SHRI RANGARAJA KUMARAMANGALAM: Laughter is always there.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE: The history of the Congress rule in this country is the history of the betrayal of the common people. It is a history of exploitation and the history of surrender to forces of divisiveness and fundamentalism. The history of the Congress rule in the country is the history of poverty history of illiteracy, history of unemployment and malnutrition. And last but not the least, the direct result of the Congress rule over all these years is the corrosion of our body politic for all pervading
527 Motion of No Confidence in the Council of Ministers
[Sh. Somnath Chatterjee]
corruption even at the highest echelons.
Sir, by acts of omission and Commission, the Government has lost all its credibility. In this country these days gimmicks have assumed greater importance than performance. Political and financial morality are now treated to be outdated concepts. At the receiving end are the teeming millions of this country who have to undergo the sufferings and have to struggle for their bare subsistence.
It seems that we have a Council of Ministers but we have no Government in this country. That is why we find that when in this country we are told of our economic policy, our industrial policy, trade policy and so on and so forth, there is no Minister of Industry to do full-time job. For months together there is no Minister of Commerce. Somehow you could get one; but you could not mange to get him elected within six months.
SHRI SRIBALLAV PANIGRAHI (DEOGRAH): That is because of Chief Election Officer of West Bengal. (Interruptions)
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE: You do not have a Minister of Defence for that matter. (Interruptions) One wonders whether the Government- whatever the so-called Government is there-has it got a mind of its own? Is there any sense of direction? Have they any sense of commitment to any basic principles? And that is why we find this situation now. Shri Chdiambaram is talking of secularism. But who is compromising with these forces of fundamentalism and disruption?
SHRI RANGARAJAN KUMARAMANGALAM: At the moment who is?
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE: Who has bartered away our economic independence that we solemnly built elieve? Who has allowed to day greater and greater division amongst the
528 Motion of No Confidence in the Council of Ministers
people of this country? It is by your inaction and by your failures.
Therefore, I say that this is Government which is of malfeasance and nonfeasance and in vital areas concerning the govermance of this country, this Government has abysmally failed to protect the interests of the common people and of the country as whole. And the necessary result is that they are entering into manipulative politics. And that is why this Government has not the courage to bring that Bill before this House to which they are committed to the country and to this House, to separate religion from politics.
SHRI RANGARAJAN KUMARAMANGALAM: It is coming. Notice has to be given. Why are you so impatient? (Interruptions)
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJE: Do you think you will be there to pilot the Bill? (Interruptions) And I charge you this is because of your arrangement and understanding with B.J.P. that you have not brought it so far.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No cross talk please.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE: Mr. Prime Minister today is leading a hotchpotch combination of disparate forces. There is unity of mind or unity of purpose and far less, unity of policy in the Government, and the Prime Minister is more busy saving this gaddi than addressing to the serious problems of the nation and he is being gaddi than addressing to the serious problems of he nation and he is being treated by many of them on that side as almost a lame-duck Prime Minister and that Prime Minister's authority has become such that neither the Election Commission listens to him nor Mr. Bharadwaj listens to him. (Interruptions)
Sir, there are now people I find even in the Treasury Benches there, who scoff at the Prime Minister's office outside. How can this country run when there are serious situations? Sir, can 529 Motion of No Confidence in the Council of Ministers
anybody deny seriously that the country is facing many serious problems which are shaking the very foundation of our constitutional set up and affecting the integrity of this country? But who is responsible for aggravating the situation? What happened eight months ago in this country when we had to face a communal holocaust brought about by antinational; if not criminal, activities on the part of political party along with its fundamentalist cohorts and the country had to go through the trauma of 6th December incidents and their aftermath? And what did you do? What did the Government do on that date, the 6th of December? Sir, by a deliberate ommission and studies inaction they brought about a lasting shame on this country and the people of this country and a structure which was the embodiment of secularism in his country was allowed to be demolished and for eight hours, if not more, the Pirme Minister and his colleagues enjoyed the salubrious climate of Delhi when to the whole structure was being demolished and they could not move a little finger. This was the so- called commitment to secularism and you are giving us lectures today here.
Sir, when that demolition was takaing place by gangsters and marauders, the Government of India was somnambulating. Therefore, one cannot avoid today-as we charged on that day, and I charge today also, that this Government is equally guilty as the BJP for the events of 6th December and what followed thereafter. Who has gained? Who was benefited by the incidents of the 6th of December? Innocent lives were lost. children were burnt alive. When we went to Bombay we heard about that, they told about the ghastly incidents, crores and crores of rupees worth of properties of innocent people were destroyed or damaged. Who was benefited. I would like to know. Up till today there is no explanation from the Prime Minister of this country as to what was happening at Delhi from 12 Noon on the 6th of December till Eight o'Clock when he went on the air. And where is his promise? How has he kep this promise to build the mosque? Now Mr. Prime Minister is not here. Mr. Prime Minister has not expiated his
530 Motion of No Confidence in the Council of Ministers
sin, not has he kept his solemn promises given to the people of this country, to the nation as a whole. And what we find today at that place? A make-shift temple, so-called temple, at the place of that mosque and for he last eight months what this precious Government has done to solve the problems? The only visible thing that we have seen is the Prime Minister's comfabaulations with some Sankaracharyas and some Swamis resulting in the so-called Ayodhya package.
