Category: In Parliament

Debate on the President’s Address

Transcript of a speech made by H K Dua in the Rajya Sabha on February 23, 2011 in the debate on the President’s Address to the joint session of Parliament.

National consensus on vital issues needed

SHRI H.K.DUA (NOMIATED):   Thank you, Mr Vice-Chairman, for giving me time. I have heard the debate, during the last two days, on the President’s Address.  Members of all shades of opinions have expressed their opinions on the President’s Address and the various issues confronting the country.  In a nation of one billion people, there are bound to be differences of opinion, but I do find that despite the acrimony witnessed during the last several months in the country, despite the different views expressed in the House and outside, there is no difference of opinion among the leadership of various parties and the people that this country should emerge as a major economic, political and military power of the 21st century.  There is no difference of opinion on this central aim which has emerged after 64 years of freedom.  This is not an armchair  dream of any one political party, but this is the national aim.  Everybody, whether on the Treasury benches, or on the Opposition benches, realizes that the country has achieved the potential of becoming a major power of the 21 century.

The world is also acknowledging, possibly; the world is acknowledging this, more liberally, than we are doing ourselves, considering a sort of cynicism and cynical mood that has developed over the last few months or over the last few years.

But are we, as a nation, doing all what needs to be done to emerge as a major power of the 21st century? And if we examine this question, in detail, the answer will be, “NO.” All that is sought to be done, all that needs to be done, we are not doing.  If we have to build this country into a big military, political and economic power, befitting a nation of a billion people, then we need to do much more.

And one of the things which we need to develop is, to evolve a national consensus on some essential issues. This kind of attempt — although feeble — has been made, often during the last few years to evolve a national consensus on some issues, but these efforts have not succeeded. The time has come now, fairly in the beginning of the 21st century, to evolve a consensus over some issues on which the parties should sink their differences and evolve a consensus and approach which facilitate achieving that potential aim which we can possibly achieve.

What are those issues? Considering the time, at my disposal, I will be brief, Mr Vice-Chairman.  Issues of national security, for instance, deserve  national consensus. I do not find anybody, in this House, who will place any obstacles in evolving a national consensus on security issues, both internal and external. There are formidable challenges to national security  Terrorism is one; nobody can differ on the need to combat terrorism. In the last few months there has been no real big terror strike. But that does not mean that the threat of terrorism has disappeared from the country.

SHRI H.K. DUA (CONTD): One weapon which the terrorists have, which we can’t anticipate, is the weapon of surprise. They can strike anywhere they like, at any time they want, unless there is a danger to them on a crucial occasion. The vigilance which the President’s Address speaks about fairly in the beginning of the Address is necessary. But that should have the backing of all shades of opinion and a national consensus which is necessary.

Another is the Maoists’ threat. It is not, in a sense, a threat that cannot be tackled.  Over all, there are 160, or 180, districts affected by Maoists threat. Out of them, 60 districts have been identified as very sensitive. Even 60 is not a small number.  Essentially, the Maoists threat to the State is very serious and can’t brook a partisan approach. It has to be met with a national approach.

Not only the parties have to cooperate with each other, but  also the Central and the State Governments, irrespective of the denomination which governs there, have to cooperate to find a way to tackle this national menace.  The Maoists also strike a surprise. Dantewada was one where 76 people of the CRPF were killed one night. Now they have the temerity to kidnap a District Collector in Orissa and keep him in custody. He is a public-spirited officer, which is a very rare breed these days. He is popular among the people and that popularity itself is nagging the Maoists.  They captured him and wanted some of their  people to be released. I am glad that he has been freed and some praise should go from this House for the brave officer like him.

But the essential message which comes out clearly is that the Maoists are not relenting in their efforts to disturb peace in the country and they want to strike wherever they want. They do spring surprise, some time in Chhattisgarh, another time in Jharkhand and the third time in Orissa, and tomorrow they can do it at another place.

Sir, I will keep it brief. There is a need for national consensus also on…

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF P.J. KURIAN): Your time is going to be over. What can I do? There is so much of time constraint.

SHRI H.K. DUA: I WILL CUT IT SHORT. Mr. Vice-Chairman. I am sure, you will give me marks for patience.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN; TAKE TWO MORE MINUTES.

SHRI H K DUA; There is a need for consensus on Kashmir. I am afraid, this has been lacking and even if some consensus was evolved a few years ago,  I find  it is disappearing. There is no political consensus on it now.  The fact is that we have been promising autonomy to Kashmir over the years. Successive Prime Ministers have promised autonomy. Mr Narasimha Rao had promised autonomy to Kashmir; Mr Vajpayee had promised autonomy to Kashmir; and the present Prime Minister Dr Manmohan singh has promised autonomy to Kashmir.  I don’t think that we should relax on that aim. How the consensus can work in Kashmir is evident from the President’s Address acknowledgement of the mission of All-Party Delegation which visited Kashmir a few months ago and came back with the impression that it was possible to evolve a solution of Kashmir. The message will go much deeper if all the parties agree on Kashmir.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF P.J. KURIEN): Okay, Duaji.

SHRI H.K. DUA: I will cut it short. I will take just two minutes.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN; I am unwillingly saying. I am also helpless.

SHRI H K DUA:  Just a couples of minutes more and I will be done with this.

On foreign Policy issue, we require a different Foreign Policy for the 21st century from the earlier one. It is no longer a bipolar world. It is a multi-polar world. I think that a consensus on foreign Policy will help the Government to deal with the rest of the world better.

But one other thing certainly needs to be done and I would like to lay emphasis on it in my concluding remarks. We need to have a consensus on how to run this Parliament; how to bring about  judicial reforms which are very badly needed and how to bring administrative reforms because they are  key to the governance of the country.

