---

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR : Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, generally, when the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs speaks, he should be heard with rapt attention because he is responsible to run the House, not only for the Government but also for the Opposition. If there was any point that my friend Prof. Kurien wanted to make, he should have made it earlier. Or, he could make it after the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs finishes his submission. I do not know why on all and every matter we quarrel in this House. Everybody has a right to have his opinion. It has been the practice in this House—as far as I know the Parliamentary tradition— that the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs is generally not interrupted. ...(Interruptions)

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR (Ballia) (U.P.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, we all are hearing and the entire country is watching about the circumstances under which the President Rule was imposed in Bihar. I would not go into the facts mentioned by both the sides. They have blamed each other. It was told that the Government was corrupt and the Government machinery was a failure but the Government was especially sacked due to the incidents of killings happened there it was sacked on the pretext of killings.

My friend Mr. Sharad Pawar deserved yesterday and today. Somnath dada also narrated the story of predetermination of the Government to back the State Government. I am not much hurt by these things. But I am concerned about the ideas that have been occupied in the mind, the expressions, ideas expressed indicate the dangerous era. My frined Mr. Indrajit Gupta had also told that such situation also prevailed in Uttar Pradesh and he mentioned some commission there. Nowadays that commission has become a topic of discussion and my friend might agree with me to a great extent. Each and every sentence of that commission has become an axim. In my opinion the political problems cannot be solved through these commissions. Some time a peculiar situation crept up in politics which a commission cannot visualise while considering a matter in a particular situation. My able friend Minister of Parliamentary Affairs has just now rightly said about the President. I think there is another institution of the same kind and that is the office of the Governor. Whenever discussion about that office takes place in the House we hardly take note of it. May it be Romesh Bhandari or Sunder Singh Bhandari, the main aim of a part of our politics is to crticise them. On both the occasion I did not agree to it. I am of the opinion that we can criticise, disagree with any person may it be a President or a Governor, we may have difference of opinion. We may not agree to his views. We can criticise it, but to deplore them should not become a part of Parliamentary politics. It is unfortunate that the Home Minister, may be anybody, Mr. Indrajeet Gupta and Mr. Advani, may please excuse me, but the people who appoints these Governors when they are abused they keep mum and it may be considered a good gesture. It is a foul play with the constitution. It is a matter of great concern. I would rather say that it is a matter of grave injustice I am saying all this because, in the name of ideals something is said here which are without taking into account the realities. I do not know what transpired between Mr. Mulayam Singh and Mr. Indrajeet Gupta nor I am interested in it. But if the then hon’ble Governor had told anything the then Home Minister said that he had not told that thing seriously. It was sent earlier and not later. The same thing was repeated when Shri Sunder Singh Bhandari sent once but not again. Our Prime Minister told that we did not find it proper to send again because our high, regard to the President.

Sir, we have high regards for Honourable President, and honourable Governor but with all humility I would like to say that the Constitution is above both these offices and when a President or a Governor does not accept the Cabinet decision it creates a critical situation which is harmful for the future. Therefore it was decided in this very House that whenever the Cabinet will make and recommendation the President will certainly accept it. If he does accept it for the first time he may give reasons therefor. If the Cabinet was not serious about its recommendations I would humbly submit that they should have not sent such recommendation to the President. There is basic need to understand all these things. Until we understand all these things we would not be able to decide the circumstances under which Article 356 could be used properly. As my able friend Mr. Somnath Chatterji has called it an emergency Article and it is invoked only in such circumstances when use of this Article becomes unavoidable and at the same time when a Government, or a Cabinet recommend for this, it should be in a position to explain to the nation and the people of the country about the circumstances under which it was compelled to make such recommendations.

Sir, we all know about the prevailing situation in Bihar, but can we say that other States are exception of it? Could the Home Minister say that murders are not committed everyday in Delhi, can we say that such a situation is not prevailing in Uttar Pradesh. I was in Uttar Pradesh a day before yesterday. A rikshaw-wala was shot dead in front of the Secretariat at half past ten. A day before that some persons shot at a Sub-Inspector and ranaway with his carbine in the presence of Govt. officials at half past eleven. In the meantime a number of killings have taken place in Uttar Pradesh and Assam. A number of killings are taking place in Kashmir and other States even today.

