XI LOK SABHA DEBATES,   Session IV (Budget) 

Tuesday ,  May  13 , 1997 / Vaisakha 23 , 1919 (Saka)



Type of Debate: GOVERNMENT MOTION

Title: Discussion on the motion moved by Shri Yogendra K. Alagh Regarding
Approach Paper to the Ninth Five Year Plan.  (1997-2002)(Contd.-Not Concluded)

TEXT :
 

MR.  CHAIRMAN :  The House will now resume discussion on the Motion  regarding
approach Paper  to  the  Ninth  Five Year Plan.  The time recommended for this
discussion by the Business Advisory Committee was  five  hours  and  the  time
taken so  far  has  been  2 hours 42 minutes.  The balance time remaining is 2
hours 18 minutes.

	The hon.   Member from Latur was on his feet last and I request him to
continue his speech.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V.  PATIL (LATUR):  Mr.  Chairman, Sir, I am  really  very  happy
that  the  Approach  Paper  to  the Ninth Five Year Plan has been presented to
Parliament and is being discussed by the Members.

	The Five Year Plans should also be presented to Parliament and  should
be discussed  by  the  Members.    After  some  time,  I am sure, the mid-term
appraisal of the Five Year Plan will be done and the report will  be  made  to
the Government.  I think, that report should be presented to the House and the
Members should have an opportunity to discuss that report also.

	When the Approach Paper, the Five Year Plan and the mid-term appraisal
are  discussed by the representatives of the people, it becomes easier for the
Government to receive and to  obtain  the  participation  of  the  Members  of
Parliament and  the  participation  of the people in implementing the Plan.  A
look from this angle as to what is being  done  by  the  Government  is  quite
welcome.

	The  Constitution  of  India  has a Chapter on Directive Principles of
State Policy which should be followed by the Government.  That is supposed  to
be one  of  the most important Chapters in the Constitution of India.  It lays
down the approach which should be adopted by the Government of India  and  the
State  Governments  and  other local governments also in making the policy and
implementing the policy.  Up to this time, eight Five Year Plans were made and
implemented.   All  the  Plans  which  were  made--I  think,  this  Plan  also
follows--followed  the  directives  which  are  given  in  the  Chapter on the
Directive Principles of State Policy.  The present Government claims that this
Approach Paper and the Ninth Five Year Plan document emanate from  the  Common
Minimum Programme  which  is made by the United Front.  It is not necessary to
dispute this assertion by the Government.  One can say that the Common Minimum
Programme follows the policies  which  we  have  made  for  ourselves  in  the
country, and the Five Year Plan, which we have made for ourselves, follows the
directions which are given in the Chapter on the Directive Principles of State
Policy of our Constitution.

	Therefore, it is not necessary to dispute it and it can be very easily
accepted  that this is part and parcel of the Common Minimum Programme adopted
by the United Front Government.

	I have studied this Approach Paper very carefully and my conclusion is
that the priorities and the targets fixed are in the correct direction.

	They are in the directions which are in line with what is mentioned in
the  Constitution,  what  is  mentioned in the policies which we have made for
ourselves for all these years, what is mentioned broadly in the last Five Year
Plans also. It does not mean that the direction given in this Five  Year  Plan
is  exactly like the directions given in the previous Plans. There has to be a
continuity and change and there is a thread of  continuity  in  this  Approach
Paper  and  I  think,  it  will  be  visible in the Ninth Five Year Plan also.
Certainly we cannot stagnate. We have to move ahead and that kind of  movement
is visible in this Paper.

	One  of  the  most  important  things  is  the poverty alleviation and
poverty alleviation has been given the first position in the  Approach  Paper.
Poverty alleviation and poverty eradication or elimination was something which
has  been  discussed  in  our  country for the last so many years. When it was
discussed in the past there were some people  who  objected  to  the  idea  of
poverty  alleviation. They said that, `this is a vote catching slogan given by
the Government to the people.' I do not think that assessment  of  theirs  was
correct and I do not think if anybody makes such an assessment of this poverty
alleviation mentioned in the programme, it will be treated as correct.

