301 Gen. Budget, 1991-92 Gen. Discussion
ultimately we have landed in such an awkward situation. This is my humble submission. I am sorry to say that an unhealthy competition prevails between the State Governments and the Central Government, whichever party they may belong to, while implementing the anti- poverty programme and this ultimately landed the country in debt trap.
Instead of indulging in this unhealthy competition, if we have invested the money for the production-oriented work, the situation would have been totally different. So, we have all contributed our share in this direction.
Now, I want to draw the attention of the hon. Minister for Finance about inviting 51 per cent of the foreign capital; whether it is from NRIs or multinationals, I am not going to object. But only a word of caution I want to give to this government and that is that they should be more careful and the small industrialist or entrepreneur should not be totally liquidated by this type of liberalisation of industrial and trade policies. That is all I want to say about inviting 51 per cent foreign capital for our industries.
Sir, about resource mobilisation I want to say one or two words.
The hon. Minister also mentioned that as he has no time to go into details, he is unable to apply his mind and he will apply his mind to it in due course. This is what he mentioned in his speech. I want to mention one or two points which he can consider at the time of reviewing the structural changes in Income-tax or Wealth-tax.
Sir, we were debating much about Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. I am not going to deliberate on that issue. It is not so important for a person like me. But how many Trusts are there in this country, whether they are private Trusts or public Trusts, what type of hold we have got over these Trusts? There are several fake Trusts only for the purpose of deceiving or cheating and tax evasion. Such types 302 Gen. Budget, 1991-92 Gen. Discussion
of Trusts have been established. They came under the India Trust Act 1856. How can we check them? There is deliberate evasion of tax. Let the whole House apply its mind to this. Several companies have floated these trusts only to transfer their income and a mass wealth. I was also the President of one of political party at the State level. I want to make myself very clear. I do not want to make a passing or general remark. No political party is free from the favours of these vested interests. Every political party has to survive only with the favour of these tax evaders and these vested interests. At the time of elections we go to them and ultimately we want to safeguard their interests. If this type of tendency is going to be continued, through you, I want to tell this House very humbly, this country has no future and we have to work like slaves.
Today, during Question Hour, our former Speaker raised an issue as to how a Bank is helping some of the terrorists. I do not want to enter into that controversy. If a trust is registered today, in 10 years' time, it will acquire hundreds of crores worth property. Can you not impose tax on them? This is a matter worth consideration by the Finance Minister. We are in a position to amend the Constitution and we have already had 44 or 45 amendments to the Constitution. If such is the position, can we not change an Act which was enacted somewhere in the year 1856 during the British rule? Is there anybody to check whether these trusts are functioning properly and serving the purpose for which they have been registered? I insist on the Government, especially the Finance Minister to have a look on this issue.
Then, Sir, when Shri V. P. Singh was the Finance Minister, there was a 20 per cent ceiling on non-manufacturing expenses for all the companies, whether they are private companies or public companies.
Unfortunately, during Rajivji's period that ceiling had been removed later on
303 Gen. Budget, 1991-92 Gen. Discussion
[Sh. H. D. Devagowda]
and all the amount had gone for their business promotion. They can spend and they can misuse that particular provision. This is one thing, on which I would like to caution the Minister. Can we not impose ceiling? With these two things, we can earn more than Rs. 2,000 crores. It is my moderate estimate. I appeal to the hon. Finance Minister to have a look on these two suggestions which I have made now.
Sir, I now come to a community which I represent; community means, it is not a caste. I represent a community, called the farming community. All through my 30-35 years of political career, I have toiled for this section of the society. Yesterday, all our friends were so emotional and they were fighting for the cause of the farmers.
When our senior leader Indrajit Guptaji was speaking, he said some of the farmers are affluent. He is a veteran and seasoned parliamentarian. I think, he is one of the seniormost politicians in this House, if I am correct. Some of us are all new to this House. WE have to learn so many things from those people who gave got experience and rich knowledge. So, I was so anxious to hear him and I was trying to hear every word of his speech. He represents only one section of the society in this House. I do not want to attribute any motive. Is he a man dedicated for the cause of the nation? Unfortunately, the notion he has towards the farming community is not correct. He was talking about small farmers, bigger farmers and marginal farmers. This type of hair-splitting argument is not going to help the farming community. I want to humbly submit that a senior parliamentarian like Indrajit Guptaji ought not to have gone to the extent of saying that the farmers are affluent. After the land laws have been introduced in this country, where are the affluent farmers?
I want to say that we are all proud that Karnataka is one of the pioneer States in respect of implementation
304 Gen. Budget, 1991-92 Gen. Discussion
of land reforms. We are the first State in implementing land reforms.
Today no land lord exists in Karnataka. Nobody is holding more than 10 acres of land. When such is the case, where is the question of rich farmers? How many farmers today live in luxury?
