---

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I feel sad after hearing the whole debate. I shall not say a word about the speech of my friend, Mr. Sathe, because he has been kind enough to extend his support. I am glad that in spite of all anguish and anger, my friend from the CPM and CPI friends have raised the level of the debate. I shall not go into the acrimonious accusations; nor shall I like to answer them. But, definitely they have raised a very valid question. What is the programme before this Government? Or what are the issues on which we are going to run the nation in the coming days? In the very beginning of my speech this morning I said that we should not indulge in personal accusations. I really feel that times are grave, we have reached a perilous point in our history. I do not want to be prophet of doom because I know that because of cultural heritage, civilization and vitality of our people we can overcome all the difficulties with cohesion and hardworking. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to find the areas of agreement, not areas of confrontation and conflict. This is true for all the countries which are fighting against poverty, squalour, misery and disease. This is true for the whole world and more true for this subcontinent. This is why I say that at this moment we should try to agree to work together on specific issues.

My friend Shri Somnath Chatterjee asked me what will be the manifesto. I shall like to keep aside the manifestoes of all the political parties. Today, can’t we agree on three, four, five points where we can say that we shall work together in order to retrieve the situation? For that a new political climate has to be created in this country and that political climate can be initiated by understanding each other’s problems, each other’s aspirations. No use trying to call names. I know, sometimes, that in the heat of the moment all of us lose our temper, try to call others names and I am sorry that in the course of this debate I also once or twice lost my temper. But when I see the problem as it comes, unfolds before me every day, I think that we just cannot afford and I cannot afford to lose temper while sitting in this chair, because, I want everybody’s co-operation, everybody’s support. If you want me to express my political philosophy, Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, I am not a progressive man, I am a conservative person and as a conservative, I do not change every day. My philosophy is the same, what my friend Shri Chitta Basu says, when I was being called a Young Turk. And there is no alternative before this country, because we are a scarce resource society. If the resources are limited, we have to decide how to use our resources. We have to decide what is our asset and what is our strength. Nature has given us a fertile land, a good climate, all the types of fruits and crops can be produced in this country, almost all the minerals are found in this land, and above all there are more than 85 crore people in this country, who have got the strength to bring prosperity and progress to this nation. What has been our fault in the past? We have not been able to provide opportunity for these people, unfortunate people, who are ready to work hard, to utilise their strength for producing more. How can we do it? In a democratic society, Mr. Speaker, we cannot force them to work. We have to create their will power and how can you create that will power? That will power can be created, can be inspired, only by assuring them that what they produce will not go for the ostentatious living of the chosen few but for meeting the basic needs of our people. So, our investment has to be made in the areas which are essential for meeting the basic needs of our people and we will have to invest in man. When I talk of investment in man, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I shall like to emphasise that the child is the strength of today and the hope of tomorrow. Every child who is born has the right to get from the society clean drinking water, necessary calories to develop as a healthy citizen, elementary education, primary health services and when he grows into a citizen, 18 years of age, he should not be discriminated against on the basis of caste, creed and religion. If you take these five points as our manifesto, as our destination, as our goal, is there any difference in this House? There cannot be any difference. Why can’t you work on this? But if you work on these principles, we will have to make many changes in our approach towards the economic problem, towards the social problem and Mr. Speaker, Sir, I shall like to emphasise if the resources are scarce and if the country is poor, every section of the society will have to share this poverty. It cannot be that those who are the toiling masses, our peasantry, our workers in the field and factories, they will be asked, they will be called upon, to go on making sacrifices. In the first four decades, since our independence we have been asking them to make sacrifices. How long more? They will have to be assured that this poverty will have to be shared by those who are the privileged in the society. So, I shall like to make this appeal to those who are elite, who are privileged. My friend Mr. A.K. Roy told me that they are very cooperative with me. I am very happy. If they want to cooperate with me, they should learn to make sacrifice in order to make the people, our poorer sections, happier and richer. That is a must that we should do. In this context, we shall have to revise our approach. Shrimati Geeta Mukherjee asked me, “are you going to revise the Industrial Policy”? Was there any Industrial Policy adopted by the previous Government? Certain broad lines were given. I had some objections to that. And I think, Somnathji you had also those objections. Those objections are not based on personal prejudice. I have no preferences. I have no prejudice. But I think that in this country we cannot hope to be bailed out by forces outside. I do not say that we should not take help from outside. In today’s world we will have to depend on outside help and support. In critical areas, we will have do invite new technology, modern technology and we shall have to open up those areas for those who can do better. But are you going to open up our whole area for producing more cosmetics, more ice-creams? Please see the collaboration arrangements that had been made during the last many years and even during these few months when we were ruling this country. My objection is not against liberalisation. This question is being raised everywhere. If liberalisation means less of red-tapism, if liberalisation means no hurdle, no corruption, bureaucracy should not interfere, then liberalisation is a must. If liberalisation means to squander away the scarce resources for ostentatious living, I shall only plead with all humility, we are not in a position to afford it. I hope that we shall realise these limitations.

