NT>
11.20 hrs.
Title: Discussion on the Prevention of Terrorism
Bill, 2002, moved by Shri L.K. Advani. (Bill Passed.)
THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI L.K. ADVANI): Mr. Deputy-Speaker,
Sir, with your permission, I beg to move**:
"That the Bill to make provisions for the prevention
of, and for dealing with, terrorist activities and for matters connected
therewith, as passed by Lok Sabha and rejected by Rajya Sabha, be taken
into consideration for the purpose of deliberating on the Bill."
… (Interruptions)
SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA (PONNANI): I am on a point of order.
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : àÉéxÉä
BÉEcÉ xÉ ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉ<Æ]
+ÉÉì{ÉE +ÉÉìbÇ®
{É® +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä
BÉEÉ àÉÉèBÉEÉ nä
nÚÆMÉÉ* I will hear the point of order.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Many points of order are there. After
the Motion has been moved, I will hear all the points of order. I will
also give my ruling. … (Interruptions)
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, for Members of the Thirteenth Lok
Sabha and for Members of the Rajya Sabha present here, this is a very special
occasion. As you yourself, in your opening remarks, said, it is very rare
that a joint sitting of this kind has been convened. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Raj Babbar, you are a senior
Member.… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Kunwar Akhilesh Singh, order please.…
(Interruptions)
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: As all Members are aware, for me, it
is always more convenient and comfortable than to speak in Hindi. But on
this occasion, in order that I am able to address all of you directly rather
than through interpretation, I resorted to English. … (Interruptions)
Well, I am entitled in this House to speak either in Hindi
or in English. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Vaiko, he is speaking in English.
… (Interruptions) +ÉMÉ®
+ÉÉ{É SÉÉcåMÉä iÉÉä
àÉé nÉäxÉÉå £ÉÉÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ
ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cÚÆ, àÉÖZÉä
BÉEÉä<Ç ÉÊnBÉDBÉEiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè* àÉé ÉÊcxnÉÒ
àÉå £ÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉäãÉ
ºÉBÉÚEÆMÉÉ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
àÉé àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉÉå ºÉä
+ÉxÉÖ®ÉävÉ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ÉÊcxnÉÒ +ÉÉè®
+ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ BÉEÉ
VÉÉä ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ
cè, =ºÉBÉEÉä càÉxÉä
´ÉÉÉç {ÉcãÉä
ÉÊxÉÉζSÉiÉ BÉE®
ÉÊãɪÉÉ cè +ÉÉè®
=ºÉàÉå ¤ÉÉvÉÉ
xÉ {ÉcÖÆSÉɪÉå*
BÉEÉä<Ç ÉÊcxnÉÒ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉä
ªÉÉ +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉä,
=ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉàÉÉn®
cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, please.… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Basavaraj, please resume your
seat.
gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ
BÉßEhÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ
: àÉéxÉä
SÉÚÆÉÊBÉE +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ
àÉå ¶ÉÖ°ô ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
cè, <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé
+ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå
¤ÉÉäãÉÚÆMÉÉ*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Mulayam Singh, order please.…
(Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É (ºÉà£ÉãÉ)
: +ÉÉ{É ÉÊcxnÉÒ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉå,
ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ
ãÉåMÉä*
gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ
BÉßEhÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ
: àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc VÉÉÒ BÉEciÉä
cé ÉÊBÉE àÉé ÉÊcxnÉÒ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉÚÆ
+ÉÉè® ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
+ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå
¤ÉÉäãÉå iÉÉä
àÉÖZÉä BÉEÉä<Ç
+ÉÉ{ÉÉÊkÉ xÉcÉÓ
cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : +ÉÉ{É
¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® BÉDªÉÉå
Jɽä cÉä VÉÉiÉä
cé, BÉßE{ɪÉÉ ¤Éè~
VÉÉAÆ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ,
xªÉÉªÉ +ÉÉè® BÉEÆ{ÉxÉÉÒ
BÉEɪÉÇ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
(gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ)
: àÉé ÉÊcxnÉÒ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ
ãÉÚÆMÉÉ, +ÉÉ{É
+ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå
¤ÉÉäãÉ ãÉå*
gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ
BÉßEhÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ
: àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc VÉÉÒ, ªÉc
iÉªÉ cÉä MɪÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
ÉÊcxnÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉåMÉä
+ÉÉè® àÉé +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉÚÆMÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉé +ÉÉ{ɺÉä
|ÉÉlÉÇxÉÉ BÉE®iÉÉ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ªÉc ABÉE
àÉci´É´ÉÚhÉÇ
SÉSÉÉÇ cè, àÉé
ÉÊcxnÉÒ àÉå =kÉ®
nÚÆMÉÉ, <ºÉ ºÉàɪÉ
+ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå
àÉéxÉä ¶ÉÖ°ô
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè, àÉÖZÉä
=ºÉàÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä
nå*
Mr. Deputy-Speaker Sir, it is really a rare occasion.
Perhaps the only Member in this House, who has participated in all these
three Joint Sittings is our hon. Prime Minister, Shri Vajpayee. Like me,
there may be many others who might have participated in the 1978 joint
session, in which I was also there, but as I said Shri Vajpayee is unique
in this House in so far as the joint sittings are concerned.
Most democracies of the world are bicameral, at least,
major democracies like the UK, the US, France, Canada, Germany, etc., so
as India also. Our Constitution makers, when they framed the Constitution,
they made the Indian Parliament a bicameral legislature. Having made it
a bicameral legislature and having provided that a legislation that has
to be passed by the Parliament has to be passed by both the Houses. They
thought of this situation, where the two Houses disagree, where there are
differences between the two Houses, either in totality in respect of those
Bills or in respect of some amendments, they made a special provision of
article 108 to deal with such situation.
I may tell you that all Constitutions of the world have
analogous provisions. There are practices in other countries. In fact,
in the UK, for instance, there are two Houses, but in the House of Commons,
directly elected and the House of Lords, if there is a difference between
the two, the only thing that can happen is that the House of Lords communicates
to the House of Commons that, ''''''''we do not agree with this or we would like
an amendment of this in this fashion''''''''. Then whatever the House of Commons
does that becomes law. In some other countries, as for example, in the
US, the Senate is more important than the House of Representatives. Maybe
because Senate also is directly elected unlike the House of Lords.
Here the Constitution makers provided that if there is
a difference between the two Houses, there can be a Joint Sitting. It depends
on the President. The present enabling provision is article 108 where the
President has been empowered to convene a Joint Sitting of this kind. It
is not a joint session. The Session is continuing, that is the Budget Session,
but this is a special Joint Sitting and we are certainly fortunate that
we are participating in this session… (Interruptions)
SHRI ANIL BASU (ARAMBAGH): Sir, they have lost the mandate
of the people… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Basu, please take your seat.
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, as you recounted 1961, as you recounted
1978, it was on disagreement on some amendment to the Dowry Bill or in
1978, there was an Ordinance, which was adopted by the Lok Sabha, the Banking
Service Commission Repeal Ordinance, and it was disapproved by the Rajya
Sabha. Something similar has happened this time that was an Ordinance relating
to the Prevention of Terrorism provision and that was passed by the Lok
Sabha and it has been rejected by the Rajya Sabha.
A similar occasion has been arisen. Here, the Constitution-makers
thought that a Joint Session in which naturally that directly elected House
would have larger numbers and in that House and if it is decided it would
be deemed as having been passed by both the Houses. These were the words
that are used.
Now, let me briefly mention at this stage how this POTO
has come into being. Terrorism has not come to India just now. It has been
with us for quite some time. In fact, in these last few months whenever
I have interacted with people from the United States, they have admitted
that before the 11th of September, they were not able to fully
appreciate the kind of tribulations India has been going through for over
a decade, in fact nearly two decades but after the 11th of September
they could fully understand. The representatives of the U.K. mentioned
to me that they too have experienced terrorism of a different kind over
a period of time. The United States have experienced it only now. And they
often showed greater understanding and appreciation of this problem as
we are facing. They were the first to ban the terrorist organisations which
have been active here. Though they have not been active in the U.K., they
banned those organisations. And it is after they took the steps, the United
States also thought it proper to do the same.
The Government of India has been convinced for the last
four years that we have been here and I am sure even the earlier Governments
held that terrorism and more particularly, State-sponsored cross border
terrorism is a kind of war. It is not just a law and order problem. This
is the first factor which has been responsible for Government thinking
in terms of an extraordinary law like POTO.
The Constitution-makers themselves conceived that while
fundamental rights are sacrosanct and if there is a violation of fundamental
rights, every citizen would have the right to knock at the doors of the
judiciary and seek protection of their fundamental rights. But they made
provisions which provide that in a situation of war, those fundamental
rights can be suspended. This only shows that the Constitution-makers were
fully conscious and even while being very particular about protecting fundamental
rights, they felt that in certain situations the security of the nation
is a matter which should be deemed first, which should be given higher
priority. So, first of all, the question that I would like to pose to all
of you and which we have posed to the nation is: "Is it just in Jammu and
Kashmir an aggravated law and order situation that we are facing or is
it really when we say it is a proxy war, do we really believe that it is
a proxy war?" If it were only terrorist organisations, perhaps, the ordinary
law may be sufficient. But when you have terrorist organisations being
trained, financed by a State and it becomes State-sponsored terrorism and
all of them are enabled to infiltrate into our country, it becomes a challenge
of a qualitatively different nature.
And this is the reason why for the last four years, we
have been going round the world. Our Foreign Minister, our Prime Minister
and, on occasions, I have gone and tried to plead with the whole world
that you must realize that now war will be raged by other means. I remember
when I visited Washington lately, everyone had asked me: "Is there going
to be a war between India and Pakistan? Your armies are deployed. Their
armies are deployed and the situation seems very tenuous." My reply to
their question was this. I said, "Please remember what was your reaction
on the 11th of September?" On the 11th of September,
four planes were hijacked. Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center.
One of them crashed over the Pentagon. The fourth one was not able to reach
White House. It crashed in between on the way. But that very evening, their
President said that a war had been unleashed on the United States. A war
has been unleashed by the terrorists on the United States. They were very
serious, very grave because of this one day’s incident. Five thousand or
six thousand innocent persons died on that day. But that one single day
made them feel that a war has been unleashed on the United States.
You just imagine. You asked me a question: "Is there going
to be a war between India and Pakistan?" I would like to answer it saying
that we have been facing a terrorist war for nearly two decades now. It
is a ‘proxy war’. We call it so. Some people say it is a low intensity
war. That fact is that we have not lost so many security men and so many
innocent citizens in the four wars that preceded as we have lost in this
proxy war. I do not want to give you all the statistics but broadly speaking,
even in those wars the number of persons who died was about 3000 or 4000.
In this proxy war, we have lost 61,000 people. Most of them are innocent
citizens, men, women and children who have nothing to do with any politics
of any kind and yet they have been killed. Therefore, I said: "We are already
facing a war."
On the 13th of December when this war came
to India’s Parliament House, our Prime Minister said that let this be a
challenge in which we take up the challenge and prove that this is going
to be a decisive chapter in our war against terrorism.
Sir, I hold that when the Government, in spite of the
fact that the Rajya Sabha did not agree with us, felt that it is necessary
that a Joint Session be called for this, it is because we feel that we
cannot score a decisive victory against the terrorism unless special laws
of this kind are enacted. It is, therefore, that I have come to the House.
I feel satisfied also that while we have been mobilizing
world opinion, our Foreign Minister has tabled a draft of Comprehensive
Convention on Terrorism in the United Nations. But immediately after the
11th September incident, suddenly a sea change came about in
the thinking of the whole world, including America about this particular
matter. And on the 28th of September, that very month, the Security
Council passed Resolution No.1373, which is a Resolution binding on all
Members of the Security Council, in which the Security Council told all
its Members recognizing the need for States to complement international
co-operation by taking additional measures to prevent and suppress in their
territories through all lawful means the financing and preparation of any
act of terrorism. The United Nations Security Council decides also that
all States shall deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or
commit terrorist act or provide safe haven.
This is a matter, which we are pursuing with our neighbour
on whom we have served a notice that there are 20 terrorists who have committed
acts of terrorism in our country and to whom they have given safe haven.
They have provided extra facilities of all kinds. These days, they have
been saying that – they have not said to us but I have heard it from various
quarters – if they were to hand over these 20 terrorists to India, it would
be a security risk for them, meaning thereby that they would be able to
share with us matters that would reveal to us how this proxy war has been
going on for the past two decades.
This Security Council Resolution also says:
"That all states shall ensure that any person who participates
in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts
or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice ..."
I emphasise, ‘brought to justice’.
I will deal with how POTO is different from TADA. In the
case of TADA, as everyone knows, the conviction rate was so abysmally low
that they felt that there was an extraordinary law that has been brought
and yet people were not punished because of that. So, they have to be brought
to justice.
The Resolution further says:
"… and ensure that in addition to any other measures
against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences
in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects
the seriousness of such terrorist acts."
I am not reading the whole Resolution. I have read certain
important parts, which have prompted us that a law like POTO was imperative.
It is our duty to the international community where we have been canvassing
that laws should be framed. They would be right in telling us: "You have
been telling us to do all this. We have done it but what has happened to
you?" Therefore, it is that it becomes our duty to pass the Prevention
of Terrorism Act.
I would like to add that this law has not been brought
in a hurry. Our thinking about it started immediately after we came to
power. In every meeting that we held with States and with securitymen,
they would tell us that in 1985 the TADA was enacted, the TADA was an extraordinary
law, it was extended from time to time and in 1995 it was allowed to lapse.
They would tell us that the decision to allow it to lapse was principally
because of the complaint that the TADA had been misused.
In the meanwhile, some private individuals and some organisations
questioned the constitutional validity of TADA and the matter went to court.
I would like to say that there were three principal objections against
TADA – first, that it was unconstitutional; secondly that it was abused;
and thirdly that there were no convictions under TADA. POTO deals with
all these issues.
The court itself settled the first issue when it said
that TADA was not unconstitutional. In Kartar Singh vs. the Government
of Punjab, the court went into it elaborately because the complaint was
that it was being abused. The court laid down six safeguards and said that
if those safeguards were there, there would be a minimum possibility of
an act like TADA being abused.
I feel happy that after the Law commission first suggested
a draft Bill in its 173rd Report - this was in the year 2,000 - numerous
discussions have gone on in various fora. If I were to read out the various
forums at which POTO was discussed, there are so many. I remember, in 2000
itself, when the Draft Bill from Law Commission had just come, our Home
Ministry’s Consultative Committee discussed it. It discussed it twice later
also. We sent the draft to various States and the State Governments gave
their opinion. A Chief Ministers’ Conference was held where this was also
discussed. The Prime Minister convened a special meeting of the party leaders
where again this was discussed. Apart from that, for a period of nearly
two years from 2,000 till 2001, these discussions went on. The result of
these discussions was that we were able to profit from the experience of
the use of TADA. We were able to remove all the shortcomings in TADA. When
we sent this proposal to the States, there were States like Maharashtra
which told us that they have been able to secure a high rate of conviction
ever since they have adopted the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime
Act (MACOCA), which is a law against organised crime. While earlier in
TADA the percentage of conviction used to be very very low, in the case
of MACOCA, after this law had been enacted, the percentage has been over
76. Shri Shivraj Patil said the other day very rightly that this 76 per
cent may be a high percentage because the number of cases till now have
been low. But it is also true that one single provision which has been
incorporated in MACOCA that intercepts or intercepted communication would
be deemed admissible evidence, has changed the whole perspective. After
all, when someone in Dubai or when someone in Islamabad phones someone
here and asks him to bump off so and so, that this particular leader should
be bumped off, you are not going to have witnesses who are going to come
forth to give evidence for that. It is the intercept which is going to
be crucial and vital in booking that particular person. Attack on Parliament
took place. How were we able to trace their collaborators here in Delhi
or in Kashmir? It was through these intercepts. Let us not forget that
terrorists act in a manner as to terrorise even potential witnesses. I
was told that in the case of General Vaidya who was killed by terrorists,
even close relations and family members were reluctant to come and give
evidence that they saw so and so killing him. Now, in this situation, if
a provision like intercepted communications being admissible evidence is
incorporated, is it not something necessary? It is necessary and, therefore,
it has been incorporated. I am told that before .bringing this Ordinance,
we first compared it and its provisions with all the similar laws enacted
in various democracies like the United States, like the United Kingdom,
like France, like Germany, and we found that we have provided greater safeguards
for the citizens than they have.
Let us not forget what the Supreme Court has said in its
judgement in the Kartar Singh case. It made a very pertinent observation.
The Court observed:
"While the liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded
by the court, nonetheless the court, while dispensing justice in cases
like the ones under the TADA Act should keep in mind not only the liberty
of the accused but also the interest of the victims and their near and
dear ones and above all the collective interest of the community and the
safety of the nation so that the public may not lose faith in the system
of judicial administration and indulge in private retribution."
These are very pertinent observations made by the Supreme
Court, and the discussion that went on in various fora, that has made us
think in terms of having this law passed if necessary even in a Joint Sitting.
I would be very happy if the political parties, all of them, thought about
this objectively. It is the message that we would be giving to the whole
world as to how on this particular issue the country is united. Otherwise
it has to be by a majority vote as provided in the Constitution.
All that I can say is that when we invited the Chief Ministers
here to discuss the POTO, there were Chief Ministers belonging to various
Parties who told us, told me that : "We are in favour; but my Party has
decided differently." … (Interruptions)
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I know that. Without mentioning names
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order please.
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI (RAIGANJ): Sir, how can he
say it here? Who are the Chief Ministers? … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Dasmunsi, when you get the opportunity
you can say it. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When you participate, you can refute
it if you want. But it is not like this. Please do not disturb the hon.
Minister.
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, how can he say what
was discussed there? … (Interruptions)
SHRI E. AHAMED (MANJERI): Sir, what is it? How can he
say what happened in that meeting? … (Interruptions)
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I can understand your reaction. … (Interruptions)
Sir, I can understand their anger. But all that I can say is that without
revealing names, I can swear that what I say is the truth. … (Interruptions)
I can swear that what I have said is the truth. I do not want to reveal
the names. You know it all. Everyone knows it. … (Interruptions)
bÉì. ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É
|ɺÉÉn É˺Éc (´Éè¶ÉÉãÉÉÒ)
: ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ªÉc ÉʤÉãBÉÖEãÉ
MÉãÉiÉ cè*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
BÉEÉä<Ç cÉ=ºÉ
BÉEÉä ÉÊàɺÉãÉÉÒb
xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ªÉc MÉãÉiÉ
®ä{ÉE®äxºÉ nä ®cä cé*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : ÉÊàÉ.®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É,
VÉ¤É +ÉÉ{É {ÉÉ]ÉÔÉʺÉ{Éä]
BÉE®å iÉ¤É +ÉÉ{É
ÉÊ®{ãÉÉ<Ç nÉÒÉÊVÉA,
=xÉBÉEä £ÉÉÉhÉ
BÉEä ¤ÉÉÒSÉ àÉå
àÉiÉ ¤ÉÉäÉÊãɪÉä*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Ramdas Athawale, please hear
the hon. Minister. If there is anything objectionable, I am here to look
into it. Why are you worried? … (Interruptions)
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, they may be surprised to know that
if there is one person (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Suresh, please do not disturb.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You cannot interrupt the House like
this. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Do not interrupt him. … (Interruptions)
bÉì. ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É
|ɺÉÉn É˺Éc :
ªÉä cÉ=ºÉ BÉEÉä
ÉÊàɺÉãÉÉÒb
BÉE® ®cä cé* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When you get the floor, you can speak.
You cannot speak like this. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Dasmunsi, please tell your Members
that when they get the floor, they can refute it, if they want, but they
should not do like this. … (Interruptions)
SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE (WEST BENGAL): The hon. Minister
has said that a few of the Chief Ministers are in favour of it, but their
parties do not favour it. … (Interruptions) He is giving an impression
that some of the Chief Ministers are convinced that there is a need of
POTO but their parties are not for it. … (Interruptions) It is unfair.
… (Interruptions) He should either reveal the names or … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am on my legs.… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If you are raising a point of order,
the Minister has to yield. … (Interruptions)
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, no Chief Minister is
here. … (Interruptions) They are not here to contradict. … (Interruptions)
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, I have already said that I am willing
to swear on oath that what I have said is correct. … (Interruptions)
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY (MIRYALGUDA): Sir, I am on a point
of order.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You are on a point of order.
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I may add one more thing to your disillusionment.
After all, you may have all heard of the case of Mohammad Afroz in Mumbai,
a person who claimed or who in the course of his confession … (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ àÉÉäcxÉ
®É´ÉãÉä (àÉÖà¤É<Ç
nÉÊFÉhÉ àÉvªÉ) :
àÉcÉ®É]Å
àÉå BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cè
ÉÊVɺÉxÉä ´ÉcÉÆ
{ÉÉä]Éä ãÉÉMÉÚ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè* <xÉBÉEÉä
ªÉcÉÆ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ BÉDªÉÉ
cBÉE cè?…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY : Sir, I am on a point of order.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, you have to decide. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, under what provision are you
raising your point of order?
… (Interruptions)
bÉì. ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É
|ɺÉÉn É˺Éc :
{ÉcãÉä MÉßc
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä ¤Éè~ÉBÉE®
VɪÉ{ÉÉãÉ ®äbÂbÉÒ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉ {ÉÉì<Æ]
+ÉÉì{ÉE +ÉÉìbÇ®
ºÉÖxÉÉ VÉÉA* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY : Sir, I am grateful to you and the
Minister for permitting me to raise my point of order. My point of order
is this. No private conversation can be quoted even if it is true, even
if the conversation relates to Members in the House. … (Interruptions)
12.00 hrs.
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I at least know that a few of the State
Governments, when they were asked for their opinion, they themselves expressed
in favour of it. There were very few who opposed POTO. Most of them either
favoured it or wanted certain improvements. Therefore, by and large, I
hold that there has been a consensus in the country on the issue of POTO.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir,
this is again another statement which is not true. There is no consensus
on POTO. … (Interruptions)
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: You are free to say what you want, but
this is my opinion.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When you participate in the debate,
you can refute what the hon. Minister has said.
… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ ºÉÖ®ä¶É
{ÉSÉÉè®ÉÒ (àÉvªÉ
|Énä¶É) : ®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ
àÉå ªÉc ÉʺÉr
cÉä SÉÖBÉEÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
<ºÉ {É® BÉEÉä<Ç
BÉExɺÉäxºÉºÉ xÉcÉÓ
cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ®
(¤ÉÉÊãɪÉÉ,
=.|É.) : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä uÉ®É MÉßc
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
ºÉä ABÉE ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉcÚÄMÉÉ*
]èÉÎBÉDxÉBÉEãÉ ¤ÉÉiÉÉå
àÉå àÉiÉ VÉÉ<A,
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉÉxªÉiÉÉ
ªÉc cè ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉä<Ç
£ÉÉÒ àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ |ÉvÉÉxÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ ªÉÉ
MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ ºÉä
VÉÉä ¤ÉÉiÉå BÉE®iÉÉ
cè, =xÉ ¤ÉÉiÉÉå
BÉEÉ ºÉÉ´ÉÇVÉÉÊxÉBÉE
°ô{É ºÉä, +ÉÉè®
´Éc £ÉÉÒ ºÉƺÉn
BÉEä +ÉÆn® àÉäx¶ÉxÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*
+ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ªÉc MÉãÉiÉ
BÉEÉàÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
cè* <xÉ ¶É¤nÉå BÉEÉä
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ´ÉÉ{ɺÉ
ãÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA (RAJASTHAN): Sir, it should not
go on record. … (Interruptions)
THE MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT (SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU):
Sir, he has not taken any names, and this is not objectionable. The law
never said that. … (Interruptions)
bÉì. ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É
|ɺÉÉn É˺Éc :
MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ºÉnxÉ
ºÉä FÉàÉÉ àÉÉÆMÉxÉÉÒ
SÉÉÉÊcA* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ
BÉßEhÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ
: ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ,
SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ® VÉÉÒ
àÉä®ä ºÉààÉÉxÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
cé* àÉé =xÉBÉEÉ ¤ÉcÖiÉ
+ÉÉn® BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÄ
+ÉÉè® +ÉMÉ® àÉé
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ àÉÖJªÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ
ãÉäBÉE® |ÉÉ<´Éä]
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEciÉÉ iÉÉä
àÉé Wɰô® ´ÉÉ{ɺÉ
ãÉä ãÉäiÉÉ*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
´ÉcÉÆ ºÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
àÉÉÆMÉ BÉE® ®cä lÉä
ÉÊBÉE àÉé =xÉBÉEÉ
xÉÉàÉ ãÉÚÆ ÉÊVÉxcÉåxÉä
+ÉÉ{ɺÉä BÉEcÉ* àÉé
xÉÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ ãÉÚÆMÉÉ*
<ºÉBÉEÉ BÉEÉ®hÉ cè
ÉÊBÉE àÉä®ä >ó{É®
£ÉÉÒ nÉÉʪÉi´É
cè ÉÊBÉE àÉé ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
ºÉä cÖ<Ç BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉMÉiÉ
¤ÉÉiÉSÉÉÒiÉ BÉEÉ
ºÉnxÉ àÉå =ããÉäJÉ
xÉ BÉE°ôÆ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
àÉéxÉä BÉEcÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
àÉé <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEÉ ÉÊVɵÉE BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
VÉ¤É ÉÊ|É´Éå¶ÉxÉ
+ÉÉ{ÉE ]è®ÉÊ®VàÉ
ÉʤÉãÉ {É® ®ÉVªÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ ºÉãÉÉc ãÉÉÒ
MÉ<Ç lÉÉÒ iÉÉä
+ÉÉÆwÉ |Énä¶É, +ÉâóhÉÉSÉãÉ
|Énä¶É, nÉn®É xÉMÉ®
c´ÉäãÉÉÒ, nàÉxÉ
nÉÒ´É, ÉÊnããÉÉÒ,
cÉÊ®ªÉÉhÉÉ, ÉÊcàÉÉSÉãÉ
|Énä¶É, BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE,
ãÉFÉuÉÒ{É, xÉÉMÉÉãÉéb,
ÉʺÉÉÎBÉDBÉEàÉ,
<xcÉåxÉä {ÉÚ®ÉÒ
iÉ®c ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ +ÉÉè®
MÉÉä´ÉÉ, ®ÉVɺlÉÉxÉ,
+ɺÉàÉ, ÉÊàÉVÉÉä®àÉ,
SÉÆbÉÒMÉfÃ, àÉvªÉ
|Énä¶É, =kÉ® |Énä¶É,
àÉcÉ®É]Å, =½ÉÒºÉÉ
+ÉÉè® {ÉÆVÉɤÉ
xÉä ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
iÉÉä ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ,
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ BÉÖEU
ºÉƶÉÉävÉxÉ ºÉÖZÉÉA
+ÉÉè® VÉÉä ®ÉVªÉ
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE lÉä
´Éä {ÉÉζSÉàÉ
¤ÉÆMÉÉãÉ, VÉààÉÚ-BÉE¶àÉÉÒ®,
BÉEä®ãÉ, àÉäPÉÉãɪÉ
+ÉÉè® iÉÉÊàÉãÉxÉÉbÖ
lÉä* <xcÉåxÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
+ÉlÉÉÇiÉ <ºÉàÉå
ºÉä £ÉÉÒ àÉé
ªÉcÉÒ ÉÊxÉBÉEÉÇ
ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉiÉÉ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉÆ¶É
|Énä¶É ºÉ®BÉEÉ®å
ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ BÉE®iÉÉÒ
lÉÉÓ +ÉÉè® BÉÖEU
ºÉƶÉÉävÉxÉ SÉÉciÉÉÒ
lÉÉÓ* =ºÉÉÒ BÉEä
+ÉÉvÉÉ® {É® àÉéxÉä
BÉEcÉ* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
{ÉÉìÉÊãÉÉÊ]BÉEãÉ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔVÉ àÉå BÉEƺÉåºÉºÉ
xÉcÉÓ lÉÉÒ* àÉé
<ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ
ÉÊVɵÉE <ºÉÉÊãÉA
BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
+ÉMÉ® BÉEƺÉåºÉºÉ
cÉäiÉÉ, iÉÉä ®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ àÉå £ÉÉÒ
ÉʤÉãÉ {ÉɺÉ
cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ +ÉÉè®
<ºÉ V´ÉÉ<Æ] àÉÉÒÉË]MÉ
(ºÉè¶ÉxÉ) BÉEÉÒ
Vɰô®iÉ xÉcÉÓ {ɽiÉÉÒ*
{ÉÉìãÉÉÒÉÊ]BÉEãÉ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔVÉ àÉå BÉEƺÉåºÉºÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè, ªÉc àÉé
àÉÉxÉÚÆMÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE (WEST BENGAL): Sir, he is misleading
the House… (Interruptions)
SHRI L.K.ADVANI: I am not yielding now… (Interruptions)
SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE : Sir, he is misleading the House…
(Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ
BÉßEhÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ
: ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
VÉÉÒ, {ÉÉä]Éä àÉå
´Éä BÉEÉÊàɪÉÉÆ
xÉcÉÓ cé VÉÉä ]ÉbÉ
àÉå lÉÉÓ* <ºÉÉÊãÉA
<ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I strongly commend POTO to this
House for enactment and I would be very grateful if political parties which
have been opposed to it till now have a second view of their approach and
decide to support it.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Motion moved:
"That the Bill to make provisions for the prevention
of, and for dealing with, terrorist activities and for matters connected
therewith, as passed by Lok Sabha and rejected by Rajya Sabha, be taken
into consideration for the purpose of deliberating on the Bill."
Shri Paranjpe, what is going on there?
… (Interruptions)
SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I rise
on a point of order under Rule 376, read with article 108, clause (1) of
the Constitution.
The mechanism of a Joint Sitting is a very serious mechanism
because it can result in bulldozing the view and the decision of one House
or the other, particularly the Rajya Sabha, which is against the spirit
of bicameral legislature the system that we have in India. Under the system
of bicameral legislature, the views of both the Houses have to be seriously
considered and not to be bulldozed. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Kirit Somaiya, I have given him
the floor to raise a point of order.
SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, in the
system of bicameral legislature we have to be very careful that the view
of any one House is not bulldozed. One has, therefore, to be extremely
careful in accordance with the spirit of the bicameral legislature.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am to draw your attention to article
108, clause (1) of the Constitution. Specially, the first point that comes
up is the threat that has been given to the Parliament by no less a person
than the Chief Minister of a State who says: "If the Parliament continues,
the riots in Gujarat will continue." Sir, he wants to infer that when the
Parliament is adjourned, at the same time the riots will be controlled
over there. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Venkaiah Naidu, I will look into
it and give my ruling. Do not put any stress now, please. Whatever may
be the point of order, I will have to give my ruling.
SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, under article
108, clause (1), the occasion for a Joint Sitting … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Kirti Azad, what is it you are
mentioning? You have to behave yourself in this House.
SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : Sir, the occasion for a Joint Sitting
arises under three circumstances mentioned at clauses (a), (b) and (c)
in that particular article. Those three occasions are – (1) When the Bill
is rejected by one of the Houses; (2) when the Houses have finally disagreed
on the amendment; and (3) when more than six months have elapsed from the
date of the reception of the Bill by the other House without the Bill being
passed by the other House.
Now, let us see what happened in Rajya Sabha. When the
Bill was presented in the Rajya Sabha, the Rajya Sabha did not take the
Bill into consideration, did not wait for the Minister to move that the
Bill be passed. Such a Motion they did not wait for. Had the Rajya Sabha
waited for the Motion that the Bill be passed, and had the Rajya Sabha
defeated that Motion, then clause (a) would have been attracted under article
108.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Formulate your point of order, Shri
Banatwalla.
SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : I am formulating it, Sir. On the
passage of the Bill there was no Motion. Rajya Sabha did not wait till
the third reading. There was no Motion that the Bill be passed. There was
no such Motion that was defeated. Under clause (a) of article 108, the
Joint Sitting can take up only such a Bill which is rejected by the House.
The Rajya Sabha did not reject the Bill. What did the
Rajya Sabha do? The Rajya Sabha, at the very outset, defeated the Motion
for the Bill to be taken into consideration. In other words, the Rajya
Sabha refused to take the Bill into consideration.
Therefore, it is clause ( c) that has been attracted.
Since there is no clear rejection of the Bill by the Rajya Sabha, you have
to wait for six months. This is clause ( c ). It is only after six months…
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri G.M. Banatwalla, I have understood
your point.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : It is only after six months cooling
off period.… (Interruptions)… when the Government does not stand
on its prestige and when the wisdom dawns upon it, only after six months
this Joint Sitting can be called.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri G.M. Banatwalla, I have heard
you. I will give my ruling now.
SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : Thank you, Sir.
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É :
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ,
BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ BÉEä
xÉÉàÉ {É® càÉ £ÉÉÒ
+É{ÉxÉÉ £ÉÉÉhÉ
{ÉÚ®É BÉE® nå*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : àÉé
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä £ÉÉÉhÉ
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ¤ÉÖãÉÉ>óÆMÉÉ*
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I heard you, Shri Banatwalla.
As the House is aware, the Bill was passed by the Lok
Sabha on 18th March, 2002 and transmitted to Rajya Sabha for
considering and passing. After the Motion for consideration of the Bill
was negatived in the Rajya Sabha, the Rajya Sabha transmitted this message:
"The Bill was not agreed to by the Rajya Sabha."
It is true that the message does not specifically use
the phraseology used in sub-clause (a) of clause 1 of the article 108,
but negation of the Motion for consideration of a Bill by the Rajya Sabha
implies that the Rajya Sabha has rejected the policy contained in the Bill.
This has been made amply clear in rule 134 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Council which provides inter alia that if a Motion for consideration
of a Bill originating in the House and transmitted to the Council is negatived,
it shall be deemed to have been rejected by the Council.
Therefore, the effect of the message is same as to convey
that the Bill in question has been rejected by the Rajya Sabha. I may also
add that the message received from the Rajya Sabha in respect of the Banking
Service Commission Repeal Bill, 1977 was worded similarly. The Bill was
passed at the Joint Sitting of the two Houses on 16th May, 1978.
So, there is no point of order now.
Now, Shrimati Sonia Gandhi.… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Maheshwar, please. If you start
like this, then there would not be any debate. Please cooperate with the
Chair.… (Interruptions)
SHRIMATI SONIA GANDHI (AMETHI): Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir,
thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on a subject of vital
national importance.
This is a historic occasion. It is only the third time
in more than half a century of parliamentary life that both Houses have
been convened together in this manner. Yet, I fear that the very dignity
that should be associated with such an event is being damaged, by the insidious
purpose behind our sitting today.
We are not here to celebrate a consensus on a measure
of national importance. We are here today because this Government wishes
to exploit a sparing Constitutional provision to achieve its narrow and
controversial end. This Government is choosing to do so at a time when
our polity is divided right down the middle.
This Government has chosen to ignore the pleadings and
warnings of vast Members of the elected representatives. It has turned
a deaf ear to large sections of the people.
It has shown contempt for the opinion of the Media and
of our intellectuals. It has overlooked the view of an eminent Statutory
Authority like the Human Rights Commission to push its agenda through this
Joint Session. This Government has revealed its true intentions by using
every device to arm itself with the menacing powers of POTO.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, manipulating the processes of
Parliament for promoting a divisive ideological agenda is to subvert the
very spirit of the Constitution. The threat of a Joint Session was being
held out openly even before the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha had been
given a chance to debate the Bill. It was, I saw and we all saw, an attempt
to intimidate the Houses with arithmetic superiority and to reduce them
both to rubber stamps.
A Joint Session is an extra-ordinary provision to be considered
in all solemnity and seriousness when disagreements are not resolved. Even
then, it should be resorted to after sufficient time has been permitted
to elapse, to make allowance for introspection and possible emergence of
consensus. In any case, for an issue such as POTO, a Joint Session can
never be – I repeat, can never be – a satisfactory solution. It is, even
more unacceptable when it is used to pass a draconian law in the backdrop
of communal tension, of murder and looting in Gujarat, a divisive Ayodhya
campaign and an outrageous physical attack on the Orissa Assembly. We made
every effort to make this Government see reason and find a way out. We
suggested a Joint Select Committee so that harsh provisions of this Bill
could be discussed amicably and settled rationally. We asked the Government
to institute consultations with the Opposition parties. Our proposals,
I am afraid, were treated in a cursory fashion.
Given the record of the Government’s obstinacy, the appeal
made by the hon. Prime Minister, as late as yesterday, for cooperation
on this issue rings hollow and has been apparently designed as a debating
point. My own request to him, through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, is
that his Government steer clear of politically motivated approaches in
matters that cleave the polity.
My colleagues have already quoted from the speeches of
senior members of this Union Cabinet who had stood to oppose just such
a law in the past, namely, TADA. Those who vehemently assailed TADA at
the time of its extension include Shri Yashwant Sinha, the Finance Minister,
Shri Jaswant Singh, the External Affairs Minister, Shri George Fernandes,
the Defence Minister by the grace of the Prime Minister, Shri Ram Naik,
the Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shri Ram Vilas Paswan, the Minister
of Coal and Mines. All these hon. gentlemen referred to TADA at that time
as a blot on democracy, as a legislation worse than the Rowlatt Act, a
legislation used not to abolish terrorism but to give a blow to democracy.
Now, we all wonder why this 180-degree turn by these hon. gentlemen. What
of the noble concern for civil liberties and human rights they had so strongly
expressed?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, although the Congress Party took
the initiative, TADA was enacted in 1985 without dissent from the Opposition.
TADA became a law in a climate of consensus and not, not in a climate of
confrontation. During the 10 years of its existence, out of 76,000 detenues,
only about a thousand could be convicted. In the State worst affected by
terrorism, Jammu and Kashmir, TADA was totally, but totally, ineffective.
In view of this record, the Congress was ready to admit that TADA had failed
to serve its purpose. We had the self-confidence, not only the self-confidence
but we had the open-mindedness to learn from the past. We urged this Government
to learn from our collective experience. This Government, Mr. Deputy-Speaker,
Sir, refused to listen. Why? Why did it refuse to listen? Because, it was
bringing this law to project the issue of national security as a tool as
a partisan tool of propaganda. Let me be very clear what the Congress Party
is opposing. The proposed legislation is unacceptable because it violates
the basic human rights of individuals.
Before we deal with the bona fides of the Government
we should examine whether POTO has been effective in serving its stated
purpose. I would like to ask, Sir, in the last five months to what extent
have the activities of foreign terrorists abated? To what extent has cross-border
terrorism been reduced? To what extent has militancy been reduced and to
what extent has militancy in the North-East in particular been brought
under control? POTO is supposed to have a preventive aspect. To what extent,
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, did it succeed in preventing the attack on December
13 on our Parliament? We have, however, seen how POTO has been selectively
used and misused in the last few months.
To begin with, POTO was used to ban organisations in a
partisan manner. Among the first victims was a family in Jammu and Kashmir
which had nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with terrorism. The Government
had then to beat a hasty retreat on its very first step, in the wake of
public outcry. The Gujarat Chief Minister used it in an astonishingly sectarian
manner, namely, against only those perpetrators of the killings at Godhra.
He did so on the basis of a contrived distinction that one set of victims
were the victims of " terrorism" and the other set of victims were actually
the victims of rioting. Once again, intense public pressure compelled him
to eventually give up this falsehood. Yet, those who desecrated the sanctity
of the Orissa Assembly did not attract the provisions of POTO. The divisive
activities of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal that threaten to
tear apart the social fabric of our nation, also do not attract the provision
of POTO. The definition of "terrorist act" has been so cleverly, so very
cleverly, crafted that the advancement of a political, religious or ideological
agenda through murderous violence and destruction does not come within
the purview of this law!
With each passing day, it is becoming clear, it is becoming
more and more clear what and for whom POTO is intended.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, we have enough special laws in
the country. We have the National Security Act, 1980. We have the Arms
Act. We have the Explosive Substances Act, and many other Acts. Any or
all of these can be further strengthened and amended. More courts, for
instance, could be set up; more judges could be appointed. Prosecutors
and investigating agencies can be better trained and can be made more efficient,
more effective. The legal processes can be speeded up through judicial
reforms. If, extraordinary threats prevail in some parts of the country,
individual States are competent to consider their own suitable legislation.
I will not go into the technical lacunae in the law which
have adequately been mentioned and highlighted by my colleagues both in
the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. But I would like to just briefly refer
to some critical shortcomings: a Review Committee, in which a majority
of members are Government appointees; a presumption under which a person
is virtually deemed to be guilty until he proves himself to be innocent;
the defective definition of terrorism in the law; the admissibility of
confessions to the police which could be extracted through mental and physical
torture; and the provision for not disclosing the names of witnesses to
the accused under certain circumstances.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it should be obvious even to
the Home Minister that all these shortcomings make the law more dangerous
and more amenable to misuse. The law itself is threatening but it becomes
even more so in the hands of this Government. The merits and effects of
the law depend not only on its legal provisions but on the manner and fairness
with which it is implemented. There is, I am afraid, neither moral integrity
nor sincerity of purpose among those who are trying to force this law on
the nation today.
As late as the 24th of March, none other than
the distinguished Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission stated
after visiting Gujarat that "all that happened could have been averted"
and he added "that the people are still insecure in Gujarat." Yet, the
Chief Minister of Gujarat had the temerity to blame the discussions in
Parliament for the continuing communal tension. Sir, in view of such shining
credentials of a BJP Chief Minister, POTO, I suspect, will become an instrument
in the hands of this Government to suppress political opponents, religious
minorities, ethnic groups, weaker sections of our society, and the trade
unions. I am afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the POTO poses a larger threat
to the freedom of ordinary people than to terrorists. The devious intent
of the Government was betrayed by the manner in which the Ordinance was
rushed through just a few days before Parliament was due to meet. The promulgation
of POTO was accompanied by a public comment by a very important person
in the Government that it would lead to a "win-win" situation, implying
that the ruling establishment would gain politically whether POTO was passed
or not.
Does this not demonstrate that the real intent was never
to sincerely fight terrorism, but to gain political mileage? I am afraid,
it does so. Was this not why POTO was projected as the principal plank
during the recent Assembly elections? Yet, the BJP lost in Punjab, the
BJP lost in Uttaranchal, the BJP lost in Manipur, the BJP not only lost,
but suffered heavily in Uttar Pradesh. Now I would like to know, does the
Union Government, led by the same BJP, still not see the light?
The system of jurisprudence propounded by the fathers
of the Constitution and nurtured over decades provides basic safeguards
to protect the liberties of the citizens. POTO, I am afraid, will create
a parallel system. It will crate a separate system of legal procedures,
of evidence and of courts. It will bypass the normal criminal justice system.
In other words, it will not be a system of justice. It will be a system
of injustice and such a system is repugnant to the fundamentals of democracy.
Sir, history is witness to the fact that draconian laws
have rarely been successful in combating terrorism. This evil is best combated
by strengthening social cohesiveness, by promoting communal harmony, by
accelerating economic growth and above all by ensuring distributive equity
in the country. At any rate, the purpose of fighting terrorism cannot be
achieved by sacrificing individual freedom or by weakening democratic institutions.
Astoundingly, it has been suggested that opposing POTO
is tantamount to supporting terrorism. We have been accused of being soft
on terrorism. The Congress Party, of all Parties, has a proud and consistent
record of fighting terrorism. The Congress Party lost two of its tallest
leaders in the fight against terrorism. The Congress Party does not need
lessons in patriotism, least of all and certainly not from the proponents
of the "politics of hate" for which some Members present here today are
so well known. This simplistic and subversive propaganda is nothing but
a well-known technique that the Ruling Party has long since begun to adopt
in the country.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker Sir, if the Government is serious about
combating cross-border terrorism, we have always been ready, we will always
be ready and we are ready to extend our unstinted support. The Prime Minister,
as the head of this Government, has to decide whether his primary duty
is to protect the welfare of the people of India or to succumb to the internal
pressures of his Party and its sister organisations. Will he be submissive
and weak in his leadership or will he uphold the prestige of the high office
he holds? His moment of reckoning has come. My Party and I oppose this
legislation for its anti-democratic features.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, the Congress Party stands firmly
against POTO.
… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ àÉÉäcxÉ
®É´ÉãÉä : àÉcÉ®É]Å
àÉå BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
xÉäiÉßi´É ´ÉÉãÉÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cè, ´ÉcÉÆ
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉDªÉÉå
ãÉÉMÉÚ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ?…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
BÉDªÉÉ ´ÉcÉÆ
àÉÉ<xÉÉäÉÊ®]ÉÒ
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ xÉcÉÓ
cé?
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As agreed to in the Leaders’ meeting
held today, there shall be no lunch break and voting shall be held at around
5 p.m.
Shri Manohar Joshi.
THE MINISTER OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
(SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI): Mr. Deputy-Speaker Sir, I am thankful to you for
giving me this opportunity to address this very important Joint Session.
Sir, I am speaking on behalf of Shiv Sena, my Party. As
everybody is aware, my Party is fully supporting POTO. We believe in sovereignty
of our country. We are against all sorts of terrorism and are supporting
the Bill because we are a true, trustworthy and reliable friend of the
BJP. It is said that a friend in need is a friend indeed. Therefore, Sir,
we are supporting the Bill. It is also because we thought that it is absolutely
necessary in the interest of the country. This is what the Government can
do minimum in the interest of the law-abiding citizens of our country.
I have no hesitation in saying so. We want India, the people of India to
live without fear and with dignity. We have always fought against terrorism
and, therefore, our support to this Bill is from the bottom of our hearts.
I have been a witness to the havoc that was created by
the bomb blasts in Mumbai. Friends, those who have seen the bomb blasts,
I am sure, will understand the activities of the terrorists and will never
be in a position to oppose POTO..… (Interruptions)
Mr. Deputy-Speaker Sir, as the former Chief Minister of
Maharashtra, I have experienced what it takes to root out terrorism. The
much talked about Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MACOCA) was
also conceptualised during my time.
Sir, since 1988, we have suffered about 50,000 incidents
and have lost more than 12,000 lives of civilians and 4000 lives of security
personnel in the country.
See the recovery of the explosive material and imagine
the kind of destruction that this could have caused! More than 40,000 hand-grenades
have been recovered since 1990; 47,000 detonators, 5,100 anti-personnel
mines; more than 4,000 anti-tank mines; and 5,000 kgs. of RDX have been
recovered. You will be surprised to know that the materials recovered so
far from the terrorists would have been sufficient to perhaps blow up the
entire country. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the seriousness
of terrorism in our country. The terrorists are armed with AK-47 weapons.
This is what terrorism means today in the country. Therefore, Shiv Sena,
no doubt, not only supports the POTO Bill which has been introduced today
in the Joint Session of Parliament, but also expects that the provisions
of the Bill should have been made stricter than what they are today. Stricter
provisions are necessary because we are not fighting ordinary criminals.
We are fighting those who have all kinds of weapons and equipment with
them. Therefore, it is necessary that terrorism will have to be fought
with all unanimity and without any exception.
Sir, this Bill became necessary only because of the situation
that is prevailing in our neighbouring country. The greatest threat in
the world today is from the Islamic fundamentalist groups based in Pakistan.
How are we going to fight these fundamentalists, is the basic question
that is before us. These groups receive all kinds of support from the Government
of Pakistan. Islamic fundamentalism is also raising its ugly head in Bangladesh.
We all are aware that in Bangladesh also, in some parts Hindus have been
attacked. Nepal has also been witnessing the Maoist insurgency. More than
1,500 people have been killed. Looking at all these aspects, do you not
think it necessary that a strict law is passed in the country as early
as possible? We all were aghast when the Pakistani President, General Musharraf
termed the cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, a freedom movement,
when it is crystal clear that it is the ISI which is sponsoring, controlling
and cultivating terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. Look at what is being taught
in more than 50,000 Madarsas of Pakistan. Count the number of training
camps for terrorists, sponsored and being run by the Government of Pakistan.
If this is happening in our neighbouring country, should we not arrest
the problem, before it gets out of our hands?
We are faced with extremist movement in Andhra Pradesh,
Bihar, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Chattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh. We have
the menace of private armies in Bihar; in Assam there is a problem of ULFA;
People’s Liberation Army in Manipur, Socialist Council of Nagaland in Nagaland;
and All Tripura Tiger Force in Tripura.
From across the Indian border, there has been a large-scale
induction of lethal and sophisticated weapons, narcotics, fake currency
etc., and support is being provided for all these activities. So far, the
Government did try for peaceful measures.
You are all aware that a unilateral cease-fire was also
announced by the Government of India and it was extended thrice. But I
do not think that the terrorists will be able to understand the peaceful
measures which have been adopted so far. And, what is worse is that during
the visit of Gen. Musharraf also, the terrorists did continue with their
activity. I remember that the diary of the Lashkar-e-Toiba Commander,
Rahman, who was responsible for the brutal and mindless killings, contained
this and he had recorded this:
"The warriors of Lashkar-e-Toiba have killed
19 unbelievers of Islam. This is our challenge to the Indian Government.
"
Sir, it is clear that the terrorist activities in the country
are being done with a definite design and with an intention to see that
the total idea of the country like India is eliminated. Therefore, the
Government thought of taking steps and the first step was to go in for
POTO. It is known to everybody that they have been in favour of Jehadis.
They have been saying that Kashmir is only a gateway to establish the rule
of Allah throughout the world. For them, Kashmir is not the end but only
a means. The ultimate aim of these Jehadi groups is to revive the
tradition of Jehad among the Muslims all over the world in order
to win back the lost glory of the Muslim world. Therefore, we shall not
allow any of the Jehadi groups to succeed in its evil intentions.
If the Opposition wants to help these groups, we will not allow them to
do that. We will resist that and use all the might to protect the country
from this type of an activity.
The ordinary laws would never be sufficient to protect
our country because the terrorists have been brain-washed. Their idea is
of Jehad all over the world. They have enough resources, and, therefore,
it becomes more difficult. They have access to technology. We have seen
what they could do as in the case of the World Trade Centre Towers and
the crash of a plane on Pentagon. I am really surprised that how the people’s
representatives can take a stand against the interest of the people. These
Jehadis want to create an atmosphere which is more dangerous to
the country. It is seen that for fighting these people, the present law
would never be sufficient.
