 |
||
|
||
|
||
Mr. Speaker, Sir, at the very outset, I must comment upon the near
total air of unreality in which this debate is taking place. Just
before the commencement of the debate, the air was suddenly thick
with rumours about the resignation of the hon. Prime Minister,
about a last minute change, and about the partners in this
arrangement having now settled their dispute. I was very relieved
when the hon. Prime Minister finally arrived, even though somewhat
belatedly, so at least, for the moment, set that rumour to rest.
The hon. Prime Minister rather coyly referred to "certain new
developments" that have taken place. which require this debate to
take place. I do wish, Sir, that the hon. Prime Minister, who with
admirable restraint and ambiguity called them 'certain new
developments', had specified what these new developments were. The
debate has not been occasioned because we have moved a Motion of
No-Confidence. The hon. Prime Minister has himself sought
confidence of the House because, as he explained, there are certain
new developments'. What are those new developments?
If you recollect, Sir, I had appealed to my friends in the
supporting party, the Congress, who, according to the Prime
Minister. gave them support so I. spontaneously", who also said in
the House that they would not withdraw their support, and indeed,
Sir, who also said that they would stand by them till the end.
I had appealed to them that the debate would be rounded off and
that it would be better informed had the Congress explained what
these new developments are, Indeed, we would know, the House would
know and the country would know, and we have a right to know them.
But the Congress declined. Why they declined, I am still unable to
fathom.
The hon. Prime Minister quite rightly pointed out that when he
took over office, there was a "lurking suspicion about the
effectiveness and the "survivability" of this Government.
As far as the effectiveness is concerned, the hon. Prime Minister
catalogued the achievements of his Government for the last ten
months and, even though I might not be in agreement with all the
claims that the Prime Minister has made, I do sincerely sympathise
with the air of bewildered perplexity with which he read out his
achievements, and I wonder as to what is the occasion for this
'certain new developments' causing this illustrious and once upon a
time great political party to suddenly decide to withdraw support.
That is why, I certainly do have to comment that quite an
exceptional distinction devolves upon the 11th Lok Sabha in now
debating the third confidence vote in just over nine months. I
think it has to reflect on this fact and what lies at the core of
it all.
I submit that this 11th Lok Sabha taking up the confidence vote for
the third time reflects, in essence. the thwarting of the people's
mandate when the elections were first held and it is a consequence
of this artificial legislative arrangement that was created in May
or June of last year. It is entirely up to the Government to agree
on this and indeed. I do not expect them to agree with me. A huge
untruth was then inflicted upon India. I said this earlier also and
that untruth is now coming unstuck. The untruth is coming unstuck
in this inglorious and ignominious manner, a manner that brings
disrepute upon India, which brings disrepute upon this august
Assembly which we have the honour of serving, it brings into
disrepute, without any doubt, the entire political class that
appears only to be hankering after office and chair. My first
charge against this motion is on both these counts and it is a
collective charge upon both the defender and the offender...
We are not pretenders. We do not pretend because if anything is to
be said explicitly, it is only we that have said it. If at all
there is a pretender, the true pretenders in this artificial
arrangement are the Congress Party and my distinguished friends,
the CPI(M).
They were the pretenders because they pretended. There is something
about the oldest profession in the world. They pretended to wield
power. They pretended responsibility. They wielded power but
without responsibility. They wanted to run this Government but
without any accountability. They were the pretenders. Therefore, I
charge both the defenders and the offenders of bringing about a
wholly artificial, spurious and avoidable crisis born entirely of
mendacity, double cross, double speak, double standards and
dishonest crisis.
I do not wish to say much about the kind of rumours that became
thick, about all this drama and the charade about talks, talks
about talks, informal talks, then, formal talks of Steering
Committee and of Core Group and of yet another Core Group or
whatever controlling Group. We were told when those talks,
double-crosses were going on, that these who were entrusted with
actually doing the talking were more interested in ensuring that
the talks failed so that their leaders who were at the helm, could,
in turn, be defeated and the second rank could come forward and
take over. The charade, the mendacity of what we have been
subjected to today was entirely avoidable. It is a crisis born of
treachery within parties and it is also the treachery of
arrangements between parties. That is why now when this debate
takes place, the air is befouled with a suspicions of individual
conduct. I will not go into that now. But I earnestly searched in
the hon. Prime Minister's initial intervention as to what is the
great issue of principle involved. What was that issue, what
substantial matter that has created this 'new circumstance' for the
offender to take' such an offence? I fail to find anything in the
hon. the Prime Minister's intervention. All that we have read and
heard is that personal pique, blind, unseeing self-interest seem to
have motivated the bringing about the crisis. It appears in all
this that personal interest seems to have taken the first place
always and every time. Every kind of consideration of national
interest has been relegated to the background.
