SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER : Is it because you have in your agenda Mathura, Vaaranasi and Ayodhya that we have to vote for you?MR. SPEAKER: Please wind up. Three more Members from your Party have to speak. Otherwise they will lose their chance.
SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER : We have Shri Singhal's interview in The Observer dated 22nd March. There is another interview of Shri Vinay Kathiyar. We have the Press briefing of the General Secretary of the RSS at Bangalore which appeared in The Observer on 23rd March, 1998 ...(Interruptions)
MAJ. GEN. (RETD.) BHUWAN CHANDRA KHANDURI AVSM : Shri Shiv Shanker, you are a senior Member, it is not proper... (Interruptions)
SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER : Do they want to seek the confidence from us on that basis? See the drama in UP where all those 103 people who have supported them, and who are facing criminal charges, have been made the Ministers. Do they want us that we should vote the confidence in their favour?
Then, Sir, equally in Himachal Pradesh, by the action of this Government, they enabled one Independent MLA, Shri Ramesh Chandra Chaudhury, to join the ranks of the BJP. They have made that man a Minister. In this manner do they expect that we should vote for them? Each Minister is declaring his own policy.
Somebody says that we will ....(Interruptions) Shri Ramesh Chandra Chaudhury has been made the Minister. I am accusing them. ...(Interruptions) Each Minister is taking his own policy decision. Even in Gujarat, they have appointed a Minister who is facing the charges.
I would not like to go further. But for the constraint of time, I could have said a lot. Having said this, I expect that the Treasury Benches will answer all these questions if they want to seek our vote of confidence. They must convince us that they are fair and that there is credibility in them. Otherwise, there is no question of this House giving them the vote of confidence.
Yesterday, an Urdu couplet was quoted out of context but I would address directly the Prime Minister by quoting the same couplet.
"JÉÖnùÒ EòÉä Eò®ú ¤ÉÖ±ÉÆnù <iÉxÉÉ ÊEò ½þ®ú iÉEònùÒ®ú ºÉä {ɽþ±Éä,
JÉÖnùÉ ¤ÉÆnùä ºÉä JÉÖnù {ÉÚUôä ÊEò ¤ÉiÉÉ iÉä®úÒ ®úVÉÉ EªÉÉ ½þè*"
MR. SPEAKER: Now I call upon Shri Ramakrishna Hegde to speak.
... (Interruptions)
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN (BALASORE): Mr. Speaker, Sir, Shri Shiv Shanker has made the point that nobody had rebutted their points but when Shrimati Sushma Swaraj rebutted them point by point, nobody on their side was present. After six o'clock nobody on their side was present. ....(Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: I have not allowed you. Please take your seat.
... (Interruptions)
I was not here yesterday and, therefore, I did not have the benefit of listening to several speeches; some of them were very good speeches.
Sir, my first question is, whether this exercise was absolutely necessary. It is not just testing whether this Government has the majority support of this House or not. If that were the case, the Speaker's election has amply proved. But it was necessary to fulfil the condition stipulated by the President of India that this Government must get the confidence vote of this House. Even if that was necessary, I beg to submit that without any discussion, the vote could be taken.
Discussions are necessary in a democracy. Actually, a democratic government is known as `government by discussion'. But we are spending two days. On what? I could understand if the subject matter was the performance of this Government, a critical examination of what this Government has been able to do or has failed to do. But the Government has been in office for hardly ten days; it is not even ten days and, therefore, necessarily extraneous matters come into this discussion - what you did 10 years ago, 20 years ago and similarly from this side, many Members could ask the hon. Opposition Members including the Leader of the Opposition about what they did during the last 50 years.
Therefore, I feel that this exercise is a futile exercise. But I do not underestimate the quality of the discussion. Some of them yesterday made very good speeches as I said. But before I say something about what Shri Shiv Shanker has said, I would like to go a step backward and ask whether the recent elections were really necessary. Can we afford frequent elections?..(Interrruptions)
MR. SPEAKER : Please continue.
... (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER : Let there be order in the House.
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was saying whether the 1998 election was necessary. You know we had elections badly two and a half years ago and who brought this election on the people? Is it not the Congress Party? I had met the Congress President several times before that. I told him that frequent elections were not good. They are not only expensive but they also bring corruption. I had suggested to him that they should make their policy very clear and if possible they participate in the Government. Why was Shri Devegowda's Ministry toppled? Was there any plausible reason? And after that, within another six months, why was Shri Gujral's Ministry toppled? It is on a very silly, if I may say so, excuse of what was supposed to have been reported in the Jain Commission. Nobody had read the Jain Commission's report. If my Congress Party Members had read the Jain Commission's report in detail, perhaps, they would not have raised that question at all.
Giving support from outside is, to my mind, not only undemocratic but it is also immoral. It started from the day when Shrimati Indira Gandhi lost majority in the Congress Party itself and subsequently and consequently in the Lok Sabha. The two Communist parties gave outside support. From that day, this practice has been in vogue in our politics.
