PREVIOUS HOUR
 

MP/2Y/4.00

֮֕ן ֤ (֟) : ӓ ֻ ָָ ֻ֟, ָ-ӓ ߮ ָָ ָ , ֛ ִ , ֮ פ ֮ ׻ֵ ָָ , ָָ , ׻֋ ִָ֮ ֵ ֮־֤ פ ֟ և ִ֣Ԯ coalition government ֮֮ ׻֋ ߕֻ֮ ֙ , ֮-ִ֮ פ ֋ ׻֋ ׾֮֬ ӿ֮ ֋, ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

ֳ ן־ָ (ָ Ϥ) : ֳ֬ , ִ֟ ִָ֮ ֵ , ߵ֟ , ׾ ֤ ֮ ֿ ֟և ֵ ӡ ׮ֵ֤ , ֮֟ ׾־ ָ ֮֟ ֻ ָ ׾ ֤ ֟ , ָ Ӭ ֯ ֤֕ ֟ , ָ ֯ ֟ ֯ ֮ ׿ , ֮ ֮ ӡ ָ֮ ֜-׻ ־ã , ֤֕ ִ , ֯ ָ ֤֕ ׻֋ ֟ ? ֲ Ӭ ֲ ־ֲ פ , ָ ֮֟ ׿֟ , ָ ֲֻ֟ ָ ֮֟ ִָ֤ ָ ֟ ֤֕ ֲֻ֟ ֻ֟ ֤ ֻ֟ , ָ ֤֕ , ֻ֟ ָ ֤֕ ִ , ׻ ָ ָ ִ , Ӭ օ ִ֟ ָ ӡ ã֮֯ ֚ ָ-֜־ ֋, ָ ֕ ִִ ״ֵ ־֕ ־ ֣ , ִӛ ֣, ־ ֣ ָ ӡ ס ־ã ו ָ ֻ , ֿ׮֟ פ ֮֟ ׾־, ֮֟ ֻ ֋ ֮֕ן ָָ ֵפ, ׮ֵס֟ ӵ״֟ ִ օ

ֳ֬ , ׾֮֫ ֮ ֵ ָ ֋ , ִִ ߕֻ֮ օ ֤ ֙ ֮ ׻֋ ָ ™ߵ ßָ ָ ֻ ߮ ׾ ו ָ ָ ִֵ ֚Ӭ֮ þֺ ֵ, ߮ þֺ ֵ, ֮֟ ֱֻ֟ ֌ ָ , ָ ָ ֌ ָ ׾ֻֿ ׾ֻֿ ׾׳֮ ֋ , ׾׳֮ ןֵ ִִ ָ ֋ ݻ  ִ , ֻ ֮֕ן , ӳ־ ݻ ӡ ֤ߵ ־ã ׾ ן ָ ֤ߵ ־ã ׾ ן , ֓և ָ֮ ָ ߅ ֲ ֤֕ , Ӭ ֻ ?

(2Z/SC ָ ֿ:)

SC-KGG/4.05/2Z

ֳ ן־ָ (֟) : Ӭ ֙ ? ׻֋ ֙, ָ ֌ ֮֕ן , ֤֕ ֻ ӓ օ ׾׳֮ ׾ָ֓ , ׾׳֮ ֨ӟ , ׾׳֮ ™ ִ ״ֻ ָ ߟ ֯ ֮ ֤֕ ֻ ߅ ׻֋ Ӭ ֻܵ ָ ֙ ֟ ֋ ֮ ןֵ, ׾ָ֓, ֵ ָ֬ ָ ֮֕ן ך , ִ֮֟ ָ֬ ָ ־ ֮֟ ׾ ״ֻ ֙ , Ӥ ֮ ן ָ , ֓ ֤ ֮֟ 1945, 1946 1947 ִֵ , ִ Ӭ כ ־ ֻ -׾֟ , ׾ָ֓ ׮ֵ֤ ӟָ օ Ӭ ו ־ã ֮ , Ӭ ו ׮ֵ֤ ָ֬ ָ ־ã ֛ , ׾ָ֯ߟ Ӭ ׿ֿ כ ؙ ß־ ָ ֓ ؙ ֵ߅ ׻ פօ ֮ ֡ ׻ ׻֋ ׻֟ ֮ ֻ ߜ ֟ ֻ ֋ ָ ָ ׿µ ߓ ׾ָ֓, ןֵ ֨ӟ ֳ֟ ߜ ֲ ֮ ן ָ օ ֙ ֟ ֵ ֓þ ִֵ ֵ - פ ִ ֳ , Ӿ ? ֤֕ ֛և ָ þֵ ׻ֵ, ָ և ֵ߅ ֨ӟ ̴֮ ֛-֛ ׾֮֫ ך ו ִ - indispensability. ׌, ׸ָ - ׮־ֵ ֋ ָ ֋ ֻֻ פ ֻօ ָ ׾ ֤ ֓ ߅ ֕ ָ ָ ãן ֵ ֚Ӭ֮ ָָ ֮ , ֙ ָָ ָָ ֻ֮ פօ ? ָ֟ , ֻ֓ ֓þ , ׬֯֟ , ׬ָ , , ִ ָ ָ ֋ ãן פ ֻ߅ ֮֕ן ֤ 0 ֲ ־֤ ֟ ߅ ֲ 0 ־֤ ֟ , ֕ ֟ utopian , ֻ׮ , ӳ־ ֙ ֮֕ן ߓ ߾ָ, ִ ֯ ֳ֟ ׿ֿ ߅ ֯ ֮֟ ֙ ևߕ ֙ 같ߕ ߅ ָ ֢ ִ ׾ָ ִ ߅ ָ ׾ָ ָ ֵ, ̲֕ ֵ, ֲ ֤ߵ ӡ ׮ֵ֤ ֟ , ׮־ֵ ֟ ָ ֮֕ן ̲֕ ֮֕ן ֤֟֟ֆ , ֮֟ ׾ , ׾ ֮ ֮ ֙ ̲֕, ֿ֌ ׾ָ ֮֕ן ֮֮֯ פ, ™ , ָߤ - ֤ , ֻ֓ , ־ ߤָ ֮ - ָ ֻօ ׻֋ ָ־ , ӡ , ִ , ֮ ־ ן ִ ד ִ ֮֟ , ׻֋ פ ׸֟Ԯ ־ֿ ׸֟Ԯ ֳ , ֲ ֙ ׬ָ ֟ օ (3-ߋ ָ ֟)

