known their power and they know that they can unseat any Government. Sir, a great positive feature of Indian democracy, I feel, is that the people of the country have recognised that they would give space to any political party which in their judgement is entitled to their votes. The second positive fall out of this is that the Indian democracy has become a great leveller. When the political parties, big or small, come through the political process, they recognise and learn to respect the identity, that is, India. Regional forces come on the national forum; the national forces come close to regional forces and there comes a different kind of understanding. Sir, I say so because I had the honour to be a part of Vajpayee Government for four-and-half years. We used to work with 26 political parties. We could understand their world-view and they understand our world-view. They influence us and we influence them as well. In the process, this healthy reciprocity is very important for the working of a coalition. Sir, let me today reflect upon some of the political positive consequences which have emerged out of it. We had many political parties which used to talk of cession from India and alienation from India. They had agenda and ideology and they are entitled to their ideology. But once the democracy gave them the political space, they realised that alienation is not the answer. Democracy tamed, democracy trained and democracy gave them the larger picture of the identity which is India, historically, culturally, socially and constitutionally. That is why I say democracy is a great learning process and that has been given today. What is the answer to the problem which my friend Mr. Naik has stated today. Let the democratic process answer the challenges which Mr. Naik had just talked about. There are challenges. I remember, Sir, when I was the Minister I had a long tour of North-East. I will not name the State. I had a long talk with the Chief Minister who has asked me for a dinner. Sir, he recounted his experience as an extremist in his younger days. He used to talk of cession from India. But once he became the Chief Minister, he realised the larger vision of India and the profound change which has come to him. I am sure these kinds of examples would multiply if the democratic process is allowed to have its play. Let us not stop it because the moment we put artificial political road blocks in the functioning of democracy, the problem arises. ֳ֬ , ֯ ֛ ׾֮֫ , ׌ - "ӡ ֕ ֻ֟ " This concern for public humility, the inbuilt restraint which democracy offers you to work with also has its own great shock absorbing value in the functioning of democracy. The moment we snap that umbilical link of democratic conduct, the problem arises. My friend talked about the dismissal of many Governments. Yes, there have been dismissals in the past when Janata Party Government came to power. Before that, Congress Party dismissed so many Governments. (Contd. by 2o/KSK)


SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD (CONTD): But, what happened. The Court intervened. The democratic process intervened. And, today, things have stabilised. Sir, I am also a lawyer by profession, but I do not agree with some of the judgements. Yes, there is a provision in the Constitution today that both Houses must ratify any Presidential proclamation. But, taking opportunity of the discussion in the House, let me give you a very concrete example. The Supreme Court, in Bommai's case, has stated that unless both Houses approve the Proclamation, it would remain in suspended animation. This is the additionality which the Supreme Court has added in Bommai's case. Why did founding fathers of our Constitution did not conceive of that? They were eminent lawyers, great visionaries from Dr. Rajendra Prasad to Sardar Patel to Dr. Ambedkar to Pandit Nehru. I think the rationale was, 'let something grow with constitutional tradition'. Today, Sir, let me give a very concrete example. It can happen any day. A political party gets three-fourth majority in Lok Sabha. Okay, it can get. It has two-three seats in Rajya Sabha. Suppose, a particular information comes that a particular State Government in India, the Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary, the DGP are on the pay roll of ISI, a perfect ground for the dismissal of the Government in terms of constitutional scheme and the party in power has got three-fourth majority. But, it has got two seats in Rajya Sabha. Naturally, Rajya Sabha will never approve it. But, the political legitimacy of the popular support and the perfectly-justifiable constitutional ground cannot be acted upon because the Supreme Court has put, with great respect, an artificial roadblock by extending the constitutional provision which was not the intention of the founding fathers. These are the issues to be considered today. Sir, in our democracy, let larger issues be debated, discussed by the political process. I do not appreciate this attitude of the polity of today that shift everything to the Judiciary. Why? Let the political process respond to that. Let the Indian democracy respond to that. Let the people respond to that because conflicting demands on political divide need not be adjudicated by the Judiciary. Let the political process respond to that. That is very important. I regret to say, in my understanding, not a very healthier development is there, be at the national politics or State level politics. כ , ֻ ֵօ ֻ , ֮ ꅠ Does the court always take a right decision politically speaking? They may take a right decision legally. But, Sir, I am very happy to know that the people of the country are realising how to respond to a state of uncertainty. I will give you two instances. I come from the State of Bihar. Post-2005 elections, there was a state of uncertainty. The then Governor -- I need not name him -- took a decision, wholly arbitral, wholly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court set it aside in the Rameshwar Chaurasia case, well-known case, and also had the occasion to give serious comments against the functioning of the Central Government as well. But, what did the people of Bihar do? They gave a conclusive majority to the NDA Government so that the state of uncertainty did not continue. Take the case of Uttar Pradesh recently. There was a lot of pressure of competitive politics. But, when the election came about, the people gave a conclusive majority to one political party; rightly or wrongly, it is a different part. The people gave the vote. And, a unique feature was witnessed in Uttar Pradesh that after 1991, for the first time, any party could get majority single-handedly. When I say, Sir, that let the political process take care of political consideration, I am talking in that context. People of the country are realising that. But, I agree with Mr. Naik on a larger issue. What is that larger issue? We are investing everywhere in the country, but we are not investing in democracy of the country. Let us acknowledge one thing very clearly. Now, India shall be governed by democracy, political parties, and elections. There shall be no military coup in the country. It has never taken place. It shall never take place. Now, for disastrous experience of Mrs. Gandhi in 1975 and that defeat in 1977, no politician would dare impose emergency in India. India shall be governed by political parties, by elections. We are investing everywhere; we are talking of reforms everywhere, but we are not investing in democracy of India. (continued by 2p - gsp)


SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD (CONTD.): That is a larger challenge, which creates serious anxiety for me. We need to invest in our democracy. We need to invite good people with larger vision to participate in the democratic process. We need to make party structure healthier. You just talked about your own State Goa. The state of perpetual uncertainty in Jharkhand, in Goa creates cause of serious concerns. They are good States, wonderfully endowed States. But two people, three people create problem. I think, it will be a great day for India if these people are defeated substantially by the people, by the voters in the elections so that they learn a lesson that party hoppers and party breakers cannot have a promising future.

It is good that it is happening in north India. We had a problem in Bihar, a lot of, with great respect, 'rogue' elements. They used to think, "we shall get elected as MLAs and we shall determine as to what course the polity must take." The people responded. We got a majority. I think, in that part of Bihar, the BJP got the highest number of seats ever right from the days of Jan Sangh. This is how the people respond and let us encourage people to respond in that healthy manner.

Now, you have raised concern about a Constitutional mechanism. What can be the mechanism? Would you stop regional parties from coming to the national politics? You cannot; you should not because if a regional party gets all the seats in Lok Sabha, you will not appreciate that, or, vice-versa. I think, we need to trust the judgement of the people of the country. We need to trust the political process, and, that will answer to all this. The people of the country are not happy about it. Go and see the feelings of the people of Karnataka, in particular. Now, we talk of an MoU on a stamp paper. A new kind of lingo has been introduced into the vocabulary of Indian politics. Now, I fail to understand how can a former Prime Minister of the country behave like this. Suppose I put in all the terms and one party violates. What will happen then? Will we file a title suit for injunction, for compensation? What kind of logic is all this? The political process needs to be understood, and, I am quite sure that whenever elections will take place in the State of Karnataka, people of that State, approvingly and convincingly, will give a very fitting reply to all these kinds of perpetual uncertainties. I feel this kind of periodical approval and disapproval by the people of the country is the only answer.