Their intention is to wipe out the country. Are we going
to permit this? Are we going to support this? I pose a question. Can we
secure the lives of Indians and are we ourselves secured?
Can I ask the Opposition? Are you not signing the death
warrants for the whole country by not assenting to this Bill? Are you going
to risk the security of this country for achieving some minor political
gains or for some small number of minority votes? Let me tell you that
in any case, these votes are not in the hands of anybody. For whom these
people will vote is unfortunately being decided by criminals sitting beyond
the borders. This is the politics that is coming in the way. So, those
who are eyeing these votes will not gain much. For the sake of votes, if
the Opposition wants to oppose POTO, I think, it is not in the interests
of the country.
The Opposition has been saying that the provisions of
the Bill are too stringent. A number of times they said that the provisions
are draconian. They are criticising the Bill saying that it violates the
human rights. Let us see as to whether the Opposition is saying this out
of conviction. Or are they opposing it for the sake of opposition? My party
feels that the Opposition is opposing POTO, only because they want to oppose
it for the sake of opposition. Beyond that, they have nothing to do with
POTO.
Sir, I must say that the very Government, the very people
who are opposing POTO have been implementing POTO in the States like Maharashtra.
I am saying this with all responsibility. The Congress leader here just
now opposed POTO. When Shri Advani was speaking, he did mention that privately
people are saying something different. I must mention that the POTO as
it stands today is not applied in many States. The POTO is applied for
a person like Afroz, in the State of Maharashtra, where the Congress Party
is leading.
May I ask the Opposition leaders this? Does it not prove
the point made by the hon. Home Minister that they may be opposing publicly
but when it comes to the execution, apart from the other States, the Maharashtra
Government was also one of the first States which applied POTO? The Government
in Maharashtra is led by the Congress Party today. The position of Maharashtra
is quite clear. The Congress Party is ruling Maharashtra in coalition with
the NCP, another Congress party. Shri Ramdas Athawale knows about it. The
NCP has supported POTO, whereas the Congress Party has opposed POTO. They
have no unanimity on the issue. POTO is applied already. The MACOCA has
been applied. Therefore, I personally feel that the provisions of POTO
are not more stringent than the law like MACOCA.
The question I therefore, pose now is this. Which of these
laws is more stringent? Obviously, POTO is not. Now, let us see as to how
MACOCA proposes to achieve and as to what is proposed to be tackled by
POTO? MACOCA is for combating organised crime and POTO is for combating
terrorism. I personally feel that any Act against organised crime may not
be as important as the crime against terrorists. Why is it that the Congress
Party, which has chosen to take recourse to MACOCA in Maharashtra, is opposing
POTO here? How can a law that applies to organised crimes syndicate such
as Abu Salem not apply to terrorist organisations, such as, Lashker-e-Toiba
or Al-Qaida or to Osama bin Laden? If the Congress Party feels
that the POTO is draconian, then they should first repeal the MACOCA in
Maharashtra before they raise their voice in this august House.
Let me give you some figures as to how the MACOCA has
become successful. The MACOCA has become successful in Maharashtra because
out of 21 cases decided so far, 16 have resulted in conviction. This was
against the organised crime. When it could be successful in Maharashtra,
I am sure that the POTO would also be successful as soon as it is accepted
by this august House.
13.00 hrs.
If you leave aside petty offences, the success rate as
per the present law is only 6.5 per cent whereas the success rate of MACOCA
in Maharashtra is more than 75 per cent.
Sir, a question was raised here about the protection of
witnesses which has been provided in this Bill. I am happy to mention that
the protection of witnesses is absolutely necessary, as rightly mentioned
by the hon. Home Minister. In the case of the assassination of Gen. Vaidya,
we are all aware that the witnesses, even the members of the family, could
not come forward to give evidence because they were afraid of the consequences.
Therefore, it is necessary that such provisions are included in the Bill.
The important point which has been raised by the Opposition
from time to time is that they are afraid that this law might be used against
minorities. I must say that any criminal is a criminal, whether he belongs
to a minority community or the majority community. I would like to quote
some of the names of persons against whom cases were filed under TADA during
the tenure of the Government headed by the Congress Party. They are, Yaqub
MeMon, Sharif Sarkar, Abdul Ghani Mailsur, Ashraf Mukadam, Faruq Pable,
Pervez Sheikh etc. Who are these people who were arrested under TADA? I
am not going to read the entire list, but I have the entire list with me
which shows that these were notorious criminals and therefore they were
arrested.
Sir, even during the application of MACOCA, you will find
that most of the gangsters arrested in Mumbai were the gangsters belonging
to Dawood gang. So, whenever some people oppose POTO or oppose the Act
like MACOCA, I would like to ask them a question. Are we going to look
into the religion of the people arrested or are we going to act as per
the provisions of the law? I would like to mention here that wherever Dawood’s
people were arrested, all their deeds were serious crimes. In cases of
crimes relating to murder, extortion, possession of fake currency, illegal
fire arms and ammunition etc., would you accuse a bias in enforcing the
law against a particular community? I am sure that wherever there is a
possibility of such misuse, the Government has taken all the necessary
precautions to stop that.
Sir, action under TADA in the Mumbai bomb blast case was
taken by the Government headed by the Congress Party and action under MACOCA
is also being taken by the Congress-led coalition Government in Maharashtra.
We could proceed with the trial in the Mumbai bomb blast case only because
there was an Act like TADA. Would you not like these criminals to be arrested
and tried for the offences that they are committing? Unless the misdeeds
and evil intentions are curbed timely, I am afraid that there would be
further inroads into administration and politics. Then, the things will
become worse and our country will become another Afghanistan which was
being ruled by the Taliban. If you see the list of people arrested, you
will find that they were notorious people and therefore action against
them was necessary.
Sir, in the case of POTO, a special provision has been
made that if a confession made before a police officer is going to be accepted,
within 24 hours the confession has also to be recorded before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate and therefore all necessary precautions have been taken
in this Bill. As regards the fear of misuse of this law, very often TADA
is quoted, but in TADA the provisions were different. It was made absolutely
clear by the hon. Home Minister that those provisions which were dangerous
have been removed and a new Bill has been brought in.
Some people, while speaking on this Bill, have said that
in the list of banned organisations, all of them are belonging to minorities.
But I would like to mention that only eight organisations out of a list
of 25 are concerning minorities and rest of the organisations have no concern
with minority communities. A demand was also made, either in the Lok Sabha
or Rajya Sabha, for banning Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang
Dal. I would request the hon. Minister of Home Affairs never to think
of banning these organisations which are for national interests. They have
not done anything wrong of the nature of other organisations that I have
mentioned. … (Interruptions) The Government should not yield. …
(Interruptions)
Let me know a single activity done by these organisations
which is against the national interests. Therefore, the Shiv Sena
will not tolerate any action being taken against these organisations. These
are working in the interest of the nation. … (Interruptions)
I must say that all the Chief Ministers have, from time
to time, also supported POTO. The general consensus in the country, as
the hon. Minister of Home Affairs has said, seems to be in the interest
of POTO.
I must also say that it has been heard that Osama Bin
Laden has said: "The biggest enemies of Islam are in India and the USA.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Puglia, no interruptions, please.
SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: I must say that unfortunately in this
country some people are supporting the Jehad. They are working on
the lines of the Taliban.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Please do not disturb. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Puglia, please resume your seat.
Do not disturb now.
SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: I must refer that from the Jama Masjid,
Shahi Imam has appealed to the Muslims to join Jehad. I think, if
such appeals are made, these are most risky and not in the interest of
unity and integrity of the country. Therefore, if action is to be taken,
it should be taken against Shahi Imam. Strict measures should be taken
against him. If he makes any propaganda in favour of Jehad, strict
action should be taken against him under POTO.
I have always been saying that all of us must be united
on this issue. I find an illustration. When President Bush took action,
it was quick. The people in every country thought that action against the
terrorists and also against the Government of Pakistan would be quick.
I also found that when President Bush took action, the entire country stood
behind him. I wish that whatever action the hon. Prime Minister, Shri Vajpayee,
is taking, we must all stand behind him unitedly in the interests of the
country.
In the case of Israel also, we have found the same thing.
All the people of Israel supported the action against the Pakistanis. Unfortunately
here, the country is divided. That creates a problem for us.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now, you please conclude. There were
nine minutes. But you have taken 24 minutes.
SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI : I will conclude in a minute.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Otherwise, you will not be able in
a position to finish your speech.
SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: Sir, the Government cannot take action
without a weapon. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Rawale, I am here to regulate
the House.
SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: We have given one weapon in the hands
of the Minister of Home Affairs. If we want the terrorists to be stopped,
we must give him more weapons, that is, a stricter law than the present
one. Then, I am sure, he will be successful.
Finally, I would say that on such issues, the country
should be united. We must act unanimously. If we want to strengthen the
country, the only way out is to pass this Bill unanimously and assist the
Government.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now, Shri Somnath Chatterjee. You
can also take up Shri Basu Deb Acharia’s point of order.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR): Sir, I think, no time-limit
is there. I find that the Shiv Sena did not have any time-limit.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: He has taken enough time. What to
do? He is a senior leader.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : Mr. Deputy-Speaker Sir, the
hon. Home Minister said that our hon. Prime Minister has the unique distinction
of attending all the three Joint Sittings of this Parliament of India,
as if it was a great distinction, I do not know. But at least, he has acquired
the distinction of presiding over the conscious decimation of the secular
fabric of this country.
Under the benign protection of our esteemed Prime Minister,
a State- sponsored, a political party sponsored mayhem is carried on in
one of the States in this country, where on the basis of religion people
are being butchered and the Chief Minister of that State is trying to justify
the mass scale killings on the basis of a reaction to a very condemnable
incident. What more pronounced misutilisation of POTO can be there?
I was waiting for the hon. Home Minister to make a reference
to that. In this State selectively POTO was used against minorities. For
85 killings which were absolutely ghastly killings, the use of POTO was
justified against those criminals. On what basis it was not applied against
the people belonging to the majority community, who had indulged in that
mass killing in Gujarat? When it became too hot, when suddenly, probably
some message had gone from Delhi that ''''''''the Joint Sitting is going to be
held, we have to take up a posture of neutrality or evenhandedness'''''''', we
find sudden withdrawal of such cases under POTO against the minorities.
The hon. Home Minister conscientiously, I believe, did not refer to that.
Now, what we find even today is that the police officers
have been shunted out because they had taken certain action against the
majority people there. They are being transferred. There we find that without
any contradiction - we have not seen any contradiction - the police officers
are saying in Gujarat: "Allow us to function, you are keeping us almost
handicapped, we cannot function, we cannot take action against the perpetrators
of such heinous crime". Not one word has come either from the hon. Prime
Minister or from the hon. Home Minister. I would like to know what is the
response of the hon. Prime Minister or the hon. Home Minister towards the
deliberate insult that has been committed by one of the Chief Ministers
belonging to the party of the Prime Minister himself. In what language
he has criticised the Parliament as a whole? He says and I am quoting because
there is no rejoinder, I take it he has been correctly quoted: "There is
a systematic attempt made by hypocrites sitting in Delhi to exaggerate
the Gujarat situation and they are using the Parliament."
Therefore, I take it that the BJP top leadership approves
of this and the Prime Minister approves of this. And today, we have been
told about the great institution of Parliament, which they are deliberately
denigrating. There is a limit to double standards. This Joint Session is
being held not for upholding any parliamentary tradition but because of
the intransigence of this Government in imposing on the democratic people
of this country a most draconian piece of legislation.
Sir, people like us consider this nothing but a declaration
of war on the ordinary people of this country. We know the real victims
of this legislation, as has already been seen, will be not the die-hard
terrorists because you are unable to catch hold of them but against your
detractors, political detractors and particularly against the minorities,
as we have already seen.
Sir, the Constitution of India was adopted in this great
Hall by the founding fathers, who fought for Independence and freedom,
made sacrifices and they fought for the unity and integrity of this country.
They believed that secularism and equality would not be mere mantras
but would be practised by those who will be ruling this country. And that
would be the commitment of the nation as a whole and that would find its
culmination in the governance of this country. But, Sir, what has happened
today? This great Hall, which has given our great Constitution, where equality
is a fundamental right, where protection of minorities is a fundamental
commitment of the country as whole, is being defiled today by what I feel
the power-hungry marauders of democratic and human rights. They are intent
on dividing the nation on the basis of religion with the help of fundamentalist
and obscurantist forces like VHP, Bajrang Dal and RSS, and what I consider
tragically supported by some misguided friends, who have mortgaged their
democratic conscience by joining in an opportunistic alliance for sharing
power and the attendant benefits.
Sir, I charge this Government of trying to pull down every
sacred cornerstone of the great edifice of our Constitution. They are being
dismantled by this Government who will go down in the history as the attempted
wreckers of the Constitution.
Sir, I saw and heard the hon. Home Minister saying on
the Television in the other House that no motive should be imputed to them
and that people should accept the assurances of good behaviour on the part
of this Government. But, Mr. Home Minister, did you consider, has the Prime
Minister been good enough to consider what is your credibility in this
country, what is your Government’s credibility in this country? You have
violated every promise made to the people. Every assurance and every constitutional
commitment to the people have been jettisoned. The people’s unity is at
stake. Equality under the Constitution has last all relevance. Secularism
is in shambles.
Indian economy is in tatters. Federalism has become a
very dispensable commodity, concept. The promise of one crore jobs every
year has become a joke. Even the concept of Swadeshi, which many
of you still mention from housetops, has become an outdated concept to
this Government. Our foreign policy, which has been the common foreign
policy of this country, has been expressly sacrificed to keep some of your
friends happy. That is why, whenever there is a new occasion before the
people to express their views, they are doing it unreservedly. That is
why, you are losing one after another election. You have lost your base
and the people, in no uncertain terms, have given their verdict. Their
verdict is against this motley combination which is surviving only for
the purpose of sharing the spoils.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I have no doubt when the time
will come for the people of India as a whole to give their verdict, they
will consign this outfit to the dustbin of history. This law is to be implemented
by the State Governments primarily. But how many States the BJP and its
Allies are ruling? BJP rules only in three States and its Allies are in
power in four others. Maybe, in the next some other election, it will go
minus one. Sir, 20 States have Governments belonging to Opposition Parties
or to Parties outside the NDA. In two States, there is President’s Rule.
Even the people of Uttar Pradesh and of Uttranchal have shown them the
door. But no lesson has been learnt. Sir, it is inevitable that the nemesis
will overtake them but the trouble is, in the meantime, the country suffers
and the people are burnt alive in one of the States ruled by the BJP, namely,
Gujarat.
Sir, we are reminded every time of this. We know that.
We have never disputed that terrorism has become a worldwide phenomenon;
that we are suffering from cross-border terrorism; and that proxy war is
upon us. Who has denied it? Can there be a single instance cited by this
Government when the Opposition Parties have not co-operated with them?
Whenever the hon. Prime Minister thought it fit to call us, which may be
very rarely, or on those rare occasions when there is trouble within BJP,
I have said that--we have openly supported even whatever proposals were
there regarding Kashmir. We supported the cease-fire. I said: "If you want
it, we support it." They wanted the cease-fire to be withdrawn. We supported
it. Can you cite a single instance where the Opposition Parties did not
co-operate? Not a single occasion can be cited when we have, in any way,
tried to deal with it as a partisan matter? If the Government feels and
as they say now that this is a national problem, then why no national approach
is made? Instead of mentioning that some Chief Ministers have been quietly
telling him something—obviously he cannot name them—and trying to create
a suspicion about the bona fides of Chief Ministers ruled by other
Parties, why no national approach is made? You are trying to create an
aura of suspicion about the duly elected Chief Ministers in this country.
I did not expect this from Shri Lal Krishna Advani. Although I have been
deliberately misquoted, I have said it in Parliament, I never denied it
that yes, coming from a border State when I was speaking for West Bengal,
as I am a Member from West Bengal, some special law may be necessary but
we are against the draft POTO Bill which had been even recommended by the
Law Commission.
Why do you not sit with us across the table, take up clause
by clause and tell us what are the problems faced by this Government. The
West Bengal Government is facing the problem but what is the solution.
He says that he has given a list. I do now know whether he should be guided
by the Law Minister. Shri Advani has read out a list of who supported it
and who did not support. If the law was necessary for the country’s benefit,
it would have been passed, as a whole, by acclamation but you have made
it a partisan matter.
We have said that the National Human Rights Commission
has given its views and so let us consider it. Suddenly we found that an
Ordinance was promulgated, after the House had been summoned or when the
House was going to be summoned, on the 24th of October. It is not a red-letter
day but a black-letter day. It is one of the blackest days of this country.
It shows how the whole Parliamentary system is being sought to be affected
and decimated, how the Government treats the Opposition parties. You are
in a hopeless minority so far as the State Governments are concerned. What
was the basic necessity of this Ordinance?
The other day, during the last stages of deliberations
in the Lok Sabha on this Bill, I asked only one question to the hon. Home
Minister: "You have this law from the 24th of October but what is the result?
How many cases have you apprehended? What has been the effect on Jammu
and Kashmir? What is the effect on the North-Eastern States? What is its
effect on the ISI activities? How many people have been apprehended? How
many terrorist attacks have been prevented since this is a preventive law?"
He said that he would give those figures but even today we have not got
those figures.
From the 24th of October, this law is in full force. I
would like to know what the outcome has been. Why could they not stop the
13th December attack? Mr. Prime Minister, you abused us in Shri Sharad
Pawar’s birthday party. You said that we were irresponsible people in the
Opposition. Shri Advani has been repeatedly saying, ‘Whatever may happen,
we are in a win-win situation but look at the irresponsibility of the Opposition.’
He echoed George Bush. Sometimes it seems, Lal Krishna Advani has become
Lal Krishna Bush. He echoed George Bush and said: "Those who oppose POTO
are in effect supporting terrorism. They are being soft so far as terrorists
are concerned." We can reject this type of fulmination totally. I would
ask the hon. Home Minister – I understand, the hon. Prime Minister would
intervene and I hope he does – why the Government could not stop the attack
on the 13th of December on Parliament building when you had full knowledge
of it. Today, you have made it a fortress. We do not mind it. Certainly,
you have to protect Parliament. My charge is, with full knowledge, you
did not take any step because you wanted to utilise it against the Opposition
parties. … (Interruptions)
Sir, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has referred to
some of the glorious interventions of our present Minister of External
Affairs. I am his unabashed admirer. I think, he knows that, although he
continues to remain in that company. His observations have already been
quoted.
Sir, I am coming to my sister, Shrimati Sushma Swaraj,
the most articulate of them. Of course, Shri Yashwant Sinha, in a great
bravado, did not imagine that he would be the Minister of Finance one day
and he has to find out moneys for tackling the terrorists. He also said
something. It has been quoted and I need not quote it. Our worthy hon.
Minister of Defence has also said certain things.
Now, I would like to quote about the recent convert, Shri
Ram Jethmalani, our distinguished friend. I hope he is present here. I
quote:
"You have created a law of which any decent person should
be ashamed of. "
I think, either he has become indecent or the sense of shame
has gone. Now, he has chosen his present company. I again quote his observations:
"I wish there were some educated people to advise the
then Minister of Home Affairs. "
Of course, it should equally apply to the present Minister
of Home Affairs. He said that there must be somebody who had some intimate
knowledge of criminology, some people who had knowledge of the theory of
legislation and the theory of penal legislation at that. He said that such
advisors should have been available to the Minister of Home Affairs of
the Congress Party. I do not remember who was there at that time.
Now, I come to my good sister. My admiration for you is
not lessened by what you said earlier. She said:
"We accept that TADA has not only been misused, but
has been misused flagrantly... The fundamental root of misuse is Section
3. Because this is where you begin to define a terrorist act. It is because
of this definition that political opponents can be arrested under TADA…that
TADA can be used on farmers…that innocent people can be caught under TADA
and kept languishing for years. Your definition is so broad that any person-
an ordinary criminal who could be charged under the IPC is also picked
up under this Act thus defeating its very purpose and intention."
I know your conscience is troubling you. We have got the
expression of half of it otherwise. But today how is it different Mr. Home
Minister? In what way? It is because you are going to implement it. You
are threatening the people for five
long months. You think the test of patriotism is dependent
on the support a person gives to the POTO. What will you do? Unfortunately,
it will become the law and it will be a permanent legislation. You do not
have to go on renewing it. It will give a little respite to Shri Pramod
Mahajan. He does not have to gather people here to get this Ordinance enacted
and law passed. But what will you do tomorrow with this law, Mr. Home Minister?
You said: `well, I had thought the USA would react in certain manner; this
country would react in such a manner’. What did you gain by your kowtowing
to the U.S. President? I would not use strong language for your statements,
observations or whatever it may be. How would he come to your rescue? Which
foreign country has come to your rescue? Merely by following one law in
terms of the Security Council or the U.N. General Assembly Session, will
it solve the problem? Can you guarantee us from here, from this rostrum,
Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Home Minister, that after this becomes a permanent
law in our Statute Book, there will be no incident? Sixteen year old boys
have been arrested in Gujarat under POTO. This is the type of use that
you have been putting it to. Minorities are being attacked. How will you
stop terrorism, I would like to know. We should all the time remember that
this law is in full force from 24th of October, 2001, and the
submissions are being made as if only if it becomes a law today, it will
be used. This is a completely wrong impression which is being created throughout
the country.
Till today, we have not been told what was the tearing
hurry for issuing this Ordinance. We have not been told what were the reasons
which would justify this Ordinance. We have been waiting for an answer,
but no answer has been given.
How could this law will be utilised by them, I would try
to show in my humble way. The whole object is to carry on a virulent propaganda
on the basis of POTO. This POTO could never be utilised. Even now, no Special
Court has been constituted till today. Only in this Bill, not earlier,
they provided that the present Sessions Court can act as a Special Court.
That is only when the new Bill has come in. Till January-February, there
was no Special Court to try any of these offences. No designated authority,
no public prosecutors have been appointed. No rules have been framed under
clause 19, even regarding forfeiture or otherwise. No Review Committee
has been constituted either. Then how can this law be implemented? Why
are you showing POTO as if this is the panacea for all evils when you are
not sincere about its implementation? Even if we have been opposing, you
do not care for our sentiments. You do not care for the entire Opposition’s
views in this matter. You do not care that today a majority of the States
perhaps will not implement it. But even then you must have your zid
and you must go on with this because you want to indulge in propaganda
and probably you want to show to President Bush that here I have passed
a law.
I charge that really it has been a still-born legislation.
But it has been hastily brought to terrorise the minorities and the Opposition
parties to be utilised for the last elections that were held recently in
different States.
That is why they have not been able to prevent a single
terrorist act. They have not been able to cite one instance where because
of this law they could prevent some action being taken.
Therefore, I charge whatever may be the anguish of the
hon. Minister of Home Affairs who may feel that "Oh, well, you are not
accepting our bona fide", I am sorry that in respect of this measure
we suspect the bona fides of this unnecessary law, of this black
law and we cannot accept the bona fides of this Government so far
as this law is concerned.
Many well-known people, jurists including Shri Fali S.
Nariman – you may not be liking him today so much – have said about it.
Do not accept the humble views of a humble lawyer like me. But there are
eminent people, the National Human Rights Commission who said on it. What
has been said by the National Human Rights Commission? They said :
"The Commission is unanimously of the considered view
that there is no need to enact a law based on the draft Prevention of Terrorism
Bill, 2000 and the needed solution can be found under the existing laws,
if properly enforced and implemented, and amended, if necessary. The proposed
Bill, if enacted, would have the ill-effect of providing unintentionally
a strong weapon capable of gross misuse and violation of human rights which
must be avoided particularly in view of the experience of the misuse in
the recent past of TADA and earlier of MISA of the Emergency days."
This is not what Somnath Chatterjee says. The National Human
Rights Commission, presided over by no less a person than one of the outstanding
Chief Justices this country has had, Justice J.S. Verma says :
"This Commission regrets its inability to agree with
the opinion of the Law Commission in its 173rd Report and recommends
that a new law based on the draft Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2000 be
not enacted. Such a course is consistent with our country’s determination
to combat and triumph over terrorism in a manner also consistent with the
promotion and protection of human rights."
Unfortunately, none of the Members of the National Human
Rights Commission is a Member of the CPI(M). I would have liked them to
be so; but they are not.
The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, presided over
by Justice Leila Seth, former Chief Justice says :
"We strongly advocate that the Prevention of Terrorism
Ordinance 2001 will impinge on the rights of the citizens as seen in the
earlier terrorism Bill, the TADA which, instead of being able to curtail
terrorism, incarcerated thousands of innocent people."
I do not wish to go into too many details about their misuse.
Recently, the Supreme Court, only two days back, has said about TADA that
TADA was a serious inroad to the liberty of an individual. The Bench consisting
of Justice Banerjee and Justice Venkatarama Reddy said : "TADA cannot but
be said to be a drastic piece of legislation." If I may quote, the Bench
also wondered "whether the Police had planted the case on the accused or
roped him in." These are the types of misuse done. It then says : "Is this
deliberate to cover up or to present a make-belief situation which otherwise
tends not only improbable but totally absurd?" The Bench asked this and
noted:"The State Government’s advocate has answered the same in silence
rather than on a definite note."