MCM-KLS/3A/4-10

ֳ ן־ָ (֟) : ָ ֤ ִ ֳֆ ֙ ֻ֙ ָ ӡ ָָ ֙ ֻ֙ ֺ ꅠ ֟ , ֕ ֟ ֮־ָ, 1967 ִ֕־֤ ֙ ֡ ׮ֻ ִ ֟ ָ ָ ָ ֕ ִ , ִ ֮֟ ָָ ן ׾ ֵ ָ ָָ ֮֟ ֮ ׾ ֵ ־ ֛ ߟ ָָ ֙ ֮߅ ָ ״ֻ֟ ߅ ױ ָ ָ ָָ ֮֮ ׸֟Ԯ օ ߲ ָ ֟־ָ , ֻ֓ , ָפ , ֮֯֟ օ ׻֋ ֮ Ԯ ־ֿ ֟ ָ ׬ָ ֟ ֮֟ Ӥ ־ ן ָָ ן ׾ ׻֋ ֺ ָָ ֮, ֚Ӭ֮ ָָ ֮ ֻ ֢ ֻ֮ ׻֋ , ֻ ָָ ֻ֮ ׻֋ , ׻ ֲִֵ֨ ֵ ֣ ָָ ֵ ָ֬ ָ ֮, ֻ ֮֕ן þ֣ ָ֬ ָ ֮, ֵ ָ֬ ָ ֮߅ ֵ և ֈӛ ֲִֵ֨ ꅠ ױ ϵ օ ֤ ϵ ֤ פ ֻօ ֟ ׾µ־ ּ-ߚ ־ ꅠ ָ ׾ ֌ ãן ֋ ׾ ֮ ו ֕ , ָ ֯ ߔ և ֙ ֤ ו֮֟ ׸֟Ԯ ָָ ֮ ָ ָָ ܵ ֻ ֤ ߅ - ִ ֻ ָ ֤ ָָ ֻ ָָ ֻ֮ פ, ָ ָ ָָ ָ֮ ָָ ꅠ - ֻ ָ, ן֟ ִֻ , ֛ ֟ ֻ ִֻ ׻֋ ָָ ֻ֮ פօ ֳ֬ , ֕ ֚Ӭ֮ ָָ ׮־ֵ ֮֮ ֮ ִ֟ ׮־ֵ , ֕ פ ֤ ֮֟ ֚Ӭ֮ ָָ ֕ ׮־ֵ ֟ և ָ ϳ־ ֵ֮ ֋, ׻֋ -߮ ֟ ־ֿ ִ֟ ֮ ׸ , ߯ ׸ϕי ֮ ׸֟Ԯ , ׯ֔ ָ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ß־ פ ֲ ߮ և כ כ֮ օ ֮ ׿ֿ , ׻֋ -߮ ֟ ָ ׾ֿ ָ ֮ օ ֮֕ן ֵ ֻ , ִָ-1, ֮֕ן ϳ־ , ִָ-2, ֮֕ן ִ ? ֮֕ן ִ ֻ ־ ֛ ׿ ִ , ֚ ִ ֕߮ן ֠ ߸-߸ ׮¯ϳ־ ֟ߕ ָ ֟ ֯ ֌ֻ֯ӣ , ָ֬ ֟ ו ָ ֟ ֟ ־ ׻֋ ֮֕ן ֮ ֵ-ֻ, ֚ ָ ָ ָ ׾ָ֓ ִ ָ օ ָ ֟ ף֌ -ָ֓ ֮֮ ֳ֬ , , ־ ֻ ָ ָ ֋ ֻ ִ֮

(3B ָ ֿ:)

GS-SSS/3B/4.15

ֳ ן־ָ (֟) : ִ֮ ֻ , ָ ֟ ָ ֙ ֮ ߤָ ָ ָ , ָ ָ֕ ָ ֤ , ָ ִ , ָ ֤ י ֤ ־ ֛ ־ ߟ ֵօ ׮ֵ֤ ֟ ָ ָ֓- ֮ ֮ ָ ֤, ߤָ ־ ֮ ߤָ ֮֟ , ־ ָ ֮֕ן ֮ ߤָ ֵ֮օ ִֻ ָ Ӥ ָ ֻ ָ ֟ , Ӥ ֵօ