I never doubt your intention because when you stated all these things, you have come with great degree of thought and concerns about the problem. But my concern is larger. If you make certain changes in the Constitution, then, judiciary has got the power to approve or disapprove it with its power of judicial review. Then, what will happen? Every political divide, every political uncertainty will go to the court. Is it fair for the country? Yes, a new trend has developed -- a Speaker behaving in an irresponsible manner, people rushing to the courts and courts giving judgements. In Bihar case also, it happened. But it will keep on multiplying and multiplying. This is also not a very healthy situation where judiciary intervenes in the political process on top of the head. The larger principles are there. Now, the larger principles have come about. After the Bommai judgement, any Central Government is finding it difficult to impose President's Rule. That is a good decision. The principles have been laid down but the working of all these principles must be left in the hands of the political process.

Sir, I am an eternal optimist man. I think that this whole process of uncertainty which is happening would give us a ray of hope for the future and the people of the country would revert to a stable polity where, maybe, two parties dominate and other regional parties would also become a very healthy, cooperative, compatriot on the national scene. This is a transitional phase. Why I say so, Sir? In conclusion, let me say one thing that the greatest speed of Indian economic progress has been witnessed when India is governed by coalition Governments, be it Mr. Vajpayee's Government or your Government.

(Contd. by sk-2q)


SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD (CONTD.): Yes, Left are Left. It may be that American capital loses its imperial colour when it gets invested in Kolkata. But, it is a problem in Delhi and other parts. It is a different matter altogether. But, Sir, today, let me ask a very interesting question and reflect upon the kind of polity India is witnessing. Some parties are recognised State parties like TDP, RJD, Smajwadi Party, DMK and AIADMK. But, apart from the BJP and the Congress, the other political formulation claming to have pretence of national outlook was the CPM and CPI. The declining, political status and health of CPI is well-known. Let us not talk about this. But, today, I will ask you a question, why has the CPM not grown beyond Kolkata, Trivandrum and Tripura. I remember, I come from Bihar, CPI was the biggest opposition party after Congress in 50s and 60s. CPM was a big force in Andhra Pradesh and also in Maharashtra. They had a powerful presence in Tamil Nadu. They were very important in Punjab also. But, why is it that today CPM is confined to three States only, one is important, another is second and the rest is a very small North-Eastern State. Why? I think, the people of the country have a very basic instinct to understand which party is capable of being designated as a national party and which party is not. Therefore, by the very political process itself, the BJP and the Congress have emerged as all-India parties. A healthy competition; East Bengal and Mohan Bagan; Good! It is good for the development of the country. And, the coalition era has given the biggest boost to our economic progress. If the policy is good, if you trust the entrepreneurial ability of the people of the country, they will give you regards. These developments offer me a great assurance of future, Sir, and I am quite sure, through the process of democracy, India is destined to become a world power economically, politically, militarily and also spiritually. Thank you, Sir for having given me time.

PROF. P.J. KURIEN: Let me ask one doubt please. I am not opposing you. Are you saying that the economic growth is because of coalition or is it that it is a coincidence?

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Since you have asked me a question, what I am simply telling you is, if you come with right policy, if you trust the entrepreneurial ability of the Indians, if you allow them to do their business properly, if you allow them to work in a convenient atmosphere, the Indian enterprise, the Indian intellect delivers with heart. That is what I am saying.

DR. K. KESHAVA RAO (ANDHRA PRADESH): Thank you, Sir. I have heard Mr. Prasad and also the Mover of the Resolution. Sir, I have not come here with any studied notes. But, I would rather respond. Since you have tried to take it to the higher level of discussion, let us first understand the society that we have initiated is a stratified society, is a coalition society. We are a multinational nation unto ourselves. What is the music in Kashmir is not the music in Coimbatore. Or, what is the food there, is not here. The marriage code, the language, literature, everything is different. Yet, we have been one, which perhaps my friends this side might oppose. They would try to consider in codes, Hindutva, or, whatever the culture it is. What is that spirit that has been holding us together? If a society could be held together with these diversified social groups, what exactly is its translation into politics? Since Mr. Prasad referred to the top personality, Panditji, Congress itself was a coalition party. All things to all people. I could be the extreme left in the Congress with the right man presiding over. I can understand that you are trying to rely more upon a political process and set democratic process. I want Mr. Prasad and others of his ilk to understand that very interpretation and functioning of democracy has undergone a lot of different interpretations. First of all, democracy inherits clashes. Then, there is inevitability of clash that is innate in democracy. Let us understand that first. (Contd. by ysr-2r)