Sir, our hon’ble friend Shri Inderjit Guptaji has indicated towards Mumbai. Are we not familiar with the situation in Mumbai. Should the State Governments be dismissed on this basis. I can’t understand it. I must say one thing when the Govt. of Bihar was going, Lalu Ji was with me in Jai Prakash Nagar, the village of Jai Prakashji. In a public meeting, I openly said to Laluji that a big responsibility has come on your shoulders. It seems that some more killings may take place in your State and a dangerous situation may arise you should not act in a way which might add fuel to the fire. I have criticised Laluji and Rabri’s Government several times. When Laluji gave a statement against Sunder Singh Bhandariji, I not only gave a statement but said to Laluji that it was against all the norms and it undermines all Parliamentary decorum. He felt hurt but later on he admitted that he said it in the heat of the situation and will never say it again. But I must say one thing. I know people will criticise me for this, because when I met him in jail. There was a wide spread criticism. Lalu Yadav might have committed large scale crimes and you might be aware of crimes. A number of persons have been chargesheeted for such crimes and we see that they got free from that. Such a gentleman is sitting with me. What is the charge against him. The people who hold the reins of morality in Parliament said that how dare you meet such people. When he was proved innocent by the Supreme Court, nobody praised me that I went in jail to meet an innocent person. Whether it is not a fact that Lalu Yadav has created a feeling of selfrespect among, the poor people of Bihar? Is it not a fact that he united them. Many people opposed it, newspapers opposed it ...(Interruptions) you please speak first, I would speak later on. If others want to speak first I can wait.

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR : Sir, I submit that he talked of dignity. We people opposed him, Somnath Chatterji opposed him, other friends also opposed him. I want to say that Lalu Yadav has been receiving public support in Bihar for the past nine years. At that time also, I said to the Press men that whatever reason might the Govt. of India had told, it would be difficult to make the poor people believe that Lalu or the Rabri Govt. was responsible for the massacre of Dalits. Because even today Dalits acknowledge Rabri’s Govt. as their own Govt. We will have to accept this fact. The minority people accept this fact. If someone does not agree with this fact let it not be, I am speaking my mind because I have some knowledge about Bihar. It seems to me that if we remove the Government under such misconceptions, it will create a sense of disbelief among Dalits and poor people and the result will be the same as indicated by Shri Inderjit Guptaji. There is no problem of law and order in Bihar. There is an agitation in Bihar. A situation of terrorism has evolved there. Neither any individual nor any Govt. is responsible for this situation. This problem did not arise in Lalu’s time. Today a class war is going on. When the elections come, we say to the poor that you will mould the society and history of Hindustan. We create this awareness among them and on the basis of awareness the poor is not ready to pocket injustice. It is against this feeling that some political elements are growing up, forming different parties based on violance and people are being killed by them. We call them the elite, capitalist or feudal classes. Bihar is pressed in between these two classes. Whether there is Rabri Government, Jagannath Misra Government or of our elder Ghafoor Saheb, there have always been incidents of violance in Bihar. Would the State Governments be sacked for such incidents. How many Governments would be sacked for such incidents of violance? All the North Eastern States are violence infested. Police and Army personnel are being killed in Assam. Such incidents are also happening in Nagaland. Whether Government have ever thought of taking any step to check such incidents? Where we are helpless, we accept our helplessness and keep silent, but where we have arms in our hands, we do not hesitate to use them on innocent people. I am not opposed to Article 356. I want to clear one thing that if we want to keep the nation unite, Article 356 must exist. Shri Inderjit Gupta has rightly said that all the Chief Ministers and Finance Ministers except one have accepted it. But it should be kept in mind at the time of application of Article 356 that it may not create any doubt in the minds of the people. We and Advaniji in particular have repeatedly said that majority should be proved in the Assembly or in the Parliament. When Rabri Government won the majority in the Legislative Assembly, I felt hurt to listen the statement of hon’ble Atalji. He said that though the Government is in majority yet we would dismiss it. I do not blame other parties. I have not read the statement of the Home Minister. But when Prime Minister gives such a statement, the Governor gives such a statement and the people doubt them there is no wonder in it. I would be grateful if you reconsider the matter. If any wrong step has been taken, please take it back. Say, yesterday I committed a mistake. Pramod Mahajan is not here. Incidentally, I indulged in altercation with him but with peaceful mind he gave me a good suggestion. I kept thinking over it. I was speaking in English and he was saying in Hindi. He said that if in my opinion he is not fit to be a Minister, he could say I am not fit to be a Prime Minister. I kept thinking over it. Pramod Mahajan is not here. I would like to say to Atalji that the moment I found myself unfit to be a Prime Minister, I immediately resigned. I do not know whether I can suggest you to follow the suit or not. With this request I conclude.