Sir, this country belongs to the people of all religions, language, caste and creed. This is not the monopoly of only one section of the people. Our constitution guarantees a secular structure of our country. But out Prime Minister has cohosen whom as his advisors? Whom is he discussing with for the purpose of solving the basic problems of the State? Sir, he has chosen Sadhus and Mahants to solve the basic problems of the state. Such a problem can only be solved by a secular approach and not be pampering those, whose avowed objective is to espouse the cause of the people of one religion at the expense of another.
Mr. Chairman, Sir, if this Goverment had had any sense of shame left, if they had anything left to think rationally, then they would have avoided the ludicrous and the disgusting spectacle of the Som Yagya that has taken place and which has made India a laughing stock of the whole world. This is the way you are behaving.
Sir, today, secularism has lost all meaning in this country. And I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether you think that the minorities have a right to live in this country or whether you shall go on pampering the fundamentalists for the sake of getting support for your economic policies. There is too much of Nagpur syndrome now.
Sir, what is the Ayodhya package? It says that Ram Temple will be built at the site whe. the Mosque was. Who has said it That is the recommendations of the Sankaracharyas. (Interruptions) I hope this will wake up Mr. Chandulal
531 Motion of No Confidence in the Council of Ministers
[Sh. Somnath Chatterjee]
Chandrakar. I think he is the spokes man of the Congress Party. When the says something, whether he is allowed to think or he reads our something, I do not know. Mr. Chandulal Chandrakar said that the stand of the Sankaracharyas is in line with our thinking.
[Translation]
SHRI CHANDNLAL CHANDRANKAR (DARG): We have never said so.
[English]
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE: You have gone on record. Do not forget that. Are you denying it now?
[Translation]
SHRI CHANDULAL CHANDRAKAR: You please listen to me. I have never said this, you can say there whatever you like.
[English]
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE: Probably your Prime Minister has said that.
SHRI CHANDULAL CHANDRAKAR: Whoever it may be. But why do you put it in my mouth?
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE: But that is what I got in the papers.
Sir, now it seems very clear that the Prime Minister is relying on the decision which he expects to come from the Supreme Court with the help of, probably, Mr. Chidambaram, on the reference under Article 143 that they will find there was a temple. According to us, it is monumental folly on the part of the Government and it is betrayal of the people of this country to have made that reference under Article 143 of the Consitution to find out what was there 500
532 Motion of No Confidence in the Council of Ministers
years before at that place. I would like to know with all solemnity and sincerity and please tell us what was your intention. Supposing there was a temple, would like you justify demolition of the mosque? I would like to know that. You have to answer that query. If there was atemple, then was BJP justified in demolishing it?
Therefore you should hold a ceremony of making over that plot of land to BJP or whichever trust for the purpose constructing a temple at that very spot. With your kind permission, I wish to read only a few lines from a book, the observations of Dr.S. Gopal:
"Basically it is irrelevant whether a temple had or had not existed on the site where the mosque now stands. India cannot revert to the approaches of mediaeval politics, and set about destroying, under any cirsumstances, existing or erstwhile structures of worship. That such demolitions had taken place in the past offers no justification for such vandalism now. Today attention is centred on a mouse; tomorrow agitation may develop over a temple. It is established that some Buddhist and Jaina shrines were destroyed by Hindus. How far back in history does one go, correcting the past as interpreted to one's own liking?
It is pointless for religious leaders to exchange and assess what they regard as evidence, as it is to make reference to the Supreme Court to pronounce on the validity of such data." We have not been told till today what is the justification of this reference to the Supreme court under article 143. Mr.
chidambaram,, you are talking of consensus. You believe in consensus with BJP alone, with none else. We understand Puri Sankaracharya has announced that the next meeting of the Sankaracharyas will be held in Hardwar around October, November this year. At that time there will be a meeting of Marg Dhara Mandal of VHP sponsored
533 Motion of No Confidence in the Council of Ministers
Ramjanambhoomi Nyas. They have already given ultimatum to the central Government to had ove rhte acquired land to the Nyas by 14th of October, failing which they would summon another Dharma Sansad. We know what followed from Dharam Sansad. If these Dharma Sansads and Sankaracharyas act simulaneously, views have been generally accptioable to you. Therefore,, we find that neither politically, nor ideologically, nor administratively yuou are meeting the challenge of these comm, unalforces. The consequence is, the future of the minorities and of the country as awhile will be disastrous.