I am sorry to say this – I am a new Member comparatively – that the way  Parliament has conducted itself for some time does not enjoy the support of the people. The judiciary is also losing support of the people when  cases are not decided for twenty years, or thirty years and some times after a person is no more.

SHRI H K DUA (CONTD): At the district level, at High Courts level, prestige of the courts has suffered, and somehow, the Supreme Court lately is also hitting the headlines for wrong reasons which I don’t  have the time to elaborate. On the judicial reforms which have been promised in the President’s Address, I hope, the political parties will support.

Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chairman.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Duaji, in fact, an erudite person like you should be given more time, but I am helpless. There are three speakers and the time allotted is 17 minutes.

Parliament Speech – Maiden Speech

Shri H.K. Dua (Nominated):  Mr Deputy Chairman, Sir, over 45 years ago, I was in the Press Gallery above where I started my Parliamentary reporting.  In these 45 years, I have travelled a distance of 10 yards to avail. These have been crucial ten yards to reach here.

Thank you, very much for giving me a chance to speak here, Mr Deputy Chairman.

In this maiden speech as you said, I dedicate myself to the service of the House and the country and the values for which both stand for.

Sir, I have gone through the Bill.  It is well-meant, but I find it limited in scope and range.  It tackles some of the minor glitches that have come to the notice of the Election Commission and other glitches, which have been noticed in the 57 years of the nation’s electoral experience.  But these 57 years have thrown up major challenges before the electoral system and if we don’t meet those challenges, the electoral system will come into disrepute and that will pose a threat to the democracy also.

I will just mention two of them.  One has been – Members have been rightly trying to focus on – the role of big money in elections.  It is a serious problem.  I would like to draw the attention of the House to it – the Minister and Members know about this more than me – how criminals are threatening the electoral system and the functioning of the democracy in the country.

Sir, criminals in large numbers are infiltrating into the political system.  In many Assembly elections they have used their money and muscle.  Earlier, they were supporting the candidates and now they themselves are the candidates. And many of them are getting elected.  In many states, they are getting elected in large numbers, or they are helping the candidates of different parties to win elections by using their muscle power or money – which they extract again from the people – get into the government and influence policy-making and the decision-making of the State Governments.

As you know, even one vote can make a difference in the survival of a Government.  If a single vote goes the other side, the Government can be thrown out.

The bureaucracy in the States is afraid of these criminals leaders, because they have clout with top people in many States.  There is no need to mention the names here.  The bureaucracy is afraid, because they will be transferred or any enquiry commission will be instituted against them.  So they would not take any action against the criminals active in politics.  Police officials are also afraid of taking action against criminals and mafia leaders.  When criminal leaders have clout with a Chief Minister and the local bureaucracy is very deferential to them, governance in the districts is bound to suffer.

The criminals again have association with wrong kind of elements.  So, the entire atmosphere gets polluted because of their activities. There is indeed a failure of the system to check their entry into the system.  If this continues, imagine, if they capture a State.  And then they will capture more States.

And some of the criminal groups can always form some sort of a syndicate – I am looking at the dark side – they can get together to form a syndicate and, either tomorrow or after five, or 10 years or 20 years, they can capture the States and even become a threat to the stability at the Centre.  I have this fear.

The political parties need to do something about it urgently.  They have to come to a consensus on how to ban the criminals at the entry stage itself.

Many parties are not stopping criminals from getting into the political mainstream, because they want to win elections, they want to use their muscle power. Then they give them seats without realising that tomorrow these people will devour the parties themselves.  That is the danger not only to the country but also the political parties themselves.

What can the parties do? – Just ban their entry.  There is no point in looking for security while sleeping with the enemy.  They are enemies of the country.  And, they are enemies of the parties themselves.  The best thing is, avoid them and shun them, even if you lose an election.  That price is worth paying. It is better than sleeping with the enemy.

Many people have been warning the parties against criminals.  The Hon. Supreme Court made a suggestion to the Election Commission that it should take steps to prevent nomination of criminals for elections and it is the right of every citizen to know the history of every criminal.

Banning criminal candidate from filing their nomination papers when charges have been framed by a court is the right thing to do.  The police can frame false charges.  But, if a court frames charges, then it is the time that nomination paper should not be allowed to be filed by a person who has a criminal record, particularly if the offences can fetch a two year-sentence.

The Election Commission was in favour of it.  They called a meeting of political parties.  It is strange that almost all the political parties opposed this provision.  One of their arguments was that frivolous charges can be farmed and even the court can approve of those frivolous charges and whosoever is in the opposition stands at a disadvantage if the charges turn out to be false.

I am sure, Mr Moily’s legal acumen and advice of this officials can find a way out and provide a safeguard against the framing of charges which are mala fide.

There should be an attempt by political parties to ban criminals at entry stage itself.  There should be a serious attempt to ensure – where the charges are framed by a court law – to ban the entry of criminals into the election system by filing a nomination paper and getting elected.

There should be some safeguards to get over this particular objection.  I am sure, Mr Moily, who seems to be a very earnest Minister in doing things, would include this in the comprehensive reforms he is promising to bring forward.  I hope he brings these reforms soon to take care of this serious problem.  Not doing at this stage will prove costly for the country and the political system.  This problem is growing like cancer, because with every election – various NGOs have collected this information and the Election Commission does not deny these figures – the number of candidates fighting the elections is growing, and not going down.  Some of the parties are able to deny the tickets to criminals, but others are not able to deny them the tickets.

 But, in totality, their number is growing.  If they capture the political system, what will be the fate of Indian democracy?

 I am sure that the reforms the Law Minister intends to bring in will include this.  Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman.

(Ends)