+vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, ¨ÉèÆ BEò |ɶxÉ EòÉ +Éè®ú =±±ÉäJÉ Eò°üÆMÉÉ--ºÉɨ|ÉnùÉʪÉEòiÉÉ EòÉ* ºÉäEªÉֱɮú´ÉÉnù JÉiÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ ½þè* <ºÉʱÉB VÉÉä ¦ÉÒ ºÉäEªÉֱɮú´ÉÉnù Eòä ½þɨÉÒ ½þèÆ, ´Éä ºÉ¤É <Eò_ä ½þÉä VÉɪÉäÆ* <Eò_ä ½þÉäxÉä Eòä ¤ÉÉnù +É{ÉºÉ ¨ÉäÆ ±Éc÷iÉä ¦ÉÒ VÉɪÉäÆ* Ê¡ò®ú VÉ¤É <Eò_ä ½þÉäÆ iÉÉä ºÉäEªÉֱɮú´ÉÉnù EòÉ xÉÉ¨É ±ÉäÆ* ªÉ½þ Eò¤É iÉEò SɱÉäMÉÉ* ½þ¨É ¤Égø ®ú½þä ½þèÆ +Éè®ú VÉÉä ºÉäEªÉֱɮú´ÉÉnù EòÒ VÉ°ü®úiÉ ºÉä VªÉÉnùÉ nùÖ½þÉ<Ç nùä ®ú½þä ½þèÆ, ºÉäEªÉֱɮú´ÉÉnùÒ iÉÉä nùä¶É EòÉä ½þÉäxÉÉ SÉÉʽþB* ¨ÉèÆxÉä =ºÉ ÊnùxÉ ¦ÉÒ Eò½þÉ lÉÉ +Éè®ú ªÉ½þ nùä¶É ½þ¨Éä¶ÉÉ ºÉäEªÉֱɮú´ÉÉnùÒ ®ú½þäMÉÉ* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ <ºÉ ºÉ´ÉÉ±É {É®ú EòÉä<Ç +Éi¨É¨ÉÆlÉxÉ ½þè? EòÉä<Ç +{ÉxÉä ÊMÉ®úä¤ÉÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ ¨ÉÖƽþ b÷ɱÉEò®ú nùäJÉxÉä EòÉä iÉèªÉÉ®ú ½þè ÊEò ªÉ½þ ½þÉä EªÉÉ ®ú½þÉ ½þè?
½þ¨ÉÉ®úä EòÉÆOÉäºÉ Eòä ʨÉjÉ VªÉÉnùÉ vªÉÉxÉ ºÉä ºÉÖxÉäÆ* MÉÉb÷ÊMÉ±É ºÉɽþ¤É =xÉEòä |É´ÉEiÉÉ ½þèÆ* ¨ÉèÆ =xÉEòÒ ÊEòiÉÉ¤É ¨ÉäÆ ºÉä =rÞiÉ Eò®ú ®ú½þÉ ½þÚÆ* EòÖUô ±É¨¤Éä =r®úhÉ ½þèÆ ¨ÉMÉ®ú ¨ÉèÆ +{ÉxÉä EòÉä ®úÉäEò xɽþÒÆ ºÉEòiÉÉ* <ºÉʱÉB ¨ÉèÆ =rÞiÉ Eò®ú ®ú½þÉ ½þÚÆ*
The title of this book is `1996 Mandate - its Meaning and Message' - V.N. Gadgil. I quote:
"Today, after the defeat in the Lok Sabha elections of 1996, I am not demanding that we should reconsider secularism. My insistence is that we must re-examine the contents of the Congress concept of secularism. This is the basic difference between myself and Shri Vajpayee. Shri Vajpayee wants that secularism should be reconsidered." - though I never said that. "My demand is not for reconsideration of secularism. Shri Vajpayee wants a national debate on the issue of secularism. My demand is limited. I want a debate on the issue within the Congress party because in my view, the basic and most important reason for our defeat is the ambiguous and unclear nature of Congress concept of secularism."
SHRI P.R. DASMUNSI (HOWRAH): This is Gadgil's view, not the Congress view. I can quote many books of yours which are not BJP's view...(Interruptions).