DR. K. KESHAVA RAO (CONTD.): If I am to prove that I have a majority over you and thus come this time on the right, I have to go to the people, fight amongst ourselves and prove to people after a fight of one month -- Dr. Gill sahib would give us a course -- and then come and say that I have a majority. Next, nobody says, as he said the Constitution says, how I should behave. He told me how I could come. I can only come after using my lathi or my muscle or my money or my caste or my region or whatever it is. This kind of a clash is inherent in democratic process. Then next process of democracy is how do I function in a House where the polity is to be taken control of. Now that is what exactly the Mover of the Resolution was concerned with. While what you have said is true that the founding fathers of our Constitution had never envisaged, if not visioned, this kind of 200 parties coming into play and each one trying to compete with each other, and in this competition the only one point to which eyes were glued was nothing but seat of power. The seat of power being the centre of attraction, all these issues cropped up which need to be sorted out. I am not trying to immediately say that there has to be a change in the Constitution or bring an amendment in the Constitution. Nor the Mover of the Resolution said this. What he has said is that if there is a need why not it be taken up. Otherwise, if the Constitution amendment is not helping us, can there be a code of conduct to which you have referred? A code of conduct is nothing but a democratic process. Sir, how do we really give shape to this democratic process is another issue which concerns all politicians. Sir, why I am getting wondered is, because in a globalised era, are we able to still talk about some kind of a complete sovereignty? Are we not to shed this sovereignty at all? Let us take climate changes. A particular committee might come and say you have to behave in such and such fashion. You give up your sovereignty. So, things are changing. Whether you accept them through the Constitution, or accept them through the debates, or accept them through the rules, is not the question today.

On the democracy about which Mr. Prasad talked, first, the underpinning of such democracy should be that it should be responsive; it should be responsive to the needs of the time. If democratic process, or democracy as such, is not able to respond to the times, then it loses all its strength, meaning and content. That is what perhaps exactly the Mover of the Resolution has in view. And it is very imaginative of Mr. Naik to make this House really exercise its mind over what the things are coming to. This is what exactly we are trying to discuss today. We, all politicians, in a coalition era are short-term maximisers. We want to attain everything within that particular short time. And I totally agree that coalition is nobody's choice. If everybody wants to give me all power, I will enjoy it. But things are not so. What is required therefore in this age when coalition becomes compulsion is that we develop what Mr. Prasad referred to as traditions. Let me tell you that the founding fathers did not depend too much on constitutional amendments. They depend on conventions. If you were to read the Constitution between the lines and understand its spirit, it is the founding fathers who always thought the evolution of democracy in this country would be through conventions. But the conventions, which Mr. Naik has listed out, had failed us. So what exactly is the answer? A day would certainly come when a healthy two party-coalition would be there. I understand BJP and Congress Party, which are pan-Indian, will be there but others have to join them. I would certainly agree to it. But on what basis? Will it be on the pre-poll basis or will it be on the post-poll basis like the CMP that you would evolve? Whatever it is, what you take up will depend on how you respond to the people's needs. This, exactly, the democracy has to do. (Contd. by VKK/2S)


DR. K. KESHAVA RAO (CONTD.): Sir, Mr. Naik has referred to the Representation of the People's Act. It is true that all it has done is very good. It has got some kind of a democratic element into the formation of a Parliamentary system of governance. But, they were not bothered as to who came in although they tried to see that the best man comes in. And, as is said, money plays a role at some places; muscle plays a role at some places. They could not stop that. They tried. But, you have your own methods of countering and overcoming them. This is what exactly has happened. That is another aspect which the Mover of the Resolution wanted to take note of.