The recent observation of the Supreme Court on one of
the cases of misuse of TADA in another case is there. Another Bench comprising
Justice M.B. Shah and Justice Dharmadhikari dismissed the Gujarat Government’s
appeal against the acquittal of one WAQAR Ahmed Abdul Hamid Sheikh who
was arrested for the same offence and tried on the same evidence by which
the Apex Court had dismissed the Government’s appeal relating to another
accused in 1997.
With regard to the same offence, `this person has been
in jail for years together.’ These are the observations of the Supreme
Court. Of course, we have seen the instance of its misuse in Gujarat. Sir,
we have got some of these particulars about the number of cases where only
a few, very minimal people had been ultimately proceeded with or could
be sentenced. They have all resulted in acquittals in most of the cases,
but they have spent years and years in jail, without any trial and without
any opportunity to vindicate their positions. I appeal to all sections
of the House that this is the irony of the situation that an important
matter, namely, fight against terrorism has been made a partisan issue
by this Government because its real intention is not to fight terrorism
but to fight for some other purposes which they want to keep hidden. We
have seen how the hidden agenda of this Government has come out. We have
seen what happened in Ayodhya. There is no longer any secret. This Government
has participated in the religious function. It has now become the holder
of consecrated stones. There, they will appoint pujaris to perform
puja. This is the function of this Government! Under this Government,
this has happened.
Sir, therefore, when all these important organisations/persons
are saying that there are adequate provisions in the law, if they had thought
of tightening some of the laws and some other provisions, I can understand
that. I can understand that some provisions regarding bail, and some provisions
regarding quick disposal of the cases could have been amended. Nobody would
have opposed it if properly conceived legislations had been brought about.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, therefore…. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am also aware of the time.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : Sir, so far as the Bill is concerned.
… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ ºÉÖ®ä¶É
®ÉàÉ®É´É VÉÉvÉ´É
({É®£ÉxÉÉÒ) : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ªÉc ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ +ÉÉè®
ãÉåMÉä?
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Jadhav, will you please keep
quiet? Only nine minutes of time was there for Shri Joshi, but he spoke
for 24 minutes. When senior leaders speak, they know their responsibility.
Every time, you are disturbing like this.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, there
are many of these problems. The Law Minister is fully aware that the gravest
concerns are shown regarding the width of definition of terrorist acts
under clause (c), with regard to seizure of property and with regard to
terrorist organisations. I am not going into the details with regard to
provisions of the Bill.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no time.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : About the review committees,
I would ask how non-judicial persons, how non-legally trained persons can
be members of the review committee. Then, the onus is put on the person
charged. So far as membership of terrorist organisation is concerned, one
has to prove the negative. Then, the onus is shifted on the accused regarding
wide amplitude of so-called support to the terrorist organisations. Then,
clause 29 provides for summary trial. Clause 30 provides for something
unique, that is, names of the witnesses will not be divulged. This is against
all canons of proper trial. Then, everybody has condemned the provision
of confessions before the police officer. This is an anathema to law.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Somnath Chatterjee, please conclude.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : Sir, I will take half-a-minute
more. These are the serious lacunae in this law, so-called law. I call
it a lawless law. I only wish to say to Mr. Prime Minister that you find
this country divided today in the middle on this issue. In majority of
the States, you cannot implement this law. You have to do it through Central
forces. That will be a direct attack on the federal concept of this country
and on the Constitution. In good grace, you should withdraw this. You have
made it a prestigious issue. All sorts of propaganda are going on that
something historic is going to take place.
Sir, we are sorry that one provision of the Constitution
of India is being misused for partisan purpose of this Government, which
has forfeited all support of the people of this country as has been proved
by the recent elections.
I thoroughly and totally oppose this Bill.
SHRI K. YERRANNAIDU (SRIKAKULAM): Hon. Deputy-Speaker,
Sir, I am very grateful to you for giving me an opportunity to speak on
this Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The country is facing severe terrorism and cross-border
terrorism. POTO is the need of the hour to combat terrorism and cross-border
terrorism. I am speaking on behalf of my Telugu Desam Party. My Party is
supporting POTO as proposed by the Government of India.
Sir, we are all aware that we have enacted so many legislations
in our country. Even in the year 1980, there was a legislation, that is,
the National Security Act. We have the Prevention of Narcotics Act, we
have the Essential Commodities Act, we have MISA, we have NSA, and we have
TADA. We have so many legislations to control crimes. Why have we enacted
so many special laws? That is my question.
The situations are different. Now, the country is facing
terrorism and cross-border terrorism. In the last 20 years, we lost 61,000
civilians, who were killed by the terrorists, and nearly 8,000 security
guards were killed in these terrorist acts. Even recently, on the 13th
of December, terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament. Therefore, the
need of the hour is to legislate a special law. So many Governments, depending
upon the scenario existing in their States, have enacted such special laws.
Even the Maharashtra Government, where the Congress is in power, has implemented
MACOCA very effectively and efficiently. The Andhra Pradesh Government
also replicated MACOCA. It has also enacted the same legislation and it
is being implemented in Andhra Pradesh. The Karnataka Government also enacted
a similar law. They have also passed a legislation and it is pending before
the President of India for his consent. Even recently, the West Bengal
Government also enacted this special legislation. … (Interruptions)
SHRI RUPCHAND PAL (HOOGLY): No.
SHRI K. YERRANNAIDU : They propose to enact a special
law. Today, your Chief Minister made a statement, which you can read in
the newspapers. After POTO, I will talk about that special legislation.
What he said came out in the newspapers today.
We are not against any religion or community or any group.
This legislation is aimed at combating not only terrorism within the country
but cross-border terrorism as well. Through this legislation we have to
root out terrorism completely from our soil. This is the crux of the whole
legislation. In this scenario we all together should pass this legislation.
Sir, TADA was enacted in 1985 and the provisions of this
Act were extended till the year 1995. So, in all, this Act was in operation
for ten years in this country. Everybody knows that this Act was misused.
Even we had MISA in our country and we all know what happened consequently
in the 1977 General Elections. MISA was misused by various State Governments
and the people gave their verdict in the 1977 elections and the Janata
Party Government came to power. So, if any State Government or the Central
Government misuses a law, then people, who are always the better judges,
would punish them in course of time.
Sir, this law also would have to be implemented by the
State Governments. Presently, 15 States are ruled by Congress Governments,
seven other States are ruled by regional political parties and only three
States are ruled by the BJP Governments. So, we should have the will not
to misuse this law and that the State Governments should take stern action
against the culprits. If this law is implemented properly, then acts of
terrorism would get largely reduced in our country. In the last 20 years,
the Government of India has had to spend a sum of Rs. 45,000 crore for
maintaining our Armed Forces. Today we are facing shortage of drinking
water in our country; there is lack of all-weather roads and even there
are no houses for our poor people. The acts of terrorism have rendered
about six lakh people of our country homeless. We all have witnessed these
things in our country. Under the circumstances, we have to unanimously
pass this Bill to combat terrorism. If there is any misuse of this Act,
then the people would teach those Governments a suitable lesson at the
appropriate time.
Sir, everybody has been appreciating the efforts of the
Maharashtra Government for their having implemented the MACOCA effectively.
Although the number of cases registered under it is less, yet the conviction
rate is 75 per cent. Even in our State, we are controlling organised crimes
by implementing the provisions of a special legislation in this regard.
We are achieving the desired results. If a law is found to be bad, then
we could have a re-think about it at a later stage. Everything is in our
hands. If any provision of the Act is found to be misused continuously,
then it could be amended suitably or it could even be repealed altogether.
Sir, my party had given certain suggestions when this
Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) was issued. It related to the
reduction of the period from five years to three years. We have to protect
the Fundamental Rights of the people of our country and with a view to
doing this we made a suggestion to amend Sections 38 and 14 of the Bill.
The Cabinet took a decision to amend those two Sections and accepted the
suggestions made by our party. So, we are supporting this Bill in toto
that is being sought to be passed with a view to combating not only terrorism
within the country but also cross-border terrorism. We are supporting this
Bill as it is.
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É (ºÉà£ÉãÉ)
: ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ¤ÉcÖiÉ
nÖJÉ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ càÉå
ªÉcÉÆ BÉEcxÉÉ {Éb
®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ªÉc ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
<ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ ºÉä
BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉ¤ÉBÉE
ºÉÉÒJÉxÉä BÉEÉ
|ɪÉÉºÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE® ®cÉÒ cè BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ +É£ÉÉÒ ¤Éè~ä
cÖA lÉä, ´Éc iÉiBÉEÉãÉ
cÉÒ SÉãÉä MɪÉä,
=xÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
BÉE<Ç ¤ÉÉ® BÉEcÉ
MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ´Éc
<ºÉ iÉ®c BÉEÉÒ iÉÉÒxÉÉå
AäÉÊiÉcÉÉʺÉBÉE
¤Éè~BÉEÉå àÉå
¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ ®cä
cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ÉÊ{ÉE®
£ÉÉÒ <ºÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
xÉä +ÉÉè® |ÉvÉÉxÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
xÉä BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉ¤ÉBÉE
ãÉäxÉä BÉEÉ |ɪÉɺÉ
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ*
VÉÉä ºÉ¤ÉBÉE xÉcÉÓ
ãÉäiÉä, =xÉBÉEÉ <ÉÊiÉcɺÉ
ºÉ¤ÉBÉEÉä {ÉiÉÉ
cè, ´Éc JÉÖn iÉÉä bÚ¤ÉiÉä
cÉÒ cé +ÉÉè® ºÉÉlÉ
àÉå +É{ÉxÉä ºÉcªÉÉäÉÊMɪÉÉå
BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ bÖ¤ÉÉä
näiÉä cé ¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉä
ºÉàÉÉSÉÉ® {ÉjÉÉå
àÉå |ÉSÉÉÉÊ®iÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE {ÉÆÉÊbiÉ VÉ´ÉÉc®
ãÉÉãÉ xÉäc°ô xÉä
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä +ÉɶÉÉÒ´ÉÉÇn
ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
´Éc ABÉE +ÉSUä {ÉÉÉÌãɪÉÉàÉäx]äÉÊ®ªÉxÉ
£ÉÉÒ cé +ÉÉè®
£ÉÉÊ´ÉªÉ àÉå
<ºÉ nä¶É BÉEä ¤É½ä
xÉäiÉÉ ¤ÉxÉåMÉä,
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
iÉBÉE ¤ÉxÉåMÉä* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
BÉDªÉÉ =xcÉåxÉä xÉäc°ô
VÉÉÒ BÉEä +ÉÉn¶ÉÉæ
BÉEÉ {ÉÉãÉxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
? 1961 àÉå {ÉcãÉÉÒ
ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ¤Éè~BÉE
cÖ<Ç ÉÊVɺÉàÉå
ncäVÉ ÉÊxÉÉäPÉ
ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE +ÉɪÉÉ
lÉÉ, =ºÉ ºÉàɪÉ
{ÉÆÉÊbiÉ VÉ´ÉÉc®
ãÉÉãÉ xÉäc°ô ªÉÉÊn
SÉÉciÉä iÉÉä ®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ àÉå £ÉÉÒ
ªÉc ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE
{ÉÉºÉ cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ
iÉlÉÉ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE BÉEÉÒ xÉÉè¤ÉiÉ
£ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ +ÉÉiÉÉÒ
BÉDªÉÉäÉÊBÉE ºÉƺÉn
BÉEä nÉäxÉÉå ºÉnxÉÉå
BÉEÉ =xcå |ÉSÉÆb ¤ÉcÖàÉiÉ
cÉÉʺÉãÉ lÉÉ
* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ =ºÉBÉEä
¤ÉÉn £ÉÉÒ xÉäc°ô
VÉÉÒ xÉä =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ
ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÉÆÉÊjÉBÉE
àɪÉÉÇnÉ+ÉÉäÆ,
{É®à{É®É+ÉÉäÆ
+ÉÉè® xÉèÉÊiÉBÉEiÉÉ
BÉEÉ {ÉÉãÉxÉ BÉE®iÉä
cÖA ºÉƺÉn BÉEÉ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
+ÉÉÊvÉ´Éä¶ÉxÉ
¤ÉÖãÉɪÉÉ +ÉÉè®
ABÉE ÉÊàɺÉÉãÉ
BÉEɪÉàÉ BÉEÉÒ
®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ xÉä
ncäVÉ ÉÊxÉÉävÉ
ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE ´ÉÉ{ɺÉ
BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ
*
14.00 hrs.
{É. xÉäc°ô
xÉä ºÉÆªÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE àÉå +É{ÉxÉä
ºÉnºªÉÉå {É® VÉÉä®
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊnªÉÉ * ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE
BÉEä {ÉFÉ +ÉlÉ´ÉÉ
ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ àÉå
´ÉÉä] BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ
=xcÉåxÉä {ÉÚ®ÉÒ
UÚ] +ÉÉè® +ÉÉWÉÉnÉÒ
nä nÉÒ lÉÉÒ * ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
càÉ VÉÉxÉiÉä cé ÉÊBÉE
ªÉc ÉÊàɺÉÉãÉ
BÉEɪÉàÉ cÖ<Ç* ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ
nãÉ +ÉÉVÉ {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ £ÉÉVÉ{ÉÉ
xÉäiÉßi´É |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ
ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ nãÉÉå
BÉEä ºÉnºªÉÉå {É®
£ÉÉÒ n´ÉɤÉ
näBÉE® =xɺÉä {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEä {ÉFÉ àÉå àÉiÉnÉxÉ
BÉE®´ÉÉ ®cÉ cè, àÉÆjÉÉÒ
{Én BÉEÉ ãÉÉãÉSÉ
cè, ºÉÖÉÊ´ÉvÉÉ
BÉEÉ ãÉÉãÉSÉ cè*
ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä àÉÆjÉÉÒ
{Én ÉÊàÉãÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
cè, =xÉBÉEÉä UÉä½BÉE®
ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ nãÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä £ÉÉÒ
àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉ cé, ABÉE ABÉE
ºÉnºªÉ càɺÉä
BÉEciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE càÉ
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉä,
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉVɤÉÚ®ÉÒ
cè, ÉÎBc{É BÉEÉ {ÉÉãÉxÉ
BÉE®xÉÉ {Éb ®cÉ cè +ÉÉè®
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä {ÉFÉ
àÉå àÉiÉnÉxÉ BÉEä
ÉÊãɪÉä +ÉÉVÉ
=xÉBÉEÉä àÉVɤÉÚ®
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ
cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉVÉ
càÉ BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé ÉÊBÉE £ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ
VÉxÉiÉÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEä
xÉäiÉßi´É {É® càÉ
Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä
BÉDªÉÉäÉÊBÉE ªÉä
BÉEciÉä BÉÖEU cé +ÉÉè®
BÉE®iÉä BÉÖEU cé +ÉÉè®
ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÉÆÉÊjÉBÉE
{É®Æ{É®É+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEÉÒ, àɪÉÉÇnÉ+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEÉÒ =ààÉÉÒn BÉE®xÉÉ
cÉÒ ¤ÉäàÉiÉãɤÉ
cè *
càÉ =ààÉÉÒn
BÉE®iÉä cé ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ®
ªÉc ºÉ®BÉEÉ® <ÉÊiÉcɺÉ
ºÉä BÉÖEU ºÉÉÒJÉä
+ÉÉè® ºÉ¤ÉBÉE
ãÉä iÉÉä ¶ÉɪÉn
+É¤É £ÉÉÒ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
àÉcÉänªÉ <ºÉ JÉiÉ®xÉÉBÉE
+ÉÉè® nàÉxÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ
ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE BÉEÉä
´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ ãÉä ãÉå*
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä
{ÉÉºÉ cÉäxÉä BÉEä
¤ÉÉn ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
®ÉVªÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®Éå
BÉEä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®
àÉå cÉäMÉÉ* ®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
<ºÉä ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE®äMÉÉÒ*
®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ ®ÉVªÉÉå
BÉEÉ |ÉÉÊiÉÉÊxÉÉÊvÉi´É
BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ
ºÉnxÉ cè +ÉÉè® ®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ xÉä VɤÉ
=ºÉBÉEÉä +ɺ´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ®
BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ cè, ¤ÉcÖàÉiÉ
ºÉä ÉÊMÉ®É ÉÊnªÉÉ
cè iÉÉä ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉä ºÉÆºÉnÉÒªÉ
{É®Æ{É®É+ÉÉäÆ
+ÉÉè® àɪÉÉÇnÉ+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEÉ {ÉÉãÉxÉ BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA lÉÉ +ÉÉè®
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉä ®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ BÉEÉÒ ®ÉªÉ
BÉEÉä àÉÉxÉxÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA lÉÉ * àÉé
MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
ºÉä BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÄ ÉÊBÉE VÉ¤É ®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ ®ÉVªÉÉå
BÉEÉ |ÉÉÊiÉÉÊxÉÉÊvÉi´É
BÉE®iÉÉÒ cè +ÉÉè®
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä
¤ÉxÉ VÉÉxÉä BÉEä
¤ÉÉn ®ÉVªÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®å
cÉÒ <ºÉä ãÉÉMÉÚ
BÉE®åMÉÉÒ, =ºÉBÉEÉÒ
{ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ ãÉÉMÉÚ
BÉE®äMÉÉÒ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉ¤É ®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ
xÉä <ºÉBÉEÉä ´ÉÉ{ɺÉ
BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ
iÉÉä +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
ªÉcÉÆ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉÖãÉÉxÉÉÒ
SÉÉÉÊcA lÉÉÒ +ÉÉè®
®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ BÉEÉ
VÉÉä £ÉÉÒ +ɺ´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ®
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
|ɺiÉÉ´É lÉÉ, =ºÉä
àÉÉxÉ ãÉäxÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA lÉÉ* +ÉMÉ®
WÉ®É £ÉÉÒ ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÉÆÉÊjÉBÉE
{É®Æ{É®É, àɪÉÉÇnÉ
+ÉÉè® xÉèÉÊiÉBÉEiÉÉ
<ºÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® àÉå
cÉäiÉÉÒ iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEÉä
®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ BÉEä
|ɺiÉÉ´É BÉEÉä
àÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA
lÉÉ +ÉÉè® ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉÖãÉÉxÉÉÒ
SÉÉÉÊcA lÉÉÒ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
càÉ BÉEc SÉÖBÉEä cé
ÉÊBÉE ªÉc ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
{ÉÚ®ÉÒ iÉ®c ºÉä
ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÉÆÉÊjÉBÉE
{É®Æ{É®É+ÉÉäÆ,
xÉèÉÊiÉBÉEiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
+ÉÉè® àÉÉxªÉiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEÉä ÉÊiÉãÉÉÆVÉÉÊãÉ
nä SÉÖBÉEÉÒ cÉä iÉÉä
=ààÉÉÒn £ÉÉÒ
BÉDªÉÉ BÉEÉÒ VÉÉ
ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ cè *
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, 1919 BÉEä ®ÉäãÉä]
ABÉD] ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ JÉiÉ®xÉÉBÉE
+ÉÉè® nàÉxÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ {ÉÉä]Éä
cè* VÉ¤É ®ÉäãÉä]
ABÉD] ãÉÉMÉÚ cÖ+ÉÉ
lÉÉ, =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ ºÉÉÊciÉ nä¶É
BÉEä ºÉ£ÉÉÒ xÉäiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
xÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ iÉÉÒJÉÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ +ÉÉè® <iÉxÉÉ
WɤÉnǺiÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
xÉä {ÉÚ®ä nä¶É àÉå
BªÉÉ{ÉBÉE +ÉÉÆnÉäãÉxÉ
A´ÉÆ cbiÉÉãÉ BÉEÉ
+ÉÉÿ´ÉÉxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
* ®ÉäãÉä] ABÉD] BÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ BÉEä ÉÊxÉnæ¶É
{É® ®É]ÅBªÉÉ{ÉÉÒ
+ÉÉÆnÉäãÉxÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
*
àÉcÉänªÉ,
26 {ÉE®´É®ÉÒ, 1919 BÉEÉä
àÉcÉiàÉÉ MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ
xÉä =ºÉ ºÉàɪÉ
BÉEä ºÉÆºÉn ºÉnºªÉ
{É. àÉnxÉ àÉÉäcxÉ
àÉÉãÉ´ÉÉÒªÉ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ABÉE iÉÉ®
ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ* =ºÉ
àÉå VÉÉä =xcÉåxÉä
ÉÊãÉJÉÉ, =ºÉàÉå
ºÉä àÉé BÉÖEU =rßiÉ
BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ - "àÉÉãÉ´ÉÉÒªÉ
VÉÉÒ, +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
<Ƕ´É® xÉä ¶É®ÉÒ®
+ÉÉè® àÉÉκiÉBÉE
àÉå ÉÊVÉiÉxÉÉÒ
£ÉÉÒ iÉÉBÉEiÉ nÉÒ
cÉä, =ºÉ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ
iÉÉBÉEiÉ BÉEÉ ={ɪÉÉäMÉ
BÉE® <ºÉ BÉEÉãÉä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä ºÉÆºÉn
àÉå {ÉÉºÉ cÉäxÉä
ºÉä ®ÉäÉÊBÉEA* "
ªÉc =xcÉåxÉä
26 {ÉE®´É®ÉÒ, 1919 BÉEÉä
®ÉèãÉè] ABÉD] BÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE ÉÊãÉJÉÉ
lÉÉ +ÉÉè® +ÉÉVÉ
26 àÉÉSÉÇ, 2002 cè - ªÉÉxÉÉÒ
83 ºÉÉãÉ ABÉE àÉcÉÒxÉä
BÉEä ¤ÉÉn +ÉÉVÉ ÉÊ{ÉE®
+ÉÉ{É ´ÉèºÉä
cÉÒ JÉiÉ®xÉÉBÉE ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE
ºÉƺÉn ºÉä {ÉÉÉÊ®iÉ
BÉE®ÉxÉä cäiÉÖ AbÉÒ
SÉÉä]ÉÒ BÉEÉ VÉÉä®
ãÉMÉÉ ®cä cé * =ºÉ
´ÉBÉDiÉ BªÉÉ{ÉBÉE
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
lÉÉ <ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉVÉ
càÉ Vɰô® SÉÉcåMÉä
ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå
ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä £ÉÉÒ
ãÉÉäMÉ MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ
ãÉäxÉä ´ÉÉãÉä
iÉlÉÉ ®ÉèãÉä]
ABÉD] àÉå +ÉɺlÉÉ
®JÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉä
cé, càÉ =xɺÉä +É{ÉÉÒãÉ
BÉE®åMÉå ÉÊBÉE ´Éä
<ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉE®å* ªÉÉÊn càÉÉ®ä
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉEä
¤ÉÉ´ÉVÉÚn ªÉc
ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE {ÉÉÉÊ®iÉ
cÉä MɪÉÉ, iÉÉä
càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ VÉxÉiÉÉ
BÉEä ¤ÉÉÒSÉ àÉå
VÉÉAÆMÉä* <ºÉÉÊãÉA
àÉé ºÉ£ÉÉÒ
MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
BÉEÉ +ÉÉÿ´ÉÉxÉ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ
+ÉÉè® ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ´Éä ºÉ£ÉÉÒ
ABÉEVÉÖ] cÉäBÉE® <ºÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®å*
ªÉÉÊn +ÉÉ{É ºÉ¤É
ÉÊàÉãÉBÉE® <ºÉä
ªÉcÉÆ {ÉÉºÉ BÉE®É
£ÉÉÒ nåMÉä, iÉÉä
<ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
càÉå nä¶ÉBªÉÉ{ÉÉÒ
+ÉÉÆnÉäãÉxÉ SÉãÉÉxÉÉ
{ɽäMÉÉ*
àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ,
+ÉÉ{É VÉÉxÉiÉä cé,
+ÉÉ{É SÉÉcä ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ
£ÉÉÒ £É®ÉäºÉÉ
ÉÊnãÉÉAÆ, Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
ÉÊnãÉÉAÆ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
<ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÉäMÉÉ* +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
àÉÉãÉÚàÉ cÉÒ
cè ÉÊBÉE ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ
ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÖ+ÉÉ lÉÉ* +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
ªÉÉn cÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
1991 àÉå A]É +ÉÉè®
¤ÉnɪÉÚÆ BÉEä
¤ÉÉÒSÉ ABÉE ºlÉÉxÉ
{É® 11 ÉʺÉBÉDJÉ iÉÉÒlÉǪÉÉÉÊjɪÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ ÉÊBÉEºÉ iÉ®c
ºÉä ciªÉÉ BÉEÉÒ
MÉ<Ç lÉÉÒ* +ÉÉ{É
àÉÉèBÉEä {É® MÉA
lÉä* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä º´ÉªÉÆ
näJÉÉ cè* {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
ºÉä BÉEɮǴÉÉ<Ç
BÉE®iÉÉÒ cè* ´Éä
{ÉÆVÉÉ¤É BÉEä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ lÉä* +É£ÉÉÒ
ºÉÉäàÉxÉÉlÉ
VÉÉÒ xÉä 16 ºÉÉãÉ
BÉEä ABÉE ¤ÉSSÉä BÉEÉ
ÉÊVɵÉE ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
=ºÉä ]ÉbÉ àÉå ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ*
càÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå
xÉä +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ
lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE 12 ´ÉÉÇ
BÉEä ABÉE ãɽBÉEä {É®
ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
ºÉä ]ÉbÉ ãÉMÉɪÉÉ
MɪÉÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè®
=ºÉä ]ÉbÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn®
{ÉÉÒãÉÉÒ£ÉÉÒiÉ
VÉäãÉ àÉå ¤Éxn
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
lÉÉ* =ºÉ ºÉàɪÉ
càÉxÉä <ºÉBÉEÉÒ
VÉÉÆSÉ BÉE®É<Ç,
=.|É. +Éã{ÉºÉÆJªÉBÉE
+ÉɪÉÉäMÉ BÉEä
SÉäªÉ®àÉèxÉ gÉÉÒ
+ÉcàÉn cÖºÉèxÉ BÉEÉä
{ÉÉÒãÉÉÒ£ÉÉÒiÉ
VÉäãÉ àÉå àÉÉèBÉEä
{É® £ÉäVÉÉ lÉÉ
+ÉÉè® {ÉÉÒãÉÉÒ£ÉÉÒiÉ
VÉäãÉ ºÉä =ºÉ ãÉbBÉEä
BÉEÉä ÉÊ®cÉ BÉE®ÉªÉÉ
lÉÉ* =ºÉ ºÉàɪÉ
+ÉBÉEÉãÉÉÒ nãÉ
BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ gÉÉÒ
iÉÉäcbÉ ºÉÉc¤É
´ÉcÉÆ MÉA lÉä* =xcÉåxÉä
¤ÉªÉÉxÉ £ÉÉÒ
càÉÉ®ä +ÉÉè® càÉÉ®ÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEä {ÉFÉ
àÉå ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ
* +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEä VÉàÉÉxÉä àÉå
ciªÉÉAÆ cÖ<ÇÆ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉ¤É càÉxÉä +É{ÉxÉä
ºÉàÉªÉ àÉå ]ÉbÉ
àÉå ¤Éxn 1152 àÉå
ºÉä 1141 BÉEÉä ÉÊ®cÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ iÉÉä
=.|É. BÉEä iÉ®É<Ç FÉäjÉ
BÉEÉ =OÉ´ÉÉn cÉÒ
ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ cÉä MɪÉÉ
lÉÉ *
àÉcÉänªÉ,
àÉé ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
=kÉ® |Énä¶É àÉå
iÉ®É<Ç BÉEä <ãÉÉBÉEä
àÉå ÉʺÉBÉDJÉ
£ÉÉ<ªÉÉå xÉä
<iÉxÉÉÒ àÉäcxÉiÉ
BÉE® BÉEä VÉàÉÉÒxÉ
BÉEÉ ÉÊ´ÉBÉEɺÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉVÉ ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEÉÒ
ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ ªÉc
cÉä MÉ<Ç cè ÉÊBÉE
{ÉÆVÉÉ¤É ºÉä
VªÉÉnÉ {ÉènÉ´ÉÉ®
´ÉcÉÆ BÉEÉÒ VÉàÉÉÒxÉ
nä ®cÉÒ cè* =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ
càÉxÉä ]ÉbÉ àÉå
¤Éxn iÉàÉÉàÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä ÉÊ®cÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ* VÉ¤É +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® lÉÉÒ +ÉÉè®
+ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ]ÉbÉ ãÉMÉÉ
®JÉÉ lÉÉ iÉ¤É ÉÊxÉnÉæÉ
ÉʺÉBÉDJÉÉå BÉEÉä
VÉäãÉÉå àÉå
£ÉäVÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ
lÉÉ VɤÉÉÊBÉE ´Éä
=OÉ´ÉÉnÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
lÉä* =xÉBÉEä {Éè]ÅÉäãÉ
{Éà{É =JÉɽä VÉÉ
®cä lÉä* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
càÉÉ®ÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
+ÉÉxÉä {É® +ÉÉè®
càÉÉ®ä uÉ®É ]ÉbÉ
àÉå ¤Éxn ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä ÉÊ®cÉ BÉE®xÉä
BÉEä ¤ÉÉn =kÉ® |Énä¶É
àÉå =OÉ´ÉÉn JÉiàÉ
cÉÒ cÉä MɪÉÉ lÉÉ*
<ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉ{É
ºÉnxÉ àÉå ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ
£ÉÉÒ BÉEciÉä ®cå,
ÉÊBÉE nÖ°ô{ɪÉÉäMÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉ¤É ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ªÉcÉÆ ºÉä {ÉɺÉ
cÉä VÉÉAMÉÉ +ÉÉè®
VÉ¤É {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
BÉEä cÉlÉÉå àÉå
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ SÉãÉÉ
VÉÉAMÉÉ, iÉÉä ÉÊ{ÉE®
+ÉÉ{É cºiÉFÉä{É xÉcÉÓ
BÉE® {ÉÉAÆMÉä* ÉÊ{ÉE®
+ÉÉ{É <ºÉä ®ÉVªÉ
BÉEÉ àÉÉàÉãÉÉ
BÉEcBÉE® ]ÉãÉ nåMÉä*
càÉ VÉÉxÉiÉä cé*
càÉÉ®ä ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ
+É£ÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉäãÉBÉE®
MÉA lÉä, ÉÊVÉxɺÉä
ÉÊBÉE càÉ ´ÉèºÉÉÒ
=ààÉÉÒn xÉcÉÓ BÉE®
ºÉBÉEiÉä lÉä* +ÉÉVÉ
´ÉiÉÇàÉÉxÉ ®FÉÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉìVÉÇ
ºÉÉc¤É +ÉÉè®
gÉÉÒ VÉxÉä¶´É®
ÉÊàÉgÉ ªÉcÉÆ
¤Éè~ä cÖA cé* ´Éä
VÉÉxÉiÉä cé, càÉ
£ÉÉÒ VÉÉxÉiÉä
cé, <ãÉÉcɤÉÉn
BÉEä ABÉE BÉEãÉèBÉD]®
BÉEÉÒ xÉÉ®ÉVÉMÉÉÒ
{É® 1966 àÉå gÉÉÒ VÉxÉä¶´É®
ÉÊàÉgÉ BÉEÉä 11 àÉcÉÒxÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA bÉÒ.+ÉÉ<Ç.+ÉÉ®.