Those who support a Government either participate in it or they do not support it. Issue based support is another myth. I hope that my friends who have said that they were going to extend issue based support would change their minds.
Now coming back to certain comments made by hon. Member....(Interruptions)
AN HON. MEMBER: What about Trinamool Congress?
KUMARI MAMATA BANERJEE (CALCUTTA SOUTH): Issue based support is a very powerful support.(Interruptions)
SHRI ANIL BASU (ARAMBAGH): That is immoral. That is contradiction.
KUMARI MAMATA BANERJEE : It is immoral, contradiction for you. Do not give us your advice....(Interruptions)
SHRI ANIL BASU : Shri Ramakrishna Hegde is on record..(Interruptions)
¸ÉÒ ®úɨÉEÞò¹hÉ ½þäMÉc÷ä <ºÉEòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ ªÉ½þÉÆ Êb÷ºÉEò¶ÉxÉ EòÒ VÉ°ü®úiÉ xɽþÒÆ ½þè*
...(´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI E. AHAMED (MANJERI): The hon. Minister is making his maiden speech. Please instruct the hon. Members not to interrupt him. (Interruptions).
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE: The first point raised by Shri P. Shiv Shanker is the credibility of this Government. (Interruptions). I would like to submit the very fact that the B.J.P. led coalition had an understanding before elections and hence had the credibility of this Government.
What happened in 1966? In 1966, the B.J.P. had emerged as the single largest party. (Interruptions).
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI): It was 1996.
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE: I am sorry. It was 1996. It was only 30 years back. In 1996, the B.J.P. had emerged as the single largest party and the President was duty bound both in terms of the spirit of the Constitution and also according to the convention to invite the single largest party to form the Government.
I would like to recall what happened on that occasion. I was in the Janata Dal and because of the stand I took, probably, I was expelled from that Party. The stand I took was this: that one cannot question the President's discretion; one cannot question the President's authority when it is in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution and in accordance with the convention established. But my colleagues and several other parties cobbled up a so-called coalition overnight. I sensed at that time, even before the elections were held, I said, `Let us go - if certain parties are according to you communal - before the people and form a front. You call it a Secular Front.' These words have lost meaning now or any other front, and tell the people that they should not vote for this party. We did not do that and all the parties fought against each other, abused each other and they were almost at each others' throats. Next morning they came together. For what purpose? The only purpose was to keep a particular party which had emerged as the single largest party out. This is not democracy.
Even today Shri P. Shiv Shanker has raised the question of a mandate. I am sorry to say that no ruling party, after the Independence, ever got adequate or full mandate to rule this country. (Interruptions).
SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA (BANKURA): Except in 1984.
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE: No. Even during late Shri Rajiv Gandhi's time, it was only 49.6 per cent. The Ruling Party never got more than 50 per cent. What do we talk about mandate? Therefore, we have to take the opinion of the people as it is expressed. According to me, several parties had come together to fight elections on that understanding. Yes, Shri Shiv Shankar has a point as to where our Agenda was at that time. There was not sufficient time. I agreed and I had suggested also that we go before the people with an agreed Agenda, a common programme, a National Agenda. But that was not possible this time...(Interruptions)
SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA: Why?
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE: Because there was not sufficient time.(Interruptions) SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE: I am sorry. This is much better than cobbling up that kind of a coalition overnight. A common agenda was necessary, I quite agree, but this was the next best thing to happen. And why do we not do the same thing next time? I am, in a way, happy that after fifty years of Independence, Indian polity is being gradually polarised. There are two gropings today, one led by the BJP and the other one led by Congress. I would like to remind my Congress colleagues there that I was the first person to say - that was about two years ago and I addressed the then President of their party, Shri Narasimha Rao and also Shri Kesri - that the Congress must not disintegrate. Why should I say that? I was not a Congressman. I said it in the interests of the country. The Congress was responsible before Independence and for nearly two decades after Independence, to keep this country together, to promote national integration and, therefore, if that great party - at one time it was a great and organised political party - dispersed, then there would be a big lacuna which cannot be filled. It was about to disintegrate, my dear friends...(Interruptions).
They are speaking of Mahatma Gandhi, the original Gandhi, the only Gandhi this country has produced. He is forgotten. He is remembered only on such occasions. But there are other Gandhis today and one of those Gandhis saved your organisation. Otherwise you would have disintegrated. But what happened to Shri Kesri? Is that the way you have to treat the President of your party? Maybe today he is perhaps the oldest surviving Congressman in this country. There is no grace left in politicians. There is no decency left in politics. Just think about this.
Therefore, coming back to the mandate, I say that under the circumstances, this coalition has as much mandate as possible. This cannot be questioned. You say you will not vote and you will not express confidence. But hon. Shiv Shanker should know that the people of this country have already expressed confidence in this coalition and, therefore, the confidence that is going to be expressed today is not as relevant as the people's confidence that was expressed two months ago. And the only one matter he brought is that there was some circular issued by some Secretary. I do not know. I have not seen it. Then, it is all right. I am going to say from this seat that if any Secretary or any official of the Government brings any individual party's manifesto and says that it is the Government's policy, he is wrong. He has outstepped his jurisdiction. Nobody will support him. There is only one agenda, that is, the national agenda and that has been accepted by the Government and every item, every programme mentioned in that agenda is the Government's agenda and it is the duty of the Secretary and other officials to implement it.