In the end, what has happened is, in such a fashion, democracy is evolving itself slowly. Sir, it is evolving itself. We need to look into that. Sir, let us take the Central Government of today or of the past, it encapsulates the entire polity of coalitions in it, be it a one-party Government or a two-party Government or the coalition Government. That is how it really evolved itself. That has been our experience right from the beginning. It is not that coalitions have come in 1970s. In 1950-51 also, in Cochin and Trivandrum, we had them. In Andhra, in 1953, we had a coalition Government and CPM as its head. In 1967, we had SVD Government. PEPSU had in 1951-52. Punjab had it. So, almost all the States in the country had coalition Governments and they ran well. But, that was a tradition. But, the values have changed; technologies have changed; the needs of politicians have changed; the greed of the politicians has changed. In that context, what do we do? If Avesta was to give everything, there was no need for Hinduism to come. If Hinduism was an answer to all this, there was no need for Taoism to come. If Taoism was an answer to all the ills of the society, there was no need for Christianity to come. If Christianity was an answer to all this, there was no need for Islam to come. If Islam was an answer, the Sikhism would not have come. Everywhere, social philosophy tells us. There is some kind of a crisis in the society which transcends time and space. That needs to be understood and tackled. In a polity, that exactly is the situation. After all, what is politics? Politics is nothing but a social order. You take up the social need. We always talk about politicians. At least, I know, when I went to a village and asked for a school, people considered me as a social worker. But, I did not go to the school at that time. Then, I collected signatures of the people. People called me a public worker. When I did not get it and went on to become a Sarpanch to get a school, they called me a political worker. It is an evolution of a social worker into a political worker. That is what we say that all these politicians are trying to behave. But, there have to be some rules of the game. That is what the Mover of the Resolution wanted us to understand. We have examples to learn. We have many countries in Europe which have these coalitions. We have them in Africa, in Latin America, etc. Only thing is: How are they functioning? At the same time, if Gill Saheb were to be asked, he would also say that they are not as happy as they look today. The question today is: What exactly is tickling us? I know your concern arose because although we join on a good tenor and tone, the moment we get into power, our own compulsions, our own sectarian approaches and our own timely needs will make us use some kind of pressure or which you might call blackmail the other party or twist the arm to get it done. That exactly has made you concerned and unhappy. There are, for example, inter-State river water disputes, allocation of funds, devolution of powers for the States, etc. Paradoxically, what is happening is, every leader in the State wants coalition at the Centre, but autonomy at the State. (Contd. by RSS/2t)


DR. K. KESHAVA RAO (CONTD.): We don't want any interference from any quarter at the State level. At the same time, because the Centre has to run the Government, and only the Congress and the BJP can do it, they have to join one party or the other. So, they want the coalition at the Centre and autonomy in the State. This is our political psyche of evolving democracy. In such a situation, something must come in. As I told you about the religion, the Constitution is another bigger religion, so some kind of a rule. I am not trying to say that there should be some kind of a constitutional amendment. Even if it is coming, let it come. There is nothing wrong in it. But even as a voice, what kind of an understanding you would enter into although I am not trying to talk about MoUs that it talks about, and of which stamp paper MoUs you are talking about. When you can talk about black magic in a State changing the Chief Minister, MoUs don't make much of a difference at all. So, let us forget about it. So, the question today is, nobody is desiring having a coalition, but it has become inevitable. Since it has become inevitable, let us understand the compulsion of coalition. Compulsion of coalition is leadership. Are we able to give this leadership? Does this leadership come from the personality or does it come from the agenda? If it is coming from agenda, what kind of democratic process or what kind of political process you are trying to opt so that the people are with you in the agenda. So, it is not the leader, if the personality is taken out, it is the people who talk. You do not have the recall system, you don't have a system where you are able to reject a man. That is why, when I talked yesterday or today, people have been objecting. My entire thrust is, try to take all people into consideration because this is a country of whose democratic process you are trying to talk, is a country where you have not seen 7 per cent of people who live in places which are not connected to roads. For instance, the tribals in the remote areas where there are no roads and you will not be able to see them for another 20 years to come. That is the real situation. Mere talking would not do. This is a society where touching another human being is also a crime under some kind of a dharma. We need to take all these things into consideration.

