SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR (Ballia, U.P.) :

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it was in 1962 when I first became the Member of Parliament. Since then almost 42-43 years have passed. But the unhappiness that I have felt today, has never been felt before. I had never thought that the proceedings in Parliament would reach to this level. I would not speak anything about any individual. Before taking up the matter of No- Confidence Motion, we have passed five Bills in the one hour period. Out of these, two Bills were related to Constitution Amendment. Both, the Government and the opposition are agreed to them. I don’t know and even am not able to think that in whose favour I should speak. When I think about the condition of the country, I fully agree with each and every word, except the language he used, spoken by Hon’ble Somnathji.

I know that today the country is passing through a state of poverty, helplessness and compulsion. I also know that we are under threats from every where. What to talk of big forces, even our neighbouring countries do not have a healthy attitude towards us. Under the circumstances, we should have to look forward to mutual understanding, should have to talk about to work together. But it seems to be remote today. I am surprised, who no-confidence motion was moved at this point of time? Why it was not moved when Gujarat incident occurred? Why it was not moved when there was a serious situation before us that there could be a civil war situation at any moment in Uttar Pradesh. I don’t want to point out anybody because Hon’ble Mulayam Singhji has already given an indication in that direction. We are not raising any question to that. Why no-confidence motion was not moved when disinvestment was talked about openly? In this very House, I had said that if you would accept an interference in economic matters then be ready to accept an interference in political matters also. At that time, I was taken lightly. Just now our friend Hon’ble Advaniji has praised Arun Shouriji. I have been very impressed by Arun Shouri and Arun Jaitely. I give much more importance to these people than they should have been given in Janata Party Government. But how people get changed? The asset, the country has acquired during the last 50 years has not been acquired by a Prime Minister’s money or Members of Parliament’s money, which is being sold for nothing. Moreover, it is being sold as if it is a matter of great achievement. What is being said is that we are generating employment, creating avenues of employment. The Government Commission has said that if spinners are also included, 50 lakh people have become unemployed in Khadi Commission. Here, in the debate, nothing is done except marking allegations and counterallegations against each-other. The question of poverty, unemployment is never discussed. I won’t talk about the Policy on Agriculture, but despite all efforts our farmer is in a very bad condition today. Farmers are compelled to commit suicide. Many persons have repeated this issue. In Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab and other States which are developed in agriculture sectors, the farmers had no other alternative than to do so. I do not want to go in its reasons. We could not discuss it. At that time, Shri Shivraj Patilji did not move the no-confidence motion.

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR :

You do not move No Confidence Motion on such issues and you moved it after four years and on such a subject and that too when PAC was not shown a report. You became angry when that report was not shown to you and it was said. Shri Somnath Chatterjee also said that it was a big blow on parliamentary institution, but there are some parliamentary practices also. Many a time, it so happened that if there is something serious in PAC report and if there is any objection from government’s side to disclose its contents, then there has been a practice to show the report to the Speaker, the Chairman of PAC and the Minister concerned in the Speaker’s Chamber. In this way, they used to solve the problem. It has happened many times. I do not want to disclose personal matters, but I talked to the Defence Minister and requested him to follow the said practice. He said that he was ready to show it. I asked the Chairman of Public Accounts Committee to see the report. He answered that the government was not ready to show it. The next day, when I asked the Chairman of Public Accounts Committee, he said something else. The Defence Minister told me that he said that he would not see it alone but the entire committee would see it. When I asked the Chairman of Public Accounts Committee, he said that he was ready to see it but the Minister was not ready to show it. I said to him. “Please accompany me. I shall request the Speaker and we shall call the Defence Minister also”. But, he did not agree to my proposal at that time. I want to know whether the parliamentary democracy would function in that way? Are these our practices? Will the practices be followed in that way? I became agitated when it was stated in the other House that there was not any report of Vigilance Commissioner in the case of Kargil. Then a method was adopted to make it a tool to attract the attention of the people. I am pained to say that. Elections are to be held in four States. We are levelling allegations on one another thinking that it will benefit us in the elections. If it is the intention of moving No Confidence Motion then I cannot support that Motion even when I agree with Somnath Chatteijee, Mulayam Singhji, and the leader of the Opposition. I cannot support it as my conscience does not permit me to do so. Sir, when I came here in the morning I was in a dilemma. But, do you think you are enhancing constitutional dignity by the way you have amended the constitution?

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR :

It has been passed by Rajya Sabha. I also have some understanding. You boycotted that Bill. The Representation of the People Act has been passed. . . .(Interruptions)

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR :

You pass a Bill which is against the spirit of the Constitution and you think that you are strengthening constitutional conventions. I do not want to discuss about the individuals who were in favour of it and who were against it. If I start naming them, it seems to me that we are slowly but gradually progressing towards ending Parliamentary conventions.

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR :

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have great respect for the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs but most humbly I want to tell her that I too know something about Parliamentary practice. Your act does not become justified even if it was passed by Rajya Sabha. The second point is that even if Constitution has not been amended by this Bill, the fact remains that if such a Bill is passed by Parliament which is against the spirit of the Constitution, then it is not permissible from the point of view of parliamentary convention, practice or rules

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR :

Enough is enough. . . .(Interruptions) Mr. Speaker, Sir, this does not mean that if every Ministry rises then I would have to take my seat everytime. . . .(Interruptions) I am not creating confusion rather it is you who is creating confusion. You are deliberately breaking the parliamentary practice because you want to achieve someone’s support. I do not need any support. I know how the parliamentary practice is being broken. I would like to urge you but pardon me that it has now become difficult to raise a question in the Parliament. Badal Sahib’s son’s house was stormed by the CBI. I do not know if he is a member or not. He is in Rajya Sabha. . . .(Interruptions)

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR :

Thank you for the information. But at that time too. I had raise the matter as to how the Punjab Police had raided the M.P.’s house but I sat down silently as I was not allowed to raise this issue. But I think that we are trying to let down the people of opposition parties and it is becoming a practice. I had heard about walk-outs and boycott of the Government in Parliamentary system but you have evolved a new practice of co-operation with the Government and boycott of a Minister. How far this practice is proper, only the House and the history will tell. Secondly, I would say to my friends that the coalition is very good. Malhotraji, NDA coalition is very good but there are some rules of a coalition. Coalition means to be unanimous on problems, programmes, policies and on speaking outside. But, I am sorry to say that in order to maintain the co-operation from their allies the Prime Minister and to a lesser extent our Home Minister, has to change his statements many times. This has not enhanced the respect either of the country or the Government and the parliamentary traditions. It will be good if we can detach ourselves from it. I want to say this only that I will not vote on this motion so that there may not be any confusion.