My second charge is that this is a farce upon Legislature. It is
not a farce upon Legislature simply because of the frequency with
which we
are doing this. It is a farce because of the atmosphere in which
it is being conducted. They said: "We are changing the
personality." We read statements in the newspapers about this. They
said: "We have objection only to a certain personality. If the
personality changes, then, we will work together again." Is the
Legislature to be reduced to an arena for settling personal
disputes between individuals? As a Legislature, are we to become
the victim of a certain party's pique against a single individual,
however high the office that he held?...
After all, we have opposed the hon. Prime Minister. Our opposition
to him is open, is clear, is categorical and is unambiguous. Mr.
Prime Minister, Sir, we are your opponents. Your enemies sit behind
you and beside you. We are your political opponents. We make no
bones about it.
It is a farce because it is a sad imposition upon a trusting and
unsuspecting nation. I remember with vividness the fluency and the
ability with which try good friend the hon. Finance Minister
debated the issue when the Confidence Motion was considered,
perhaps in June. He said: "There are three reasons why we are
here. It is because of the verdict of the people-it is a false
assertion now-that we stand for social justice and we are the
forces of secularism." "at has happened to this verdict of the
people? Where is the social justice and where this secularism? I
submit again as I submitted then that all these three were flimsy
excuses, a cloak only for keeping the BJP out at any cost. This is
an untenable assertion which now visits upon this arrangement at
this governance.
My third charge is that you propounded a wholly artificial,
untenable and indeed an irresponsible thesis about support from
outside. What we are witnessing today and what we are experiencing
today is entirely on account of this arrangement. You do not want
to be a Government, yet you want to govern; you do not want the
responsibility, the accountability of Government yet you wish to
tell the Prime Minister what to do about it. When you want him to
stand up, you want him to stand up and when you want him to sit
down, you want him to sit down. No self-respecting arrangement can
work like this. We have struggled together for years with some of
the constituents of the United Front. I have had the pleasure and
privilege of sitting here with some of the constituents of the
United Front. Indeed with the Leaders of the House Shri Ram
Vilasji, I see all these faces an many of them had been our
partners in the many struggles that we fought together. Our
political, unequivocal and totally unquestionable. You close to
join this company: you close to work with them and you close to
agree to this wholly, unacceptable arrangement of supports from
outside. We had even then said that this was untenable and this
would not work. This is indeed now being proven as right and the
circumstances have brought shame upon India.
As far as the Congress Party is concerned. I am not at all
astonished at their conduct because. I remember distinctly that we
had been witness earlier to the Congress Party suddenly taking
umbrage at two wandering Haryana policemen outside a certain house.
And because, those two Haryana policemen were casually wandering
outside a house, a Prime Minister had to step down.
>From two Haryana policemen, we are now witness to this
transformation of a 'bolt from the blue' suddenly transforming into
a button hole of allegiance. I am astonished that the distinguish
leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party the hon. Member from
Baramati, speaker from Pune, finds the announcement of his Party
President, about the withdrawal of support as a "bolt from the
blue."
I enquire of the hon. Prime Minister whether this is the new
development about which he was referring? If this is the "certain
new development," then I do sincerely wish, you had also gone and
explained how this 'bolt from the blue' become a baton for beating
them into allegiance, into whipping them into coming into
abedience? What suddenly changed between Pune and Delhi - a flight
of only a couple of hours? I appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister,
the Mover of the Motion to also explain to us the conduct of the
Party, a very great political party, a very great political party,
the Community Party (Marxist). They have exemplified this question
of wanting to wield power without having any responsibility.
I find, Sir, that they were the ones who were most active remaining
out of the Government, not wanting the responsibility of it but all
the time, they must be ordering everyone including you. I am
astonished, how you have suddenly become Mamataji ... ?
Sir, I have said what I wanted to say. More than that I do not
wish to say.
I am also struck. I am actually struck by a sense of poignancy. I
am struck by the remarkable prescience of my distinguished friend.
He is indeed the seniormost Member of this Assembly whom I have the
honour of calling my friend, the hon. Home Minister. He, in a
different context spoke of "chaos, anarchy and destruction."