ֵָ : ־ ־ , ֯ ̸ ָ ו֋ , ֯ ֟ ֯ ֻ ִָ֮

. . ־ ־ : ׻֋ ,

ֵָ : ֯ ו֋, ױ ֯ ֟֓ߟ ֻ ꅠ ֯ ָ ו֋,

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI UDAY PRATAP SINGH): Mr. Rao, how much time will you take?

DR. K. KESHAVA RAO: Another 3 minutes. I will not take much time. Since my friend is becoming impatient, I would not do it. I will only look into his eyes and talk now. The question today is, if you are able to build up a polity which is inclusive, that inclusive polity includes the peoples' agenda; that agenda includes nothing but the development which we have only been talking, but which we have not been able to translate into practice. That would give us some kind of a back up mechanism, but that is not a foolproof mechanism at all. That is what exactly, perhaps, Mr. Ravi Prasad said when he referred to democratic process. That democratic process or the political process need to understand two issues, a personality and also the agenda. That needs to come. Against such a background, I would rather say that when you are taking up the problem, the crisis of Coalition Governments and when you are really interested to solve this problem, you have two schools of thought before you. One is, either go through the constitution amendment or code of conduct or try to evolve a polity that is going to answer it. Sir, I can understand the apprehension of Mr. Ravi Prasad, who said, the moment you codify, you bring in the Constitution. Are we not running into the trap of the Judiciary? I totally agree with him. Let Mr. Ravi Prasad know this. Mr. Ravi Prasad, I want your attention.

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Mr. Rao, I am Ravi Shankar Prasad. I am not Ravi Prasad. Therefore, I am not listening. That is the problem.

(followed by 2u)


0 0 ־ ־: ֟ ֮֯ ֟ ߅ I can give you one example. I say that this country can go without even Supreme Court or a court at all. Let me tell you. The present courts which serve the rich should be abolished. When I said this, the Supreme Court wanted to issue a contempt notice against me. But it was dropped. It is not that through this kind of codifications or through this kind of arrangements that we are not driving them to a trap. But, at the same time, there must be some kind of a referee who can tell us, with the kind of powers that can ease but not bite. That kind of a thing also can come.


SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Sir, this is part of the proceedings. Should I correct? Did the hon. Member say that we do not need Supreme Court and High Courts?

DR. K. KESHAVA RAO: I didn't get you.

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: Did you just say that we don't need the Supreme Court and the High Courts?

DR. K. KESHAVA RAO: What I said is this. I want you understand the spirit of it. What I said was that I don't want to run into the trap of the Supreme Court. I only talked about the codifications. The codifications that Shri Shantaram Laxman Naik talked about should be such that they should also not come under their purview. This can be thought of. That is why what we required today is the experts to sit together, put their heads together and consider the entire issue in a composed manner so that they can know the answers to the entire issue. Thank you very much. (Ends)

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Ravi Shankar Prasadji, if the Supreme Court and the High Courts are not there, what will happen to our livelihood?

ֳ֬: ֤ ֳ ן־ָ ִָ , ָ ן־ָ , ֮֕ן ֤ ֮ ?

