SHRI A. VIJAYARAGHAVAN (CONTD.): It was reported that in between 1991 and.. ..(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Shri Vijayaraghan, one second. Will you stop for a minute?


THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now, I want to take the sense of the House. The hon. External Affairs Minister has requested that this time is convenient for seeking clarifications; and the hon. Minister, Shri Jaipal Reddy, has also, I believe, agreed to that. If it is the consensus of the House, I think, now we can go for clarifications on the statement. Okay. Now, Members to seek clarifications on the statement made by Shri Anand Sharma, Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs on 28th November, 2007 regarding the stay of Ms. Taslima Nasreen in India. And, immediately after this, we will continue with the Bill.




SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: Sir, will discussion on the issue of Taslima Nasreen take place immediately or tomorrow? ..(Interruptions)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): There will be clarifications now. ...(Interruptions)..

SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: Sir, we want to raise some points. ..(Interruptions)..

THE MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE): I was told that as per the practice of this House, after the Minister makes a statement, clarifications are sought from the Members on the basis of that statement. This is the practice in this House. Yesterday, the statement was made, and it was decided and it has been noted in the Order Paper also that clarifications will be sought today. In the morning I was told that 3.00 p.m. is the time when the clarifications would be sought. That is why, I am here.

SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: This is what we want. We want to seek clarifications.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: That is the procedure in this House. After a statement is made by a Minister, Members can seek clarifications and this has been included in today's business.

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: It is not compulsory. If somebody wants to seek clarifications, he can do so. ..(Interruptions)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: It is strictly according to procedure. Now, Shri Shahid Siddiqui, you can go ahead.

ק (ָ Ϥ) : ָ, ß֮ ו֮ ֮ ֻ , ֲ֕ , ߱ , ֮ ֮ և ִ ֌ ֮ , ָ ֛ ־ ֛ ֮ ־ ִ֮ , ֮ ׮ֻօ ûߴ ָ և, þߛ , , ֮֯ ß֮ ֮ ָ ָ֕ , ֛ ָ ׮ ֵ , ֻ ִֵ ׻ ׻ , ß֮ פ ܴ , ־֕ ֮ Ͳ֮ ָ þ֟ օ ָ, ß֮ ֮ ֤, ß֮ ָ ֻ , ֻ ָָ , ָ ֟ , ß֮ ֲ֮֮֕ ָ , ָ ß֮ פ ֟ ֻֻ ֱ ֟, ׻ , ָ ڴ֤ , ׻֮ , ֕ ׻֟ , ֟ߕ , ֱ ß֮ פ ܴ , ׻ ָ ֻ֟ ײ֛

֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮֯ ߕ ֙ ֟ , ָ ֮ ֵ , ָ ׻, , ֤ ָ , ֮ ӿ֮ ָ , , ָ ֮֯ ̟֕ , ֮֮ ?

ָ ֟ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֛ ֮, ו֮ ־ ß֮ פ, ֲ ָ ֻ֟ , ו ִ ׯ ֣ ׻ֵ ֵ, 90-92 ֻ ֤, hound ֵ, ֲ֕ ֵ, ֱֻ ֵ֮ ֵ ß֮ ׮֮ ֛օ ָ ִ ֵ, ׌ײֿ֮ ָ ֻ ֋, ָ և և ו֮ , ֱֻ ֮ ֤ ׻֋ ֯ ֮ , ß֮ ִ߮ ֟ , ״ּ ׯ ֮ , ִ߮ ָ ָ , , ׻֋ ֮ ûߴ ָ߮ ׻֋ ָ ֮ ? (3 ָ ָ)