͠ ָ ֟ ֲ ֤ ֳ ׾֮֬ ֳ ־ ָ ֟ , ֕ ֳ , ״׮Ù ֮ ֕ , , , ֕ , Ù ֱ ָָ , ָ ֮ ָ ָ֓- ֮֮ ֮ , ֯ ִָ֤ ֯ ִָ֤ ֵ , ָ ָ֓ ֮֟ ֕ ָ ֚Ӭ֮ ָָ , ָ ׬ָ ֟ , ֯ ֮֟ ִִ Ը , ִֵ ֯ ߟ߿ ָ , 0 ֵ־֟ ֧ ָ , ָ , ֻ ׸ָ ׬ָ ָ ן , ָ -֟ օ ..(ִֵ ә)... ׻֋ ָ ױ ֮ ׾ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ ֚Ӭ֮ ׮־ֵ ֮֟ ָ ָ ִ , ִ֓ ׾ ָ ִ֮ ֵ ָ , ֵָ ָ ָָ ֚ ߅ ֲ ֣ ֮ ֟ ֟ - ֮־֤

(ִ֯)

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕֠ (֬ Ϥ) : ֳ֬ , ֯ ן ֟ ֲ ִ ׾ñ ִֻ ֵ , ֤ߵ ֵ ֕ ӡ ꌙ ßãן ֟ ֵ ׮־ָ, ׾־ָ , ָ ֤ , ׻֋ ֯ ִ֬ ָָ ֻ ֮ ׮֤ ֮ ֕ ֤ ֳ , ã֟ ו֮֟ , ו֮֟ ֣ ֵ , ֺ ָ ֣ ָ ִ

֤ߵ ֵ ӡֵֻ ֕ ӡ ( ֓) : ִ׮֟ ֳ֬ , ֤ߵ ֤õ ؓ֟ ֌ ֤ ו ֌ , ָ֤ ӡ ֻ ֻ ָ֮ ס֟ ֤ ֟ ֵ녠 (3 ָ )

-SSS/NBR-ASC/3C/4.20.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI (MAHARASHTRA): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, let me start by felicitating Naikji for having moved this Resolution at this particular time and on this particular forum. Had it happened in the Rajya Sabha as a result of a political proposition, then, the discussion would not have been as free as it would be today. The timing again is important because the party to which Shantaramji belongs is now in doldrums and thinking whether the policy that they followed since 2004 of having an alliance is going to work at all. In the last meeting at Delhi, there was a clear instruction given to the workers of the party that they should try and have an exclusive Congress Government so that the Congress can do its will. Before 2004, Sir, the Congress had rejected the possibility of a coalition and this coalition, which is working today, was somehow put together after the results of the elections were out. That was exclusively with a desire to avoid the rule of, what they called, 'a communal party' and they claim to be secular. There is no secular party in this country. And, what can be said is that there was a majority's party and, in order to avoid the rule of majority's party, because if they had come back then some of the top leadership of the Congress would have to quit politics and, possibly, even leave this country. They, somehow, manage to put together a Common Minimum Programme (CMP), which was the old equivalent of what is called the Memorandum of Understanding. There is no difference between Deve Gowda's Memorandum of Understanding and...

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, Joshiji, is speaking on the subject or is he speaking about the Congress Party and Congress leaders? He is saying that Congress leaders would leave the party and the country...(Interruptions)...There has to be some sense in what we are talking...(Interruptions)...He is saying, 'leave the country', 'leave the party'...(Interruptions)...He has got some kind of obsession in his mind about the Congress Party...(Interruptions)...That is the problem ...(Interruptions...

ֵָ : ָ, ָ ӟָ־ ׾֮֫ ׾ֵ ָ ...(־֮֬)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI UDAY PRATAP SINGH): Mr. Narayanasamy, you listen to him...(Interruptions)...

ֵָ : ֯ ֙ ֮֕ן ֙ ֻ ָָ ֻ֮ ֻ ֙ ...(־֮֬)..

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: This forum cannot be used to criticise a political party without any basis...

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: I am not criticising the party.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: ...or the political leader. Sir, can you accept that the statement that the Congress leaders will leave the country? The kind of statement he is making is unfortunate...(Interruptions)...He is a very senior leader ...(Interruptions)...He has got some obsession in his mind about the Congress Party...(Interruptions)...He is talking about the Congress Party...(Interruptions)...Let his remarks be removed from the record if there is something objectionable. One cannot insult the political leaders like this.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI UDAY PRATAP SINGH): I will look into it.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: I am only describing the character of the present alliance and the experience that we have so far.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: And, you are saying that Congress leaders will leave the country. The Congress leaders will leave the party. What is this? We will not leave the country. We will rule the country whether you accept it or not. A single Member going on criticising a political party is not good.

ֳ֬: ִֵָ , ֙ ֮ ...(־֮֬)..

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: He does not understand that. Kindly educate him.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: The experience of the National Democratic Alliance was quite different, because the alliance was formed before the election and there was an understanding between a certain number of parties to contest the elections together. And, care taken at that time was that the parties which were coming together essentially believed in a certain degree of nationalism and that they would not go against the protection of the nation under any circumstances. This was the commonality. When the UPA was formed, we, of course, try to say that we are secular. But, while gathering the secular parties, we had alliance with people who had dictatorial, who never believed in democracy and believed in armed revolt. And, therefore, some of the problems are coming together. We have some parties which recently passed a resolution that the hands of a Bangladeshi writer should be chopped off for what she had written. We have that kind of fundamentalist parties in the present alliance. We have non-democratic parties in the alliance. And, that is where the alliance becomes shaky. Sir, there is again a tone in Shantaram's Resolution that somehow the coalitions are an aberration and obnoxious thing and the single party rule is a natural and good thing. I very much question that. I think, the coalitions are not an aberration. They are the normal political system in the world over. Whether you go to Latin America -- I am not talking of only England -- or the European countries which are even smaller, which have a single language, they have a single religion in most of the cases and all the same Germany has the coalition since the Second World War, France had a coalition since the Second World War. So, coalition Governments is normality and in India, particularly, where we have regional diversity, we have so many languages, so many faiths where the natural thing would have been multiplicity of parties and some of the parties coming together.