	In  the  past, the lands were taken from the hands of the land owners,
landlords and distributed to the people. The banks were nationalised and  were
asked  to  give  money  to  the  tillers and to the small holders of property,
business and industry. There were so many other  steps  which  were  taken  to
alleviate poverty. It is not necessary at this point of time to mention all of
them here. When the occasion is there one can mention them.

	In  the  Approach  Paper given by the Government, two things stand out
very prominently. One thing is the Employment Assurance Scheme. The Government
has said that the Employment Assurance Scheme  --  they  are  not  calling  it
Employment  Guarantee  Scheme, but Employment Assurance Scheme -- will be made
applicable in all the blocks in the country. For some time, they  experimented
in  a few blocks and now this experiment will be extended to all the blocks in
the country. I  think,  this  is  going  to  be  one  of  the  most  important
achievements of this Government and this Government should be complimented for
this.

	There are people in the country who are saying whether this Employment
Assurance  Scheme  could  be implemented in a proper manner. I am one of those
Members in the House, who have worked at the local level, at the  State  level
and  at the Central level. When the Employment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra
was made, I was a Member of that Committee.  When  that  Employment  Guarantee
Scheme  was  made  and presented to the State Legislature, there were too many
doubting Thomases who asked whether the Employment Guarantee Scheme  could  be
implemented at that time.


	That   Employment   Guarantee   Scheme   has  been  very  successfully
implemented. It does not mean that there are no defects, it does not mean that
people have committed mistakes while implementing the Employment  Scheme.  But
by   and   large,  the  Employment  Guarantee  Scheme  has  been  successfully
implemented and the results are there for us to see. If an officer comes to an
MP or a Member of the Legislature or goes to a  Minister  and  says  that  the
Employment  Guarantee  Scheme  is  implemented  properly,  one  can  take that
statement with a pinch of salt. But if the people in the villages come to  the
people's  representatives  and  complain,  why  do  you  have  this Employment
Guarantee Scheme, we are not finding enough hands to work in our  fields,  one
can certainly come to the conclusion that that Employment Guarantee Scheme has
succeeded.

	The  Employment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra has succeeded and I do
think that if it is implemented in  a  meticulous  and  scientific  manner  by
collecting  the  information  from  all  places  where the scheme is going on,
analysing it and then taking corrective steps, this scheme will be successful.
This is going to be one of the finest achievements of the Five Year Plans,  if
it is implemented successfully.

	We  know  that  the Supreme Court, while giving a decision on right to
life, has said that right to work should be given to the citizens.  They  have
not  stopped there. They have said that in right to life this right to work is
involved. They have gone one step ahead and then said that right to  education
is also involved in right to life. Right to life includes right to work, right
to   education,  right  to  medicine  and  right  to  shelter.  This  kind  of
interpretation has been given by the Supreme Court on the article which  gives
right  to life to the citizens. As a lawyer, I may have a differing opinion on
the interpretation that is pugiven on that article. But as a politician and as
a person who is interested in the development of the society, I do think  that
the  Supreme Court is trying to see in the correct direction and what has been
stated by the Supreme Court is not too much off-the-mark from the things which
we should do in the country.

	When we consider what the judiciary is expected to  do,  we  say  that
they  are  expected  to interpret the law and by nature they are conservative.
They look to the past and the present and they interpret the existing laws and
this Legislature is expected to be futuristic looking into the  future  making
the policies to meet the demands of the present and the future. Taking lessons
from  the past, the job of this Legislature, or the job of any Legislature for
that matter, is to look into the  future,  try  to  understand  what  are  the
difficulties  that  are  going to be faced by the citizens and try to make the
policies and the laws which are needed them.

	It would have been very nice, if the Legislature had come forth saying
that we shall have the right to work in the Constitution itself. The  question
that arises is whether the Government would be able to shoulder this burden. I
am  of the opinion that the Government alone will not be able to shoulder this
burden, but the society as a whole should certainly be able to  shoulder  this
burden.  The  human  ingenuity  is  not  that  weak  as  to  make  the society
participate in this effort and to provide the employment to those  people  who
need it.