SHRI ILIYAS AZMI (SHAHABAD):
¸ÉÒ <ʱɪÉÉºÉ +ÉVɨÉÒ (¶Éɽþ¤ÉÉnù) : 40 ºÉÉ±É iÉEò ´ÉÉä]õ ÊnùªÉÉ
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
BEò ¤ÉÉ®ú ´ÉÉä]õ xɽþÒÆ ÊnùªÉÉ... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (LUCKNOW): All right, you disown him. I do not mind. You are fit to do that. Please do not interrupt me. Do not disown Shri Gadgil. He is your spokesperson. Listen what Shri Gadgil says:
"The rank and file of the Congress party is totally confused about the Congress concept of secularism.
Shri Gadgil does not stop here. He further says:
"The second reason for defeat of Congress is unclear and ambiguous nature of Congress concept of secularism. Does it mean dharmanirpekshta or sarva dharma sambhav? The word dharmanirpekshta gives an impression that Congress is opposed to any kind of religion. In other words, the Congress stands for atheism. The result is that both Hindus and Muslims are alienated by dharmanirpekshta - concept of secularism. If by secularism Congress means sarva dharma sambhav, neither Hindus nor Muslims find it in the behaviour and action of the Congress party. Many Muslim friends say to me that the lock of the Ayodhya temple was broken during the Congress regime, shilanyas was performed during the Congress regime and the mosque was destroyed during the Congress regime. Is this secularism? On the other hand, Hindus say: Concession is given in air fare to Muslims going for Haj pilgrimage and it costs the nation Rs.60 crore, but similar concession in railway fare is not given to Hindu pilgrims when they go to Pashupati temple in Nepal. Is this Congress secularism? It is necessary, therefore, to reconsider the contents of the Congress concept of secularism.
It is no longer true that the B.J.P. is a party of only Brahmins and Banias. We must not forget that thousands of Dalits took part in the Kar seva at Ayodhya. The B.J.P. has won 29 Scheduled Caste seats and 14 Adivasi seats. Are we not going to draw any lesson from these facts?
Sir, there is one more paragraph. I quote :
Congress concept of secularism is based on disassociating religion from politics. But the Congress has not taken clear stand on disassociating politics from casteism. Casteism is, perhaps, a greater danger to secularism than communalism. Mr. Ram Vilas Paswan is reported to have said that the United Front Government is the first Government which has not got a single Minister from upper caste. The question, therefore, arises is : `Is not casteism as dangerous as communalism in the Congress concept of secularism?'
When some Congressmen say that the Government in Maharashtra is the Government of `Joshi', `Mahajan' and `Brahmins', instead of describing it as B.J.P.-Shiv Sena Government, can Congressmen really claim that they are secular?
ªÉä ½þ¨ÉÉ®úä Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú xɽþÒÆ ½þèÆ* EòÉÆOÉäºÉ Eòä VÉÉä xÉäiÉÉ ½þèÆ, |É´ÉEiÉÉ ½þèÆ, ªÉä =xÉEòä Ê´ÉSÉÉ®ú ½þèÆ* lÉÉäc÷É <ºÉ {É®ú ¨ÉÆlÉxÉ EòÒÊVÉB, +Éi¨ÉɱÉÉäSÉxÉ EòÒÊVÉB*
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ÊVÉºÉ +xÉÖ{ÉÉiÉ ¨ÉäÆ +É{ÉEòÉ EòÉäºÉxÉÉ ¤Égø ®ú½þÉ ½þè =ºÉÒ +xÉÖ{ÉÉiÉ ¨ÉäÆ ½þ¨ÉÉ®úÉ |ɦÉÉ´É ¤Égø ®ú½þÉ ½þè, ¶ÉÊEiÉ ¤Égø ®ú½þÒ ½þè* ªÉ½þ ºÉèEòֱɮú´ÉÉnù EòÒ {É®úÉVÉªÉ xɽþÒÆ ½þÉä ®ú½þÒ* ºÉ´ÉÇvɨÉÇÊxÉ{ÉÇäIÉiÉÉ ºÉ´ÉÇvɨÉÇ ºÉ¨¦ÉÉ´É, ªÉ½þ ºÉ½þÒ +xÉÖ´ÉÉnù ½þè* ºÉèEòÖ±ÉÊ®úWÉ¨É EòÉ ºÉ½þÒ +xÉÖ´ÉÉnù ºÉ´ÉÇvɨÉÇ ºÉ¨¦ÉÉ´É ºÉ¨|ÉnùÉªÉ ÊxÉ{ÉÇäIÉiÉÉ ½þè, vɨÉÇÊxÉ{ÉÇäIÉiÉÉ xɽþÒÆ* ªÉ½þ nùä¶É Eò¦ÉÒ +vÉÉʨÉÇEò xɽþÒÆ ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉÉ, vɨÉÇÊ´É®úÉävÉÒ xɽþÒÆ ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉÉ, <ºÉEòÉä ºÉ¨ÉZÉxÉÉ SÉÉʽþB*... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI CHATURANAN MISHRA (MADHUBANI):
EÞòÊ¹É ¨ÉÆjÉÒ (¸ÉÒ SÉiÉÖ®úÉxÉxÉ Ê¨É¸É) : EªÉÉ +É{É BEò ʨÉxÉ]õ ªÉÒ±b÷ Eò®úäÆMÉä?