(CONTD. BY USY "3D")


-NBR-USY/3D/4.25

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI (CONTD.): Now, this kind of natural thing has been avoided by the introduction of an institution. You can see the discussions in the Constituent Assembly for this purpose. It was deliberately decided that, in our elections, we would follow the system of the United Kingdom where the elections take place in a geographical constituency and the candidate elected is the one who is the first past the post. You will find in the debates of the Constituent Assembly that everybody had recognized that this was statistically an aberrant system and this results in a situation where a party, which gets only thirty per cent of the votes, gets 60 per cent of seats. When the Congress Party got the largest majority under late Shri Rajiv Gandhi, it had not got majority of the votes in the elections, but, all the same, they got something like 75 per cent of the seats in the Lok Sabha. That was an aberrant system. And, I must go down to the wisdom of the Constituent Assembly at that time. It was deliberately decided that in the early days after freedom, we would need stability and if we had really representative quality, then, we would not have that stability. At that time, that decision was taken. But once that period was over, after fifty years of independence, we don't have that kind of indulgency. Therefore, we should have really thought of some kind of an alternative system.

The second point, which I would like to make, is that to think that the stable Governments have been the best Governments is, again, not correct. When the first Government came, it was called the Congress Government. However, it was not really the Congress Government; it was under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. But it represented all kinds of forces. It included John Mathai; it included Shanmugham Chettiar; it included some Shyama Prasad Mukherjee; it included Baba Saheb Ambedkar. It was still called a Congress Government because, at that time, the Congress was really a catholic institution that provided scope for all kinds of people to come. Little by little, as the leadership became narrower and narrower, the Congress ceased to be a catholic platform and became a narrow political party with the result that several people thought that they could not get proper expression in the nationalist platform and, therefore, we have a multitude of parties. 120 parties or 160 parties is relatively a small number in a country of 120 crores because what a party is, Sir. A party is not a confluence of economic and social interests alone. A party represents certain commonality of worldview, a certain commonality of philosophy about the society. Therefore, to say that all people, whether they have the same worldview or not, should come under a single party is not correct. You have to have a political system which will provide for a multitude of parties, representing different points of view.

The next point, I would like to make, Sir, is that was made by Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad that the majority Governments that had the absolute majority had not been the best Governments. Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi got the largest -- this is not a criticism of either Congress or Shri Rajiv Gandhi; we are talking only of facts -- ever majority. And, all the same, the decisions taken were such that the party lost the power in the immediately following elections. The result is that this kind of majority, this kind of complete domination of one party does not necessarily give the best results. And, I will tell you 'why'. In 1991, our present Prime Minister was the architect of economic reforms. All the same, even though we had to get the gold stock back, the economy did not do normal. We continued to have the Hindu rate of growth of about 50 per cent. So, it is a fact that we switched over from the Hindu rate of growth of about 3 to 3.5 per cent, not immediately after 1991, not even under P.V. Narasimha Rao's Government, but only in 1998. This is a statistically verifiable fact when the entrepreneurs in this country, the traders in this country, for the first time, got an impression that a first really, genuinely non-Congress Government had come in, therefore, the structures that belonged to the Nehruvian socialist era were likely to be demolished and that we had become free for ever.

(Contd. by 3e -- VP)

VP/4.30/3E

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI (CONTD. ): That was the reason why the Indian multinationals came on the scene. That is the reason why, Mittals conquered the steel of the world. That is why, the Indian IT professionals conquered the United States just because for the first time under the non-Congress Government, the entrepreneurs got an impression that they were free to open their wings and fly. That is there because, Sir, the party which gets the maximum rate of growth is not the party which intervenes to the maximum extent in the economy. You get the highest rate of growth when you intervene the least. The more you allow people to fly their wings and assert their entrepreneurship, and assert their capacity for adventure, the better the results that you get. And, therefore, Sir, a coalition Government, if they have been less effective in the socialist sense, that has really what has made it possible for us to shift from the Hindu rate of growth to the present rates of growth of 9 per cent, 10 per cent and even 11 per cent. This was not possible. We could not have imagined that. We could not have imagined that we will have a surfeit of foreign exchange. We could not have imagined that we will have so many dollars that we will not know what to do with it. We never thought that we will have a day when the rising exchange rate of rupee would be a problem for us. This could not have been imagined in the socialist days of Nehru. We have come to this because we are now getting governments which are intervening less and less. And, I think, that is where the advantage of having a coalition Government comes in.