ק (֟) : ß֮ ֛ פ ֟ , ֛ פ ־֕ ָ ߕ ֤Կ ? ׿־֕ ָ Ӥ ֲ ׻ և, ֛ ̴֕֟ , , ו և ֲ , և և ևԅ ֤ , ו֮ ֲ ׻ , ֱֻ ֮֋ ֋ ֵ ָ , ָ ֻօ ו֮ և, ו֮ ֻ , ֱֻ ֮, ָ ? ß֮ ֲ ִ ִ֮ , ָ ָָ ָ , ָ ָ ֮ ִ ָ ִ ִ֮ ֮ ִָ ִ֮ , ֮ , ֟ֆ ִ֮ , ß֮ ִ , ִ֮ ֤Կ ִ֮ , ֮ ֮ ִ֮ , ֮ ֛ ָ ׻֋ ߕ , ן, ֕֟   ֮ ֮-־֕? ӡ ֮֮ ָ , ָ ֌׸ , ָ ֮ ־֕ , ֻ ׮ֵ֤ ? ָ .. ֯ ֮ ׻֋ ֋ ֲ ֋? ֋ ֯ Ӥ ֲ ֤֕ , ֲ creative freedom creative freedom , ו ֱֻ ׻ ־֮ , , ֲ ָ-ָ , freedom ֯ ו֋ ױ ֟ , ֟ כ ֱֻ ֛ , ָ ֵ֮ , Ù׸ ֮ , Ӥ ֟, , ֯ ? ֟ פ ױ ֲ ֲ ׻֋ ֮ ֮և ß֮ Ӥ ֮, ß֮ ֮֟ ֤Կ ߅ (ִ֯)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Thank you, Mr. Siddiqui. Now, Shrimati Hema Malini; she is not present. Then, Dr. Gyan Prakash Pilania; not present. Shri V. Narayanasamy.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (PUDUCHERRY): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I thank you for having given me the opportunity to seek clarifications on the Statement made by the hon. Minister of External Affairs. Though it is a concise statement, it conveys the policy of the Government of India on the people who seek asylum in our country. The hon. Minister of External Affairs also said very clearly that the people who come here and seek asylum should not involve themselves in political affairs and they should not identify themselves with any group or so. There are conflicting reports coming, as far as West Bengal is concerned. I want the hon. Minister to clarify the position. There are reports and even Ms. Taslima Nasreen said that she had been sent out of the State. That is the statement given by her. How far it is correct, we do not know. The West Bengal Government said that she went off on her own. This is the version of the West Bengal Government. The country does not know what the actual truth about it is. In spite of that she gave a different statement; maybe for reasons, we do not know. The Government knows the entire facts about what the West Bengal Government did and what the version of Madam Taslima Nasreen was. I would like to know that. Sir, the important fact is that the BJP, has been trying to protect her and says that she should be given asylum here, but when she went to Rajasthan, they did not give protection to her. She was sent out from there. And, on the contrary, Shri Narendra Modi from Gujarat gives a statement that he will protect Madam Taslima Nasreen. The person who was instrumental in killing of 10,000 minority community people in Gujarat, in Godhra carnage has the audacity to say that. ..(Interruptions)..

SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: Do not exaggerate killings. ..(Interruptions).. It was 2,000 or 3,000; don't say 10,000. (Interruptions).. We are not happy about killing of our children, our women. Don't exaggerate this. (Interruptions).. (Followed by 2P/PB)


SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, the minority people have been identified and killed. Are you denying that? ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: If you exaggerate, I have to agree. If I don't agree ... ...(Interruptions)... He wants to protect her; you want to protect Taslima. ...(Interruptions)... Both of you want to protect her. ...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Mr. Siddiqui, everybody is unhappy over the killings. So, please keep quiet. ...(Interruptions)... All of us are unhappy. ...(Interruptions)... Please. Nobody enjoys killings. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: If you get an opportunity, you say ... ...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: No; no; Mr. Narayanasamy, please address the Chair.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Thousands of minority people were killed. Do you agree with that? ...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Narayanasamy, address the Chair. ...(Interruptions)...No; Mr. Siddiqui, don't interrupt him. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, the BJP MLAs themselves admitted that they killed the minority people in Gujarat. But no action was taken against them, and it was Chief Minister-sponsored. Actually, Sir, the point is very simple. It is very unfortunate that the BJP wanted to gain political mileage out of Madam Taslima Nasreen's issue. I wanted to drive home that point. On the one hand, in Rajasthan they are not giving her the asylum; on the other hand, Mr. Narendra Modi says that he will give her protection. This is the double-standards of BJP. This is the double standard of BJP. This is what I would like to submit. Sir, there is one version given by the Left parties. As far as visa is concerned, what is the status? This is what I would like to know from the External Affairs Minister. Thank you, Sir, for having given me this opportunity. ...(Interruptions)... (Ends)

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (WEST BENGAL): I rise here to clarify certain issues that have been raised about the West Bengal Government and the CPI(M) by my hon. colleague and also to comment on the statement that the hon. External Affairs Minister has made on this issue.