àÉå =xcå VÉäãÉ àÉå
bÉãÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
lÉÉ* VɤÉ-VɤÉ
<ºÉ iÉ®c BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ãÉɪÉä VÉÉiÉä
cé iÉÉä càÉä¶ÉÉ
nä¶É ÉÊciÉ BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉÉàÉxÉä
®JÉÉÒ VÉÉiÉÉÒ
cè* nä¶É ÉÊciÉ BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcBÉE® ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä
ãÉÉäMÉÉå {É® VÉÖãàÉ
cÖA cé, ªÉc ºÉ¤ÉBÉEÉä
{ÉiÉÉ cè* VÉÉä àÉcÉxÉ
nä¶É£ÉBÉDiÉ cé, +ÉÉVÉÉnÉÒ
BÉEÉÒ ãɽÉ<Ç
BÉEä ¶ÉÉxÉnÉ® xÉäiÉÉ
lÉä 1962 àÉå SÉÉÒxÉ
BÉEä ªÉÖr BÉEä ¤ÉÉn
VÉ¤É <ºÉ iÉ®c BÉEä
nä¶É ÉÊciÉ àÉå
BÉEcBÉE® BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ãÉɪÉä MɪÉä,
=xÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
BÉE®BÉEä bÉ. ®ÉàÉ
àÉxÉÉäc® ãÉÉäÉÊcªÉÉ,
gÉÉÒ BÉE{ÉÇÚ®ÉÒ
~ÉBÉÖE® +ÉÉè® gÉÉÒ
®ÉàÉÉxÉÆn ÉÊiÉ´ÉÉ®ÉÒ
+ÉÉè® ®ÉVÉxÉɮɪÉhÉ
VÉÉÒ VÉèºÉä nä¶É£ÉBÉDiÉ
+ÉÉè® xÉäiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEÉä VÉäãÉ àÉå
bÉãÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ * càÉxÉä
VÉxÉä¶´É® ÉÊàÉgÉ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉ =nÉc®hÉ
ÉÊnªÉÉ ÉÊBÉE 1966 àÉå
´Éä 11 àÉcÉÒxÉä
bÉÒ.+ÉÉ<Ç.+ÉÉ®.
BÉEä iÉciÉ VÉäãÉ àÉå
bÉãÉä MɪÉä* =xÉBÉEÉä
BÉE¤É UÉä½É MɪÉÉ
- VÉ¤É ÉÊ´ÉVɪÉ
ãÉFàÉÉÒ {ÉÆÉÊbiÉ
1966 àÉå {ÉÚEãÉ{ÉÖ®
<ãÉÉcɤÉÉn ºÉä
SÉÖxÉÉ´É ãÉb ®cÉÓ
lÉÉÒ iÉlÉÉ gÉÉÒ
VÉxÉä¶´É® ÉÊàÉgÉ
VÉÉÒ xÉä VÉäãÉ
ºÉä cÉÒ =xÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
+É{ÉxÉÉ {ÉSÉÉÇ
nÉÉÊJÉãÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ
lÉÉ * ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEÉÒ
VÉxÉiÉÉ àÉå VÉxÉä¶´É®
ÉÊàÉgÉ BÉEÉä VÉäãÉ
àÉå bÉãÉxÉä BÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE µÉEÉävÉ
lÉÉ +ÉÉè® àÉiÉnÉiÉÉ
gÉÉÒ VÉxÉä¶´É®
ÉÊàÉgÉ VÉÉÒ BÉEä
{ÉFÉ àÉå cÉä ®cä
lÉä, =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ ÉÊ´ÉVɪÉ
ãÉFàÉÉÒ {ÉÆÉÊbiÉ
VÉÉÒ xÉä gÉÉÒ ÉÊàÉgÉ
BÉEÉä VÉäãÉ àÉå
bÉãÉxÉä BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ +ÉÉè®
VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEä +ÉɵÉEÉä¶É
BÉEÉä näJÉiÉä cÖA =.|É.
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉä
gÉÉÒ VÉxÉä¶´É®
ÉÊàÉgÉ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä
VÉäãÉ ºÉä ÉÊ®cÉ
BÉE®xÉÉ {ÉbÉ * ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä
£ÉÉÒ BÉEÉãÉä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉä
cé iÉ¤É iÉ¤É =xÉBÉEÉ
nÖ°ô{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
cè * MÉÉävÉ®É
BÉEÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉ BÉEÉÒ
ºÉ¤ÉxÉä ÉËxÉnÉ
BÉEÉÒ cè* càÉ +ÉÉVÉ
ÉÊ{ÉE® <ºÉBÉEÉÒ
ÉËxÉnÉ BÉEÉä nÉäc®ÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉiÉxÉÉ
VÉPÉxªÉ +É{É®ÉvÉ
cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè, ´Éc
cÖ+ÉÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
=ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn VÉÉä
¤ÉnãÉä BÉEÉÒ £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ
ºÉä ÉÊxÉnÉæ¶É
ãÉbBÉEä ãɽÉÊBÉEªÉÉå,
¤ÉÚfä, VÉ´ÉÉxÉÉå
BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ +ÉÉè®
ÉÊxÉnÉæ¶É àÉÖºÉãÉàÉÉxÉÉå
BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ VÉÉä
VÉÖãàÉ +ÉÉè®
+ÉiªÉÉSÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ, ´Éc MÉÉävÉ®É
BÉEÉÆb ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ
JÉiÉ®xÉÉBÉE cè*
àÉé BÉEcxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
ÉÊVÉxÉ 62 ãÉÉäMÉÉå
{É® MÉÉävÉ®É àÉå
]ÉbÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉMÉɪÉÉ
MɪÉÉ, ´Éä BÉEÉèxÉ
lÉä ? ´Éä ºÉÉ®ä
BÉEä ºÉÉ®ä àÉÖºÉãÉàÉÉxÉ
cé* +ÉÉVÉ =xÉBÉEÉä
ÉÊ®cÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ cè* =xÉBÉEÉä
<ºÉÉÊãÉA ÉÊ®cÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉ
ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ¤Éè~BÉE
lÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEÉÒ
ºÉƺÉn àÉå +ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ
cÉäiÉÉÒ * +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä
ºÉƺÉn àÉå {ÉɺÉ
BÉE®xÉÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè®
<ºÉ +ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ
ºÉä ¤ÉSÉxÉÉ lÉÉ
<ºÉÉÊãÉA {ÉÉä]É
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ´ÉÉÉÊ{ɺÉ
ÉÊãɪÉÉ * nںɮÉ
MÉãÉiÉ BÉEɪÉÇ
ªÉc ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
BÉÖEU ÉÊxÉ{ÉFÉiÉÉ
ºÉä BÉEɪÉÇ BÉE®xÉä
´ÉÉãÉä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉÉÊ®ªÉÉå
BÉEä ºlÉÉxÉÉÆiÉ®hÉ
MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ BÉEÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® xÉä BÉE®
ÉÊnªÉä, £ÉÉVÉ{ÉÉ
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
iÉlÉÉ Éʴɶ´É
ÉÊcxnÖ {ÉÉÊ®Én ´É
¤ÉVÉ®ÆMÉ nãÉ BÉEä
nÉäÉÉÒ BªÉÉÎBÉDiɪÉÉå
BÉEä Éʴɰôr ´Éä
+ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ
BÉEɪÉÇ´ÉÉcÉÒ
BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉä
lÉä ÉÊVÉxcÉäxÉä
nÆMÉÉ-{ÉEºÉÉn +ÉÉè®
ciªÉÉAÆ BÉE®xÉä àÉå,
SÉÉcä Éʴɶ´É
ÉÊcxnÚ {ÉÉÊ®Én
BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® ªÉÉ
¤ÉVÉ®ÆMÉ nãÉ BÉEä
xÉÉàÉ {É®, ÉÊcººÉÉ
ÉÊãɪÉÉ lÉÉ
* =xÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
BÉE~Éä® BÉEɪÉÇ´ÉÉcÉÒ
cÉäxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉÒ
lÉÉÒ * <ºÉÉÒ ´ÉVÉc
ºÉä =xÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉÉÊ®ªÉÉå
BÉEÉä ºlÉÉxÉÉxiÉÉÊ®iÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
* <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ
+ÉÉ{ɺÉä BÉEcxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
<ºÉ +Éɶ´ÉɺÉxÉ
{É® £É®ÉäºÉÉ
<ºÉÉÊãÉA xÉcÉÓ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE +É£ÉÉÒ cÉãÉ
àÉå MÉÉävÉ®É àÉå
BÉEä´ÉãÉ àÉÖºÉãÉàÉÉxÉÉå
{É® {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ
nÖ°ô{ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ * ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
ãÉÉMÉÚ cÉäxÉä
BÉEä iÉiBÉEÉãÉ ¤ÉÉn
cÉÒ VÉ¤É <ºÉBÉEÉ
nÖ°ô{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
iÉÉä =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ
bÉ. ¶ªÉÉàÉÉ |ɺÉÉn
àÉÖJÉVÉÉÔ xÉä
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ* bÉ. ¶ªÉÉàÉÉ
|ɺÉÉn àÉÖJÉVÉÉÔ
xÉä ªÉcÉÆ iÉBÉE BÉEcÉ
lÉÉ +ÉÉè® àÉé
ºÉƺÉn àÉå =xcÉÓ
BÉEä uÉ®É ÉÊnªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ £ÉÉÉhÉ
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
ªÉcÉÆ ®JÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÆ, 13 {ÉE®´É®ÉÒ,
1951 BÉEÉä +ɺlÉɪÉÉÒ
ºÉnxÉ àÉå xÉVÉ®¤ÉÆnÉÒ
ÉÊxÉ´ÉÉ®BÉE BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEä 10 àÉÉc {ÉÚ®ä
cÉäxÉä {É® bÉ. ¶ªÉÉàÉÉ
|ɺÉÉn àÉÖJÉVÉÉÔ
BÉEä £ÉÉÉhÉ BÉEä
BÉÖEU +ÉÆ¶É càÉ MÉßc
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
®JÉ ®cä cé* ªÉtÉÉÊ{É
´Éä BÉEàªÉÖÉÊxɺ]Éå
BÉEä ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
lÉä ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
=xcÉåxÉä +É{ÉxÉä £ÉÉÉhÉ
àÉå =xÉBÉEä ºÉàÉ{ÉÇhÉ
+ÉÉè® ®É]Å £ÉÉÎBÉDiÉ
BÉEÉä BÉE£ÉÉÒ SÉÖxÉÉèiÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ* "=xcÉåxÉä
ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE {Éä¶É
BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉä
ºÉ®nÉ® {É]äãÉ BÉEÉä
ãÉãÉBÉEÉ®iÉä
cÖA BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É
ºÉÉàªÉ´ÉÉn BÉEÉä
BÉEä´ÉãÉ ÉÊxÉ´ÉÉ®BÉE
xÉVÉ®¤ÉÆnÉÒ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ºÉä ®ÉäBÉE xÉcÉÓ
ºÉBÉEiÉä* nä¶É àÉå
BªÉÉ{iÉ +É®ÉVÉBÉEiÉÉ
BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ <ºÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ºÉä xÉcÉÓ
®ÉäBÉE ºÉBÉEiÉä*
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® +ÉÉè®
nä¶É àÉå BªÉÉ{iÉ
+É®ÉVÉBÉEiÉÉ BÉEÉä
iÉ£ÉÉÒ ®ÉäBÉE
ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ cè VɤÉ
<ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
ÉÊVÉààÉänÉ® ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊnàÉÉMÉ àÉå
VÉÉä ¤É¤ÉÉÇnÉÒ
+ÉÉè® +É®ÉVÉBÉEiÉÉ
BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉä® VÉÉ
®cä cé, =ºÉä xÉcÉÓ
®ÉäBÉE {ÉÉ ®cä cé,
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® nä¶É BÉEÉÒ
+ÉÉÉÌlÉBÉE ¤É¤ÉÉÇnÉÒ
+ÉÉè® +ÉFÉàÉ |ɶÉɺÉxÉ
<ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA ÉÊVÉààÉänÉ®
cè* VÉ¤É iÉBÉE VÉxÉiÉÉ
BÉEÉä £É®ÉäºÉÉ
xÉ cÉä ÉÊBÉE càÉ nä¶É
BÉEÉÒ =xxÉÉÊiÉ BÉEä
ÉÊãÉA ºÉÆBÉEã{ɤÉr
cé, <ºÉ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ
BÉEÉä ÉÊxÉªÉÆjÉhÉ
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ* VÉxÉiÉÉ
BÉEÉä ºÉÆºÉn xÉä
ABÉE |É®ähÉÉnɪÉBÉE
ºÉÆnä¶É +ÉÉè®
£É®ÉäºÉÉ näxÉÉ
cÉäMÉÉ* ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ®Éå
BÉEä nÚ® iÉBÉE nàÉxÉ
ºÉä ºÉàɺªÉÉAÆ
MÉÆ£ÉÉÒ® cÉåMÉÉÒ*
=xcÉåxÉä ªÉä ¶É¤n
BÉEcä lÉä*" àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
MÉßcàÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
=xcÉÓ BÉEä xÉÉàÉ
{É® +ÉÉVÉ VÉxÉºÉÆPÉ
BÉEÉÒ ºlÉÉ{ÉxÉÉ
BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® ªÉÉ
£ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ VÉxÉiÉÉ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ ºlÉÉ{ÉxÉÉ
BÉEä xÉÉàÉ ºÉä
50 ºÉÉãÉ BÉEÉÒ º´ÉhÉÇ
VÉªÉÆiÉÉÒ àÉxÉÉ
®cä cé ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉ¤É +ÉÉ{É +ÉÉVÉ
+É{ÉxÉä +ÉÉn¶ÉÇ
bÉ. ¶ªÉÉàÉÉ |ɺÉÉn
àÉÖJÉVÉÉÔ BÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE VÉÉ
ºÉBÉEiÉä cé iÉÉä
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä >ó{É® BÉEÉèxÉ
£É®ÉäºÉÉ BÉE®äMÉÉ*
<ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
>ó{É® £É®ÉäºÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ* <ºÉBÉEÉ
nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÉäMÉÉ,
ªÉc ºÉcÉÒ cè* <ºÉä
àÉÖºÉãÉàÉÉxÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
+ÉÉè® +É{ÉxÉä ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
ÉÊ´É®ÉäÉÊvɪÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
<ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ BÉE®åMÉä*
<ºÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® àÉå
º´ÉªÉƺÉä´ÉBÉE
ºÉÆPÉ |ÉSÉÉ®BÉE
¤ÉcÖiÉ ¤Ébä +ÉÉè®
àÉci´É{ÉÚhÉÇ =SSÉ
{ÉnÉå {É® ¤Éè~ä
cé, =xÉBÉEÉÒ àÉÉxÉÉʺÉBÉEiÉÉ,
=xÉBÉEÉ oÉÎ]BÉEÉähÉ
àÉÖºÉãÉàÉÉxÉÉå
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
BÉDªÉÉ cè, <ǺÉÉ<ǪÉÉå
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
BÉDªÉÉ cè, +Éã{ÉºÉÆJªÉBÉEÉå
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
BÉDªÉÉ cè, ªÉc ºÉ¤É
VÉÉxÉiÉä cé* ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
ºÉä ÉÊU{ÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
cè * <ºÉÉÊãÉA BÉEÉèxÉ
=ààÉÉÒn BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè, BÉEÉèxÉ Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè, BÉEÉä<Ç
Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®åMÉä* =xÉBÉEÉÒ
àÉÉxÉÉʺÉBÉEiÉÉ
BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
¤ÉnãÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ,
ªÉc iÉÉVÉÉ =nÉc®hÉ
cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA {ÉÉä]Éä
VÉèºÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
VÉÉä º´ÉªÉÆ àÉå
ABÉE JÉiÉ®xÉÉBÉE BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
cè ´Éc MÉãÉiÉ cÉlÉÉå
àÉå {ÉcÖÆSÉ VÉɪÉäMÉÉ
iÉÉä <ºÉ nä¶É BÉEÉ
£ÉMÉ´ÉÉxÉ cÉÒ
àÉÉÉÊãÉBÉE cè
* MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn®
nÆMÉÉ-{ÉEºÉÉn, +ÉÉMÉVÉxÉÉÒ,
ciªÉÉAÆ cÖ<Ç lÉÉÓ
iÉ¤É nVÉÇxÉÉå ]äãÉÉÒ{ÉEÉäxÉ
+ÉcàÉnɤÉÉn BÉEä
ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä
ÉÊàÉãÉä lÉä *
càÉ {É®ä¶ÉÉxÉ lÉä*
ãÉÉäBÉEºÉ£ÉÉ
àÉå £ÉÉÒ càÉxÉä
<ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊVɵÉE
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ* 28 {ÉE®´É®ÉÒ
BÉEÉä |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä càÉxÉä
]äãÉÉÒ{ÉEÉäxÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ,MÉßcàÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ +ÉÉ{ɺÉä
{ÉEÉäxÉ {É® ¤ÉÉiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉä ºÉBÉEÉÒ
* càÉÉ®ÉÒ |ÉvÉÉxÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
ºÉä ¤ÉÉiÉ cÖ<Ç
lÉÉÒ*
=ºÉBÉEä
¤ÉÉn nںɮä ÉÊnxÉ
1 àÉÉSÉÇ BÉEÉä gÉÉÒ
+ÉàÉ® É˺Éc, gÉÉÒ
®ÉVÉ ¤É¤¤É®, £ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ
BÉEàªÉÖÉÊxɺ] {ÉÉ]ÉÔ
BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ gÉÉÒ
ºÉÉÒiÉÉ®ÉàÉ
ªÉäSÉÖ®ÉÒ +ÉÉè®
¤ÉcxÉ gÉÉÒàÉiÉÉÒ
¶É¤ÉÉxÉÉ +ÉÉWÉàÉÉÒ
VÉ¤É +ÉcàÉnɤÉÉn
MÉA +ÉÉè® VÉ¤É +ÉàÉ®É˺Éc
xÉä VÉÉiÉä cÉÒ àÉÖJªÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä ]äãÉÉÒ{ÉEÉäxÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ iÉÉä
àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ xÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ®
+ÉÉè® oÉÎ]BÉEÉähÉ
BÉDªÉÉ cé - ºÉ£ÉÉÒ
VÉÉxÉiÉä cé +ÉÉè®
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä SÉäc®ä
BÉEÉä MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ
BÉEÉÒ VÉxÉiÉÉ +ÉÉè®
càÉÉ®ä ãÉÉäMÉ
+ÉSUÉÒ iÉ®c VÉÉxÉiÉä
cé, <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ VÉÉxÉ
BÉEÉÒ BÉEÉä<Ç ÉÊc{ÉEÉVÉiÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä*
+ÉÉ{É +ÉMÉ® AäºÉä
<ãÉÉBÉEÉå àÉå
VÉÉAÆMÉä VÉcÉÆ nÆMÉÉ
cè, ciªÉÉAÆ ªÉÉ +ÉÉMÉVÉxÉÉÒ
cÉä ®cÉÒ cè, càÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ
ºÉÖ®FÉÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®
ºÉBÉEiÉä* VÉÉä ºÉÆPÉ
{ÉÉÊ®´ÉÉ® BÉEÉ
|ÉSÉÉ®BÉE ®cÉ cÉä,
ºÉÆPÉ {ÉÉÊ®´ÉÉ®
BÉEÉä SÉãÉÉxÉä
´ÉÉãÉÉ cÉä, VÉÉä
+ÉÉVÉ MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ
BÉEä àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
cè, ´Éä gÉÉÒ +ÉàÉ®
É˺Éc +ÉÉè® =xÉBÉEä
ºÉÉÉÊlɪÉÉå
ºÉä ªÉÉÊn {ÉEÉäxÉ
{É® ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcå
iÉÉä +ÉÉ{É ºÉÉäÉÊSÉA
ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É àÉÖºÉãÉàÉÉxÉÉå
ªÉÉ =xÉBÉEÉä xªÉɪÉ
ÉÊnãÉÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ÉÊBÉEºÉ ºÉÉÒàÉÉ
iÉBÉE VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä
cé*
gÉÉÒ {ÉExÉÉÇxbÉÒVÉ
ªÉcÉÆ ¤Éè~ä cé*
+ÉMÉ® 1975 àÉå àÉÉÒºÉÉ
BÉEä ºlÉÉxÉ {É® {ÉÉä]Éä
cÉäiÉÉ, iÉÉä ®FÉÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ
gÉÉÒ {ÉExÉÉÇxbÉÒVÉ,
=xÉBÉEä ºÉÉlÉÉÒ
¤Éè~ä cÖA cé, +ÉÉVÉ
<ºÉ nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ
àÉå xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉä
* <ºÉºÉä ºÉ¤ÉBÉE
ãÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA
lÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
+É£ÉÉÒ +ÉÉ{É ºÉ¤ÉBÉE
xÉcÉÓ ãÉä ®cä cé*
<ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ,
càÉ BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
{ÉÉä]Éä ºÉä xÉcÉÓ
®ÉäBÉEÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ*
càÉ nÉäc®ÉxÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
SÉÉciÉä ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
+É£ÉÉÒ gÉÉÒ ºÉÉäàÉxÉÉlÉ
VÉÉÒ xÉä ºÉ¤É
=nÉc®hÉ ÉÊnA, SÉÉcä1
+ÉBÉD]ڤɮ BÉE¶àÉÉÒ®
BÉEÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ {É® càÉãÉÉ
cÖ+ÉÉ cÉä, SÉÉcä 13 ÉÊnºÉà¤É®
ºÉƺÉn {É® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
BÉEÉ càÉãÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
cÉä* +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä VÉÉxÉiÉä
cÖA £ÉÉÒ ºÉƺÉn
{É® càÉãÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ*
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ {ÉÉä]Éä
ºÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEÉä xÉcÉÓ ®ÉäBÉEÉ
VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
ªÉc ºÉÉÒàÉÉ
{ÉÉ® ºÉä |ÉɪÉÉäÉÊVÉiÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ
cè* VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ {ÉèºÉä
ºÉä ªÉcÉÆ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEÉ JÉÖããÉàÉ-JÉÖããÉÉ
xÉÆMÉÉ xÉÉSÉ BÉE®
®cä cé, ciªÉÉAÆ BÉE®
®cä cé, =xÉBÉEÉä +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
ÉʤÉxÉÉ àÉÖBÉEnàÉÉ
SÉãÉÉA cÉÒ BÉEÆvÉÉ®
´ÉÉÉÊ{ÉºÉ BÉE®
ÉÊnªÉÉ, +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
=xÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
BÉEÉä ¤ÉÉBÉEɪÉnÉ
ºÉºÉààÉÉxÉ VÉcÉVÉ
àÉå ÉʤÉ~É BÉE®
ABÉE ¤É½ä àÉÆjÉÉÒ
BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ ÉÊ´Énä¶É
àÉå ´ÉÉÉÊ{ɺÉ
BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
cÖÉÌ®ªÉiÉ VÉèºÉä
ºÉÆMÉ~xÉ BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEÉä ÉʤÉxÉÉ
¶ÉiÉÇ ÉÊ®cÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ,
+ÉÉVÉ ´ÉcÉÒ nä¶É
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA {É®ä¶ÉÉxÉÉÒ
{ÉènÉ BÉE® ®cä cé +ÉÉè®
=xÉBÉEä ¤ÉcÉxÉä {É®
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ãÉÉMÉÚ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* BÉDªÉÉ
+ÉÉ{É +ÉÉVÉ iÉBÉE
=xÉ ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
{É® {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE® ºÉBÉEå
?