Sir, I would like to make a very important point. I know that at present if there are some doubts raised about the coalition Government, it is because of the constitutional or physical inability of a dynastic rule to put up with the idea of coalition. I am making a statement which is based on historical facts and this can be verified. Sir, Jayakar, Sapru and Jinnah had prepared a formula and if that formula had been accepted, -- I think, possibly, Mr. Gill will be able to support these facts because he was very much active at that time -- under which we would have a coalition Government under the dominion status no doubt. But, we would have a Government where no community or no Governments could create any laws that will affect other communities without the consultation or without the consent of that community. Now, it was Jawaharlal Nehru's physical incapacity to stand that kind of a compromising agreement and his desire to dictate his own personality over the others that made that formula not workable, and that, Sir, is why we had Pakistan at all. If only we were capable of maintaining the coalition Government, then, we would have had at that time itself a coalition Government which should have made it quite unnecessary to have a partition. Sir, I think, that is what is happening again. If you think that the Congress Party -- I am taking that name here only because that happens to be the ruling party now, Mr.Narayanasamy, you need not get offended -- should have powers to determine the fate of this nation exclusively, what you are in effect saying is, that Congress is in your hands, and whatever you do, there will be people who will stand by you. Therefore, by conquering Congress alone, you should be able to conquer the whole country. I think that kind of a dictatorial attitude is the repetition of Nehru's incapacity to be really democratic. Shri Ravi Shankarji, you mentioned about Nehru's democratic spirit. I would like to make a point on Nehru. He was indeed a highly democratic person. He was a liberal par excellence. But, his liberalism and his democracy was limited to the extent that he was confident of the benign openness and malleability of the Hindu culture, which is this malleability and this is this openness that makes it possible for it possible for India to have till recently a Muslim President, a Sikh Prime Minister and a Roman Catholic as the head of the Congress Government. This is not possible in any other country in the world. It is, essentially, the openness of the Hindu culture which makes it possible. And, Nehru counted on that. As long as it was a Hindu country, he was able to enforce Hindu Code Bill, but he dare not prepare what is already in the Constitution, to have a common civil code. Because he could never get that consent, and he was not prepared to work in a system where there was a certain degree of intolerance. That is why, he could not work with Liaquat Ali. That is he could not work with Jinnah. That is why he allowed partition to happen in the country, and Pakistan to be created because he got his own playground where he could impose, keeping aside Mahatma Gandhi, even the ideals of socialism which had no basis and no sanction in any case. But that kind of Nehru's intolerance, you will see Shri Ravi Shankarji, in the manner in which he imposed socialism in this country.

(Continued by PK/3f)

PK/4.35/3F

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI (CONTD.): Had it not been for his temperament, I think, the coalition Government that happened...(Interruptions)...

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: Sir, I think, he is going out of the topic.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: No, I am still talking of...(Interruptions)..

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: Unnecessarily, he is bringing a controversy regarding a very great personality. Why is he going out of the topic?...(Interruptions).. We are not discussing about Shri Nehru's ethics; we are discussing about the coalition...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN SHRI UDAY PRATAP SINGH: Mr. Joshi has made his point. Now, he is concluding.

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: Coalition has come only now...(Interruptions).. He can come down to the day-to-day affairs. (Interruptions)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: He is concluding. (Interruptions)..

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: All that I am saying is that coalition requires democratic spirit. (Interruptions)..

SHRI RUDRA NARAYAN PANY: Sir, Mr. Joshi is speaking on the subject matter...(Interruptions)..

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: He is singing about the old things.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: Okay, coalition requires a democratic spirit which we did not have at a certain time.. (Interruptions)..

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: Have you..(Interruptions)..

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: And we are having a reappearance of the same spirit. (Interruptions)..

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: That is why we have been hearing you for the past fifteen minutes. (Interruptions).. Otherwise, we would not have heard it. They are clapping because you are attacking certain party, but we are not clapping.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: I call them a majority. (Interruptions)..

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: Kindly come to your point.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: I call them a majority Party; I attack them also. I call you a minorities' Party, because you are pampering minorities and they are pampering majorities; that is the only distinction I know. (Interruptions).. I am talking of the essentiality of coalition Government and the spirit that is required for that.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI UDAY PRATAP SINGH): Mr. Joshi, either support the Resolution or oppose the Resolution, but stick to the Resolution only.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: Okay, Sir. Now, let me come to the operative part of the Resolution. Having said this, I would say that none of the remedies suggested of appointing a Committee to modify Consitution are relevant in these circumstances. This is number one. Sir, the Committee can, of course, be a wiser thing and they can possibly find out some solution. Some remedies have been suggested. For example, recently, our hon. Arun Shourieji wrote a book about it, that in order to avoid the phenomenon of falling Governments, one of the solutions possible is to have a Presidential system. That is one of the solutions. Do you want that? I am opposed to that. Because I don't think that corresponds to the Indian culture. The other thing would be to have a registration of alliances instead of having just the registration of Parties under the People's Representation Act; we can think of registration of alliances. But this is again in the power and in the scope of the Election Commission. We do not need another Committee. I think what is really required is that the Election Commission ought to take initiative on this, and, so far, the Election Commission has taken initiatives on this side. That is why, even though regional parties are able to have national broadcasts on the Doordarshan, I think this is a matter which belongs to the Election Commission and we don't need to have another Committee on this. So, while I support the motivation of the Resolution, I think, I would request Mr. Naik to reconsider the solution he has suggested and say that this matter should be referred to the Election Commission. Thank you, Sir.

(Ends)

 

STATEMENT RE: SERIAL BLASTS IN UTTAR PRADESH.

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI SHRIPRAKASH JAISWAL): Sir, today, serial blasts took place in Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow, Varanasi and Faizabad. All blasts took place in court premises, details of which are as under:

1. Lucknow: Low-intensity blast took place at 13.05 hours near cycle stand, Court Complex, Lucknow; no casualty reported.

2. Varanasi: Three high-intensity blasts took place in between 13.18 hrs to 13.20 hours in court premises, Varanasi. Ten persons were injured and one is reported to have died.

3. Faizabad: Two high intensity blasts took place in Faizabad court premises at about 13.25 hrs. Two persons died and fifteen injured.