The hon. the Home Minister is a distinguished parliamentarian. I
remember a phrase which was used for him in a function that I
attended, by a very great Indian Shri T. N. Haksar. If I recollect
right, he said: "The hon. the Home Minister, Shri Indrajit Gupta is
a man of untradable integrity." Without doubt, he is. And, if he
used the words that describes our state as bordering on 'chaos,
anarchy and destruction' then. I am struck by the relevant of these
words because that is precisely what the offender has now brought
about for totally inexplicable reasons. They have indeed created
the situation of brining about chaos. anarchy and destruction and,
I wonder whether the prescience of the hon. Home Minister persuaded
him to say what he did earlier.
The conduct of the Congress Party really beffles description. The
hon. Prime Minister quite rightly pointed out that up to the
President's Address, up to the question of the budgetary debates,
up to and inclusive indeed in Uttar Pradesh - on all these and on
every fundamental issue - up to the 21st of March, the Congress
Party had no difficulty.
The Congress Party indeed struggled and quarrelled with us on every
occasion but we found fault with them openly and clearly. Suddenly,
on the 30th of March, this 'bolt from the blue' arrives. I do find
it necessary to mention that because the hon. Prime Minister has
not explained those 'certain circumstances'. I tried to make out
what those 'certain circumstances' were from the rather curious
phrases of this somewhat repetitious letter.
Here, we are told that the Congress Party which was entirely
satisfied with everything on the 21st of March, on the 30th was
suddenly concerned over "deteriorating law and order situation,
drift in the economy" - they have supported the Budget though we
have differences - 'leading to rising prices'. They condone rising
prices up to the 21st and suddenly on the 30th rising prices become
sufficient ground for them to pull the leg of support. I would be
very grateful if the very distinguished and the very able Minister
of Finance would specify whether in that nine-day period he saw
such a spurt in prices that the Congress Party had no other option
but to withdraw support from them.
Next, there was a 'growing communal menace'. They have
simultaneously said that the land is at peace and all is well. And
suddenly, the Congress Party discovers that there is a 'growing
communal menace and a lack of chohesive functioning of the
Government'. To the best of my recollection. between the 21st and
the 30th, the most that happened was that everyone went away on a
holiday for Holi arid there was hardly anyone in Delhi. Flow is it
that. in that long period of Holi holidays, suddenly the Congress
Party discovers that there is no 'cohesive functioning'?
Here is a more serious allegation that has been made. The more
serious allegation concerns that The sensitive defence issues and
security requirements of the country have not been properly
addressed: there is an overall demoralising effect in the civil
services and the various organs of the Government: lack of
coordinaition.' - this is a repetition 'direction and will to
govern had created a situation of drift...' This is a very serious
allegation.
The hon. Minister of Defence is there. I do not remember the
Congress Party ever questioning him about the security issues. If
there has been any questioning, it was indeed by my Leader, who
stood up and said that some decisions were taken for the first time
about the Defence issues. This is a very serious charge. The
Congress Party owes an explanation riot simply to the defenders;
they owe an explanation to us, they owe an explanation to
Parliament, they owe an explanation to the entire country. Such
charges cannot be lightly made. If we say that concerns about the
state of the nation, about the state of the Defence preparedness of
the country, such matters cannot be spoken of lightly. Such
matters should certainly not become issues of partisan
consideration simply because you are disollusioned with one person
or another. I charge the Congress Party of treating even the
security of the country as a tradeable issue, as an issue that
could be traded as a charge between Parties.
I am amazed at their irresponsibility. I do not wish to comment on
the utter debasement of debate and public discourse that was
displayed by hon. the Congress President when he referred to the
hon. Prime Minister in certain terms. It shamed all of us. It
shamed all of us collectively. You can hold whatever views you
wish to hold about Shri Deve Gowda, but you cannot refer to the
Prime Minister of the country like that. We have difficulties with
the Prime Minister, the premiership of the country. We have open
political differences. But never in my party, Sir, has anyone
debased our differences to public discourse of that kind, to that
level. In a public speech the President of once-upon-a-time great
party traded charges in a language and in a manner which is utterly
shameful. I am also, Sir, most intrigued by the timing of this
letter. What has persuaded this timing? Somebody owes an
explanation. Either you. Mr. Prime Minister, must explain as to
why it was on 30th March that support was withdrawn? Or someone
from the Congress must explain that to the nation.