On the economic front, I think that those who are poor and especially those sections who had been neglected, remain oppressed and exploited, they should have our special preference. I know there are many doubts, there are many apprehensions. But, Mr. Speaker, through you I want to assure this nation. I may make any compromise but no compromise on the question of dignity of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. There will be no question of any compromise on the feeling of the backward and oppressed sections about their urge to get a life of dignity in this society.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, about minorities, minorities all over the world feel apprehensive. I shall beg of those who say that there should be no discrimination between the minority and majority. Why the founders of our Constitution inserted a minority clause in our Constitution? Minorities all over the world, whether they are religious minorities or ethnic minorities or linguistic minorities, react in a sharp way because they have apprehension and fear in their minds. If we go by the dictionary meaning of what they say, we shall always reach a wrong political decision. We should try to understand their aspirations, we should try to understand their apprehensions, we should try to understand that they have a psychology, a psyche where they feel that they are not assured about their security, about their prosperity and about their future. It is the responsibility of the nation, it is the responsibility of the State and more so the responsibility of the majority community to see that this fear is eliminated from their minds. This we will have to do.

I say that in the matter of religion everybody is free. Secularism does not mean that we should discard religion. Religion is a instrument of communion between man and God. As long as religion is used for communion between man and God, for religious pursuits, we should not quarrel.

We should be proud of our religious heritage in this country. I am a Hindu. I am proud of Rama; I am proud of Krishna; I am proud of the Vedas and our Arayan civilisation. But equally I am proud of the contribution made by other religions which came to this country. And this is the superiority of the Hindu religion over others because we have got the compassion and we have got the tolerance. If this tolerance and compassion go, the Hindu religion will lose its power, its superiority over all other religions.

I am not against building the temple. I shall not go into any controversy. But it is an emotive issue. The building should be constructed. In the birth place of Rama there should be a temple, magnificent, glorious and as big as we can make. But I shall appeal to my friends that in their enthusiasm to build the temple, do not try to demolish the mosque, because I tell you, no other matter can come in the way. Build the temple as you like and all of us will contribute. And if I remain Prime Minister, Mr. Advani, after a few minutes, I assure you that I shall cooperate in every way to build the temple. But the only thing is, assure the Muslim community that their pride, their self-respect will not be hurt. (Interruptions)

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR : Even if they do not talk with me I shall go on trying to talk with them because I want to make it very clear that I shall talk with every citizen of India howsoever on a wrong path he will be, but only on one condition that there will be no compromise with the sovereignty, unity and integrity of the country. This is the only one condition. If a son or a relative of my family goes wrong, do I say that I shall discard him all of a sudden?

I know, in this House and in the other House many a time I have seen people taking an extreme view. But Parliamentary democracy means dialogue, discussion, persuation of each other to come to some understanding. This is the essence of Parliamentary democracy.