ֳ ן־ָ : , ָ

֮֕ן ֤ (ײָ): ֮־֤, ֳ֬ ߅ ֕ ׸껵֮ ֵ , ֮ ׻֋ ֛ ֕ ֯ ִ֮ ֮ ִ , ו֮ coalition government ֮ ߅ ֕ 40 ֻ coalition government ֮ ԅ ִָ֮ ֵ ׾ֵ ֟ , ֟ 0 ִ ֮ coalition government ֮ ߅ ֮ 1967 ֣ Ϥ , ִ ֙ ֛ ֙ ߅ ֤֕ ֤ ֙ ֛ ֙ ߅ ٙ ֟ և coalition government ևԅ coalition government ֲ և, ֮ ߴ ִ ׻֋ ֻ , ֻ : ߮ ָָ ָ ֟ ߅ ִָ֮ ֵ ֵ ...(־֮֬)... ֯ ו֋օ ֮ ו֋ ...(־֮֬)... ֯ ֮ ו֋, כÙ ֟ ׸ ...(־֮֬)... ֲ ׾ , ֲ ֮ օ ֮ ו֋ ...(־֮֬)...

coalition government ֮ , 0 ִ ֮ և ߅ ֕ , ָ ևԅ ׻֋ ֛ ٙ ֤֕ ֤ և, ß֮ , ß֮ , ֕ , ֟ ֕ , ָ߲ ֕ , ײָ , ָ Ϥ , ׿ִ ֻ -- ֛ ٙ , ֲ ß ևՅ ׻֋ ß և, , ֤֕ ֤ ֮ ״ֻ֮ , ٙ ״ֻ ևԅ (2 /000 ָ ֿ:)


֮֕ן ֤ (֟) : ׻֋ Ӥ ־ ֮ ֵ, Ӥ ֮ ֵ ױ ߕֻ֮ ֙ ָ ֵ ֲ ߕֻ֮ ֙ ָ ֵ ױ ֛ ӿ ָָ ֯ ״ օ , ֯ ֮֟ ָָ ֮֮ -, ߮-߮ ֤õ ֯ ״ ׾ ֤ ָӛ -߮ ֤ כÙ פ ֋, ֟ ״ֻ֟ ָ כÙ ״ֻ֮ օ כÙ ׻֋ ״ֻ֟ ֯ ״ֻօ ׻֋ ִָ֮ ֵ ꇻ߿֮ ־֮Դ ׮ִֵ ֛ ٙ ֣ ״ֻ ꇻ߿֮ ־֮Դ ֮֋, ֙ ߔ ֻ , ָ ָָ ׻֋ ֵ ל ֵ ִ ֵ ָ ֮ ֮֮ , ׮ִֵ ֮֮ ֕ כӛ ֳ֬ , ꇻ߿֮ ־֮Դ ꇻ߿֮ ٙ , ֟ ָ ֯ ֟ , ״ ֟ ױ ָָ פ , ֻ : ߮ ָ ֟ ֲ ָָ ָ ϳ־ ָ exchequer ָ , ꌿ֮ ֮ ֛ - 5 ֻ - ָ ־ ׻֋ ֵ ֵ , ֟ פ ׌ֵ ֮֟ :

"ִָ ֯ ֻ ֬,

֙ã ִֵ ׻ ָ֬օ"

, ֮ ֮֮ ֻ , ׾֮֬ ֮֮ ֻ , ׾֮֬ ֻ , ֟ ֮ פ פ ֵ ꇻ߿֮ ־֮Դ ֕ ִֵ ֺ , ׾ ֤ ֟ ֟ ֟ 000, 00և0 ֙ ָ ٙ ײָ ִ֯ ֵ? ָ ֙ ֜ ֵ, ׾ , 00և0 ׻֋ ֟ ֵ פ , 000 ײָ ׻֋ ֟ ֵ פ օ ֯ פ ֟ , ֋, ֯ ֤ ֋ ֳ ֯ ߙ ߅ , ֤ߵ ֮֮ߵ ײָ ֕֯ ֳ ֤ ֯ ֙ ֲ ָ ֵ ֯ ֙ ֛ ֵ օ ֯ ֵ פ ֵօ ֯ פ ֵ ֮ ֜ ֋ ...(־֮֬)

ֵָ : ֳ֬ , ֯ע֮֕ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ...(־֮֬)...

ֳ֬ ( ϟ֯ ) : ֯ ֮ ֟ ߅

ֵָ : ֳ֬ , ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֤õ ...(־֮֬)...