First of all, Sir, as far as the CPI(M) is concerned, let me make it very clear that we are firmly of the opinion, which is very clearly delineated by our Constitution, that any foreign national who wishes to visit or live in India can do so on the basis of a grant of visa which is the sole prerogative of the Central Government. Wherever such people will live, it can also be decided by the Central Government; but where they will stay, it is incumbent upon the State Government of that particular place to provide security because the law and order is a State subject. She has been living in Kolkata for nearly three years. Our Government in Kolkata has been giving this protection to her. This is not the first time that she has travelled. She has been travelling a number of times to a number of places. But it has not become a controversy until she went to Hyderabad some months ago where certain Muslim fundamentalist organisations had taken objection to some of her remarks, etc. That is a separate issue. Only then it came into public domain. So, the question of her now going from Kolkata is not an issue where the State Government or anybody has directed her to leave. The point is that she has been travelling on her own. She is continuing to travel on her own. But this issue has come up into the limelight because of objections raised by certain people that her writings have hurt their feelings. Now, that is an issue on which we would like to say very clearly that it is not an issue of any moral policing that anybody can do. People write; they write, but if what they write finds offence with certain people, then they also have the right to express that offence. Now, this is an issue on which a lot of debate has been sparked off. I am not going into any defence of her writings and what she has written. I am not aware of it. That is not the issue. The issue is, will she be permitted to stay? The hon. External Affairs Minister, and the UPA Government, has now indicated that she will stay and they have also stated the conditions on which she will stay. Now, wherever she will stay, to that place, that State Government will have to provide protection. Now, the point, Sir, which my learned friend, Mr. Narayanasamy, also raised, is that it is not only a question of Mr. Narendra Modi today offering asylum. But what has been the track record of the BJP today which is championing the so-called interests of the right to expression? What has been their track record? One of the most illustrious sons of India, internationally renowned painter, Maqbool Fida Hussain, is unable to return to this country because of the harassment meted out to him. His paintings, Sir, sell at phenomenal prices in international auctions.

(Contd. by 2q/SKC)


SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (CONTD.): He is a known face of India and today, in many of the embassies that you go to, you would find Hussain's paintings. But he is not allowed to come here. That is not only because of the cases that have been filed by the BJP and their other affiliates. That is a question of law and nobody is above law; everybody will have to face the law. But his house was ransacked and his paintings were vandalised, all because his paintings had apparently hurt their religious sentiments. The same charge which some Muslim organisations have taken up against Tasleema, is being made by them against Hussain. For Hussain they are right and for Tasleema the Muslim organisations are wrong! This double standard cannot work.

We have seen how one of the most famous art universities of our country, the MS University in Vadodara, was vandalised because one student, for his own in-house examination, had painted something that they took offence to. The whole university was ransacked; people were dismissed from their places. That is why, Sir, these double standards smack of a political, not merely, opportunism, but also a very big diabolical agenda. That agenda is, a person whom some Muslim organisations attack, that person, because she is considered anti-Muslim, must be befriended by them, that is, the BJP and similar forces, because that is a process by which their anti-Muslim stance will be consolidated and also lead to the consolidation of their Hindu vote bank. This is the politics behind all this. That is why, this is an issue which is not only confined to the question of granting visa, or of somebody staying here, but it is also a larger issue of communal polarisation that they are seeking to do. I am not sure, Sir, if you have read it but today, a very disturbing and shocking report appeared in the Hindustan Times which said, two people, victims of the Godhra carnage in Gujarat, have said that they will vote for Modi because if he is not in power they are afraid of the consequences. One was the father of that pregnant girl whose womb was ripped open, Kausar Bi. He had lost four of his uncles and family during Partition. Now, he has lost his wife and all his children. Today, he says, out of sheer terror and fright, that he would vote for Modi because if he is not in power, he can be worse. That is the situation. It only reminds me of a Machiavellian dictum. Machiavelle, in one of his discourses to the Prince, suggests one diabolic way of how you could get the people's support. He tells the Prince -- first do what is the worst you are capable of. Then, don't repeat it. When you don't repeat it, people will heave a sigh of relief and they will think that you are the benefactor. And this is the logic that is being followed by them in Gujarat.

So, this Tasleema issue must be seen in its larger context. It is not the issue of only one individual getting permission to stay in India. Even today, they conduct campaigns against Bangladeshis, the so-called Bangladeshis. Many genuine, Indian, patriotic Muslims from West Bengal have been targeted and harassed as a result of that. They are today trying to give protection to Tasleema, or seeking to try and give protection to Tasleema. That is the double standard that we cannot accept.

Therefore, while welcoming the hon. External Affairs Minister's statement and the UPA Government's statement, we would like to say that it must be decided according to the law, and I think it is incumbent upon every State Government to provide that security wherever she stays.