	What  is right to work? We will be surprised to know that the right to
work is given  not  only  in  the  Communist  Constitution  or  the  Socialist
Constitution,  but  even  in  the  Constitutions which have adopted capitalist
principle also, the market economic principle also.  In  the  countries  where
this  kind  of  right  is  not  given, they have given a dole to those who are
unemployed. In America, in Great Britain, in France, in Germany, right to work
is not given, but the dole is given. A man may not work and yet  he  will  get
the  dole  to  support  himself.  Japan, which is not a socialist country or a
communist country, has said in one article, in one word itself, that a citizen
shall have a right and duty to work. This statement is very very pregnant with
ideas. The citizen shall have a right to work and the  citizen  shall  have  a
duty  to  work.  If right is given to him and a duty is also imposed upon him,
out of the duty which he will be performing, proceeds will be coming out which
could be used to give jobs to those who are unemployed.

	That kind of position is available in Japan.  Why  should  it  not  be
possible for a country like India to apply its mind to this problem, to evolve
a  principle,  a  policy,  have  it  in  the  Constitution, make it binding on
ourselves that nobody in the country who is not having the landed property  or
who  is not having a business or who is not having an industry or who is ready
to work will not be compelled to commit a theft or suicide?

	Why should it not be possible for us? If we are not thinking about the
future, if we are not applying our mind and if we are sticking to  the  static
positions  which  we have taken, well this may not happen. But I do think that
the interpretation of right to work is not the interpretation of right to work
which is generally accepted by the people. The interpretation of right to work
is a work which is to be given to the unemployed,  who  likes  it  or  who  is
capable of doing that work. That is not the interpretation. The interpretation
of right to work is that the unemployed should get a job which supports him to
sustain  himself to survive. Also a Ph.D.. may be given the job of a clerk and
if that is done, the right to  work  is  implemented.  If  all  these  aspects
relating  to  right  to  work are understood by us and if we apply our mind to
them, it should not be beyond us to have something of this nature -- I do  not
say exactly this is the thing but something of this nature -- in our basic law
or  in  other  laws to provide the right to work to the citizens. I think that
this Approach Paper is very  correct  in  this  direction  and  it  should  be
complimented for it.

	The second most important point which they have mentioned with respect
to  alleviation  of  poverty is about the subsidies. The issue of subsidies is
being raised in this House, outside this House and also outside the country by
individuals, organisations, financial institutions in  our  country  and  also
international  financial institutions. The question today is, in what areas we
have given the subsidies. The question which is to be faced by us is,  whether
those  subsidies  should be continued or discontinued, whether these subsidies
should be reduced, whether in some areas the subsidies should be continued, or
in some areas the subsidies should be reduced or removed.  That  is  the  most
important  question.  A  Paper  has  been put on the Table of this House and I
think, when the occasion arises that whould be discussed by  this  House.  But
the  Government,  Parliament and the country should be very careful in dealing
with this matter. The subsidy is given to help the poorest of the poor in  the
country.  If  it is going to the rich or to the well-to-do, there should be no
difficulty in removing this subsidy. But if you want  to  reduce  the  subsidy
which  is  given  to the poorest in the country, then we shall have to be very
careful and if we are  not  careful  it  has  repercussions  which  we  cannot
imagine,  it  has ramifications which will weaken the policy, the economy, the
society, the culture and also the sovereignty of this country. This has to  be
kept in mind and the Government has to be very careful in applying its mind to
the  problem  of  subsidy  or to the issue of subsidy and should try to see in
what areas the subsidy should be continued,  in  what  areas  it  may  not  be
continued,  in  what areas, to what extent it should be reduced, and then only
we should do it. They should try to be on the side of  helping  people  rather
than to be on the other side. If that is done, this problem can be solved.

	I  will  not  deal  with  the  other aspect of the poverty alleviation
principle, which has been mentioned in this Paper.

	The third most  important  point  which  has  been  mentioned  in  the
Approach Paper is production - production from agriculture and production from
industry.  They  have  not mentioned about production from laboratories or the
Universities or the areas where knowledge is generating. It  would  have  been
better  if  they  had  mentioned  this  also  in  the  area of production. The
agricultural production has been good. Even when the population  has  gone  up
from  350 million to 950 million, it is possible for us to feed our people, it
is possible for us to clothe our people.  That  is  because  the  agricultural
production has gone up.