All these six blasts took place adjacent to court premises, and particularly, in all the three places, nearby cycle stand, situated in court premises. Affected areas have been cordoned off and police and bomb disposal and detection squad under supervision of senior police officers are conducting thorough search. So far, no information has been received regarding the type of explosives, mechanism and involvement of any group, or, organisation. According to the information from the police authority, high alert has been issued. Thank you, Sir.

(Ends)

(Followed by 3g/PB)

3G/HMS-PB/4.40

RESOLUTION RE: CONSTITUTION OF A COMMITTEE FOR RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION FOR

ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ON GOVERNANCE OF COALITION GOVERNMENTS -- Contd.

 

00 ׻ֵ (ָӛ) : ֳ֬ , ָ ׾֮֫ ֣ ִָ֮ ֵ ß , ָ ֮ ׻֋ ֛

, " ֵ֤, ß ֵ֤" ֮ ׻ ™ ֕ ßָ ָ ֚Ӭ֮ ָָ ֵ , և ִ֮ ֮ ߔ, ן ֮ ֺ ֵ ָ ? ™ߵ ٙ ֣-֣ ߵ ٙ ? , ܵ ָ ֲ ߵ þ֣, ߵ ֮ ׾ ֮ ֟ ™ߵ ٙ, ™ߵ ָָ ֻ֟ , ߵ ӟ օ ֮ ָ Ӿ, ָ ֕ ֮֕֬ ֮֕֬ ™ ֮֕֬ פ ָ ־֕ ֟ , ָ ־֮֋ ֟ , ָ ֟ , ָ ֟ ֲ ֟ ֟ ָ ߵ־֤ ־֮ ߅

ֳ֬ , Ӥ֮ , ߵ Ӥ֮ , Ӥ֮ , ֕ Ӥ֮ ָ ߕ ָ ֕ ָ ָ ֋ ™ߵ ßָ ָ ֚Ӭ֮ ָָ ָ ֮ ֛ , ָ ֟ ֲ ׾ָָ֓ ֟ , ֕ ã , ֚Ӭ֮ ָָ ֮, ֚Ӭ֮ ָָ ִ ִ ֻ֮ , 韾 , ך ִ ָ ߓ ֟ ִ֟ ߔ ֲ ֛ ֲ ֕ ֮ ֟ ߅ ֕ ߵ ָָ ָ ׬ָ ֮ ׬ָ ֟ ߅ , ָ ֲ ׾֮֬ ֵ֮, ֌ ׸ ֮ ֌ ׸ ֻօ (3 /֕ ָ ֿ:)

3H/KLG-SKC/4.45

. . ׻ֵ (֟) : ָ פ--פ ™ߵ ׸ ֮֮ օ ™ߵ ׸ և, ™- և, ™ߵ և, ֤ ֮ ֯ ָ ד֟ , ևԅ ו ׌ , ָ ӡ ֮ ֮ ֵ, ֮ ֮ ։օ ָ , ֮ ׻֋ -׸ֻ , ֮ ֛, ֵ , ָ ֙ , ָ ֆ, ָ , ָ ׾ , ָ ׸ ״ֻ߅ -׸ֻ ֟ , ֟ , ֟ , ֤ ֟ ָ ָ ײ ꌙ, ײ ꌙ, ו ִ ׾ , , ו ֌ ׮Ե ׻֋ ֋, ֌ ֻ, ׌ֻֿ ӡ , ֮ ־֋, -׸ֻ , ױ׮ֿ ײ ֯֟

, ׾ ִֻ ֮ , ֣ և , և ָ ֛ ֛և ֻ , ׻֋ ֮ ֟ ӛÙ ֮߅ ֮? ׻֋ ֮ ֻ , ײ ꌙ ӛÙ ֟ ֋, ֋, ֮ ִ Ùև ֕ ݵԴ ָ և , ߮ ָ և ָ ֻ ״ֵֻ ֮ ֋ ָ ֌ ײ ꌙ ֯ ֋ - ײ ꌙ , ו-ו ׾ , - ™ߵ ٙ ִׯ , - ߵ ٙ ָ, ִ ָ, ן ִ ָ ָ ִ ָ, ܵ֟: ָ ִ ָ

, ֕ ָ ׮ֵ , ֵ ꯙ ֻ ֙ Ù , ָ ֙ Ù ֵ ֋ ָ ׮ֵ ֻ , ׸, ײΙ, ָ ֻ ֻ߯֙ Ù ִ֯ ֙ Ù ֵ ֋, ֳ ן ֌ ִ֬ ־ã ֮֮ ָָ ָ֮ ֻ, ָ ׾ָ֯ߟ ָ ָ ֲ֕ ֚Ӭ֮ ָָ , ָ ָ ֲ֕ , ֮ ״׮ִִ ִ , ֻ֮ ־֮ ֲ ־ ֛ , ־ ֛ ֌ ֮ ־֮֟ ־֮ֆ ִ֮ ֟ ֟ ׻֋ ֻ֮ ִ֮ ֟ ֲ ־ ߟ ֟ ׸ ״ֻ֟ , ִ֟ ֚Ӭ֮ ֮֕ן ָָ ֮ ָ ֛ ֵֿ ֟ , ֲ ָ ֟ , ֕ ָ և  ֮ , ָ ֙ , ו, ֕ ߋ ָָ ֻ , - ִ֮ , , ֮ ׻ֲֻ , ָ ָ ״׻֟ ָָ ֻ ָ ֋ ָָ ֻ ? ָָ ׻֋ ֻ , ֋Ӆ 3/ ָ

aka-hk/3j/4:50

00 ׻ֵ (֟) : ׻֋ ֻ - ֮ ֯ ־ ו ׻֋ ֚Ӭ֮ ֻ ֋, , ԟ ֯ ֲ ׌ֻֿ ׻֋ ֯ ָ ֯ ָ , ֯ ׻֋ ֟ ׮֋ ..(־֮֬).. Mr. Narayanasamy, Whatever I am saying, it is an overhead transmission for you or you will not understand my philosophy.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Not for me. ..(Interruptions)..