. ֤ (ָ Ϥ): ֳ֬ , ָ ߟִָ ֟ ...(־֮֬)

֮֮ߵ ֤õ: , ...(־֮֬)

. ֤: ...(־֮֬) ...(־֮֬) ֻ , ֲ ֲֻ֟ ִ֮ ֛, ׿ ֟ ...(־֮֬) ֮֯ ׻ ֟ ߅ և ֮֯ ֟ ֌ ָ ß֮ , ß֮ ֳ ָ ߋ ָָ ָ Ӥ֕ ֵ֮ (psv/2r ָ ָ)


. ֤ (֟) : և ֮֯ ײֻ ֲ ߛ ֲ ֻ ־ֻ ߛ ֮֯ ֵ֤ ߮ ֋, ֻ ֋ ֻ ָ߱ ̸֕ , և ֵ֮ , ֻ Ù ֮֯ ָ ֯ פ , ׻֋ ָ ֮ ֻ, ִ և Ù օ ־ֻ , ß֮ , ֕ ֯ ֟ ֕֟ ֵ֤ և և ֋, ֲ ײ ִ ֻ ֵ֤ ֮ ׻֋ ָ ֕ ־ ָ , ֲ ֻֻ ֲԤ ָ ֋օ

ִֻ֮ ָ-ָ ֮ ָ ֮֟ ֛ ָ ָ ֮ ״֛ ֣ ׻ֵ ֋ , , ִֻ֮ ױָ֯ß ִ׻֕ ֟ ָ ן ֣ ֣, ֈ ׸ , ָ ׸ , ֟ ֟ ָ ߤ ָ ָ ָ ֤ ֻֻ ִֻ ߮ --- ֱ , ֮֟ ï ? '׫׾כ' ִ ֲ ׻ ֲ ߿֮, 2004 , , ָ ֟ ו֋ ֟ ״ֻ, וִ ִֻ֮ ֕ ־ ֱֻ ֟ ׻ և ߴ ײֻ - ߕ , forged ߕ , ֲֻ֟ ߕ , և ֮֯ , ו ֮ ֟, ֟ ֜ ָ ߿֮ , same publication , same , ו ִֻ֮ ә ֱ 63 68 ָ ֯ ֜ ו֋-- ָ ֯ ֕֟ ֈ ֕֟ ֈօ ֯ ֜ ߿ ֣ ײ ֻ ߿֮ ...(־֮֬)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Mr. Madani, do not make a speech; seek clarification.

. ֤ : ָ ߿֮ , 500 ֋ ײ ָ ߿֮ , 134 ֋ ײ ߿ ֮ ֕ ־֋ ָ ߤ ָ ֲӤ ֟ ִ ׻ և , ָ ׻ֵ ֋, ִ֟ ֈ ֤ , ו ִ ֋߅ ֮ ָ ...(־֮֬)... ֱ ̸ ֟ ֮ ֟ օ ָ ֳ֬ և ָ ָ֕ ֟ օ ׻֟ , ֮ ִֻ ָ יÙ -- "֮ ֮ ߾ ׮ ׻ֵ, ֤ " ߾ ֤ , ױ ָ ָ ֮֟ , ן ֟ ־ ָ ֮֓֯ ָ ֋ ָ ֮ ָ ֟ ׻ , ִ ֌ ֵ , ֮ ָ ֮֟ ...(־֮֬)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Madani, those are irrelevant things. Why are you saying those irrelevant things? ..(Interruptions)..

. ֤ : ֳ֬ , ֯ ֟ ו֋ ֟ ֈ ...(־֮֬)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Speak on the statement. ..(Interruptions)..

. ֤ : ֟ ...(־֮֬)... ֟ ...(־֮֬)... ֯ ״֮֙ ֕֟ ו֋...(־֮֬)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Why are you saying irrelevant things here?

. ֤ : , ָ ֲ relevant ...(־֮֬)...

ֳ֬ : relevant ...(־֮֬)...

. ֤ : ֟ , ֲ relevant ...(־֮֬)...

SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: What is she doing in this country? This is very relevant. ..(Interruptions).. This is very relevant. ..(Interruptions)..

(2S ָ ָ)


SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI (CONTD.): Everybody has to understand who is supporting Taslima Nasreen. They should know whom they are supporting. They should not support without knowing. (Interruptions)

0 ֤ : ֟ ָ relevant , ֟ , ֟ ׻֋ ֤ؕ ֵ֤ , ָ ָ ֲ ִֻ֟ ֻ֟ ֟ ֮ ֟ ֟


SHRI K. NATWAR SINGH: Sir, I just want to say...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Just one second. Let me hear the Minister. I will come to you. ..(Interruptions)..

THE MINISTER OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS (SHRI VAYALAR RAVI): Sir, I think some remarks have been made...(Interruptions)...Please have a look at the records.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Yes, yes. I will go through the records, and, if there is anything objectionable, that will be expunged..

SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: This is what we are demanding. What she is saying..(Interruptions)...This Government is...(Interruptions)...If that is objectionable, then remove that book, remove that...(Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Please sit down, Mr. Siddiqui. I only said, if there is anything. (Interruptions) Mr. Siddiqui, you should first listen to what I said. I said, "if there is anything objectionable..." Otherwise, why do you...(Interruptions)...Please.

