P. RAJEEVE’s speech on Motion of Thanks to the President

SHRI P. RAJEEVE: Sir, we heard the speech of our learned colleague, Mr. Venkaiah Naidu. He has stated the high percentage of woman MPs in this Parliament from BJP. But, Sir, I want to state one thing. I should say that for the first time in the history of this country, the ruling party does not have a single Muslim MP in Lok Sabha. Sir, the ruling party fielded only seven Muslim candidates out of 482 candidates in Lok Sabha elections, that is, only 1.45 per cent, which constitute 31 per cent of the electorate of  this country. The Minister also claimed high percentage of woman MPs from BJP in Lok Sabha, but we could not find a single word regarding the Bill relating to women’s reservation in the Presidential Address. Sir, what is the state of women in this country? Yesterday, the Indian Express reported that ten women arre raped daily in Delhi; ten women are abducted and five women are raped daily in the city. Sir, 1,838 women were raped in 2014 in Delhi alone. The Government has failed to do anything in this regard.


When BJP was in opposition, we stood together against rape and murder of a girl in Delhi, but they now keep mum on such incidents. Sir, I am now coming to the main part of my speech. We have been discussing the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address for the last three days. I read the 58th paragraph of the Speech. I could find out the name of Mahatma Gandhi in the last part of 57th paragraph while referring to Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas. They have referred to Dindayal Upadhyaya, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and Atal Behari Vajpayee in several places. But, I could not find the name of Nehru anywhere in the Speech. Congress people are not bothered about it because they have given the names of Gandhi and Nehru to several projects, but they have not adopted the policies of Gandhiji and Nehruji, particularly from 1991 onwards. Sir, in Malayalam, the RSS has an organ, that is, Kesari. In that organ, the BJP candidate from Chalakudy Lok Sabha constituency wrote an article. In that article, that person has stated, “Nathuram Godse should have killed Nehru instead of Gandhi”. It is written in Kesari, the organ mouthpiece of RSS in Kerala. It states, “Nathuram Godse should have killed Nehru instead of Gandhi.”

That is reflected in the speech also, Sir. Sir, this Government is 3-in-1 Government. The components are, i) the autocratic approach of the Indira Gandhi Government, particularly, of the period from 1975 to 1977; ii) the neo-liberal policies of the Narasimha Rao Government of 1991; and, iii) communal policies of the Vajpayee Government. Actually, it is UPA-II, UPA-III plus NDA-II. Nobody has to go to an astrologer to know the character of the entity of this combination; it is reflected in the Presidential Speech, it is reflected in the Budget Speech, and, it is reflected in the Railway Budget Speech also, Sir. Sir, this Government is trying to weaken the democratic structure of the country. Our democratic system is working through Parliamentary institutions. Sir, imposition of Article 123 of the Constitution is meant for extraordinary situations. Now, Venkaiah ji mentioned that the first step of the first Government of the country is to promulgate an Ordinance. That is true. They are following that step. The first function of this Government is promulgating an Ordinance to appoint a Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. It happened for the first time in the history of this country. Now, they have promulgated 01 Ordinance in every 28 days. If you deduct the Session period, it would be more shocking, Sir. They have amended the well-discussed legislation through Ordinance without taking into consideration the views of the Parliament and stakeholders. The Speaker of the first Lok Sabha, Shri G.V. Mavalankar said, and, I quote, “Promulgation of Ordinances is inherently undemocratic.” Sir, after 1986, there should have been a change in the concept of Ordinances. Sir, in 1986, in the case of D.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court said that the Ordinance raj could not be permitted. This Government is continuing this thing, which is an attack on Parliamentary democracy. Secondly, Sir, the Parliamentary Standing Committees are the extension of the Parliamentary system. Only the Parliamentary Standing Committee has the right to hear the views of the stakeholders. We have no opportunity to hear the voice of the stakeholders directly. It is true that we are working amongst the people but we have no structured mechanism for this. We have the Parliamentary Standing Committees only to do so. Now, the Government is trying to push all the Bills without sending them to the respective Standing Committees. If you go through today’s List of Business, the Regional Rural Banks (Amendment) Bill is there. This Bill was not sent to the Standing Committee. The Apprenticeship Bill is also another example. Several Bills are there. I would not like to go into the details of all the Bills, but, this is second way to weaken the existing Parliamentary democratic system in our country. Thirdly, Sir, they are trying to implement a new methodology to weaken the established practices of the Parliamentary system. If a Bill is the property of one House, normally, the same Bill should neither be introduced nor be considered in the other House. This is the precedent of the Parliamentary system. But, Sir, the Government has introduced the Coal Bill, which is the property of this House, and, the Government will be introducing the Insurance Bill also, which is the property of this House. This shows that the democracy is in peril under the regime of this Government. Sir, our Parliamentary Affairs Minister always stated that this House is trying to block the legislative process. This House can proudly state that this House is the mechanism to ensure the democratic principles of this country. Sir, attacks on secularism has already been explained by several learned colleagues. I would not like to discuss this issue in detail. But, I would like to ask one thing, secularism is a pre-requisite for ensuring democracy in a country like India where ‘Unity in Diversity’ is the character of the society. Sir, in Valmiki’s Ramayana, Bharat went to the jungle to see Rama. The first question raised by Rama to Bharat was, are you taking care of Carvakas? Who are Carvakas? They are atheists, they are materialistic. Sir, they are enjoying that much respect. Sir, as Shri Sitaram Yechury has already said about the three Indian enemies explained in the book ‘We or our Nationhood Defined’ written by Mr. Golwalkar and some other things, I would not like to go into the details. Sir, five churches were burnt in this city of Delhi.