SHRI MATILAL SARKAR: We are against communal forces.

SHRI S.S. AHLUWALIA: I am coming to that also.

׻֋ ֙ ׿ִ ֻ ֌Ծ֤ ׮Ù ֙ ֱֻ ־ ֛ ׿ִ ֻ 000 vs ֌Ծ֤ ׮Ù ֙ ֛ , ֛ ֌Ծ֤ ׮Ù ֙ vs 같 vs ..(־֮֬).. , TMC ..(־֮֬).. ֯ Ù ֟ , ֯ ס֯

ןֻֻ ָָ : օ

00 ׻ֵ : 14 ٙ ָ , 14 ٙ ָ 같 և י ָ 14-14 ٙ , 28 ٙ ֛ ֯ 녠 ֻ two parties ܵ֟: ֯ ־ ֛ ו և ־ ֛ , ִֵ ָ ֵ ֌Ծפ ֣ ָ ֟ ָ ֌Ծ֤ ֵ ֵ ֣ ָ ֟ ־֕ פ ׻֋, ׻֋, ֣ ״ֻ CMP ֮֟ , Common Minimum Programme ֮֟ , ו Common Minimum Programme ֲꌙ ֋, ֋, כև , ו ֮֟ ֻև ׻֋ ־ ֛ ֟ ָָ ֺ , , օ ֲ ãן ֋ ֲ ֻ֮ ׯϵ׸ߕ referendum ֮ ֻ֮ ֮֮ ֮ ו֋ ֻ֮ "Shelter for all". United Nations ß֟ ֟ "that we will give shelter to everybody." ֮ פ ? ֮ ֲ shelter פ ? פօ ָ ֲ shelter פ ߲ 30 ֤ , ָ߲ ߓ , ֌ ֮ ꅠ , ָ ׿ ߓ ֮ ֟ ָ , ׻֋ ֮ ָ ֮ United Nations ִ ß֟ "Food for all", ֮ Food for all ִ ? ָ ָ BPL lower BPL , ֮ ꅠ ֓ ? , ߮ פ ָ ״ֻ֟ Ӥ֕ , ָ Ù 5 ״֮֙ ֋ ևخ ֻ ֟ , ָ ָ ד֋ ו֮ ߮ פ ֤ ״ֻ֟ Ӭ ֲ ןִ ֤ , ֳ ֻ ٣ ֤֕ ֻ ߅ ֻ ׻֋ -ן ? ֚Ӭ֮ ִ ֟ , ָ ִ ֟ , ו ִ ִ֬ ֮־֟ ָ ׸ ׻ ׬ָ ׸ , פ ֟ ָ "Justice for all" ֟ International Court of Law United Nations ß֟ , ratification signatory , ֈӛ ֤ - Justice for all.

('3k/vnk' ָ ָ)

-AKA/VNK-RSS/3k/4.55

.. ׻ֵ (֟) : ו և ׸ ײ֟ ָ ֛ ߻ ָ ֟ ָ ֤ ֵ ֮ ׻֋ - ֮ ֛ , , ָ ... ֲ National agenda of governance ֟ National agenda of governance ׻֋ national priority select ָ ָ־ֵ , ָ ֿ߸ ߕ , ֲֻ ָ ֻ ֙ Ù , ֻ ֙ ־֮ ָ ־ã ֮֋ ָ ׾ ָ ָ ׻֋ ֙ Ù ֋Ӆ ָ ס֯ ֌Ծ֤ Ӭ ꌵָ , ֯ ֻ , , ־ ֛ ֮ ꌵָ ֯ ֮ ֻ , ָ֕ ֟ ߬ ߕ ֟ ׸, ָ ֟ ו֋, ָ־ֵ ֲָָ-ֲָָ ָ֕ ׻֋, ֲ ֵ, ׬ָ ֲָָ ו֋ ֮ ׌֟ ֟ , ֯ ָ ׮ִֵ ֯ ״ֻ֮ ֟ ֟ ֯ ӛ ֋ , ֋ , ״֙ , ָ , ָ ֟ , ִ , ֙ , ֋ , דֽ ֋ , , ָ דֽ ֟ ֲ Ù ״ֻ֟ דֽ ֟ , ֟ ߱ ֟ֆ, ֻ ߱ דֽ ׻ ֟ , ֮ ֮ ߱ ֵ֮ ֲ ֮ דֽ ׻ , ׻֋ ߱ ֟ֆ ֕ ֮֟ ן׮׬ ָ ֛ ו ָ ִ , ֲ ָߕ ܴ ֟ , ߱ ֟ ߙ ߙ ֌ ֟ ִ, ִ ִ , ֛ ꌙ ֵ֤ ֛ ֺ ֛ ֋, Ù - և reaction ֕ ֻ address prove ׮ ִ, ֟, פ ׻ ֟ ֺ ֛ ָ ָ ֻ ֮ ָ ָ , ִ, ֻ, ֲ ָ ߕ ״ֻ ״ֻ օ ָ ߕ ָ ֛ פ ֋ ֲ ֛ ֋, ֋ ׮ ִ ֻ , ֻ ָ֟ ֻ ֯ , ׻֋ ֯ ָ , ָ ׾֮֫ Ӭ ִָ֮ ֵ ֟ , ֱ ־ ֻ ֙ ֚Ӭ֮ ָָ ֮ פ ֻ֟ ֲ ֤֕ , ָ ֤֕ ֤ ֤֕ ֲ և ֲ ֲ ֻ ִ ֮ ֮ ָָ ֤ և, ֮ ߱ ״׮Ù ֻ ֋, פ, פ, ߮, ߮, ӓ ߮, : ߮, ӓ ֻ ֙ ֻ ܵ ָ ֮ ׿ֿ , ָ ֙ Ù ֮ ׿ֿ ֮ ״׮ִִ ִ , priority ׻Ù ֮֮ (ִֵ ә) ֲ exhaust ֋, ֲ ֋ ֲ ֻ֮ ֵ , ׿ֿ , ֳ ן , ֳ ׸ֻ י ־֮, ֻ֮ י ־֮ ֟ ꅠ (ִ֯)