SHRI K. NATWAR SINGH (RAJASTHAN): Sir, this is what I have to say with respect to this young lady from Bangladesh. Of course, the most celebrated asylum seeker is His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Sir, there are other instances in the recent past, when India has given asylum to a number of people from Afghanistan, from Sri Lanka and also there is most famous case of Svetlana, daughter of Stalin, who came here, whom we told that she could stay here. Then, she, of course, escaped to the American Embassy and went away. So, the tradition of giving asylum is a very old tradition and I am very proud of the fact that you do so.

SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA (RAJASTHAN): Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman, Sir. I compliment the Government because this statement mentions, "India will provide shelter to Ms. Taslima Nasreen". We cannot change our traditions. There is no doubt about it. But it is not right to compare people like Dalai Lama etc. who are peaceful. When we give shelter, it is also expected that the guest will refrain from activities and expressions that may hurt the sentiments of the people. Sir, the Freedom of Expression is there. But with every right, there is a duty attached to it. If by my action, if the majority, or, even minority of a community feels hurt, and, that creates chaos in that community or the country, then, it should be my responsibility to refrain from that kind of activity. Whether it is right or wrong, it is a separate issue. Many friends have mentioned and my friend Sitaram Yechuryji also supported Husain Saheb, I am a great admirer of Husain. I hold a very precious possession of Husain's painting made after the assassination of Madam Gandhi. That is a very, very dear painting for me. But that does not mean that he has the right to hurt the sentiments of crores of people of this country. Similarly, nobody has that right. In case of Ms. Nasreen, if she is talking about the rights of women -- let me tell you that this morning I have discussed this issue with my wife also -- and, she was telling me...(Interruptions)...

֮ ֻ ӛ : ָ, ָ ٙ - ֟ ֙ ֙

SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA: No, why I am mentioning this is because she has read the book, I have not. She told me that if it is the question of empowerment of women, we should not have any objection. But what Madani saheb has mentioned, it is not empowerment of women, it is something different. He himself said that 2004 edition is okay. After that edition, it is objectionable. Sir, I have a request to the hon. Minister. Sir, we welcome her. (Contd. by sk-2t)


SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA (CONTD.): We do not want that she should go back to Bangladesh and she is lynched there. We definitely don't want that. But, she has a responsibility that as long as she is here, she should not hurt the feelings of any individual, forget about the entire community, forget about majority of the community. She has no business to disturb the sentiments; she has no business to create chaos in our country. On that, I am fully with the sentiments of any community. It is, therefore, Sir, I would like to know from the hon. Minister what kind of precaution we are going to take so that this kind of situation does not arise. I was in Kolkata when this incident happened. Yechuryji has mentioned that she had gone on her own. But the perception is different. The ex-Commissioner of Police, at midnight, was sent to her and he told her to go. Maybe, he persuaded her but you know what does it mean by persuasion by the police. She was nearly taken to the airport, sent to my State. And, she was not allowed to carry even clothes; she had to buy clothes there. And now, they are saying that she has gone on her own. I do not want to politicise it. Probably, it was a situation in West Bengal; probably, it was necessary to bring peace in the State; probably, in that situation something had to be done. We should condone it and I support that also because if situation comes where hundreds of people are going to die, we cannot let that situation happen. So, I request the hon. Minister, through you, Sir, she is most welcome, but we must take all precautions that nothing untoward happens either by her or by Maqbool sahab or by Dalai Lama or by any of our guests who want to live in our country. Thank you, Sir.


THE MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE): Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman, Sir. I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members who sought the clarifications. Though the compass of the discussion has been little expanded, it is not strictly within the purview of the clarifications sought. Perhaps I can start with the observations of my distinguished colleague, Natwar Singhji, who had given a number of instances also and has a long experience as a diplomat and politician of this country. He is fully aware of it. We have a tradition. That is why we used the words 'in conformity with our civilisation heritage which has constituted the policy of the Government that whoever has sought asylum, we have given them asylum. But, at the same time, we expect them to behave in a particular way'. The concerns which some of the hon. Members have expressed are genuine. It cannot cause disturbance to the public harmony. It is not the job of us to indulge in moral policing. Even the freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed in the Indian Constitution under Chapter III of the Fundamental Rights, is also subjected to reasonable restrictions. Volumes of judgements are there as to what are these reasonable restrictions. Even, there are laws in the land which are being operated when the undesirable writings or expressions and, in fact, some of our publications have been banned in different parts of the country. State Governments normally exercise these laws in the regional languages in which it is being published. Therefore, all these are available. I would not like to enter into this larger issue which has been raised. Perhaps, the problems are arising because we are becoming a little intolerant and if we allow the situation to take its own course of action, if somebody wants to distort a religion like Islam, nobody is going to buy it. (Contd. by 2U)


SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE (CONTD.): If any attempt is being made to distort it, it will be rejected.