ֳ֬ : ֮֯ ֮ ֟ , ֯ ֟ כ ...(־֮֬)... ֵ, ֯ ֟ ֮ ...(־֮֬)... (2 /ߋ ָ ֿ:)


ֵָ : ֳ֬ , ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֤õ , ֻ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֤õ ָ, ָ ֻ֟ ֟ ..(־֮֬).. ָ ן ߕ ָ

׾ ֤ : , ֺ ֵ ßָ ל ֮֕ן ..(־֮֬)..

֮֕ן ֤ : ָ, , , ־ֲ ֯ ֋ ..և. ֟ և, , ؛ ֋, ֟ և ..(־֮֬)..

ֵָ : 㯟 , ֯ פ, פ ..(־֮֬).. ֻ ֵ פ ָ , פ ֻ֟ ֟ פ-פ ֯ ֟ , ֲ ֟ ָ פ ֋ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֻ ָ , ֮֕ן ן ֟ , ֣ ֟ , ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ 1980 ֮ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֟ 16 ֤õ ߅

ֳ֬ : ߕ ך, ך

֮֕ן ֤ : , ֯

֮ 㯟 : Sir, he is expressing his view. ֲ ׾ ֤ ֲ , օ Let him speak. ֯ ך

SHRI RUDRA NARAYAN PANY: He is distorting history while expressing his views.

. ִ ӛָ : ֟ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ..(־֮֬).. ֻ דֻ֮ ׻֋ ֈ ֟ .. (־֮֬)..

ֳ֬ ( ϟ֯ ) : ߕ ך, ך

֮֕ן ֤ : Sir, the amendment is "The House resolves to constitute a Committee for the purpose of recommending amendments to the Constitution by way of adding a new chapter on the governance of coalition governments providing for the powers, duties and responsibilities of coalition partners, and for providing a code of conduct in the matters where constitutional provisions may not be practicable." ֳ֬ , ֲ ׻֋ ֵ ֵ ׻ֿ֮ ֤ ֟ , ָ ֤, ӓ ֤, ߵ ߟ ֟ ִ ֋, ֤ , ָ ָ ֯ ָ ֮-ִ֮ , ׾֮֬ ֮ ׻֋ ޛ , ׾֮֬ ֟ ֮ ָ ֟ ֟ ֳ ֮-ִ֮ օ

ֳ֬ : ֮֕ן ֤ , ֯ ָ ״֮֙ , ֯ ֚ ״֮֙ , ֯ ֌ ו֋

֮֕ן ֤ : ָ, ָ ״֮֙ ߮ ״֮֙ ׻ֵօ ֌

ֳ֬ : , ֌ ו֋

֮֕ן ֤ : ֳ֬ , ױ ָ ֤ ָ ֟ ִֵ ֟ ֻܵ ֮ ֤ , ֟ ־ֲ ָ ֮ ֋ ֲ ֮ , ֟ ٻִֵ ֯ ֮֟ . ִ ֮ ל ֟ ֤ , ֤ ֮ , ִ֮ פ , ֮ ׾֪֣ ֮ ָ ׾ ֤ , ֤ ׻֋ օ

ֳ֬ ( ϟ֯ ): ߕ, ߕ, ֯ ײֻ ״֟

֮֕ן ֤ : , , ײֻ ״֟ , ײֻ ״֟ ׻֋ ָ, ֯ ׾֮֬ ֮ ֮֮ , ׾֮֬ ӿ֮ , ָ ӿ֮ ֲ ָָ ֋߅ ָ, ֕ , ߮, ߮ ߮ (ִֵ ә) 挻ߵָ ߻ ָ ָָ ֻ ֋, ײֻ ϓָ օ ָ ׻ֿ֮ ־֮Դ ޛִ ָ ׾֮֬ ׻ , ׮ִֵ ֵ֮ , ߮-ָ ߮, ӓ ߮, : ߮, ӿֵ ãן , , ӓ ֻ ָָ ֻ֟߅ (2y/mp ָ ָ)