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (LUCKNOW):
¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ (±ÉJÉxÉ>ð) : ½þÉÆ, {ÉÆÊb÷iÉVÉÒ ¨É½þÉ®úÉVÉ, +É{É VÉ°ü®ú ¤ÉÉäʱÉB*
SHRI CHATURANAN MISHRA (MADHUBANI):
¸ÉÒ SÉiÉÖ®úÉxÉxÉ Ê¨É¸É : ºÉ´ÉÇvɨÉÇ ºÉ¨¦ÉÉ´É iÉÉä +É{É `öÒEò ¤ÉÉiÉ ¤ÉÉä±É ®ú½þä ½þèÆ* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ EªÉÉ =ºÉ¨ÉäÆ ªÉ½þ Bä±ÉÉ=b÷ ½þè ÊEò ÊEòºÉÒ EòÒ ¨ÉʺVÉnù iÉÉäc÷äÆ +Éè®ú ®úÉäVÉ-®úÉäVÉ vɨÉEòÒ nùäÆ ÊEò ªÉ½þÉÆ ¨ÉÆÊnù®ú iÉÉäc÷äÆMÉä? ½þ¨É +É{ɺÉä ªÉ½þ VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉä ½þèÆ ÊEò ¨ÉlÉÖ®úÉ EòÉ, ¤ÉxÉÉ®úºÉ EòÉ, +É{ÉEòä ¨ÉÖiÉÉʤÉEò +É{É VÉÉä ʺÉrÉxiÉ nùä ®ú½þä ½þèÆ, =ºÉÒ ¨ÉäÆ ½þÉä ®ú½þÉ ½þè +Éè®ú ´É½þÒ ºÉ´ÉÇvɨÉÇ ºÉ¨¦ÉÉ´É ½þè*
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (LUCKNOW):
¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ (±ÉJÉxÉ>ð) : VÉÉä |ɶxÉ JÉc÷É ÊEòªÉÉ VÉÉ ®ú½þÉ ½þè, {ÉÆÊb÷iÉVÉÒ ¨É½þÉ®úÉVÉ, =ºÉ |ɶxÉ EòÉ =iiÉ®ú +É{ÉEòÉä ¨ÉɱÉÚ¨É ½þè* ½þ¨É Eò<Ç ¤ÉÉ®ú ªÉ½þ º{ɹ]õ Eò®ú SÉÖEòä ½þèÆ ÊEò +ªÉÉävªÉÉ ¨ÉäÆ VÉÉä EòÖUô ½þÖ+É, ´É½þ BEò nùÖPÉÇ]õxÉÉ lÉÒ, ´É½þ BEò ½þÉnùºÉÉ lÉÉ*
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI NIRMAL KANTI CHATTERJEE (DUMDUM): You tell it to all those who support you. ...(Interruptions) You see how they react.
SHRI SONTOSH MOHAN DEV (SILCHAR): Sir, please allow me for one minute. ...(Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER : Please listen to Shri Vajpayee.