So far as the Government is concerned, we have a policy. That is why I have stated that we expect that they should not indulge in (a) politics and (b) doing anything which will cause any harm to the friendly relations of any country and hurt the sentiments of our people. They should refrain from doing that. If they do not refrain from doing that and if they indulge in it, there are provisions in the law which will take care of it. It is not that law is helpless in that area. Law will take its own course of action.

So far as the present case is concerned, we have extended her visa long ago before these incidents took place and we are extending it every six months. In fact, it was done when Mr. Natwar Singh was the Minister for External Affairs. Thereafter also we have carried it on.

There are a number of issues which are not, strictly speaking, within the purview of this clarification. But I think the House of Elders should debate on this issue one day dispassionately and see how to come out of this type of situation related to an internationally-renowned painter. I may not like some of his expressions, but there is no reason to allow any sort of vandalism or institute cases against him. Of course, law will take its own course of action. But these types of activities clearly indicate how intolerant we are becoming. It should not be allowed in any civilised society, particularly in a country like India. When we enter into the premises here, we see a large number of scriptures written in Devnagari script. One of them is written here in the lobby itself which says - , ׫ ֤׮ It conveys the message of universal humanism and brotherhood. And Islam is a religion which speaks of universal compassion, love, brotherhood, equality, and unity amongst men. If anybody wants to distort anything, it will naturally hurt the sentiments of the people, and nobody should be allowed to do so. Nobody should be indulged in doing so.

So far as this case is concerned, I have stated that she was sent from Kolkata to Jaipur and then from Jaipur she was sent to Delhi. A couple of days she stayed there. The Home Minister of the Rajasthan Government communicated to us that till an alternative arrangement was made by the Union Home Ministry, she would stay in the Rajasthan Guest House. It is our responsibility. After all, we shall have to keep in view that India is an aggregation of States and Union Territories. Each and every part of India is either a part of a State or a part of a Union Territory.

When we talk of law and order, it is essentially a State subject. They have to maintain it, and they have enough legal provisions to deal with the situation. We expect that they will exercise that.

So far as the current tenure of her visa is concerned, it is up to February 2008. We do hope that the situation will be brought back to normal. It was given in August 2006 and at the interval of six months it is being extended. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Now we will continue the discussion on the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Bill, 2007. Mr. Vijayaraghavan.




SHRI A. VIJAYARAGHAVAN (KERALA): Sir, the situation is worsening. More and more people are coming to cities because of the failure of agriculture and agrarian policy in the country. Lakhs of people lost their livelihood and land because of the ongoing policies. (Contd. by VKK/2W)


SHRI A. VIJAYARAGHAVAN (CONTD.): So, while discussing about such a Bill for Delhi here, we say that some supplementary programmes should also be planned. Other Ministries also have to think about changing their policies. Otherwise, migration will continue and this hon. House and Parliament will be forced to make further enactments in intervals in Delhi. That is one thing. (Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Please continue. What's the problem?


THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Cabinet Minister is here. So many Ministers are sitting here.

SHRI A. VIJAYARAGHAVAN: Sir, one important issue is there, that is, in this House, we have passed some legislations. One is related to the Urban Ceiling Act which we have repealed. Second one was, permitting foreign direct investment beyond a percentage on housing, etc. in the urban areas. We opposed that Bill. At that point of time, it was mentioned that it will provide more infrastructure in the cities. But, experience shows that neither the FDI nor the repealing of the Bill provided any relief to the problem of urban infrastructure, particularly the problems related to the poorer sections in the urban areas.

Similarly, Sir, here, it was mentioned that there were 1500 unauthorised colonies. Are there some owners for these colonies? Are there some owners for the houses in these clusters? There are some owners. It is not that the poor man is the owner of the Jhuggi. There are some mafia people. They are collecting rents. So, the unauthorised colonies are run by mafias or goons. How are we going to solve this issue? Unless you provide alternative facilities, houses, etc. for those who are staying in these Jhuggies and Jhonpries, we won't be able to solve this problem. If I would ask some question, the Government will answer that they have a good number of programmes. If I ask, then, the Minister will give me 17-18 programmes for providing houses to the poor in the urban areas. But, we must have to understand one thing that it has failed. We have failed to provide them sufficient shelters. Therefore, a comprehensive programme must be thought about. The existing programmes have failed and the situation is continuing. So, how do we resolve the problem? There should be an open approach. It is not an area where we have to criticise in between us. It is an issue which we have to face; it is an issue which we have to solve. Therefore, while discussing this aspect, I have to mention that you have to think about an alternative policy with regard to the urban problems, especially the problems of the poor in the urban area.