My friend, Somnathji asked me what is my understanding with Advaniji or the BJP. The only understanding is—I again repeat in spite of all protestation by the lady Member sitting on the front bench—that I consider Advaniji to be a patriot. I do not agree with his thinking about the social and political life of this country. And I shall go on appealing to Mr. Advani and his colleagues—I have gone to their houses and tell them that the country cannot afford to have confrontation, the country cannot indulge in fighting with each other. I am sorry for what happened in Ayodhya. Nobody wants that even a single men should die. I assure you that even if a single man or women dies in this country, I feel that a son or daughter of Mother India has died. Death is death whether it comes by the knife of a rioter or by the bullets of the police. There is no difference in death. So, I cannot say that death by rioting is wrong and death by police bullets is good. But, sometimes, the State has to perform unpleasant duties. I never said that Mr. Mulayam Singh should have done it in a more vigorous way. I ask you Mr. Speaker, Sir, if sometimes decision has to be made in order to protect the lives of thousands, in order to protect millions from going in the street and killing each other, if some action has to be taken it is with regret and if the lady Member thinks that my regret makes any difference, I express regret that what has happened should have been avoided. But the responsibility is not that of the State this responsibility should be shared by all those who are concerned. I tell you that on this question I do not want to stand on false prestige. I do not want to stand on prestige whether I should meet X, Y, Z or not. Whoever can contribute to peace, whoever can contribute to understanding I shall go and knock at his door. If the Muslim community agrees to build the temple on the very spot where the mosque is, I shall be very glad. But this should be with common consent. It should be by their mutual understanding. It should not be coerced on them. I shall appeal again to the religious leaders of the Muslim Community and also of the Hindu Community that they should sit together, try to find a solution. Let us not politicise this issue. This is not a political issue. This is a human issue. This is an issue which is going to have its bearing on the history for a long time to come.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, on this question I am very clear. In the name of religion please do not kill each other, that is an antithesis of religion, that is against religion, whether it is Islam, whether it is Hinduism, whether it is Christianity or any other religion. This is way I say that traditions should be respected unless and until they come in the way of progress. My friend Prof. Madhu Dandavate was kind enough to refer to my stand taken at the time of operation Blue Star. I was one of the saddest persons at that time. I did not make any big statement. When some Press men asked me, I just said, I still remember that sentence—it is unfortunate that we had to send the army to the Golden Temple and better withdraw it soon. This is what I said. There were comments all over the country. Editorials were written against me. Political leaders came down on me heavily and not only Rajivji who subsequently became Prime Minister but even the leaders of my own party condemned me. Mr. Dandavate, in all humility I shall say Shri Rajiv might have asked that action be taken against me. The former Prime Minister whom I supported for eleven months went to Ballia in the 1984 elections and said, “why this gentleman contesting election from here? He is a Bhindranwale of Ballia. He should go and contest election in Punjab.” I did not take it as something personal when I supported him at the time when we chose him to be the Prime Minister of this country because I thought that personal matters should not prejudice our political judgements. I might have criticised Rajivji and the Congress. He might have criticised me. But does it mean that when the country is in peril and in my assessment I may be totally wrong that elections at this moment—as many friends have said— will bring disaster to this country, I am not going to finish the work which has been started by the previous Prime Minister. I am not going to be a disaster to this country. I refuse to be so. And if it is a crime, I am ready to commit this crime. But in all humility I should like to say that I do not want co-operation from one section or one person or one party, I want co-operation from everybody. About other issues I am not finding myself to be free. But, I ask Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, through you, Mr. Speaker, Sir, eleven months back when we formed the Government, he was quoting our manifesto. Has he gone through that manifesto? What happened in Punjab? Has the situation brightened up there? What has happened in Kashmir? When Rajiv Gandhi left Kashmir...

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR : SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR: Please hear me. If you want I can say... (Interrup-tions) I shall tell you. When Rajiv Gandhi left the Government, at least 25-30 per cent people were openly associating themselves with India. When our Government came, the first thing I got from the newspapers was that Mr. Jagmohan was going to be appointed as Governor. I wrote a slip to my Home Minister saying: “It will be a disaster, don’t do it”. Comrade Surjeet and Farooqi, and I pleaded with him saying don’t do it. I said it not for personal reasons. I had no friendly relations with Shri Farooqi. I tried to persuade the Home Minister that we have gone all over the world telling that there is an autocratic regime in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, while we have got an elected Government. I had strong views about the Rajiv Gandhi Government. I never met Shri Rajiv Gandhi for five years when he was the Prime Minister. But Shri Rajiv Gandhi left the Government with all his virtues and vices. WE could not afford to make the same speeches which we were making during the elections. This is not the way to run a nation—condemning Shri Rajiv Gandhi that there was rigging in the elections. And, rigging in the elections was known by Mr. Mufti when he became the Home Minister. When he was in the Congress, he never remembered about the rigging, is it the way to run a nation?

When I talk about Bofors, Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, I want to tell you—this is not what I am saying today—that this is a peculiar country where you say that the Prime Min-ister was dishonest, the Finance Minister who framed the deal was the symbol of honesty......... (Interruptions)

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR : I agree with him and I accept what he says. Should I take it that after having the contract approved, the Finance Minister never had a look at the file or he was denied to have a look into the file? Either the Prime Minister was so innocent that he did not know the Implication or he was a collaborator in the whole deal. If he was innocent, the country was not safe in his hands as the Finance Minister. And this was proved subsequently that the country was not safe in his hands as the Prime Minister. It is nothing personal and I am saying this just because at that time I was not in the Government. I was not under the path of secrecy. Don’t ask about the files. I shall never mention about files in this House. Unless and until, Mr. Speaker, you direct and this House wants the files, on my own I am not going to divulge the secrecy of this Government. But I want to tell you and assure you, Advaniji, that on Bofors or on any case of corruption, there will be no compromise. But I also want to tell very frankly that State power is not for personal vendetta. Nothing will be done against anybody because of personal prejudice. Nothing will be done in order to protect anybody for personal friendship. This is what I feel should be the right course for a Government to adopt.