I would like to know, how many of my friends in the Treasury Benches are supporting Ayodhya package. This is the flippancy that has brought you to the present situation. Do you support this? I would like to know from my friends on the Treasury Benches. Do you want, there should be atemple where the mosque was. Let the Minister of state for Internal Security, Mr. Rajesh Pilot say. What is the Government policy on this.
They have already said that they are very very keen that politics should not be mixed with religion or religion should not be mixed with politics and they will try best to bring about changes in the law of the country, the Constitution of this country. For month and months, you could not make up your mind. Your are going on only assuring the people of this country and just on the eve of the no-confidence motion, you somewhat prepated asketchy draft and now, you are taking recourse to this no-confidence motion to justify that you could not bring it earlier.
Why you could not introduce today? Who is giving relevance to the communal forces in this country? Who is permitting today the mixing of religion with politics? You are not looking at yourself. There is no introspection. It is very easy to say "you have joined hands with BJP." I have not joined hands with BJP. No Party is more Limmitted to fight against communalism than my Party and the Left Parties and the Janata
534 Motion of No Confidence in the Council of Ministers
Dal.... (Interruptions)
Shri P, chidambaram was referring to some procured reports on inspired reports to justify the Got economic policy. I am reading from a book. with your permission, called "Khaki Shirts and Saffron Flags".
I will read. with you permission, a few lines:-
"On 6th December, 1992 the Babri Masjid was destroyed. This was not simply the consequence of spontaneous vandalism. Behind the action lies the long history of Hindutwa politics which celebrates aggression and violence, declares war against other communities and scorns at legal and democratic norms.
The events of December 6 and after, reaffirm that RSS and VHP dictate politics of the Hindu Right. They define the limits within which Bharatiya Janata Party can manoeuvre.
The Hindu Right also talks in two languages, the language of democracy and that of authoritarianism, the language of law and that of force. The BJP claims to function within a constitutional, democratic. legal framework. But the activities of the RSS, VHP and the Bajrang Dal mock this framework. The politics of Hindu Right derives its dynamic from the complex relationship between these seemingly opposite tendencies: from their complementality and contradiction. December 6, 1992 revealed the sad logic of this complex. It revealed the hollowness of the BJP's democratic rhetoric and the ugly power of the violent forces of Hindutwa."
This is why we are concerned. But there is no realtisation on the part f the treasury benches. That is why, we are unable to support this Government's policies and specially its complete failure in maintaining the secular swtructure of this country and its open and shameless
535 Motion of No Confidence in the Council of Ministers
[Sh. Somnath Chatterjee]
compromising with the forces of fundamentalism and communalism and the result is today they are gaining in strength and you have no political will or the will to fight against this caner in our body poltiic...(Interruptions).
We had a lot of peroration from Shri P. chidambaram on economic policy. But the common people of this country are not interested in your semantics. They are not interested in your peroration only. They want results. If the people of this country had accepted your economic policy, our oppositic would be of no avail. But the question is. do they accpet your policy. This is how you delude yourselves. I hoope Dr. manmohan Singh will participate in this debate ad please, aprt from your usual quota, you give us something new on this.
I would like to know what is the Government's stand on the principle of selfreliance. What have you done? What have your done to provide employment? You have to specify it. What have you done to help revive the sick industries: to stengthen the base of our own industries-the small-scale Industries and the cottage industries? We have never objected to the loosening of the bureaucratic controls. We never a said that there must be bureaucratic controls breeding corruption. We never said that. As a matter of fact, the State from which income has suffered and it has suffered because of the licensing system that was followed in this country. Because of political reasons, licenses were denied to us; licences were denied to West Bengal. Therefore, we are not enamoured of this system of licensing.
We also know-which ever part we come from-that so long we have the misfortune of having you dictating the economic policies, deciding the economic policies of this country, we have to follow it willingly or unwillingly. We cannot have islands of our own. We have to follow it willingly or unwillingly, rightly of wrongly; we cannot help it.
Therefore, we cannot have a new economic policy, new industrial policy in any particular State or in any particular
536 Motion of No Confidence in the Council of Ministers
area. I know Dr. Manmohan Singh will say what is happening in West Bengal; what Jyoti Basuis doing; what China is doing. I think that is the only answer. When I remind you all of yourcommitment in your manifesto about providing jobs, about lowering the price-level, you have no answer. Dr. Manmohan Singh will say who reads the election mnifesto! (Interruptions)
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH: I will reply to every question.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE: Has it already been written out? he will deliver the same speech again. What we have been objecting to, we will continue to object it. The situation has become more serious because, in the name of liberalisation, you have surrendered our economic sovereignty and given a go-by to the principle of self-reliance. We have become mere supplicants before the financial marauders like the IMF, the World Bank etc. How has this policy served us? You have to say that. I do not know. I have yet to see the selective circulation of that report. I do not know about it. When we get it. we shall my to find out what is there.