Similarly, Sir, without the help of bureaucracy, it won't happen. You think about the officials who are supposed to implement the laws, existing laws. You have a Master Plan of 2001. You had Master Plans earlier also. How this has happened? You institute an inquiry on the money which these bureaucrats and officials have made. Unless you use an iron hand against these people, you won't be able to implement the enactments, which we pass here. (Contd. by RSS/2x)


SHRI A. VIJAYARAGHAVAN (CONTD.): I have the experience about Delhi. Corruption is very much there. With the help of corrupt bureaucrats, all these illegal constructions have taken place in this capital city of Delhi. So, the Government has to come forward to take stern action against those corrupt bureaucrats who are helping these mafias, goons and the richer section to grab the public land and property. Similarly, you are discussing about the shopping malls. In the residential areas, now the shopping malls are coming up, and that kind of facility for the upper section of the society is coming up. I am not against it. Those who are rich, let them go and purchase whatever they want to purchase. There should be this facility in the capital city. I am not against it. But that should not be in those residential areas. These malls and the facilities for the richer section are grabbing the existing facilities meant for the poorer section. You give them special clusters, make extra investment and provide additional infrastructure for them. You should not use the existing infrastructure meant for the poor for facilitating the richer section in the cities. There should be special areas. That also should be taken note of. Here, what is happening? If you go through the illegal thing, I would like to say that there may be these shopping malls, but these lands have also been grabbed by these illegal occupants. That should also be taken note of. When we are discussing about this issue, there was a separate problem related to the slum dwellers and hawkers. An assurance was given that we should not touch these slum dwellers and hawkers of the city of Delhi. It was reported that rather than taking steps against the illegal construction by the richer section in the city who indulge in illegal construction and grabbing of land, steps were taken against the small shops and the hawkers. So, Sir, you should come forward with a special programme for hawkers and slum dwellers. There should be a comprehensive programme for them in this city. How could we rehabilitate these people? What should be the comprehensive programme for their rehabilitation? So, rather than giving a stop-gap arrangement of one year or two years, you have to come forward with a comprehensive plan in order to protect the right of the poorer section, the slum dwellers, the hawkers and take stern action against the land grabbers, mafias and the corrupt bureaucracy. Such an attempt should be made by the Government. Why are they passing this legislation? This is being passed in order to resolve a practical problem which we are facing. The Government has to give an assurance that they will take proper steps to safeguard the interest of the poorer sections, the slum dwellers and the hawkers in the city of Delhi. Thank you. (Ends)

֮֕ן ֤ (ײָ) : ָ, ֕ ߲֮ ֟-֚ ߮ ִֻ ֵ ִ ֻ-ֻ Ordinance ָ ֋ ֵ ֋, ֋ ָ, ֟ ָ ֮ Ӥ פ ֵ, ߻ פ ֵօ ָָ , ָ , ֵ ֓ ֮ Ӥ ֋߅ ֵ ִ ֵ Ù ֮ ֮ , Ù ֮ ָ ֮ Ӥ և ֓ ֮ Ӥ ֋, ߻ פ ֵօ ֤ ..(־֮֬).. ָָ ָָ ָ ('2y/mp' ָ ָ)


֮֕ן ֤ (֟) : ָ, ָ ֮ ֲ ߻ և, ׻֋ alternative arrangement ? ֮֮ ָ alternative arrangement , ָ , ָ ֋, ֻ-֓, ֜և-׻և, ֤- ? ֯ ֆָև ֮ , ֮ ֮ , פ ֮ ߮ , ֻ , ֲ ֮ ָ ֮ , ֮֯ ֆָև פ ױ ִֻ ֻ ֵօ ָ, ֯ ֻ ִֻ ֲ ֵ , פ Ùև ָ ! Ùև և ֯ ػ , ױ , פ ׻֋ ֌ ֮ ֮ ֤ פ, ױ ױ׾֙ ו֋ ו, פ , ֮ ׮ֵ ֮ , ֮ ִ ָ ֋ ֟ և ו̻ , ӓ־ ו̻ , פ ֋, ֵ פ ֋, ֵ , ָ ׮ִֵ ֮֮ ָ ֯ , ֮ ֵ ָ ? Ù ֮ ָ ֵ , ֯ , ֋ , ָ ֟ , ֲ ֮ ߻ פ ֵ ֵ ֤