About Bofors I have said enough. What is the situation in Kashmir? What is the situation in Assam? What is the situation in Tamil Nadu? Assam, Kashmir and Punjab we inherited from Shri Rajiv Gandhi but who was brought about the situation to the brink in Assam and Tamil Nadu? A friend from that side asked me to do something. I assure you, Sir, and to the whole country that no compromise will be made about the integrity and sovereignty of the nation, whatever the consequences are there. I am already in touch with the Chief Minister of Assam and Tamil Nadu. I am going to discuss with them. I want that there should be proper action taken by them in order to restore peace and law and order in that part. Otherwise things will take their own course. I do not want to conceal anything because the Government of India is not so helpless. And if the Government of India here in Delhi is sitting helpless, there is no right for any of us to remain here, even for a minute. It is not the question of prejudice. It is not the question of challenging anybody. It is the question of discharging our duty I would not like to say anything more about that. All these questions I have tried to cover About the economic position, gross mismanagement of the economy—I cannot say anything more and I can say, Mr. Speaker, that we have given wrong signals to our people, to our industrialists, to our workers. People feel frustrated and desperate. The international community feels that India is on the verge of collapse. Our citizens who are outside Indian shores think that there is no hope for India. But I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that with your co-operation and the co-operation of these people, we shall lift this country from the muddy mire of misery, and we shall restore it to the glory that this nation deserves. We only require the open support from our toiling masses, from our peasantry, from our workers. We want the co-operation of all Indians who are outside India because they are as patriotic as we are. We want cooperation with all friendly nations, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we can steer through this crisis only by tightening our belts. Austerity is a must. The slogan of austerity given by Mahatma Gandhi was not a slogan, it was a part of our economic strategy. Swadeshi and swavalamban—selfreliance and Swadeshi. By Gita Mukherjee I was asked this question. We had no other option but to resort to Swadeshi and swavalamban as much as is possible. But in critical areas we will have to get the co-operation from other nations.

This is in a broad way what we want to achieve. Whether we shall be able to achieve or not, only the future will tell. I do not want to make any tall claim. I know the limitations of this Government, but I tell you, my friend— Advaniji, you know me for quite some time. I can be anything, but I cannot be a puppet. I have not seen a person who can use me as a puppet. I have dealt with much bigger people in this country. So far if I was not reduced to a puppet, with your blessings and support, rest assured that even in future, nobody is going to use me as a puppet. But because some people are crying hoarse, I am not going to condemn those people who have come to support me, to help me in an hour of crisis, not my crisis, but the crisis of the nation and those who stand up to support me, I am grateful to them and I acknowledge that support. I do not want to do things in a clandestine manner. If I meet people, I meet them openly. Somebody said that I was meeting secretly. Why should I meet anybody secretly? Shri Rajiv Gandhi might have some hesitation in meeting me. But I had never any hesitation in meeting Shri Rajiv Gandhi. If I can go to anybody and everybody after becoming the Prime Minister, before becoming the Prime Minister, what was the hesitation before me to go to anybody’s place? If occasion comes, I shall go to the doors of my worst critics. But I assure you, whether you are a critic or a supporter, don’t try to remove me from the path which I have charted for myself. I shall like to use an Urdu couplet here :

“Mere Kadam Ke Saath Hai Manzil Lagi Hui,

Manzil Jahan Nahi Wahan Mere Kadam Nahin.”

You must start, I know my destination, I know my goal. If I cannot go to the goal, I am not going on any path just for the courtesy of a walker walking all alone.

Mr. Speaker, the last point that I should like to touch upon is defection. Morals have been given about defection. So many things have been mentioned, I don’t want to go into them. But, Mr. Speaker, when the Anti-Defection law was passed, there was a moral in it that if onethird people go out of a party, it will not be treated as defection. It was not a concession to those who want to leave the party because it is not the defection. People should understand that there is another word which is called, ‘dissent and protest’. Societies move forward only because of dissent and protest. If dissent and protest are not allowed, then society will stagnate and stagnation means sure death. When we see that something is going basically wrong and the whole country is being taken towards disaster, it is our national duty that we should dissent, that we should protest, and I am proud that my colleagues on this side protested against the things that were happening. I shall not go in to greater detail, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I crave the indulgence of all our Members. l ask for your support in this great endeavour, in this great task which is ahead of us in order to give this country the glory and prestige that it deserves. Thank you all.