I   think,   we   are   in   the   vicinity   of   200   billion   tonnes   of
foodgrains...(Interruptions). It is good. But one has to be  very  careful  in
this  area  also. The productivity of per hectare land in India is not as good
as it is in many other countries and there is a scope for improving  upon  it.
We  shall  have to take steps to see that the productivity of per acre of land
goes up, agriculture becomes more productive and more remunerative  also.  How
do we make it more productive and remunerative? One of the things which has to
be  done is to make the credit available on the agricultural land on a massive
scale. If we are not putting the money into the land, the returns that we will
be getting will be very limited.

	Secondly, agriculture is not modernised as the industry in  India  is.
There is a scope for modernising agriculture.

	Thirdly,  the  fertiliser  doses  which  we  are  given  are  also not
adequate. It is necessary for us to give the right fertiliser doses.

	The fourth is about irrigation facility. The irrigation  facility,  to
start with, was done on a massive scale and we know the results. If the Bhakra
Nangal  dam  was not there and if the irrigation facility was not available to
the farmers of Punjab and Haryana, they would not have been able to produce as
much as they are producing today. But,  I  think,  in  this  area,  the  State
Governments  and  the  Central  Government  have failed in meeting the targets
which were fixed and because of that agriculture has suffered. But it  is  not
enough  to  construct  the dam across the river and obstruct the flow of water
and make it available to the land. That water has to be used in a parsimonious
manner. Every drop of  water  has  to  be  used  properly  and  modern  means,
facilities and equipments have to be made use of.

	In countries like Israel, they are using  computers  to  irrigate  the
land.  With the induction of computers for irrigating the land -- the value of
a  computer  is  not  lakhs of rupees, but only some thousands of rupees -that
kind of result irrigation can be achieved.  So, in agriculture, this  approach
has to be adopted.

	As  far  as  industry  is concerned, I do think that the mind which is
applied by the Planning Commission to the problem of industry  is  very  nice.
They  have  considered  many  aspects  and they have, by and large, come to, I
think, very correct conclusions and they can implement  those  conclusions  as
far as  industrial production is concerned.  The industrial production in some
areas is around eight per cent per annum and in some other areas it is  twelve
per cent  also.   This tempo should be continued and it should be taken to the
higher level, if possible.   But  the  industrial  production  should  not  be
allowed to  come  down.    If  we  are  strong  in agriculture, we are weak in
industry.  We are weak in industry because  India  is  not  that  industrially
forward-looking.


  

The  scope for industrial development in India is much more
than the scope for development in agriculture, although 60 or 70 per  cent  of
the people  in  the  country  are  dependent on agriculture.  Unless we become
industrially strong, it will not be possible for us to  produce  all  that  we
need or to export to other countries.  So, here also, we shall have to be very
careful.   In  industry  also  one  of  the  weakest  points  is the Power and
Transport.

	The Approach Paper itself says about the targets which were  fixed  in
the last Five Year Plan for which this Government may not be held responsible.
We are not here to apportion the blame between the Governments, we are here to
find  out  what  is  correct  and  what is not correct and if something is not
correct, why is it not correct; how we can correct it.  It is for that  reason
that we are  here.    We are not here to praise the Plan to the skies.  We are
not here to decry the Plan to the bottoms.  That is never our intention.   But
the  power  generation appears to be one of the weakest points and it would be
necessary for us to do something in this respect.

	The Second weakest area in  industry  and  in  agriculture  and  other
activities is science and technology.

	The  Planning  Minister,  fortunately, is the Minister for Science and
Technology also and he is certainly bound to have the love and  affection  for
his Ministry  as  any  other Minister would have.  When I was there, I used to
say the same things.  What we have done in the field of science and technology
is really laudable and it is wrong to  say  that  our  laboratories  have  not
worked, our  policies  have not been correct, we have not done well, etc.  The
Science Policy of 1958 has helped us a lot.  About 300  national  laboratories
that  we  have  in the country have helped us a lot and because of our science
policy followed by the universities, we have enough of scientific manpower, so
much so that today we do not have to get any experts from outside to  man  any
of  the  most  sophisticated  indsutries or area of activity, we can depend on
ourselves, and not only depend on ourselves but  we  can  produce  the  things
which  are  most  sophisticated  and  which  are  at the horizon as far as the
science and technology is concerned.




[NEXT PAGE]