, ֵ ֿ Ͼֻ ל ִֵ - ִ ָ, ֮ ֮֟ ֌ ֮ ֮֟ , ֮ כ ֮֟ , ֮ ֮֟ ! כ , ֟֓ߟ , ֋ ׮Ե ֟ , Ӥ ֋, ػ ֋, ֮ ֋, ߲ ֟ , ׻֋ ָ פ פ ֯ ֮ ? ֙ ָ ֙ ׸ ֮֋, ֮, ֲ ֵ ֲָ interference ֟ , ִ , ֟ ֯ ֵ ׮׻֋, ֵ ֿ monitoring ִ ו֋ ָ ֤ , ָ ֮ ֮֟ , ֻև ׻֋ ֮ ֮֟ , ָ ֯ , ָ, ֓ ָ, ֓ ָ, ֮ Ӥ ֟ , ? ָ, ֟ ߔ ֻ ֺ , ָ ֮ פ Ӥ , ߔ ֺ ֻ , enquiry ָ ֮ פ Ӥ և? פ ֮ Ӥ י ֵ? ֟ ָ ׾ָ֓ ָָ ֟ ָ ׾ָ֓ ֵ ֮ ֮ Ӥ ? ֵ ֿ ל ֮ Ӥ פ ֵօ ß , - ßֵ , ָ ֮ ֟ , ֓ ߙ ִ֮ ָߤ ֟ ָ ֮ ֟ , ׾֬ ׻֋ ֟ , ׻֋ ָ ׾֬ , ֮ ֟ ֮ ָ ֮ , ֮ ֮ ֤ ִ֮ ָߤ ׻֋ ֋օ ֤ ִ֮ ָߤ ֋օ ׮ִֵ ֮֮ ײֻ ֋ , ֟ ִ ״ֻ֮ ֻ , ִ ָָ ֮

(2Z/SC ָ ֿ:)


֮֕ן ֤ (֟) : ו֮ ֮ ߻ פ , ָ֤֮ ֟ ֵ ן׸ ػ ֻ , ָ ׾ָ֓ ֲ ֮, ߻ , ־֮ ִ ָ ־ ׻֋ ֻי ӟִ֕ ֮ ײ֮ ֮ ׸ָ ֻ֋? , ֣ ָָ ׮־ ֯ ָ ֺ ׾ָ֓ ׸ ֮ Ӥ ֵ , ־֮ ִ ׸ ן׸ ֮ ߻ ֻ , ػ , ־ã ׸ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

SHRI SYED AZEEZ PASHA (ANDHRA PRADESH): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I rise to speak on the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Bill, 2007. I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by my colleague, Shri Jai Parkash Aggarwal. He expressed the agony of all those who became shelterless or who have been removed from their respective places and their shops have been sealed. So, the over-activism of judiciary, I think, is responsible for that. Though the Minister of Urban Development, Shri S. Jaipal Reddy, tried to intervene in several ways, still we see the unfortunate situation where shops of so many persons, whose livelihood is very much attached to those places, have been sealed. I do not know whether this is the end or it is going to continue.

The second point is about the Delhi Master Plan. We were told that it would be finalised very soon. But, even today, it has not been finalised. If you go to the Planning Department, it is in a complete mess. People go there with a lot of complaints. If someone goes there and asks, "I am residing in this locality, please tell me whether it is a residential zone or commercial zone", they are not in a position to clarify it. It seems that they themselves are in a lot of confusion. This confusion should be removed.

Now, I come to the question of slum areas and jhuggi jhonpri. In any Metropolitan city, this is a necessary hazard because from the surrounding places, the persons who do not find suitable jobs, they throng the city. Until and unless, we go into the basis of the uninterrupted flow from surrounding places, we cannot solve the problem of slum areas and jhuggi jhonpri. I can cite the example of West Bengal. After effective implementation of land reforms, the flow was stopped to a greater extent; otherwise, Kolkata was a place where thousands of people used to come to Kolkata for having a permanent livelihood either on pavements or in sub-pass. But due to effective implementation of land reforms, the persons who used to come from surrounding areas were stopped to a considerable extent. We have to go deep into the matter to stop this flow from the surrounding places. Now, whenever any jhuggi jhonpri or slum area is demolished, the people are assured that they will be rehabilitated. But it is never done. I can cite so many instances. Naglamachi is one of them. The people there were assured that they would be given proper rehabilitation. But what happens is, they are shown a place which is 30 kilometres away from Delhi. How can a person who is having a livelihood here, can go to far off places? We should see to it that the surrounding area, which is very much attached to his livelihood, is not disturbed. Keeping in view his future livelihood, we should do rehabilitation.

I want to mention one more point. Today itself, I have come to know that a slum area is being demolished in north eastern Delhi. They have given the notice only yesterday and today they are being thrown out. What sort of inhuman policy is this? At least, they should be given a proper notice, proper placement and a proper rehabilitation. It is only last night that they were given notice, and today they have been removed from their places. How can they have a proper livelihood then? So, this responsible Government should not behave in an irresponsible way. They must keep in mind rehabilitation and the future livelihood of the persons thus displaced. Thank you.

(Followed by 3A)