+ÉÉ{É BÉE<Ç
ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå ºÉä
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉE® ®cä cé*
+ÉÉ{É ªÉÖrÉÊ´É®ÉàÉ
BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® xÉÉMÉÉãÉéb
BÉEä xÉÆMÉ =OÉ´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
ºÉä ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉå
àÉå ¤ÉÉiÉSÉÉÒiÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé, ¤ÉéBÉEÉBÉE,
cÉìãÉéb àÉå BÉE®
®cä cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ BÉEä
VÉÉä xÉÉèVÉ´ÉÉxÉ
MÉãÉiÉ ®ÉºiÉä {É®
SÉãÉä MÉA cé, =xɺÉä
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉDªÉÉå
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®iÉä* =xɺÉä
¤ÉÉiÉSÉÉÒiÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®åMÉä, ªÉä BÉÖEU
ãÉÉäMÉÉå ºÉä
cÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉSÉÉÒiÉ
BÉE®åMÉä* ~ÉÒBÉE cè,
càÉÉ®ä nä¶É BÉEä
{ÉfÃä-ÉÊãÉJÉä
¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉä ãɽBÉEä
bÉBÉD]®, <ÆVÉÉÒÉÊxɪɮ
ªÉÉ ãÉÉì BÉEä
ÉÊ´ÉtÉÉlÉÉÔ
+ÉÉVÉ £ÉßÉÊàÉiÉ
cÉäBÉE® MÉãÉiÉ ®ÉºiÉä
{É® SÉãÉä MÉA cé, =xɺÉä
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉDªÉÉå
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®iÉä cé * cÉä
ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
BÉÖEU ÉʺÉxÉÉÒ
BÉEä ãÉbBÉEä £ÉÉÒ
£ÉßÉÊàÉiÉ cÉäBÉE®
MÉãÉiÉ ®ÉºiÉä {É®
SÉãÉä MÉA cÉå, =xɺÉä
¤ÉÉiÉSÉÉÒiÉ BÉDªÉÉå
xÉcÉÓ BÉEÉÒ ?
càÉÉ®ÉÒ ®ÉªÉ
cè =xɺÉä ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉE®xÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcªÉä
* <ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ
ÉÊxÉ{ÉFÉiÉÉ {É®
BÉEÉä<Ç £É®ÉäºÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉ{É ÉÊxÉ{ÉFÉ
cÉäBÉE® BÉEÉä<Ç BÉEÉàÉ
BÉE®åMÉä* <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉä ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE®BÉEä
+ÉÉ{É ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
iÉ®c ÉÊxÉnÉæÉ xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉEÉå
BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉAÆMÉä
ªÉÉ =xÉ {É® ªÉc ãÉÉMÉÚ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäxÉä nåMÉä*
JÉè®, ªÉc +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
cÉlÉ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉÒ*
ªÉÉÊn
ºÉcÉÒ àÉɪÉxÉä
àÉå {ÉÚUÉ VÉÉA iÉÉä
àÉé ºÉnxÉ BÉEä ºÉ¤É
àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉÉå ºÉä
BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ªÉc {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ xÉcÉÓ
cè, ªÉc +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ cè +ÉÉè®
<ºÉºÉä +Éã{ÉºÉÆJªÉBÉEÉå
BÉEÉä +ÉÉiÉÆÉÊBÉEiÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ*
àÉåxÉä ¶ÉÖ°ô
àÉå BÉEcÉ +ÉÉè®
+ÉÉVÉ ÉÊ{ÉE® BÉEc ®cÉ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ cé, =xcå
<xÉBÉEÉÒ +ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ
BÉE®xÉä ºÉä, <xÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®xÉä
ºÉä ®ÉäBÉEÉ VÉɪÉäMÉÉ*
VÉÉä <xÉBÉEÉä ¤ÉäxÉBÉEɤÉ
BÉE®åMÉä, =xÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ªÉc <ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉɪÉäMÉÉ*
VÉ®É £ÉÉÒ BÉEÉä<Ç
n®ÉäMÉÉ, BÉEÉä<Ç
AºÉ.{ÉÉÒ. ªÉÉ BÉEãÉèBÉD]®
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
£ÉÉÒ cÉä VÉɪÉäMÉÉ
iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
àÉå +Éxn® VÉÉxÉÉ
cÉäMÉÉ * àÉéxÉä
BÉE<Ç ¤ÉÉ® ºÉàÉÉVÉ´ÉÉnÉÒ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ xÉäiÉÉ ºÉiÉÉÒ¶É
{ÉEÉèVÉÉÒ BÉEÉ
=nÉc®hÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ * =kÉ®
|Énä¶É àÉå ¤ÉxÉÉ®ºÉ
BÉEä +Éxn® ABÉE ºÉiÉÉÒ¶É
{ÉEÉèVÉÉÒ xÉä ´ÉcÉÆ
BÉEä ÉÊVÉãÉÉ |ɶÉɺÉxÉ
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
+ÉÉxnÉäãÉxÉ JɽÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉxÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ VÉàÉÉÒxÉ
{É® ÉʤÉxÉÉ àÉÖ+ÉÉ´ÉVÉÉ
ÉÊnªÉä VɤɮnºiÉÉÒ
BÉE¤VÉÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ®cÉ lÉÉ* =ºÉBÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE +ÉÉxnÉäãÉxÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ ´ÉVÉc
ºÉä +ÉÉVÉ ´Éc ¤ÉxÉÉ®ºÉ
BÉEÉÒ VÉäãÉ àÉå
®ÉºÉÖBÉEÉ àÉå
¤Éxn cè* VÉ¤É º´ÉiÉÆjÉiÉÉ
ºÉÆOÉÉàÉ ºÉäxÉÉxÉÉÒ
BÉEÉ ÉÊxÉvÉxÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
+ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÚfÃä
¤ÉÉ{É xÉä +É{ÉxÉä
¤Éä]ä BÉEÉä +ÉÉÎxiÉàÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ {É® näJÉxÉä
BÉEÉÒ <SUÉ BªÉBÉDiÉ
BÉEÉÒ iÉÉä iÉàÉÉàÉ
ãÉÉäMÉÉå xÉä
BÉEcÉ, càÉxÉä £ÉÉÒ
BÉEÉäÉÊ¶É¶É BÉEÉÒ,
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ º´ÉiÉÆjÉiÉÉ
ºÉÆOÉÉàÉ ºÉäxÉÉxÉÉÒ
BÉEä ¤Éä]ä BÉEÉä
+É{ÉxÉä ¤ÉÉ{É ºÉä
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊàÉãÉxÉä
ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ*
ÉÊVÉxcÉåxÉä +ÉÉVÉÉnÉÒ
BÉEÉÒ ãɽÉ<Ç
àÉå ¶ÉÉxÉnÉ® £ÉÚÉÊàÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊxÉ£ÉÉ<Ç lÉÉÒ,
´Éc +É{ÉxÉÉä {ÉÖjÉ
BÉEÉä +ÉÉÎxiÉàÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ {É® xÉcÉÓ
näJÉ ºÉBÉEä* VɤÉ
=xÉBÉEÉ ÉÊxÉvÉxÉ
cÉä MɪÉÉ iÉÉä
´ÉcÉÆ BÉEä iÉàÉÉàÉ
º´ÉªÉƺÉä´ÉÉÒ
ºÉÆMÉ~xÉ, iÉàÉÉàÉ
®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
{ÉÉÉÌ]ªÉÉå xÉä
n¤ÉÉ´É ÉÊnªÉÉ
iÉÉä BÉEä´ÉãÉ
SÉÉ® PÉÆ]ä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
nÉc ºÉƺBÉEÉ® BÉE®xÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ºÉiÉÉÒ¶É
{ÉEÉèVÉÉÒ BÉEÉä
UÉä½É MɪÉÉ +ÉÉè®
SÉÉ® PÉÆ]ä BÉEä ¤ÉÉn
+ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉÒ ´Éc
¤ÉäMÉÚxÉÉc ¤ÉxÉÉ®ºÉ
BÉEÉÒ VÉäãÉ àÉå
¤Éxn cè* àÉé MÉßc
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
ºÉä BÉE<Ç ¤ÉÉ®
BÉEc SÉÖBÉEÉ cÚÆ, {ÉcãÉä
£ÉÉÒ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEä àÉÖJªÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ
lÉä, +ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉÒ
<xcÉÓ BÉEä ®ÉVªÉ{ÉÉãÉ
VÉÉÒ cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
+É£ÉÉÒ iÉBÉE ABÉE
ÉÊnxÉ £ÉÉÒ MÉßc
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
xÉä =ºÉ {É® xÉ MÉà£ÉÉÒ®iÉÉ
ºÉä vªÉÉxÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ
+ÉÉè® xÉ {ÉÚUÉ* àÉéxÉä
ºÉnxÉ BÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ
ºÉä +É{ÉÉÒãÉ
£ÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ lÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® |ÉÉlÉÇxÉÉ
£ÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ lÉÉÒ
ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É BÉEàÉ
ºÉä BÉEàÉ =xcå {ÉÚUå
ÉÊBÉE ºÉiÉÉÒ¶É
{ÉEÉèVÉÉÒ +ÉÉVÉ
iÉBÉE VÉäãÉ àÉå
¤Éxn BÉDªÉÉå cè*
14.20 hrs. ( Hon.
Deputy Chairman Rajya Sabha in the Chair)
+ÉÉVÉ càÉ
<iÉxÉÉ Vɰô® BÉEcxÉÉ
SÉÉcåMÉä ÉÊBÉE àÉÉ.
MÉßcàÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
xÉä ªÉtÉÉÊ{É +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ
BÉEÉ =nÉc®hÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ,
|ÉEÉÆºÉ BÉEÉ =nÉc®hÉ
ÉÊnªÉÉ, VÉàÉÇxÉÉÒ
BÉEÉ =nÉc®hÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ,
+ÉÉ{ÉxÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
iÉÉä =xÉBÉEÉÒ xÉBÉEãÉ
BÉEÉÒ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
+ÉÉè® ¤ÉÉiÉÉå
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
BÉEcÉÆ xÉBÉEãÉ BÉEÉÒ*
VÉ¤É 11 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É®
BÉEÉä +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ
{É® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
BÉEÉ càÉãÉÉ cÉä
MɪÉÉ iÉÉä +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ
xÉä {ÉÚ®ä BÉEä {ÉÚ®ä
=xÉBÉEä ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä
£ÉÉÒ xÉäiÉÉ º´ÉªÉÆ
¤ÉÖ¶É ºÉÉc¤É
ºÉä ãÉäBÉE® ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä
´ÉÉÊ®~ xÉäiÉÉ
lÉä, <ÆMãÉéb BÉEä
xÉäiÉÉ ªÉÉ +ÉÉè®
=xÉBÉEä ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ,
|ÉEÉÆºÉ BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ
lÉä, {ÉÚ®ÉÒ BÉEÉÒ
{ÉÚ®ÉÒ nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ
àÉå +É{ÉxÉÉ {ÉFÉ
®JÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
MɪÉä +ÉÉè® àÉÖÉκãÉàÉ
nä¶ÉÉå àÉå MɪÉä,
SÉÉÒxÉ àÉå £ÉÉÒ
MɪÉä* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
13 ÉÊnºÉà¤É® BÉEä
¤ÉÉn, +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä BÉE<Ç
àÉÆSÉÉå ºÉä +ÉÉè®
ãÉÉäBÉE ºÉ£ÉÉ
BÉEä +Éxn® £ÉÉÒ càÉxÉä
BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE ®É]ÅÉÒªÉ
ABÉEiÉÉ {ÉÉÊ®Én
BÉEÉÒ ¤Éè~BÉE ¤ÉÖãÉÉ<ªÉä,
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn {É®
SÉSÉÉÇ cÉä VÉɪÉä
ÉÊBÉE càÉå ºÉ¤É
BÉEÉä ÉÊàÉãÉBÉE®
BÉDªÉÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA,
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
®É]ÅÉÒªÉ ABÉEiÉÉ
{ÉÉÊ®Én BÉEÉÒ
¤Éè~BÉE xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉÖãÉÉ<Ç*
+ÉÉ{É +ÉÉè® ¤ÉÉiÉÉå
àÉå iÉÉä +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ
BÉEÉÒ xÉBÉEãÉ BÉE®
®cä cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉ¤É +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ
xÉä {ÉÚ®ä BÉEÉ {ÉÚ®É
ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ
nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEÉ
ãÉä ÉÊãɪÉÉ,
=ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn =xcÉåxÉä
VÉÉBÉE® +É{ÉEMÉÉÉÊxɺiÉÉxÉ
àÉå iÉÉÉÊãɤÉÉxÉ
{É® càÉãÉÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ,
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉ{É
13 ÉÊnºÉà¤É® BÉEä
¤ÉÉn +É£ÉÉÒ iÉBÉE
nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEä
nä¶ÉÉå BÉEÉä Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
àÉå ãÉäxÉÉ iÉÉä
nÚ® ®cÉ, +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ
ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ
{ÉÉÉÌ]ªÉÉå BÉEÉä
+ÉÉè® ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ
BÉEä BÉE<Ç º´ÉªÉƺÉä´ÉÉÒ
ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå BÉEÉä,
¤ÉÖÉÊrVÉÉÒÉʴɪÉÉåBÉEÉä
+ÉÉè® VÉÉä {ÉÚ®ä
BÉEä {ÉÚ®ä ºÉÉlÉ
näxÉä ´ÉÉãÉä lÉä,
=xÉBÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
àÉå xÉcÉÓ ÉÊãɪÉÉ*
nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ àÉå
+ÉÉ{É ÉÊVÉiÉxÉÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcå ÉÊBÉE
càÉÉ®É ºÉààÉÉxÉ
¤ÉfÃÉ cè, càÉÉ®É
àÉci´É ¤ÉfÃÉ cè,
càÉå Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
ÉÊàÉãÉÉ cè, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
+ÉÉVÉ <ºÉ ºÉÆBÉE]
BÉEÉÒ PɽÉÒ àÉå
{ÉÚ®ä ÉÊnãÉ BÉEä
ºÉÉlÉ <ºÉ nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ
BÉEÉ ABÉE £ÉÉÒ nä¶É
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ºÉÉlÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè, +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
AäºÉÉÒ VÉMÉc nä¶É
BÉEÉä ãÉä VÉÉBÉE®
®JÉÉ cè*
+ÉÉVÉ MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ
BÉEä +Éxn® VÉÉä £ÉÉÒ
cÉä ®cÉ cè ªÉÉ VɤɮnºiÉÉÒ
+ɪÉÉävªÉÉ BÉEä
+Éxn® |É´Éä¶É BÉE®
VÉÉxÉÉ +ÉÉè® |É´Éä¶É
BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ¤ÉÉn
Éʴɶ´É ÉÊcxnÚ
{ÉÉÊ®Én BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ
BÉEcå ÉÊBÉE càÉ |É´Éä¶É
BÉE®åMÉä +ÉÉè® +ɤÉ
£ÉÉÒ SÉÖxÉÉèiÉÉÒ
nÉÒ VÉÉ ®cÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE
BÉEÉä]Ç BÉEÉ BÉEÉä<Ç
{ÉEèºÉãÉÉ cÉä,
xªÉɪÉÉãɪÉ
BÉEÉ BÉEÉä<Ç {ÉEèºÉãÉÉ
cÉä, càÉ <ºÉ VÉàÉÉÒxÉ
{É® VɤɮnºiÉÉÒ
BÉE¤VÉÉ BÉE®åMÉä,
´Éä BÉEÉèxÉ ãÉÉäMÉ
cé? +ÉÉ{É BÉEcåMÉä
ÉÊBÉE Éʴɶ´É
ÉÊcxnÚ {ÉÉÊ®Én
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ cé, BÉE£ÉÉÒ
BÉEcåMÉä ÉÊBÉE ¤ÉVÉ®ÆMÉ
nãÉ BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ
cé +ÉÉè® càÉ BÉE<Ç
¤ÉÉ® {ÉÚU SÉÖBÉEä
cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉVÉ
BÉEàÉ ºÉä BÉEàÉ
<ºÉÉÒ ºÉnxÉ BÉEä
+Éxn® ¤ÉiÉÉ nÉÒÉÊVÉA
ÉÊBÉE ÉÊSÉxàɪÉÉxÉxn
º´ÉÉàÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉEºÉ
nãÉ BÉEä ãÉÉäBÉE
ºÉ£ÉÉ BÉEä àÉèà¤É®
cé*
ÉÊ´ÉxɪÉ
BÉEÉÊ]ªÉÉ® VÉÉÒ
ÉÊBÉEºÉBÉEä cé, º´ÉÉàÉÉÒ
+ÉÉÉÊniªÉxÉÉlÉ
VÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉEºÉBÉEä
cé - ªÉä àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉ ãÉÉäBÉE
ºÉ£ÉÉ àÉå ÉÊBÉEºÉ
nãÉ BÉEä ºÉnºªÉ
cé, +ÉÉ{É <xcå Éʴɶ´É
ÉÊcxnÚ {ÉÉÊ®Én
BÉEä BÉEcåMÉä ªÉÉ
¤ÉVÉ®ÆMÉ nãÉ BÉEä
BÉEcåMÉä* <ºÉ iÉ®c +ÉÉ{É
nä¶É BÉEÉä +ÉxÉÖÉÊSÉiÉ
iÉ®ÉÒBÉEä ºÉä xÉcÉÓ
SÉãÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä*
+ÉMÉ® nä¶É BÉEÉä
SÉãÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cÉä, +ÉMÉ® càÉå Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
àÉå ãÉäiÉä, càÉå
Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
ÉÊnãÉÉiÉä +ÉÉè®
ºÉƺÉn BÉEä ºÉ£ÉÉÒ
®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
nãÉÉå BÉEÉä Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
àÉå ãÉäiÉä ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉ{É +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉA
cé, iÉÉä ºÉ´ÉǺÉààÉÉÊiÉ
ºÉä ªÉc {ÉÉºÉ cÉä
VÉÉiÉÉ, BÉEÉä<Ç
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®iÉÉ* +É£ÉÉÒ
£ÉÉÒ càÉÉ®ä ¤ÉcÖiÉ
ºÉä ºÉÉlÉÉÒ nÖÉÊ´ÉvÉÉ
àÉå cé* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
càÉ nÖÉÊ´ÉvÉÉ
àÉå xÉcÉÓ cé* càÉ
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä VÉÉxÉiÉä
cé* càÉxÉä 1986 ºÉä ãÉMÉÉiÉÉ®
£ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ VÉxÉiÉÉ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ +ÉÉè® +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä £ÉÉÒ
ºÉÆMÉ~xÉ cé, =xÉBÉEÉä
näJÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® £ÉÖMÉiÉÉ
cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ
VÉÉxÉiÉä cé ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉ{É BÉDªÉÉ BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé* +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ nãÉ
+É£ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ VÉÉxÉåMÉä,
¤ÉÉn àÉå VÉÉxÉ
VÉÉAÆMÉä* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
nä¶É BÉEÉÒ VÉxÉiÉÉ
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä AäºÉÉ
àÉÉèBÉEÉ BÉE£ÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ näMÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉE
+ÉBÉEäãÉä £ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ
VÉxÉiÉÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEäxp
àÉå ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ¤ÉxÉÉ
ºÉBÉEä* +ÉMÉ® AäºÉÉ
cÉä MɪÉÉ iÉÉä
<ºÉ ºÉƺÉn BÉEä
+ÉÆn® <xÉBÉEä ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ
nãÉÉå BÉEÉä +ÉÉè®
ªÉä®xÉxÉɪÉbÚ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ
{ÉiÉÉ SÉãÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ*
<ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ BÉEcxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉè®
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEÉ
cÉä ªÉÉ xÉ cÉä, £ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ
VÉxÉiÉÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEä
¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå càÉÉ®É
ÉÊnàÉÉMÉ ºÉÉ{ÉE
cè* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ®É]ÅÉÒªÉ
ABÉEiÉÉ {ÉÉÊ®Én
àÉå BÉDªÉÉ Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
ÉÊnãÉɪÉÉ lÉÉ,
+ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ
BÉEÉä]Ç àÉå BÉDªÉÉ
cãÉ{ÉExÉÉàÉÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ
lÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn
ºÉä cÉÒ càÉÉ®É
+ÉÉè® +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉ
]BÉE®É´É cÖ+ÉÉ lÉÉ,
VÉÉä +ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉÒ
VÉÉ®ÉÒ cè* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
=ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ ªÉcÉÓ
{É® BÉEcÉ lÉÉ, +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
ªÉÉn cÉä ªÉÉ xÉ
cÉä, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ªÉcÉÓ {É® +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
BÉEcÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®ÉÒ
®lɪÉÉjÉÉ {É® +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
uÉ®É MÉÉäãÉÉÒ
SÉãÉÉxÉä ºÉä càÉå
¤É½É ãÉÉ£É
cÖ+ÉÉ cè* MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä BÉEcÉ
lÉÉ, +ÉMÉ® +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
ªÉÉn cÉä, ªÉcÉÓ
{É® ~ÉÒBÉE ºÉÉàÉxÉä,
VÉcÉÆ +ÉÉ{É ¤Éè~ä
cé* càÉxÉä £ÉÉÒ
iÉ¤É BÉEcÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
ãÉÉ£É cÖ+ÉÉ cè,
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ càÉxÉä
®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉEÉÒ cè* nä¶É
BÉEÉÒ ABÉEiÉÉ +ÉÉè®
+ÉJÉÆbiÉÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
àÉVɤÉÚ®ÉÒ
àÉå ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉä
MÉÉäãÉÉÒ SÉãÉÉxÉÉÒ
{ɽÉÒ* àÉéxÉä
iÉ¤É £ÉÉÒ BÉEcÉ
lÉÉ, +ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉÒ
BÉEc ®cÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE nä¶É
BÉEÉÒ JÉÉÉÊiÉ®
iÉ¤É 16 VÉÉxÉå MÉ<Ç
lÉÉÓ* càÉå <ºÉBÉEÉÒ
JÉÖ¶ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
cè, {ÉÉÒ½É cè, nÖJÉ
cè, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ càÉ
VÉÉxÉiÉä cé ÉÊBÉE
nä¶É BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä,
nä¶É BÉEÉÒ JÉÉÉÊiÉ®
càÉxÉä BÉEÉä<Ç ¶ÉÆBÉE®ÉSÉɪÉÇ
xÉcÉÓ näJÉÉ, ÉÊVÉxÉBÉEÉä
càÉxÉä ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ* nä¶É
BÉEÉÒ JÉÉÉÊiÉ®
16 VÉÉxÉå iÉÉä BÉEàÉ
cé, 32 VÉÉxÉå £ÉÉÒ
SÉãÉÉÒ VÉÉAÆ, iɤÉ
£ÉÉÒ nä¶É BÉEÉÒ
BÉEÉÒàÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ
ãÉMÉÉ<Ç VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ*
ªÉc cè càÉÉ®É oÉÎ]BÉEÉähÉ*
<ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
VÉÉxÉiÉä cé, càÉxÉä
näJÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® £ÉÖMÉiÉÉ
cè* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉ{É
càÉå BÉEciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE
càÉ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé* +É£ÉÉÒ
càÉ nÉäc®ÉxÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
SÉÉciÉä, càÉxÉä ºÉÖ¤Éc
£ÉÉÒ BÉEcÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉ{É +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ
àÉå xÉ ¤ÉÉäãÉå*
ºÉÉ®ä nä¶É BÉEÉÒ
VÉxÉiÉÉ =ºÉBÉEÉä
xÉcÉÓ ºÉàÉZÉ {ÉÉiÉÉÒ
cè* MÉÉÆ´É BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ
+ÉÉVÉ ]ÉÒ.´ÉÉÒ.