Sir, we heard the remarks of the Prime Minister mentioning about Article 25 of the Constitution. Yes, we are ready to take it in a positive sense, but why is the Prime Minister not ready to condemn the attacks on minorities in this country? Why is the Prime Minister not ready to condemn the burning of five churches in the Capital of this country? The hon. Prime Minister is here; I hope the Prime Minister may condemn all these attacks on the minorities and burning of these churches. Sir, we have seen the advertisement, Ravi Shankar Prasadji is here, of the Preamble of the Constitution, given by the I&B Ministry. Sir, the Supreme Court made a historical judgement on two occasions that any Government, even if they are having 543 out of 543 seats in Lok Sabha, has no power to change Secularism and Socialism from the Preamble of the Constitution. These are the basic structure of the Constitution. But, Sir, in the contemporary India, the same apex Court worries over future of Secularism. “India till now is a Secular country. We don’t know how long it will remain a secular country.” These are the remarks of the Supreme Court, the apex court of the country. Why does the Supreme Court apprehend like that? That reflects the existing situation prevailing in this country. Certainly, the sovereign character of the Republic is also under threat. For the first time in history, the Government of India constituted a working group along with USA to recommend the amendments to the Indian Patents Act, which is an attempt to dilute the sovereign power of this country. Sir, I would like to add one more point. Our Prime Minister is here. On 7th November, 2013, Modiji spoke in an election rally in Chhattisgarh, I have the CD of that speech, that every Indian family would get rupees fifteen lakhs (Time-bell) by bringing back the black money to the country. ..(Interruptions)..

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Your time is over.

SHRI P. RAJEEVE: I am finishing, Sir. Just one minute. Hon. Home Minister, Rajnath Singhji, also stated that we would bring the black money within 100 days. The people of the country are waiting (Time-bell) to get those fifteen lakh rupees deposited into their accounts, Sir. ..(Interruptions).. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay; your time is over. ..(Interruptions).. Now, take your seat.

SHRI P. RAJEEVE: I am concluding, Sir. ..(Interruptions).. This is not (Time-bell) declared in the General Budget Speech and the Railway Budget Speech. (Time-bell) With these words, I conclude, Sir. Thank you. (Ends)