... (Interruptions)
SHRIMATI GEETA MUKHERJEE (PANSKURA):
¸ÉÒ¨ÉiÉÒ MÉÒiÉÉ ¨ÉÖJÉVÉÒÇ ({ÉƺÉEòÖ®úÉ) : ªÉ½þ =xÉEòÉä EòʽþB VÉÉä +É{ÉEòÉ ºÉ¨ÉlÉÇxÉ Eò®ú ®ú½þä ½þèÆ* ... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (LUCKNOW):
¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ (±ÉJÉxÉ>ð) : +É{É <ºÉ ºÉSSÉÉ<Ç ºÉä <ÆEòÉ®ú xɽþÒÆ Eò®ú ºÉEòiÉä ÊEò nùä¶É ¨ÉäÆ EòÖUô vɨÉǺlÉÉxÉ BäºÉä ½þèÆ ÊVÉxÉEòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ Ê´É´ÉÉnù ½þè* +É{ÉxÉä +¦ÉÒ |ɺiÉÉ´É {ÉÉºÉ ÊEòªÉÉ, BEò EòÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ* =ºÉ¨ÉäÆ ¦ÉÒ +É{ÉxÉä +ªÉÉävªÉÉ EòÉä UôÉäc÷ ÊnùªÉÉ* EªÉÉäÆ? EòɶÉÒ +Éè®ú ¨ÉlÉÖ®úÉ EòÉ ºÉ¨ÉÉ´Éä¶É ½þè, +ªÉÉävªÉÉ EòÉ xɽþÒÆ ½þè*
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI CHATURANAN MISHRA (MADHUBANI):
¸ÉÒ SÉiÉÖ®úÉxÉxÉ Ê¨É¸É : EòɶÉÒ +Éè®ú ¨ÉlÉÖ®úÉ EòÉ ½þè ±ÉäÊEòxÉ =ºÉEòä ÊJɱÉÉ¡ò +É{É ´É½þÉÆ lÉ{ÉlÉ{ÉÉiÉä ½þèÆ*
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (LUCKNOW):
¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ (±ÉJÉxÉ>ð) : +É{ÉxÉä +ªÉÉävªÉÉ EªÉÉäÆ UôÉäc÷É? VÉÉä lÉ{ÉlÉ{ÉÉiÉä ½þèÆ =x½þäÆ lÉ{ÉlÉ{ÉÉxÉä nùÒÊVÉB* ¨ÉMÉ®ú +É{É ºÉɨ|ÉnùÉʪÉEòiÉÉ EòÉä lÉ{ÉlÉ{ÉÉxÉä EòÉ MÉÖxÉɽþ ¨ÉiÉ EòÒÊVÉB* BEò iÉ®ú½þ Eòä ºÉ¨|ÉnùÉªÉ EòÉä ¤ÉgøÉ´ÉÉ nùäEò®ú nùںɮúä iÉ®ú½þ Eòä ºÉ¨|ÉnùÉªÉ ºÉä xɽþÒÆ ±Éc÷ ºÉEòiÉä, ªÉ½þ vªÉÉxÉ ®úÊJÉB*
SHRI SONTOSH MOHAN DEV (SILCHAR): Sir, there is one question which he asked me and I could not reply to his satisfaction. I would like to ask Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee : `Will you kindly favour and tell this House as to what was the auspicious day of 6th December, 1992 for demolishing Babri Masjid?' Why not on 5th or 7th of December? ...(Interruptions) Kindly explain it to us. I want to understand it. ...(Interruptions) I am a novice in politics.
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (LUCKNOW):
¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ (±ÉJÉxÉ>ð) : +vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, =ºÉ ºÉ¨ÉªÉ EòÉÆOÉäºÉ EòÒ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú lÉÒ, xÉ®úʺÉƽþ ®úÉ´É VÉÒ |ÉvÉÉxÉ ¨ÉÆjÉÒ lÉä, +MÉ®ú VÉÉxÉEòÉ®úÒ |ÉÉ{iÉ Eò®úxÉÒ ½þè iÉÉä {Éc÷ÉäºÉ ºÉä VÉÉxÉEòÉ®úÒ ±Éä ±ÉÒÊVÉB, <iÉxÉÒ nùÚ®ú EòÒ ªÉÉjÉÉ EªÉÉäÆ Eò®úiÉä ½þèÆ*
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR): Mr. Speaker, Sir, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee may kindly respond. It was a matter relating to what my friends have called a structure at Ayodhya and what we call Babri Masjid. It was subject matter of a judicial proceeding. The State Government had given a solemn assurance to the nation and the Supreme Court of this country to protect it. What did you do? What your party and your Government did do to protect this? ....(Interruptions).
SHRI PRAKASH VISHWANATH PARANJPE (THANE): For how many years will it continue? Why are they asking for it?
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR): Not one word of condemnation has been said. We want to know how could you say so ... (Interruptions).