SHRI SHARAD PAWAR (BARAMATI): I would very much wish the Prime minister to say that, not you.... (Interruptions)
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE: We function on the basis of collective responsibility... (Interruptions)
SHRI L. K. ADVANI: Let me avail of this opportunity to make it clear that this is a Government of all the alliance partners who have adopted the national agenda for governance. The BJP manifesto is not applicable to this Government as such, though there are parts of the manifesto which have been incorporated in the agenda for governance.
As the B.J.P. President also, I would like to assert that this is not the manifesto on the basis of which this Government functions. The Government's agenda has been declared as the National Agenda.
MR. SPEAKER : One minute. Shri Rajesh Pilot wants to speak.
SHRI RAJESH PILOT (DAUSA) : If you can agree for just one second. I totally agree with you. You had been in Government. We had been in Government. No Secretary level officer can ever issue directions of this nature without the Minister's instructions. In case the Minister ordered these instructions, would you tell the House what action you are going to take further on that particular Minister? Will you assure us? ...(Interruptions)
SHRI L. K. ADVANI : We will see it.
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE : Yes. ...(Interruptions) Sir, the hon. Home Minister has already made that point very clear. ...(Interruptions)
One point was raised by hon. Member Shri Shiv Shanker. He has been a very good and a very competent advocate. He has been a judge and he has been a Member of Parliament. Therefore, he has all the qualities to make an effective contribution in this debate. On review of the Constitution, Yes, we have said it in the National Agenda. May I ask you one thing? You were the Law Minister. How many times has this Constitution been amended and if I may say so, - you will pardon me, Sir, - has been mutilated? ...(Interruptions)
SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER : I myself said it. ..(Interruptions)
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE : Please do not bring those things. ...(Interruptions) The Constitution is a sacred document. There is no doubt about it. But it is not sacrosanct. It is not the Geeta. It is not the Bible. We hold that at a high regard ad we hold the Bible, the Geeta or the Qoran. But it is not so. The people of this country can change if they find that in the last fifty years of the working of this Constitution, it has not been up to their satisfaction. What about corruption? What about horse-trade? Today do we have any direct action between the people and the Chief Executive of the country? The Chief Ministers are changed; the Prime Ministers are changed without any reference to the people. Where is people's mandate? In one shot we negate the people's mandate. We cancel it. We neglect it and we mutilate it. Therefore, it is not a crime to say ....(Interruptions)
SHRI R.S. GAVAI (AMARAVATI) : Sir, while making his speech the hon. Minister Shri Hegde made a derogatory remark regarding the Constitution that it is not a sacred thing. The Constitution is a sacred document like the Bible or the Qoran. ...(Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER : I am not allowing you. Please take your seat. The hon. Minister is not yielding.
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE : Sir, it is not a crime to say that the Constitution will be reviewed. We have not said that the Constitution is going to be changed. In my view it is high time that the best heads of this country sit together and again deliberate as to what kind of amendments and what kind of modifications and what kind of changes should be made in the Constitution.(Interruptions) MR. SPEAKER : Shri Gavai, he is not yielding.
... (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER : This will not go on record.
(Interruptions)*
12.00 hrs.
SHRI E. AHAMED : Sir, may I ask a question?
MR. SPEAKER : No, this is not the Question hour. There cannot be any clarifications.
SHRI E. AHAMED : Sir, the hon. Minister has yielded. I would like to ask Shri Hegde whether he is of the view that the basic structure of the Constitution is to be changed. Let him please clarify. ...(Interruptions)
SHRI R.S. GAVAI : Sir, please delete that version of Shri Hegde from the record of the House because the Constitution is a sacred document...(Interruptions) MR. SPEAKER : Shri Gavai, I am not permitting you. Please take your seat.
... (Interruptions)
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE : I know the judgement about the basic features of the Constitution. They cannot be changed. But may I say one thing? Please do not misunderstand me. The people of this country are greater than the judiciary, the Executive and this Parliament. ...(Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER : This is not a Question hour. Please understand.
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE : If they want any change in the Constitution, they shall have it. There is no question about it. ...(Interruptions) Personal opinion is different. I would like to suggest that this country must have a Presidential form of Government. I hold that view. But I am not bringing that issue here. But it is very very necessary to have a second look, a critical look at the Constitution again. ...(Interruptions)
Not recorded.
MR. SPEAKER : Shri Hegde, one minute please.
Hon. Members, there is no time. Please take your seat. I am not permitting it. Let Shri Hegde continue.
SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE : Sir, about stability, Shri Shiv Shanker and several other hon. Members have mentioned about it. I quite agree with my friend Shri Sharad Pawar, the Leader of the Opposition when he said that the political stability cannot be achieved as long as there is social instability..(Interruptions)