GSP-MP/5.00/3L

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (TAMIL NADU): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important topic. Many hon. Members have mentioned very important points. I would like to highlight the fact that the coalition governments are running from 1977 onwards at the national level. Sir, in 1977, a very nascent national party at that time, Janta Party, with AIADMK and other regional parties, could form the government, and, subsequently, in 1978 also. Sir, till then, the regional parties were having the notion that they could get certain things in the interest of their regional needs from the national parties on demand.

But from 1977 onwards, there is a turnaround in their thinking. Now, they can also become a part of the Government at the national level and can deliver certain things with respect to their regional needs. This particular Resolution is addressing these issues which were prevalent at the State level in different States. We can take two or three States, for example, to make a study upon it. One important thing is that the State of Kerala and West Bengal work as institutionalised coalition party, which could exist as alternative parties. In Tamil Nadu, majority of the parties will have an alliance, but one individual party will rule, and, will be there for the full term. These types of examples are prevailing in India. All these things are now coming up to the national level.

At the national level, we have to find out whether we are addressing the needs of the regional parties; are the national parties in a position to address the regional demands. Till 1977, the national party could address the regional needs. When the regional needs could not be addressed properly, the national party suffered in that particular region, whether it was in the northern, southern or eastern part of the nation. Therefore, there is a need for overall understanding of the nation, and, the demands of different groups of people, different cultural and social groups, the economic demands, political necessities, all are to be taken into consideration if a national party has to exist.

No doubt, in the 1990s, a party has come up to the level of the national party. But we cannot call it as a national party. It is also a coalition of regional groups. Therefore, we have this particular Resolution, which addresses the issue as to whether we can have a Constitutional mechanism by which the formation of the ministry can be controlled. Articles 74 and 75 of the Constitution do not demand anything except one thing, and, that is, accountability to the House of the People. It means that you should have the majority in the House of the People. Therefore, how to have the majority, how to be accountable to the House, that alone works on the coalition. If a particular party does not have the majority, they get some more parties alongwith them so that they can prove the majority in the House itself.

Therefore, when they have got that type of understanding, whether it is post-election or pre-election, that has to be considered. If it is a pre-election understanding and there is a Common Minimum Programme or an election manifesto, which is arrived at by each and every party, and, commonly accepted by all the alliance parties, whether that can be considered by the Election Commission before going to the polls. (Contd. by sk-3m)

SK-SC/3M/5.05

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (CONTD.): After the polls, post-election period, whether the President of India can consider, whether these parties can come into a coalition by way of principles, common minimum programme, whether they are addressing the situation for the future five-year period when they are going to have the majority in the House of the People. If they could convince the President, then he or she can allow the particular party or the particular parties to have a coalition Government for a period of five years. If they could not deliver the things, who is going to be the alternative? That also is to be discussed about. Therefore, it is a very important thing. I hope I can continue the speech.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI UDAY PRATAP SINGH): You have got one more minute.

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: Therefore, the important situation which comes now is how to make a mechanism, who is going to take the responsibility to find out by the people's verdict, that is the confidence of the people, which is reflected through the representation, whether a party has got the power to continue in a Government on the basis of principles, on the basis of certain agendas which ought to be delivered within the particular period of five years. If that cannot be done, then, what is the alternative? These are the things that have to be discussed in this particular topic.

SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK: Sir, I would like to make a submission. Sir, this Resolution will come up for discussion now on 7th December. If it does not come for ...(Interruptions)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI UDAY PRATAP SINGH): No, no, it will come. ...(Interruptions)..

SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK: Sir, I would like to submit that if it does not come, it will get lapsed, as per the rules. I would like to make an appeal that in case the Resolution does not come on 7th December, for any reason ...(Interruptions)..

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: How can we decide that now? ...(Interruptions).. We cannot decide that now.

SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK: Last time also my Resolution got lapsed. ...(Interruptions).. But, the House can decide. ...(Interruptions)..

ֳ֬: ß־ ָ ֓ 7 ִָ֟ 2007 ָ ߅

֤ ֵԾ ־ָ, פ 26 ־ִָ, 2007 ֟: 11.00 ֕ ׻֋ ã֟ ֟

******

The House then adjourned at seven minutes past

seven of the clock till eleven of the clock on

Monday, the 26th November, 2007.

 

 PREVIOUS HOUR
MAIN