[SHRI PRAKASH VISHWANATH PARANJPE (THANE): They have got only one subject to say that they are secular ....(Interruptions).
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (LUCKNOW): Mr. Speaker, you allow me to speak. I am not replying to this. Let there be a debate. You fix a time and we will have a comprehensive debate on this. ....(Interruptions).
+vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, ¨ÉèÆ BEò ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò½þxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½þÚÆ* ºÉ¨ÉÉ{iÉ Eò®úxÉä ºÉä {ɽþ±Éä ¨ÉèÆ BEò ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò½þxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½þÚÆ* ¨ÉèÆ ºÉ¨ÉÉ{iÉ Eò®ú ®ú½þÉ ½þÚÆ*
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR): The Ayodhya mosque was not mentioned in that Bill because of the Supreme Court case. There was an undertaking to protect the mosque. Therefore, he has no reply to this.
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (LUCKNOW):
¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ (±ÉJÉxÉ>ð) : +vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, ¨ÉèÆ xɪÉä |ÉvÉÉxÉ ¨ÉÆjÉÒ Eòä <ºÉ ´ÉEiÉ´ªÉ EòÉ º´ÉÉMÉiÉ Eò®úiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò nùä¶É +ɨÉ-ºÉ½þ¨ÉÊiÉ Eòä +ÉvÉÉ®ú {É®ú SɱÉxÉÉ SÉÉʽþB, ¨ÉÖ`ö¦Éäc÷ EòÒ ¦ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ ºÉä xɽþÒÆ, ºÉÆPɹÉÇ EòÒ ¦ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ ºÉä xɽþÒÆ* nùä¶É ¨ÉäÆ Ê´Énùä¶É xÉÒÊiÉ Eòä ºÉ´ÉÉ±É {É®ú +ɨÉ-ºÉ½þ¨ÉÊiÉ ¤É½þÖiÉ {ɽþ±Éä ºÉä ®ú½þÒ ½þè +Éè®ú ¸ÉÒ MÉÖVÉ®úÉ±É xÉä Ê´Énùä¶É ¨ÉÆjÉÒ Eòä xÉÉiÉä ºÉä +É¨É ºÉ½þ¨ÉÊiÉ ºÉä +ÉMÉä ¤ÉgøxÉä EòÉ |ɪÉÉºÉ ÊEòªÉÉ ½þè, =ºÉEòÉä {ÉÖ¹]õ Eò®úxÉä EòÉ |ɪÉÉºÉ ÊEòªÉÉ ½þè* =x½þäÆ ºÉ¡ò±ÉiÉÉ ¦ÉÒ Ê¨É±ÉÒ ½þè* {Éc÷ÉäºÉÒ nùä¶ÉÉäÆ Eòä ºÉÉlÉ ºÉ¨¤ÉxvÉ ºÉÖvÉ®úäÆ, ½þ¨É ¦ÉÒ ªÉ½þ SÉɽþiÉä ½þèÆ* ½þ¨É <ºÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ EòÒ +Éä®ú ºÉÆEòäiÉ nùä ®ú½þä ½þèÆ ÊEò Eò½þÒÆ ½þ¨ÉÉ®úÒ =nùÉ®úiÉÉ EòÉä {Éc÷ÉäºÉÒ ½þ¨ÉÉ®úÒ nùÖ¤ÉDZÉiÉÉ xÉ ºÉ¨ÉZÉä, =ºÉEòÉ +xÉÖÊSÉiÉ ±ÉÉ¦É =`öÉxÉä EòÒ EòÉäÊ¶É¶É xÉ Eò®úä* iÉɱÉÒ nùÉäxÉÉäÆ ½þÉlÉÉäÆ ºÉä ¤ÉSÉiÉÒ ½þè, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ VɽþÉÆ iÉEò nùä¶É EòÉä SɱÉÉxÉä EòÉ ºÉ´ÉÉ±É ½þè, +MÉ®ú xɪÉä |ÉvÉÉxÉ ¨ÉÆjÉÒ +É¨É ºÉ½þ¨ÉÊiÉ Eòä +ÉvÉÉ®ú {É®ú ºÉ¤É EòÉä ºÉÉlÉ ±ÉäEò®ú SɱÉxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉä ½þèÆ iÉÉä ½þ¨É =x½þäÆ +{ÉxÉä ®úSÉxÉÉi¨ÉEò ºÉ½þªÉÉäMÉ EòÉ +ɶ´ÉɺÉxÉ nùäiÉä ½þèÆ +Éè®ú ½þ¨É SÉɽþäÆMÉä ÊEò nùä¶É +ÉMÉä ¤Égøä* ¨ÉiɦÉänùÉäÆ Eòä ¤ÉÉ´ÉVÉÚnù +ÉMÉä ¤Égøä, ºÉiiÉÉ Eòä ºÉÆPɹÉÉäÇÆ Eòä ¤ÉÉ´ÉVÉÚnù +ÉMÉä ¤Égøä +Éè®ú =ºÉä +ÉMÉä ¤ÉgøÉxÉä EòÉ BEò iÉ®úÒEòÉ ½þè ÊEò <iÉxÉÉ ¤Éc÷É nùä¶É, <iÉxÉÒ Ê´ÉÊ´ÉvÉiÉÉ, <iÉxÉÉ {ÉÖ®úÉxÉÉ nùä¶É +MÉ®ú SɱÉäMÉÉ iÉÉä +É¨É ºÉ½þ¨ÉÊiÉ Eòä +ÉvÉÉ®ú {É®ú ½þÒ SɱÉäMÉÉ +Éè®ú |ÉvÉÉxÉ ¨ÉÆjÉÒ +MÉ®ú =ºÉ ®úɺiÉä {É®ú VÉÉxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉä ½þèÆ iÉÉä ½þ¨ÉäÆ ¤É½þÖiÉ nùÚ®ú xɽþÒÆ {ÉÉBÆMÉä*
vÉxªÉ´ÉÉnù*
(<ÊiÉ)
THE PRIME MINISTER (SHRI I.K. GUJRAL): Mr. Speaker, Sir, ....(Interruptions)
¤É½þÖiÉ +SUôä* xɽþÒÆ, ¨ÉÖZÉä ʽþxnùÒ Eòä |ɪÉÉäMÉ ¨ÉäÆ EòÉä<Ç ¨ÉÖʶEò±É xɽþÒÆ ½þè* ¨ÉèÆ ÊºÉ¡òÇ ªÉ½þ ºÉÉäSÉ ®ú½þÉ lÉÉ
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
+É{ÉEòÒ +É´ÉÉVÉ ¨ÉèÆxÉä ºÉÖxÉ ±ÉÒ ½þè* ....(Interruptions).
MR. SPEAKER: Why are you making noise? The interpretation is availbale there. You cannot make a demand like that. The Prime Minister will speak in the language of his choice.
SHRI R. GNANAGURUSWAMY (PERIYAKULAM): He should speak in English.
SHRI S.K. KARVENDHAN (PALANI): Why should the reply not be in English?
MR. SPEAKER: You cannot make a demand like that.
SHRI IK. GUJRAL:
¸ÉÒ <xpù EòÖ¨ÉÉ®ú MÉÖVÉ®úÉ±É : +vªÉIÉ VÉÒ, ¨ÉèÆ Eò½þ ®ú½þÉ lÉÉ ÊEò ¨ÉèÆxÉä +É{ÉEòÒ +É´ÉÉVÉ ºÉÖxÉ ±ÉÒ ½þè +Éè®ú ºÉ֤ɽþ ºÉä ¨Éä®úä ¤ÉÉä±ÉxÉä Eòä ¤ÉÉnù ¨Éä®úä ʨÉjÉ ¨ÉÖZÉä ʨɱÉä ¦ÉÒ lÉä, =x½þÉäÆxÉä <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ EòÒ ºÉ®úɽþxÉÉ EòÒ lÉÒ ÊEò ¨ÉèÆxÉä <ºÉ {Énù ºÉä {ɽþ±ÉÒ iÉEò®úÒ®ú VÉÉä EòÒ ½þè, ´É½þ ¨ÉèÆxÉä ʽþxnùÒ ¨ÉäÆ EòÒ ½þè* ʽþxnùÒ ¨Éä®úÒ ¦ÉÒ ¨ÉÉiÞɦÉɹÉÉ ½þè, ¨ÉèÆ ¦ÉÒ =ºÉÒ VÉÖ¤ÉÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ {ɱÉÉ ½þÚÆ +Éè®ú =ºÉÒ ºÉƺEÞòÊiÉ EòÒ xÉÖ¨ÉÉ<xnùMÉÒ ¨ÉèÆ ¦ÉÒ Eò®úiÉÉ ½þÚÆ, ÊVɺɺÉä ªÉ½þ ¦ÉɹÉÉ {ÉènùÉ ½þÉäiÉÒ ½þè* nùä¶É ¨ÉäÆ ªÉ½þ ¦ÉɹÉÉ ¤Éɽþ®ú ºÉä xɽþÒÆ +É<Ç lÉÒ, SÉɽþä ¤ÉÉiÉ Ê½þxnùÒ EòÒ ½þÉä, SÉɽþä ¤ÉÉiÉ =nùÇÚ EòÒ ½þÉä, <ºÉÒ vÉ®úiÉÒ ºÉä {ÉènùÉ ½þÖ<Ç lÉÒÆ,
<ºÉʱÉB VÉ¤É ¨ÉèÆ ´É½þ ¦ÉɹÉÉ ¤ÉÉä±ÉiÉÉ ½þÚÆ VÉÉä +É¨É +Énù¨ÉÒ ºÉ¨ÉZÉiÉÉ ½þè iÉÉä ¨ÉèÆ xÉ EòÉä<Ç {ÉÆÊb÷iÉ ½þÚÆ, xÉ YÉÉxÉÒ ½þÚÆ, xÉ ¨ÉÉè±É´ÉÒ ½þÚÆ* ¨ÉèÆ iÉÉä ʺɡòÇ BEò ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉ¨ÉZÉiÉÉ ½þÚÆ, ´É½þ ªÉ½þ ÊEò <ºÉ {Énù ºÉä VÉÉä ¦ÉÒ ¤ÉÉä±Éä, SÉɽþä ÊEòºÉÒ ¦ÉÒ ¦ÉɹÉÉ ¨ÉäÆ ¤ÉÉä±Éä =ºÉEòÉ ±ÉÉ<xÉ +É¡ò Eò¨ªÉÖÊxÉEòä¶ÉxÉ +{ÉxÉä ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ Eòä ºÉÉlÉ ½þÉäxÉÉ SÉÉʽþB* ¨ÉèÆ +ÆOÉäVÉÒ ¨ÉäÆ <ºÉʱÉB ¤ÉÉä±ÉxÉä EòÒ EòÉäÊ¶É¶É Eò®ú ®ú½þÉ lÉÉ ÊEò ½þ¨ÉÉ®úä nùä¶É ¨ÉäÆ ¤É½þÖiÉ ºÉä ±ÉÉäMÉ BäºÉä ¦ÉÒ ½þèÆ VÉÉä +ÉVÉ ¦ÉÒ Ê½þÆnùÒ EòÉä xɽþÒÆ ºÉ¨ÉZÉiÉä* EªÉÉäÆÊEò ¨ÉèÆ ªÉ½þÉÆ ºÉä ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò®ú ®ú½þÉ ½þÚÆ, ºÉ֤ɽþ ¨ÉèÆxÉä ʽþÆnùÒ ¨ÉäÆ ÊVÉFò ÊEòªÉÉ lÉÉ, +MÉ®ú +É{É <VÉÉVÉiÉ nùäÆ iÉÉä ¨ÉèÆ <ºÉ ´ÉEiÉ +ÆOÉäVÉÒ ¨ÉäÆ ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò°üÆ iÉÉÊEò =xÉ ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ iÉEò ¦ÉÒ ¨Éä®úÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ {ɽþÖÆSÉ ºÉEòä*