Sir, I must now list die catalogue of failures, as I see, of the
United Front. The hon. Prime Minister, while I was listening to
what he has said about the revival of institutions, spoke of
Inter-State Council, National Development Council, the Ninth Five
Year Plan, the Budget, the Lokpal Bill etc., etc. I submit and I
charge the United Front Government of deliberately, knowingly and
repeatedly misusing Article 356 despite what had happened in the
National Development Council and despite the opinion of the Chief
Ministers. I do not wish to run over the entire sorry debate of
Uttar Pradesh and what had happened in Uttar Pradesh and what did
not happen, but the misuse of office of governors as evidenced by
incidents and developments in the State of Gujarat and the State of
Uttar Pradesh is the direct responsibility of the United Front
Government and they are to be held accountable, and because the
Congress acquiesced in this misuse of the office the Congress is
also to be held accountable.
I Sir, I do not wish this to be converted into a debate on the
international situation or the security situation of the country
except to leave a word of caution. Please do not create a world of
make-believe. My leader had categorically said that we stand for
good relations with our neighbours and we stand for good relations
with Bangladesh. But we cannot countenance an unreal relationship
based on illusions that which we could not achieve for the last
thirty years. is suddenly converted into a water sharing agreement.
Why could it not be done for the last thirty years? Has Ganga
suddenly started giving more water? We question the Government on
the mistake which is now evident in what is happening in the
scarcity of water both in West Bengal and Bangladesh.
I do not wish to go into any lengthy analysis of the security
situation. But instead of doing that I do wish to leave a thought,
with my distinguished and able Minister of External Affairs that
hugs and false bonhomies are not adequate replacement for a sound
foreign policy. I do also wish to share a thought with the hen.
Defence Minister. I leave a thought with him that I apprehend a
situation, though I have no categorical reasons why I apprehend so,
somewhat similar to what had happened in the country before 1962
may recur.
I say this with seriousness and I say this with a sense of
responsibility. Let us not be complacent and I do charge the
United Front Government of neglecting to make adequate arrangements
for Defence, to make adequate Budgetary arrangements for Defence.
For the eleventh year in succession, the needs of the Defence were
neglected.
My second point about the United Front Government, relates to the
economy. When the Budget was presented by my distinguished friend,
we called the Budget is 'the chalia Budget'; that this was a maya
jaal, an illusion of well-being, prosperity and growth. But
everyone on that side was happy. We cautioned you there itself. I
say that our differences on the Budget lie principally on the
ground that because this illusion of prosperity and growth is
combined with actual disparity and division of India from Bharat.
I do wish to refer to agriculture; I do wish to refer to the
question of foodgrains; and I do wish to refer particularly to the
mismanagement by the UF Government on the wheat front. We are
informed that some millions of tonnes of wheat are to be imported
into the country. For those millions of tonnes of wheat, the UF
Government is going to pay Rs. 650 per quintal... I wish we had
been told that the Government is going to import 20 million tonnes
at Rs. 450 per tonne...
I appeal to the UF Government to reflect on what they are doing in
this regard. I do not wish to sound pessimistic, I do not also wish
to draw your attention to what is happening in our neighbourhood -
in Pakistan or in Afghanistan - on the food front. But I do appeal
to you not to treat this casually and I, do appeal to you to take a
stand that whatever may be the procurement price, it would be the
price at which they would supply wheat to all the consumers.
I do not agree with the management of the Government on
agricultural front and I certainly cannot condone the UF Government
on the neglect of the energy sector. I charge this Government of
continuously neglecting the petroleum sector. The situation is
perilous: if energy is security, as it is, then the nation's
energy. security has been endangered by this Government.
I will conclude by submitting that the Government of India is not
an arrangement! It is not a mere convenience based on personal
prejudices and needs. You like a certain person and you dislike
another person in which only Office counts and nothing else! I am
also not impressed by the undignified manner in which. this
scramble has taken place about changing, not changing, altering, we
will continue to give support if you replace personalities, etc.
Then, where is, Mr. Prime Minister, the one which you have put
across as the Common Minimum Programme? You should have put it
instead as 'Common Personality Programme!' Why do you have Common
Minimum Programme? If it was to be based on 'Common Personality
Programme', then that is what we should have been told earlier.
Certainly. the Congress Party owes us much more than an
explanation.
So, this is an insult, not simply to this House which is a
distillate of the people of India out it is also an insult to the
people on this country. It is a besmirching of the fair name of our
peer and benighted country. There is only one answer both for the
defender and the offender, that is: go: depart for heaven's sake,
and leave this chair. You count these chairs as more and more
worthy than the country. There is the only one solution for you
now to come to terms with loss of office and to go back to the
people.
Therefore, I oppose this Motion.
(Text of Shri Singh's speech during the April 11 debate on Shri
Gowda's confidence motion).
|
||
|
||
|
||