SHRI MOHAN SINGH (Deoria): The family of the hon. Prime Minister possesses 1500 acres of land. The land has been enchroached upon by the naxalites.
SHRI H.D. DEVEGOWDA: If it is in some other State, I do not know. I am only confining to Karnataka. Of course, the day will be there when the people will go to street and fight for their own survival. But I want to tell my hon friend, Shri Indrajit Gupta that there is no such affluent section in the farming community. He has quoted farmers going to college, paying Rs. 25,000 for admission. I would like to say that the farmers are today denied even higher school education. In the rural areas, there are no proper facilities. There is neither teacher, nor school nor any other infrastructure in the rural areas. If we want to compete with an urban boy, we must sell our land to spend money on education. We have to fight for our own survival.
I want to draw the attention of my hon. friends like Shri Indrajit Gupta who has said that only this time fertilizer price has been hiked. It is not so. At least, three or four times, the price of fertilizer was hiked. I would only give certain figures from the statistics. From 1972 to 1991, if you compare the prices of fertilizer over the years, the price has been hiked mainly because of various other components like increase in railway freight or diesel etc. These are all the cumulative effect. For example, in 1972, Ammonium Sulphate was priced at Rs. 2.72 per kg. It went up to
305 Gen. Budget 1991-92 Gen. Discussion
Rs. 10.36 per kg. in 1991. There is a price hike of nearly 350 percent. Whereas our procurement price has never gone up beyond 150 percent. The farmers should get a higher procurement price to compensate such a heavy strain which he is putting today on account of the removal of socalled subsidy.
I would like to draw the attention of the House that the price of wheat in 1977-78 was Rs. 110/per quintal. Now the existing procurement price is Rs. 215.
I would say that some of the friends have got a different opinion about the farming community. When the hike in the procurement price during the period of 10 years is hardly about 100 to 150 percent, the price of fertilizer had gone up by 300 percent to 350 percent during the same period. This is the fate of the farmers.
I have no grouse about other sections of the society. In Delhi, for providing transportation to those people who are in the fixed income group, who have got some assured income, who are in the salaried people group, we are going to provide subsidy to the tune of Rs. 150 crores for the Delhi Transport Corporation. They have got their own privileges and we are going to provide subsidy to such section of the society. I have no grouse and I do not oppose this type of subsidy. But what is to be borne in mind is, some opinion formed by some of our friends about the farming community is totally baseless.
Even on the textile industry, we are spending Rs. 350 crores.
I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Members of this House to the question "Are we not providing nearly Rs. 5,000 crores to Rs. 6.000 crores of Budgetary support for the various public sector units? Who are going to get the benefit in the so called public sector 306 Gen. Budget 1991-92 Gen. Discussion
units?". So I am not anti-labour. Let me be very frank on this issue.
Why some sections of the House are opposing Rs. 2,000 crores subsidy to farmers on the plea that some of the farmers are affluent?
This is anti-development Budget. For the year, 1991-92, the only proposed increase in our developmental expenditure is about Rs. 4,916 crores whereas for irrigation, they have provided hardly Rs. 81 crores.
For Social Services, they have provided Rs. 1,337 crores.
That is why I say it is anti-development Budget.
I can give several other figures. The developmental works have been totally neglected. I am not in a position to accept the proposals made by the hon.Finance Minister.
For the time being, I have five Members in my Party including my leader. But today I am a lone Member. Whether I vote in favour of the Budget or not, it is immaterial.
SHRI MURLI DEORA (Bombay, South): You have to vote in favour of it.
SHRI H.D. DEVEGOWDA: Whether I vote or not, it makes no
I would like to draw the attention of the House and of the Government particularly to the fact that Karnataka has been shabbily treated. I am not so much parochial. I am not so much small in my thinking. Karnataka State has been totally ignored so far as development is concerned. Karnataka has been totally ignored even in regard to the transferring of the Central resources. I only want to express my feeling and grievance on this. I will give you one or two instances.
307 Gen. Budget, 1991-92 Gen. Discussion
[Sh. H. D. Devagowda]
[SHRI SHARAD DIGHE in the Chair]
I do not want to elaborate on railways and the development of national highways which I have already mentioned on previous occasions.
As regards release of grants to antisea erosion programme, Kerala friends were telling that this was not done. So far as Karnataka is concerned, not a rupee has been given whereas Kerala has been provided Rs. 10 crores. I know because I was the Irrigation Minister and I handled that particular portfolio. I know how much money you have got.
Unfortunately, nothing is provided to Karnataka. I do not know how it happened. My elder sister is sitting here. I do not want to provoke anybody. But these are the hard realities.
As regards power generation, Karnataka has been totally ignored.
The investment made by Central Government in Karnataka is about Rs.