Mr. Speaker, Sir, when I rise this evening to continue what I had submitted to the House this morning seeking its confidence, I am not in a mood to defend or offend anybody. That was not my purpose. My purpose basically was that we, in this House, should look at my commitments that I was trying to make in the morning itself. The debate, as it developed, has highlighted two things. One is, all sections of the House have tried to mention my name in their words for which I am grateful and therefore that induces more humility in me. So, when I speak from this seat and when I look down in this seat, there are three blocks shown here. One of these shows that Jawaharlal Nehru sat here. The second block says that Indira Gandhi sat here. The third one says that Lal Bahadur Shastri also sat here. When I look at their names, I find myself a very small person, I find myself a very humble person. But I am grateful to you that you have honoured me. The more you honour me, the more humble, I feel,
ÊVɺÉä ʽþÆnùÒ ¨ÉäÆ xÉ©ÉiÉÉ Eò½þiÉä ½þèÆ* ¨ÉèÆ xÉ©ÉiÉÉ ºÉä ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò®úiÉÉ ½þÚÆ +Éè®ú Eò½þxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½þÚÆ VÉÉä ´ÉÉnùä ¨ÉèÆxÉä ºÉ֤ɽþ ÊEòB lÉä, =xÉ {É®ú EòÉªÉ¨É ®ú½þxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½þÚÆ* nùںɮúÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ +ÉxÉä ºÉä {ɽþ±Éä ªÉ½þ ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉÉ¡ò Eò®ú nùÚÆ ÊEò ¨ÉèÆxÉä ºÉ֤ɽþ ºÉä BEò ¤ÉÉiÉ ¶ÉÖ°ü EòÒ lÉÒ*
In the morning I had said that I am speaking on the 50th year of Indian Independence. This 50th year is not just numerical because everybody adds years. You cannot stop that process; whether we think in terms of an individual's age or we think in terms of the growth of a nation or we think in terms of the development of history, there are certain factors which are beyond us and adding years is one of them. Therefore, when we look at 50 years of India's Independence, I think, as a nation, we owe to ourselves and I mean, all sections of the House not me only. We owe to ourselves to look back and also look forward.
When we look back, I reminded in the morning to my friends that we look back with a great deal of pride - not only me, not only the friends who are sitting here, but all sections of the House - the legacy of the freedom struggle. That freedom struggle was not fought by one individual. It was not fought by one particular party, although Congress was the name. But Congress was a platform and Congress had a bigger dimension than the party think of itself today.
I do not know how many amongst us or in this House choose to remember that tradition when Congress was not only spelling out that why it was resisting and fighting colonialism, but it was also spelling out, at the same time, the future of India. I think our freedom struggle was unique in one sense which I cannot think of in any other freedom struggle in the world that while fighting, while struggling and while resisting imperialism, we were spelling out the future of India.
The forefathers or the founders or whatever you might call them, call it Mahatma Gandhi, call it Jawaharlal Nehru, call it Sardar Patel, call it Maulana Azad or whatever you might call, they spelt out for us what shall be the shape of India. The Constitution of India is not just a document, it is not just a book, although we take pride in saying that the authorship of this, to a large extent, is due to the contribution made by Baba Saheb Ambedkar, but it spelt out those very promises which the freedom struggle had made.
One promise was democracy. The second promise was unity of India and also a unity of diverse India. This promise was made by saying that we, as I said in the morning in Hindi, belong to different religions. We have different ways of lives and we speak different languages; yet we are one. The freedom struggle unified us and that is one of the things which freedom struggle gave us. It also gave us a liberal outlook as my friend Shri Chidambaram was saying. The liberal outlook was not spelt out by me or by the college or by the school where I went. The liberal attitude was given to me by those who were leading the freedom struggle. They said that unless your mind is open, unless your heart is open, unless your outlook is wide and unless your vision is wide you can never lead India. That is what we are trying to follow. It is there in the legacy of India. Therefore, I only promise myself to you that if by chance of history or by whatever luck you might say, I have been called upon to sit here, I want to uphold that legacy.
That legacy has also spelt out the postulates of Indian future and India's future held many promises. As I said, it also made promise to those who go by the name of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes first and foremost. I remember -- as a younger man and many of you might have been younger men -- when the freedom struggle was going on, Gandhiji went on an epic fast. Why did Gandhiji fast? Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru wrote an article at that time and I remember that article. Pandit Nehru thought at that time that Gandhiji was derailing the freedom struggle. He said, `perhaps he was de-focussing the issue from the main struggle to the other side'. He went on a fast to emphasise one thing that every human being has a right to go to a temple of his choice. That is why, he went on a fast and he was going to die. That was the spelling of Gandhiji and that is why Gandhiji became the Mahatma and that is what elevated him. When he elevated himself, he saw the miseries of that man who was denied entry to a temple and he saw the humiliation of that man. He saw the indignity of that man and when he saw the indignity and inhumanity of that man he said, `I would rather lay my life for this till he enters the temple'. Gandhiji himself never went to a temple. He was a religious person but not of a temple going type. He was not a revivalist. He was not an obscurantist. He was one of the most modern men in our history who were ever born. He transformed our social thinking.
[NEXT PAGE]