881 crores; Uttar Pradesh Rs. 3,403 crores; Tamil Nadu Rs. 3,010 crores; Madhya Pradesh Rs. 3,660 crores and Maharashtra Rs. 3,053 crores whereas in Karnataka, it is only Rs. 881 crores. Are we not contributing to the national income? We are producing more than 80 per cent of coffee. Is it not going to earn foreign exchange? Are we not producing 80 per cent of the silk? We are producing gold. Why Karnataka has been shabbily treated by the Central Government? I am not bothered about whether it is this Government or which party Government which is at the national level. My stay here may be a temporary one. I want to show how Karnataka has been treated very shabbily and this type of shabby treatment, this type of what is called the step-motherly treatment, we are going to resist at any cost. This is all what I want to say.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please conclude.
SHRI H.D. DEVEGOWDA: I will now conclude in a minute. Sir,
308 Gen. Budget, 1991-92 Gen. Discussoion
the Gadgil formula has been modified. But I do not want to take the valuable time of the House unnecessarily. Even the Gadgil formula is changed. I know how these formulas are going to be changed, modified and to suit whom. It is changed for the sake of those people who are sitting in Delhi. And, if we have got political lobby, if we have got such a strength and lobby at the national level, we can also change the existing formula. I am going to give the figures to show how Karnataka has been affected. These figures are your own figures. The figures relate to the below poverty-line. The national average is 26.04. With regard to Karnataka, it is 30.201. The fact is that we have been categorised as one of the developed States. In the case of Karnataka it is 30.201. As far as Punjab is concerned, the figure is 11.01 which is treated as below poverty-line. I can only give this citation to show how Karnataka has been totally destroyed economically.
Sir, as far as the modified Gadgil formula is concerned, I want to tell how it is going to affect the State of Karnataka. The State of Karnataka has been the regular loser in the share of Central assistance given to the State. This phenomenon started after the Fifth Finance Commission's recommendation and it has been continuing since then. The share of Karnataka has come down to 4.82 per cent. The recommendation of the Seventh Finance Commission has further reduced the share to 4.38 per cent. Under the recommendation of the Eighth Finance Commission, it further declined to 3.8 per cent. On account of this, the total monetary loss by way of transfer of Central resources to the State is more than Rs. 300 crores. What sin have we committed?
Yesterday, I went to the Well of the House and sat there. I am not going to worry about the consequence. You may even expel me from the House because of my misbehaviour. But I am not going to worry about it. I fought for my State. I fought my political career for thirty years only
309 Gen. Budget, 1991-92 Gen. Discussion
for the sake of the community i.e. the farming community and the State's development. I had resigned thrice from the Cabinet. Thrice I resigned my Ministership. I resigned my Membership of the House once.
Even if such a situation warranted to fight for the cause of my people and the State, I may do so. I am not going to bother whether there is only one Member or half-a-Member. That is not the issue. The real issue is how Karnataka has been affected.
Sir, there may be change of political scenario in the entire country. But as far as Karnataka is concerned, so far as the Parliament Elections are concerned, the people of Karnataka voted for the Congress. The people of Karnataka considered Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Shrimati Indira Gandhi and Shri Rajiv Gandhi as their Gods. In spite of that, why there is such a shabby treatment meted for the people of Karnataka? Is it due to political considerations? We have no close lobby here. In this whole set up, there is a total neglect of the State of Karnataka. We were unable to get one person included in the Union Public Service Commission which is the Body for the selection of Class-I service officers like the IAS and the IPS. Not one person is there in the Union Public Service Commission and in the University Grants Commission. I can go on citing several areas where the so-called Government of India has neglected the State of Karnataka. Days were over, days are numbered. Now, we are going to agitate on this issue. I am going to give a kind of warning at this stage. If sufficient and adequate industries are not going to be established and if justice is not going to be meted out by making sufficient provisions in the 1992-93 Budget and also in the Eighth Five Year Plan, I want to tell, through this House, that we are going to start a peaceful agitation throughout Karnataka and no Minister can come to Karnataka very easily. That is what we are going to do. Of course, there are other issues. I would request my sister Smt.
Basavarajeshwari sitting here to join hands with me as
310 Gen. Budget, 1991-92 Gen. Discussion
far as this issue is concerned. If you want to save the Government, you can vote for it. I have no objection. But the State's issue is not a party issue. So far as the issue of the State is concerned, we must unite. That is all I want to say now. There are various other issues.
Unfortunately, I have no time.
With these words, I would like to conclude. I once again thank the hon. Speaker for having allotted me this much of time.
RAO RAM SINGH (Mahindergarh): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of a very practical, progressive and pragmatic Budget presented by the Finance Minister. (Interruptions)
SHRI V. DHANANJAYA KUMAR (Mangalore): When a senior Member like Shri Ram Singh is speaking, the Finance Minister is not here.