àÉå näJÉ ®cä cÉåMÉä,
+ÉÉ{É nä¶ÉÉÒ £ÉÉÉÉ
àÉå cÉÒ ¤ÉÉäãÉä*
+ÉMÉ® JÉÖ¶É BÉE®xÉÉ
cÉÒ cè iÉÉä +ÉÉ{É
iÉÉÊàÉãÉ àÉå
¤ÉÉäãÉiÉä, àÉãɪÉÉãÉàÉ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉiÉä
ªÉÉ +ÉxªÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
£ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ £ÉÉÉÉ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉiÉä*
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉ{É
iÉÉä ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ
£ÉÉÉÉ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉä*
VÉÉä ®ÉVÉ£ÉÉÉÉ
BÉEÉÒ ={ÉäFÉÉ BÉE®åMÉä,
´Éä ®ÉVÉ£ÉÉÉÉ
BÉEÉ ºÉààÉÉxÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä,
´Éä nä¶É BÉEÉ ºÉààÉÉxÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä
+ÉÉè® xÉ BÉE® {ÉÉAÆMÉä*
ªÉcÉÆ {É® iÉàÉÉàÉ
{ÉÉÒUä ºÉä +ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉå
+ÉÉxÉä BÉEä ¤ÉÉn
£ÉÉÒ +ÉÉ{É ÉÊcxnÉÒ
àÉå xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉÉäãÉä*
càÉxÉä BÉEcÉ lÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É ÉÊcxnÉÒ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäÉÊãÉA,
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ
ãÉåMÉä* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
+ÉÉ{É ºÉ¤É ®ÉVÉ£ÉÉÉÉ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä
ºÉä BÉEiÉ®É MÉA* +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
BÉEäÉʤÉxÉä] ºiÉ®
BÉEä àÉÆjÉÉÒ =kÉ®
|Énä¶É àÉå VÉÉBÉE®
´ÉÉä] àÉÉÆMÉiÉä
cé +ÉÉè® BÉEciÉä cé
ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
cè, ´Éc nä¶ÉÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
cè, nä¶ÉpÉäcÉÒ cè*
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ´ÉcÉÆ
ºÉ¤ÉBÉE ÉÊàÉãÉ
MɪÉÉ, {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® ´ÉÉä]
àÉÉÆMÉä lÉä, ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä
VÉÉÒiÉBÉE® +ÉÉA, {ÉcãÉä
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ´ÉcÉÆ
178 ÉÊ´ÉvÉɪÉBÉE
lÉä +ÉÉè® +ɤÉ
ÉʺÉ{ÉEÇ 88 cÉÒ ®c
MÉA cé* +É¤É ªÉc ºÉÉ{ÉE
cÉä MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
càÉ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
BÉE® ®cä lÉä ªÉÉ +ÉÉ{É
BÉE® ®cä lÉä* +ɤÉ
+ÉÉ{É ´ÉcÉÆ SÉÖxÉÉèiÉÉÒ
nä ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc BÉEÉä àÉÖJªÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
¤ÉxÉxÉä nåMÉä* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
´ÉcÉÆ {É® ¤ÉÉÒ.AºÉ.{ÉÉÒ.
ºÉä ºÉàÉZÉÉèiÉÉ
BÉE® ÉÊãɪÉÉ cè*
|ÉvÉÉxÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
ºÉä +É{ÉxÉä |ÉÉÊiÉÉÊxÉÉÊvÉ
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ÉÊb{]ÉÒ
SÉÉÒ{ÉE ÉÊàÉÉÊxɺ]®
{Én BÉEÉÒ àÉÉÆMÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
càÉ iÉÉä àÉÖJªÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ iɤÉ
¤ÉxÉåMÉä, VɤÉ
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä 15 ºÉä
ãÉäBÉE® 20 BÉEÉÒ cèÉʺɪÉiÉ
{É® ãÉÉ nåMÉä +ÉÉè®
VÉ¤É £ÉÉÒ SÉÖxÉÉ´É
cÉäMÉÉ, ãÉÉ nåMÉä*
càÉ àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé* càÉ JÉ®ÉÒn {ÉE®ÉäJiÉ
BÉE®BÉEä àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé* càÉ =kÉ® |Énä¶É
BÉEÉä xÉ ãÉÚ]åMÉä
+ÉÉè® xÉ ºÉÉè-ºÉÉè
àÉÆjÉÉÒ ¤ÉxÉÉBÉE®
ãÉÚ]xÉä nåMÉä - ªÉc
càÉÉ®ÉÒ xÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
cè* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä =kÉ® |Énä¶É
BÉEÉä ¤É¤ÉÉÇn
BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ cè* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
=kÉ® |Énä¶É BÉEÉä
ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ àÉå
ºÉ¤ÉºÉä {ÉÉÒUä
BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ cè* <ºÉBÉEÉ
ABÉE ºÉÉãÉ, nÉä ºÉÉãÉ
BÉEä ¤ÉÉn {ÉiÉÉ SÉãÉäMÉÉ
VÉ¤É +ÉÉ{É {ÉènãÉ
ºÉ½BÉEÉå {É® xÉcÉÓ
SÉãÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä* ´ÉcÉÆ
ÉʤÉVÉãÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ, {ÉÉxÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ cè* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
{ÉÚ®É =kÉ® |Énä¶É
ºÉÉè àÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ {ÉEÉèVÉ ãÉÉBÉE®
¤É¤ÉÉÇn ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ
àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
¤ÉxÉxÉä BÉEä <SUÖBÉE
xÉcÉÓ cé* àÉÖJªÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ ¤ÉxÉåMÉä
iÉÉä UÉä]É àÉÆjÉÉÒ-àÉÆbãÉ
cÉäMÉÉ, ÉÊ{ÉEVÉÚãÉJÉSÉÉÔ
{É® ®ÉäBÉE ãÉMÉäMÉÉÒ,
¤Éä<ÇàÉÉxÉÉÒ
{É® ®ÉäBÉE ãÉMÉäMÉÉÒ*
càÉ ¤Éä<ÇàÉÉxÉÉå,
MÉ®ÉÒ¤ÉÉÒ, ¤Éä®ÉäVÉMÉÉ®ÉÒ
+ÉÉè® àÉÉÉÊ{ÉEªÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
cããÉÉ ¤ÉÉäãÉåMÉä*
càÉxÉä ABÉE £ÉÉÒ
àÉÉÉÊ{ÉEªÉÉ
BÉEÉä ÉÊ]BÉE] xÉcÉÓ
ÉÊnªÉÉ cè, àÉÖZÉä
{ÉELÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
¤ÉÉÒVÉä{ÉÉÒ
xÉä àÉÉÉÊ{ÉEªÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEÉä ÉÊ]BÉE] ÉÊnªÉÉ
cè +ÉÉè® ÉÊVÉxcÉåxÉä
àÉÉÉÊ{ÉEªÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEÉä ÉÊ]BÉE] ÉÊnªÉÉ
cè, âó{ɪÉÉ ãÉäBÉE®
+ÉÉ{É =xÉBÉEä ºÉÉlÉ
ºÉàÉZÉÉèiÉÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé, ={É-®É]Å{ÉÉÊiÉ
BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® +ÉÉ{É
ºÉàÉZÉÉèiÉÉ
BÉE®iÉä cé, +ÉÉ{É nãÉÉãÉÉÒ
BÉE®iÉä cé +ÉÉè®
càɺÉä BÉEciÉä cé
+ÉÉ{É ºÉÉènÉ BÉE®iÉä
cé* càÉ ºÉÉènÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®iÉä cé* càÉ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®iÉä cé* nä¶É
BÉEÉÒ JÉÉÉÊiÉ®
càÉ =xÉ ÉÊxÉnÉæÉ
xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉEÉå
{É® +ÉÉè® ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
ÉÊ´É®ÉäÉÊvɪÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ <ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ
BÉE®åMÉä, BÉE®ÉAÆMÉä*
+ÉMÉ® ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉä
lÉä iÉÉä
+É£ÉÉÒ
ºÉÉäàÉxÉÉlÉ
SÉ]VÉÉÔ VÉÉÒ xÉä
BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ
àÉÉxÉ´ÉÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®
+ÉɪÉÉäMÉ xÉä
MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ àÉå
cÉä ®cä VÉÖãàÉ +ÉÉè®
+ÉiªÉÉSÉÉ® BÉEÉä
nä¶É BÉEä ºÉàÉFÉ
|ɺiÉÖiÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
iÉÉä ´Éc ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
BÉE® ®cÉ cè ?
àÉÉxÉ´ÉÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®
+ÉɪÉÉäMÉ BÉEä
+ÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉä £ÉÉ®iÉ
BÉEä ºÉ´ÉÉæSSÉ
xªÉɪÉÉãɪÉ
BÉEä SÉÉÒ{ÉE VÉÉκ]ºÉ
®c SÉÖBÉEä cé, BÉDªÉÉ
´Éc ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé ?
BÉDªÉÉ ÉÊnããÉÉÒ
=SSÉ xªÉɪÉÉãɪÉ
BÉEä SÉÉÒ{ÉE VÉÉκ]ºÉ
xÉä {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä
¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå VÉÉä
ÉÊãÉJÉÉ cè +ÉÉè®
¤ÉÉäãÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ nàÉxÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ
cè, ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
VÉÆMÉãÉÉÒ cè, ªÉc
¤ÉÉäãÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
<ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÉäMÉÉ iÉÉä BÉDªÉÉ
´Éc ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé? xÉ
cÉÒ àÉÉxÉ´ÉÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®
+ÉɪÉÉäMÉ +ÉÉè®Ã
xÉ £ÉÚiÉ{ÉÚ´ÉÇ
SÉÉÒ{ÉE VÉÉκ]ºÉ
VÉÉÒ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé +ÉÉè® xÉ
ÉÊnããÉÉÒ =SSÉ xªÉɪÉÉãɪÉ
(£ÉÚ.{ÉÚ.) BÉEä SÉÉÒ{ÉE
VÉÉκ]ºÉ ÉÊVÉxcÉåxÉä
<ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè, ´Éc
®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé* ABÉE xÉcÉÓ
+ÉxÉäBÉEÉå BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ´ÉäkÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
xÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè +ÉÉè®
càÉ <ºÉÉÊãÉA ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ
|ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊxÉnÉæÉ
xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉEÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
+ÉÉè® +É{ÉxÉä ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
ÉÊ´É®ÉäÉÊvɪÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ*
àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
xÉä +É{ÉxÉä £ÉÉÉhÉ
àÉå BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ®
àÉÉèÉÊãÉBÉE
+ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®Éå
BÉEÉ cxÉxÉ cÉäMÉÉ
iÉÉä +ÉÉ{É xªÉɪÉ{ÉÉÉÊãÉBÉEÉ+ÉÉäÆ
àÉå VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä
cé* +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ ¤ÉMÉãÉ
àÉå BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ ¤Éè~ä cé, VÉ®É
{ÉÚÉÊUA ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç
àÉå ¤É½ä-¤É½ä
´ÉBÉEÉÒãÉ cé +ÉÉè®
càÉxÉä näJÉÉ cè +ÉÉè®
ABÉEÉvÉ BÉEÉä ºÉÖxÉÉ
cè +ÉÉè® àÉÖZÉä
ÉÊàÉãÉä £ÉÉÒ
cé* àÉÖà¤É<Ç àÉå
nÉä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
càÉ VÉÉxÉiÉä cé ÉÊBÉE
BÉEàÉ ºÉä BÉEàÉ
nºÉ ãÉÉJÉ âó{ɪÉÉ
{Éè®´ÉÉÒ àÉå
JÉSÉÇ cÖ+ÉÉ cè iɤÉ
VÉÉBÉE® ´Éä UÚ]ä
cé +ÉÉè® VÉÉä ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ
BÉEÉä]Ç àÉå +ÉÉA
cé, ´Éä ºÉºÉààÉÉxÉ
UÉäbä MɪÉä cé* ÉÊVÉxÉBÉEä
{ÉÉºÉ nºÉ ãÉÉJÉ
âó{ɪÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
lÉÉ, ÉÊVÉxÉBÉEÉÒ
{Éè®´ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
lÉÉÒ, ÉÊVÉxÉBÉEä
|É£ÉɴɶÉÉãÉÉÒ
ºÉàÉlÉÇBÉE, àÉnnMÉÉ®
xÉcÉÓ lÉä, ´Éä ÉÊxÉnÉæÉ
àÉÖÉκãÉàÉ
xÉÉèVÉ´ÉÉxÉ ãɽBÉEä
VÉäãÉ àÉå {ɽä
ºÉbiÉä +ÉÉè® +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
{ÉÉÎixɪÉÉå BÉEÉä
¤ÉÖãÉÉBÉE® BÉEcÉ
ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®É BÉEÉä<Ç
£É®ÉäºÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
cè* =xɺÉä BÉEc ÉÊnªÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE VÉÉ<A, nںɮÉÒ
¶ÉÉnÉÒ BÉE®Éä +ÉÉè®
=xÉàÉå iÉÉÒxÉ ãɽÉÊBÉEªÉÉå
xÉä nںɮÉÒ ¶ÉÉnÉÒ
BÉE® ãÉÉÒ* ¤ÉÉBÉEÉÒ
ãɽÉÊBÉEªÉÉå
xÉä ¶ÉÉnÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
BÉEÉÒ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
"]ÉbÉ"
àÉå ÉÊxÉnÉæÉ
ãÉÉäMÉ ¤ÉÆn ÉÊBÉEªÉä
MɪÉä* 77000 "]ÉbÉ"
àÉå =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ
¤ÉÆn cÖA lÉä SÉÉcä
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
BÉEÉÒ ®cÉÒ cÉä* =ºÉàÉå
BÉEä´ÉãÉ bäfà {ÉEÉÒºÉnÉÒ
BÉEÉä cÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ
cÖªÉÉÒ *
gÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉxɪÉ
BÉEÉÊ]ªÉÉ® ({ÉEèWÉɤÉÉn)
: BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
xÉä…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
<ºÉBÉEä àÉɪÉxÉä
+ÉÉ{É MÉãÉiÉ lÉä*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : ¤Éè~
VÉÉ<A* =xÉBÉEÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉE®xÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉ ºÉàɪÉ
VÉ¤É +ÉÉAMÉÉ iɤÉ
+ÉÉ{É £ÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉäÉÊãÉAMÉÉ*
¤ÉÉÒSÉ-¤ÉÉÒSÉ
àÉå ®ÉäBÉEÉ]ÉäBÉEÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ SÉÉÉÊcA*
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É :
ºÉàÉªÉ BÉEÉ
{ÉÉãÉxÉ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ*
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ PɽÉÒ
{ÉEɺ] cè, càÉÉ®ÉÒ
{ÉÉÒUä cè* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEÉÒ
xÉäiÉÉ xÉä º´ÉªÉÆ
"]ÉbÉ "
BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ
BÉEÉÒ cè* BÉDªÉÉ
+ÉÉ{ÉàÉå ÉÊcààÉiÉ
cè? 1975 àÉå BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
xÉä àÉÉÒºÉÉ
ãÉMÉɪÉÉ =ºÉBÉEÉ
{ÉÉÊ®hÉÉàÉ BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
£ÉÖMÉiÉ ®cÉÒ cè
+ÉÉè® +ÉÉVÉ iÉBÉE
ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ àÉå
¤Éè~ä cé * ´Éä ®ÉVÉ{ÉÉ]
BÉE® ®cä cé* +ÉÉ{É £ÉÉÒ
cºÉåMÉä* ÉÊ{ÉE® +ÉÉ{É
ÉËVÉnMÉÉÒ àÉå
ºÉkÉÉ àÉå xÉcÉÓ
+ÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä VɤÉ
"{ÉÉä]Éä "
BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÉäMÉÉ* +É{ÉEºÉÉäºÉ
BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ BÉEcxÉÉ
{ɽiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä xÉÉàÉ
{É® £ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ
VÉxÉiÉÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® iÉlÉÉ àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ, xÉä nä¶É BÉEÉä
nÉä ÉÊcººÉÉå àÉå
¤ÉÉÆ]É cè* +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉÆ¶É
VÉxÉiÉÉ {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
cè* ABÉE ÉÊcººÉÉ {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇBÉE
cè * +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä BÉEÉä<Ç
®ÉºiÉÉ ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉxÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA lÉÉ +ÉÉè®
<ºÉ {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉä
´ÉÉÉÊ{ÉºÉ ãÉäxÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA lÉÉ* +ÉÉVÉ
nä¶É ºÉÆBÉE] àÉå
{ÉEƺÉÉ cè, nä¶É
BÉEÉä ABÉE ®JÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ
ÉÊVÉààÉänÉ®ÉÒ
£ÉÉVÉ{ÉÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉÒ cè * VÉÉVÉÇ
ºÉÉc¤É, 1975 àÉå +ÉMÉ®
ªÉc {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
cÉäiÉÉ, iÉÉä +ÉÉ{É
ªÉcÉÆ ºÉƺÉn àÉå
xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉä* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
®FÉÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
(gÉÉÒ VÉÉVÉÇ {ÉExÉÉÇxbÉÒWÉ)
: ´Éä ´ÉcÉÆ
¤Éè~ä cé* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É :
ªÉä ªÉcÉÆ
¤Éè~ä cé, iÉÉä +ÉÉ{É
£ÉÉÒ ¤Éè~åMÉä*
càÉ =xÉBÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ®cä cé* cÉÄ
VÉÉVÉÇ {ÉExÉÉÇxÉbÉÒVÉ
~ÉÒBÉE BÉEciÉä cé BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® xÉä 1975 àÉå
càÉBÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ
19 àÉcÉÒxÉä VÉäãÉ
àÉå bÉãÉÉ lÉÉ,
càÉ BÉEÉä<Ç ¤ÉÉc®
xÉcÉÓ lÉä* SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ®
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
àÉå lÉä* <xcÉåxÉä
iÉÉä <xºÉÉ{ÉE BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcÉÒ * ªÉÉn
®ÉÊJÉAMÉÉ, àÉÉ.
SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ® VÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
àÉå ®ciÉä cÖA, ®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ BÉEä àÉèà¤É®
cÉäiÉä cÖA, BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® xÉä 19 àÉÉc
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA VÉäãÉ
àÉå bÉãÉÉ lÉÉ
* {ÉEÉÉʺɺ]´ÉÉnÉÒ
iÉÉBÉEiÉå, +ÉÉ{É
£ÉãÉä cÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
àÉå ®cä, +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
£ÉÉÒ VÉäãÉ àÉå
bÉãÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè* ªÉc {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
MÉãÉiÉ +ÉÉè® BÉEàÉVÉÉä®
cÉlÉÉå àÉå ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
BÉEä £ÉÉÒ ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
<ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè *
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
+ÉÉ{É ºÉ¤ÉBÉE
ºÉÉÒÉÊJÉA* SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ®
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä {ÉÉ]ÉÔ
àÉå ®ciÉä cÖA VÉäãÉ
àÉå bÉãÉÉ VÉÉ
ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè, iÉÉä
+ÉÉ{É £ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
¤ÉSÉ {ÉɪÉåMÉä*
càÉ +É¤É £ÉÉÒ
+ÉÉ{ɺÉä BÉEcåMÉä
ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉä
ãÉäBÉE® nä¶É BÉEÉ
¤ÉÆ]´ÉÉ®É àÉiÉ
BÉEÉÊ®A* +ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉƺÉn BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉcºÉ
BÉEä´ÉãÉ {ÉÚ®É
nä¶É cÉÒ xÉcÉÓ näJÉ
®cÉ cè, ºÉÉ®ÉÒ nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ
ºÉÖxÉ ®cÉÒ cè +ÉÉè®
ºÉÉ®ÉÒ nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ
BÉEÉÒ ÉÊxÉMÉÉcå
£ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ ºÉƺÉn
{É® ãÉMÉÉÒ cÖ<Ç
cé * +ÉÉVÉ ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ
nÉä ÉÊcººÉÉå àÉå
¤ÉÆ] MɪÉÉ cè. ABÉE
´Éä ãÉÉäMÉ cé
VÉÉä {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®BÉEä
ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÆjÉ BÉEÉä
¤ÉSÉÉxÉä BÉEä {ÉFÉ
àÉå cé, +ÉÉè® ABÉE
´Éä ãÉÉäMÉ cé,
VÉÉä {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ
ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ BÉE®
ãÉÉäBÉEiÉxjÉ BÉEÉ
MÉãÉÉ PÉÉå] ®cä
cé* <ºÉ ¤ÉcºÉ BÉEÉä
+ÉÉVÉ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ
näJÉ ®cÉÒ cè* ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ
Éʴɶ´É BÉEÉ
ºÉ¤ÉºÉä ¤É½É
ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÉÉÎxjÉBÉE
nä¶É cè* ªÉcÉÆ ABÉE
´Éä ãÉÉäMÉ cé,
VÉÉä ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÉÎxjÉBÉE
BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ BÉEÉä
¤ÉSÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé +ÉÉè® ABÉE ´Éä
ãÉÉäMÉ cé, VÉÉä
ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÉÉÎxjÉBÉE
BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ BÉEÉä
JÉiàÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé* <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É
AäºÉÉ BÉEÉä<Ç ®ÉºiÉÉ
ÉÊxÉBÉEÉÉÊãÉA,
ÉÊVɺɺÉä {ÉÉä]Éä
´ÉÉÉÊ{ÉºÉ ÉÊãɪÉÉ
VÉÉ ºÉBÉEä* {ÉÉä]Éä
´ÉÉÉÊ{ÉºÉ ãÉäBÉE®
{ÉÚ®ä nä¶É BÉEÉä
Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
àÉå ãÉÉÒÉÊVÉA*
IPC +ÉÉè® CrPC
<iÉxÉÉ BÉE~Éä®
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ cé,
=xÉBÉEä iÉciÉ BÉE½ÉÒ
ºÉä BÉEbÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ
näxÉä BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
cè * 1977-78 àÉå VÉ¤É VÉxÉiÉÉ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
¤ÉxÉÉÒ iÉÉä MÉßc
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ,
®FÉÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ,
A´ÉÆ |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ +ÉÉ{É ºÉ¤É
àÉÆÉÊjÉàÉÆbãÉ
àÉå lÉä * BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ-BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ
BÉEÉÒ cÉãÉiÉ ÉʤÉMɽÉÒ
+ÉÉè® SÉ®àÉ®ÉxÉä
ãÉMÉÉÒ * ABÉE {ÉEÉèVÉ
BÉEä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ,
gÉÉÒ SÉÉè{ɽÉ,
BÉEä nÉä +ɤÉÉävÉ
¤ÉSSÉÉå BÉEÉÒ +É{Éc®hÉ
BÉE® ciªÉÉ BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç*
<ºÉ ºÉxɺÉxÉÉÒJÉäVÉ
PÉ]xÉÉ ºÉä ÉÊnããÉÉÒ
cÉÒ xÉcÉÓ {ÉÚ®É
nä¶É lÉ®ÉÇ =~É *ÉÊnããÉÉÒ
{ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ xÉä
iÉiBÉEÉãÉÉÒxÉ MÉßcàÉÆjÉÉÒ
SÉÉèvÉ®ÉÒ SÉ®hÉÉ˺Éc
A´ÉÆ |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ
àÉÉä®É®VÉÉÒ
näºÉÉ<Ç BÉEÉä BÉEbä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä
BÉEÉä ®ÉVÉÉÒ BÉE®
ÉÊãɪÉÉ* BÉDªÉÉ
BÉEèÉʤÉxÉä] xÉä
=ºÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É BÉEÉä
+ɺ´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ® xÉcÉÓ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ? BÉEèÉʤÉxÉä]
àÉå BÉDªÉÉ MÉßcàÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ, ®FÉÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ iÉlÉÉ |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ +ÉÉ{É àÉÆjÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ lÉä * gÉÉÒ
àÉÉä®É®VÉÉÒ
näºÉÉ<Ç uÉ®É VÉÉä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉɪÉÉ
MɪÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEÉä
´ÉÉÉÊ{ÉºÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ* =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn
®ÆMÉÉ-ÉʤÉããÉÉ
BÉEÉä IPC BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEä +ÉxiÉMÉÇiÉ {ÉEÉÆºÉÉÒ
nÉÒ MÉ<Ç* {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
+É{ÉxÉä {ÉÉÊ®gÉàÉ
ºÉä ¤ÉSÉxÉä BÉEä
ÉÊãɪÉä +ÉÉè®
+ÉvÉÉÒxɺlÉ {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉBÉEàÉÉÔ
ÉÊxÉnÉæ¶É ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä {ÉEºÉÉxÉä
BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® {ÉèºÉÉ
ãÉäxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä
ÉÊxÉVÉÉÒ nÖ¶àÉxÉÉÒ
àÉå {ÉEƺÉÉxÉä
ãÉMÉiÉä cé * {ÉÉä]Éä
ºÉä {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
BÉEÉÒ BÉEàÉÉ<Ç
cÉäMÉÉÒ. {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
BÉEÉä àÉäcxÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®xÉÉÒ {ɽäMÉÉÒ*
{ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ +ÉÉè®
ÉÊVÉãÉÉ |ɶÉɺÉxÉ
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ
ÉÊcààÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ
cÉäMÉÉÒ* IPC +ÉÉè®
CrPC BÉEä uÉ®É
¤ÉcÖiÉ ãÉà¤Éä
ºÉàÉªÉ iÉBÉE +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉå
xÉä ®ÉVÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ*
àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
=nÉc®hÉ nä ®cÉ cÚÆ, ®ÆMÉÉ-ÉʤÉããÉÉ
BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ IPC +ÉÉè®
CrPC BÉEä iÉciÉ
{ÉEÉÆºÉÉÒ ãÉMÉÉ<Ç
MÉ<Ç * +ÉÉ{É
{ÉÚ®ä nä¶É àÉå
ÉÊ{ÉU½É{ÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ
®ÉäBÉE ºÉBÉEä, ÉʤÉVÉãÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ nä ºÉBÉEä +ÉÉè®
MÉ®ÉÒ¤ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
®ÉäBÉE ºÉBÉEä * ®ÉäVÉMÉÉ®
BÉEä +ɴɺɮ {ÉÚ®ä
BÉEä {ÉÚ®ä nä¶É àÉå
¤ÉÆn BÉE® ®cä cé* ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ
BÉEà{ÉÉÊxɪÉÉå
BÉEÉ {ÉÚ®É BÉEÉ {ÉÚ®É
ÉÊxɪÉxjÉhÉ cè* nä¶É
BÉEÉÒ +ÉlÉÇ-BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ
ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ BÉEà{ÉÉÊxɪÉÉå
A´É vÉxÉÉÒ nä¶ÉÉå
BÉEä SÉÆMÉÖãÉ àÉå
{ÉEÆºÉ MÉ<Ç cè, BÉEäxp
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® c® àÉÉäSÉæ
{É® ÉÊ´É{ÉEãÉ
cÉä MɪÉÉÒ cè * <ºÉBÉEÉÒ
+ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ
ºÉä ¤ÉSÉxÉä BÉEä
ÉÊãÉA +ÉÉ{É nä¶É
BÉEÉÒ VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEÉ
vªÉÉxÉ ¤ÉÉÆ]xÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ºÉàÉÉVÉ´ÉÉnÉÒ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ nä¶É BÉEÉä
xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉÉÆ]xÉä
näMÉÉÒ * +ÉÉ{É {ÉÉä]Éä
{ÉÉÉÊ®iÉ BÉE®ÉxÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä Aä½ÉÒ
ºÉä SÉÉä]ÉÒ BÉEÉ
VÉÉä® ãÉMÉÉ ®cä
cé +ÉÉè® nä¶É BÉEÉÒ
VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEÉä Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
àÉå xÉcÉÓ ãÉä
®cä cé* +ÉÉ{É nä¶É
BÉEÉÒ VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEÉä
Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
àÉå ãÉå +ÉÉè®
{ÉÚ®ä ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉä
Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
àÉå ãÉå* +ÉÉVÉ
£ÉÉÒ àÉÉèBÉEÉ
cè, càÉ {ÉÚ®ä ºÉnxÉ
ºÉä ÉÊ´ÉxÉ©ÉiÉÉ{ÉÚ´ÉÇBÉE
+É{ÉÉÒãÉ BÉE®iÉä
cé ÉÊBÉE nä
nä¶É BÉEÉä
¤ÉSÉÉxÉä iÉlÉÉ
àÉÉèÉÊãÉBÉE
+ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®Éå
BÉEÉÒ ®FÉÉ BÉE®xÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä iÉlÉÉ
ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÆjÉ BÉEÉä
àÉVɤÉÚiÉ BÉE®xÉä
cäiÉÖ <ºÉ BÉEÉãÉä,
nàÉxÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ iÉlÉÉ
JÉiÉ®xÉÉBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä
ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE BÉEÉä
{ÉÉÉÊ®iÉ xÉ cÉäxÉä
nå +ÉÉè® {ÉÚ®ÉÒ
iÉ®c ®q BÉE® nä¶É BÉEÉ
ºÉààÉÉxÉ ºÉÉ®ÉÒ
nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ àÉå
¤ÉfÉxÉä BÉEÉ BÉEɪÉÇ
BÉE®å *
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Hon. Members, I should
announce that it is now almost quarter to Three of the Clock. I have got
eight leaders to speak; and also 16 other Members to speak. So, it is up
to you that if we want to finish the voting at 5.30 p.m., then we ourselves
have to be careful. I do not have to tell you because you are all leaders.
Now, Shri H.D. Deve Gowda to speak.
SHRI H.D. DEVE GOWDA (KANAKPURA): Madam, I thank you very
much for having given me an opportunity to express my views on this controversial
Bill.
In the morning, our hon. Home Minister, when he tried
to Table this controversial Bill, mentioned that it is a unique event that
our present Prime Minister has participated in all the three Joint Sittings;
and, under his leadership, today this unique controversial Bill is going
to be passed with a majority. You know the fate of the Bill.
Why has this controversy arisen? On 11th September,
what happened in the USA? The whole country stood together when that happened.
Are we not interested in fighting terrorism? Are we not interested in protecting
our nation, the sovereignty of the nation? Are we not prepared to cooperate
with the Government to defend this nation? This is a moot question. Patriotism
is not the monopoly of the ruling party or its allies. We are equally concerned
about the integrity of the nation, about the sovereignty of the nation,
about the unity of the nation. Why is this controversy there? The controversy
is there because the ruling party, in the last four years, has not demonstrated
in its governance to show that it is impartial towards all religions and
all communities as far as the administration is concerned.
Madam, as you have cautioned me about the time factor,
I do not want to make an elaborate speech. Today, we are facing the problem
of disunity and the suspicion among the minorities. The needle of suspicion
is there because of the behaviour of the Government in the last four years.
So, I have no option but to take some of events that took place in the
last five months.
After Godhra incident, one of our senior colleagues, Shri
George Fernandes, who is sitting here, had the opportunity to come to this
House to participate in this unique controversial Bill. What had happened
in the past during Emergency? How the TADA was misused? I am not going
to elaborate on that. We reaped dividends for that. Can we expect the people,
who are going to implement this Act, to be impartial? Are they free from
the political interference? These are the moot questions.
When the Indian Muslims and Christians faced the sufferings
in the last four years, they have shown restraint. They have proved that
they are Indians. They belong to this nation. This nation is not the monopoly
of any one community or any one religion. They have shown beyond anybody’s
doubt that they are equally responsible for the unity of the nation. When
the 19 churches were demolished, was there any reaction by the Christian
community in this country? Let me ask this question. When Bible was burnt,
was there any reaction from the Christian community or other minorities?
If you want to fight cross-border terrorism, we have no
objection . You have to take the entire country into confidence by your
behaviour. Our hon. Home Minister went to Ajmer to offer the flowers in
the Dargah . Does it mean that he has changed his attitude? I am
sorry to say as to how things are moving in the country for the last four
years. This is not to maintain the unity of our nation.
As a Member of Lok Sabha, if I try to discharge my duty
in Parliament, a hon. Chief Minister of a particular State has remarked
that one former Prime Minister is instigating the communal tension in Gujarat.
Are you going to support this stand or the remark made by a Chief Minister
of a State, George Saheb? You are senior to me. You might not have
become the Prime Minister. You may become one in the future because you
enjoy the vast majority and you try to bind your allies together. I have
no objection. You are from a minority community. I try to participate in
a he debate in the Lok Sabha. If a Chief Minister of a State makes an uncharitable
remark that a former Prime Minister is trying to instigate the communal
tension in Gujarat, what will you do?.
Madam, I do not want to hurt the feelings of NDA allies.
Is it not going to encroach upon the privilege of the hon. Members of Parliament?
Is the hon. Prime Minister or the Home Minister prepared to admonish the
Chief Minister, who behaved in such a manner? I would like to know the
mind of the hon. Prime Minister and the Home Minister.
Madam, the police officers say that they have not got
a free hand to act. I do not want to consume the time of this House by
taking out the newspaper cuttings and quoting the same here. I would like
to tell Shri George Fernandes that senior police officers, who are going
to implement this law, are saying that they have no freedom. They said
that they could have brought the situation under control, but they had
no freedom to act on their own. So, can you expect this Act would be implemented
by those people who are supposed to be encouraging terrorism? This is the
controversy. The officers who tried to book some of those people belonging
to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad or the Bajrang Dal have now
been kicked like a football by the Chief Minister. What does it show? Why
is the country divided on this very important legislation? Are we not interested
in protecting the nation? Are we not prepared to demonstrate our unity?
In the past, during the Chinese aggression or when Pakistan tried to create
problems to our nation, the whole country, with one voice, demonstrated
its unity. So, it is not a question of political conflict.
Madam, we have the Law Minister who has got his own legal
excellence. Several legal experts and his own junior and senior colleagues
in the legal field have differed with him on this Bill. There are serious
doubts voiced by legal experts. I am not a legal expert, but there is a
difference of opinion among legal experts. The Chairman of the National
Human Rights Commission is one of the former Chief Justices of India. The
entire Commission has passed a unanimous resolution rejecting this controversial
Bill.
I would like to draw the attention of this House to a
book published by the Ram Janma Bhoomi Nyas. For whose benefit has
it been published? Is it to advocate Hindutva? What is Hindutva?
What does the Hindu religion say? Do I not belong to the Hindu community?
Should I have to take a certificate from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad?
I might not have been born in a so-called upper caste. I know that we have
been exploited for the last 5,000 years, but even then I am proud of my
community. The essence of Hindu religion is tolerance. But is there any
tolerance among these people? I would like to pose this question to the
Ram Janma Bhoomi Nyas who have published this book wherein they
tried to drag my name and my colleague Shri I.K. Gujral.
It says:
"The two other vote bank politicians-cum-Prime Ministers
- I.K. Gujaral and H.D. Deve Gowda - did not bother to do anything except
keep going to Eids or Iftaar parties."
Yes, I used to go to Iftaar parties. I used to go
to Dargahs. I used to go to Gurudwaras. I used to go to Hindu
temples. But remember that the historians will write: "During Deve Gowda’s
period, there was no communal clash in this country." I am proud to say
that ‘without any POTO’.
Without any type of these draconian laws, we conducted
the election. In the past 10 years, no Prime Minister went to Jammu and
Kashmir. As a Minister of Home Affairs, he might have got the file. If
I say even a single word in exaggeration, tell the nation. I fixed up the
programme. The people from the RAW and the Intelligence Bureau came and
tried to advise me to postpone the programme. They said: "They have intercepted
the conversation between the extremist groups. They are going to kill you.
You should not go." That was the advice given by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
the IB and the RAW Secretaries. All these people came to me. I postponed
the programme once.
Then I fixed up the programme for the second time. The
same situation was there. A dozen officers, including the same officers,
came to me and tried to prevail upon me. I said: "No. I must go. If you
all say that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of this country, the
Prime Minister of this country is expected to go. If I fail to go because
some conversation of extremists has been intercepted by our esteemed friends,
then I am not worthy of a Prime Minister. I will go whatever may be the
consequences." I visited four times. We conducted the election. We allowed
persons from the international media to see whether the election was free
and fair. They could and observe it.
You want to say about this so-called Ram Janambhoomi
Nyas. Have they taken the entire Hindu community as their protectees?
I would like to ask a question: "Am I not a Hindu?" I too have got certain
responsibilities as Member of Parliament and as worker of a political party.
My party is not a large party. I do not care about that. But what I want
to tell the nation is that I have no hesitation. Let the hon. Members realise
my own position. I do not want to use unparliamentary language against
anybody. The RSS Chief says in Bangalore:
"The era is going to begin. The era of those people,
who are going to oppose Hindutva, is coming to an end."
What does it mean? I oppose what that means. There is no
hesitation on my part. If we are going to be subjected to such threats,
if our safety is in danger, if our life is in danger, then, we are prepared
for the worst for the sake of unity of this nation.
15.00 hrs.
I am not going to be afraid of these threats. I have got
the press cuttings in my hands of what the RSS Chief has said: "Judge Saheb,
what happened to your family, what happened to you, the agony and what
now you are doing I know, why you are doing all these things."
I am not going to blame him. To take revenge is a separate
matter but the country''''''''s interest is paramount. The Congress has removed
my Government, I am not bothered about that. The unity of the nation, the
unity of the country, the harmony among all communities and all religions
is of paramount importance to all of us, while fighting terrorism.
Terrorism, as has been stated by the hon. Home Minister,
is there for the last twenty years. The eyes of Mr. Bush were opened on
11th September when the terrorist problem was known to them.
The Security Council had to pass a resolution after that. Before that they
had not realised what the problem of terrorism was.
Today, we are in a minority. Yes. We know those people
who are going to support, a day will come and it is not far off that the
political wheel will turn and they will regret. It is not far off. You
cannot suppress the feelings of the nation. You cannot suppress the feelings
of the entire population of 103 million people of this country. The days
are not far off, whoever may rule this country, we are not bothered. What
we want to say is that we want the harmony, the unity and oneness among
all religions. This is all we want to have in this country.
I would like to conclude by saying that during 1961, when
during one of the tallest leaders, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru''''''''s, time, the
first Joint Sitting was held as has been stated by the hon. Home Minister.
At that time, there was no party whip, there was no lobbying. He was such
a tallest leader in this country. He had given a free hand to vote according
to the conscience of the Members, if I am correct. Shri Chandra Shekhar
may correct me because I was not in the national politics at that time.
In the last one week, after raising the issue of Godhra
Asthi Yatra, what has happened? There was a commotion in the House.
I was a witness and then how things moved in the last three-four days…
(Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉxɪÉ
BÉEÉÊ]ªÉÉ® : àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉ MÉãÉiɤɪÉÉxÉÉÒ
BÉE® ®cä cé* <xcÉåxÉä
ÉÊ{ÉUãÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉ®
£ÉÉÒ ãÉÉäBÉE
ºÉ£ÉÉ àÉå +É{ÉxÉä
£ÉÉÉhÉ àÉå AäºÉÉÒ
cÉÒ MÉãÉiɤɪÉÉxÉÉÒ
BÉE®BÉEä iÉxÉÉ´É
{ÉènÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI H.D. DEVE GOWDA : I do not want to learn Hindu philosophy
from him… (Interruptions) I do not want to learn his Hindu philosophy…
(Interruptions) I have got firm belief and I go to temple… (Interruptions)
We are not afraid of these things.
While opposing this Bill, as I have already said, I am
proud of my community but at the same I am opposing tooth and nail the
division of the country on the basis of religion and caste.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA) : Hon. Members, we are discussing
something very important, which is going to affect the entire nation and
the debate should be at that level. If there are so much of interruptions,
I do not think it looks very nice because we are all being seen on the
television not only in our country but also all over the world.
I know that you may not agree with what this side says
and they may not agree with what you speak. But in the true spirit of democracy,
there should be tolerance to listen to each other. And when you get a chance,
you please reply. But the interruptions to the senior Members or the former
Prime Minister or the Leader of Opposition or the Home Minister are not
becoming of us.
… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉxɪÉ
BÉEÉÊ]ªÉÉ® : AäºÉÉ
ÉÊVÉààÉänÉ® +ÉÉnàÉÉÒ
+ÉMÉ® BÉEÉä<Ç MÉãÉiÉ
¤ÉªÉÉxÉ nä ®cÉ
cè, iÉÉä =ºÉä BÉEèºÉä
àÉÉxÉ ãÉå* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): You also please sit down.
Everybody has a right. c®äBÉE
BÉEÉä <ÉÎJiɪÉÉ®
cè ÉÊBÉE ´Éc +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
®ÉªÉ |ÉEÉÒãÉÉÒ
AÆb ÉÊ´ÉnÉ=] {ÉEÉҪɮ
BÉEcä* Everybody has a right to express his opinion
freely and to speak without fear. And if you do not agree, do not agree
but please do not interrupt.
Now, Shri Chandra Shekhar.
gÉÉÒ SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ®
(¤ÉÉÊãɪÉÉ,
=.|É.) : àÉÉäciÉ®àÉÉ
xÉÉªÉ¤É ºÉn® ºÉÉÉÊc¤ÉÉ,
{ÉcãÉä <ºÉ ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ
{É® ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA àÉä®ä
àÉxÉ àÉå nÖÉÊ´ÉvÉÉ
lÉÉÒ* BÉEä´ÉãÉ
¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä BÉEä
ÉÊãÉA cÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
¤ÉÉÎãBÉE <ºÉ ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
cÉÒ àÉä®ä àÉxÉ
àÉå nÖÉÊ´ÉvÉÉ
lÉÉÒ* àÉä®ä ÉÊàÉjÉ
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É xÉä
<¶ÉÉ®É ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ,
àÉä®É xÉÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ
ÉÊãɪÉÉ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
àÉé º{É] BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
àÉé <ºÉ ®ÉªÉ
BÉEÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè® +ÉÉVÉ
£ÉÉÒ <ºÉ ®ÉªÉ
BÉEÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE nä¶É
àÉå VÉÉä {ÉÉÊ®ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ
cè =xÉàÉå BÉEÉä<Ç
AäºÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA VÉÉä
ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ BÉEÉä
ºÉÆ£ÉÉãÉ ºÉBÉExÉä
àÉå ºÉcɪÉBÉE
cÉä +ÉÉè® <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA
àÉé ºÉÉäSÉ ®cÉ
lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä
ÉʤÉãÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ*
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ªÉc
£ÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ vªÉÉxÉ
àÉå ®JÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ
cè ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉä ãÉÉMÉÚ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé,
=xÉBÉEÉ ®´ÉèªÉÉ
BÉDªÉÉ cè, =xÉBÉEÉÒ
xÉÉÒªÉiÉ BÉDªÉÉ
cè +ÉÉè® ´Éä ÉÊBÉEºÉ
iÉ®c ºÉä {ÉÉÊ®ÉκlÉÉÊiɪÉÉå
BÉEä àÉÖiÉÉÉʤÉBÉE
BÉEÉàÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé* ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä BÉÖEU
ÉÊnxÉÉå BÉEä +ÉxÉ֣ɴÉ
ºÉä àÉä®É àÉxÉ
¤ÉcÖiÉ nÖJÉÉÒ cÖ+ÉÉ
+ÉÉè® +ÉÉVÉ àÉé
<ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA, BÉÖEU BÉEcxÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA JɽÉ
cÖ+ÉÉ cÚÆ* +ÉÉVÉ càÉÉ®É
nä¶É AäºÉä ºÉÆBÉE]
àÉå cè, VÉcÉÆ càÉÉ®ä
ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ®Éå àÉå
+ÉxiÉ® cÉäxÉÉ º´ÉÉ£ÉÉÉÊ´ÉBÉE
cè, {É® càÉ +É{ÉxÉä
ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ®Éå àÉå
lÉÉä½É ºÉàÉZÉÉèiÉÉ
BÉE® BÉEä £ÉÉÒ nä¶É
àÉå ABÉEÉ BÉEɪÉàÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ BÉEÉäÉʶɶÉ
BÉE®å, iÉÉä =ÉÊSÉiÉ
cÉäMÉÉ*
àÉÉäciÉ®àÉÉ,
ºÉÉÒàÉÉ BÉEä
¤ÉÉc® ºÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
SÉãÉ ®cÉ cè, ªÉc ºÉÖxÉiÉä-ºÉÖxÉiÉä
nä¶É BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ
{É®ä¶ÉÉxÉ cÉä MÉA
cé* +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
VÉcÉÆ ºÉä £ÉÉÒ
SÉÉãÉÚ cÉäiÉÉ
cè, =ºÉBÉEÉ +ÉàÉãÉ
iÉÉä nä¶É BÉEÉÒ
ºÉÉÒàÉÉ BÉEä
+ÉÆn® cÉäiÉÉ cè* BÉEÉä<Ç
¤ÉÉc® BÉEÉ +ÉÉnàÉÉÒ
+É{ÉxÉä nä¶É BÉEÉÒ
ºÉÉÒàÉÉ BÉEä
+ÉÆn® +ÉÉBÉE® ÉÊxÉnÉæÉ
ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉÒ
ciªÉÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cè, iÉÉä
<ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA nںɮä
nä¶É BÉEÉ ®cxÉÖàÉÉ
ÉÊVÉààÉänÉ® xÉcÉÓ
cè* ´Éc ÉÊVÉààÉänÉ®ÉÒ
<ºÉ nä¶É BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉä ãÉäxÉÉÒ
cÉäMÉÉÒ * +É{ÉxÉä
+ÉÉÊxÉhÉÇªÉ BÉEÉä,
+É{ÉxÉä ÉÊxÉBÉEààÉä{ÉxÉ
BÉEÉä nںɮä {É®
lÉÉä{ÉBÉE® càÉ +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
ÉÊVÉààÉänÉ®ÉÒ
ºÉä +ÉãÉMÉ xÉcÉÓ
cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉä* àÉé
AäºÉÉ ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ãÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®xÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA, ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä
BÉEÉÒ ºÉÉÒàÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEÉä {ÉÉ® BÉE® VÉÉiÉä
cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉé
AäºÉÉ £ÉÉÒ àÉÉxÉiÉÉ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
cÖBÉÚEàÉiÉ àÉå
cé, VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
ºÉkÉÉ àÉå cé, =xÉàÉå
VªÉÉnÉ ºÉƪÉàÉ
cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA, VªÉÉnÉ
+ÉÉiàÉÉÊxÉªÉÆjÉhÉ
cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA
xÉÉªÉ¤É ºÉn® ºÉÉÉÊc¤ÉÉ
+ÉÉVÉ ºÉÖ¤Éc àÉéxÉä
MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä ¤ÉÉÒSÉ àÉå
]ÉäBÉEÉ* àÉÖZÉä
=ºÉBÉEÉ nÖJÉ cè BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
càÉÉ®ä ÉÊàÉjÉ
VÉÉä nÚºÉ®ä ºÉä
BÉEciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉnàÉÉÒ
+ÉãÉMÉ-+ÉãÉMÉ cÉäiÉä
cé +ÉÉè® =xÉ +ÉÉnÉÊàɪÉÉå
BÉEä ®ÉäãÉ BÉE£ÉÉÒ-BÉE£ÉÉÒ
+ÉãÉMÉ cÉä VÉɪÉÉ
BÉE®iÉä cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
¤ÉÖÉÊxɪÉÉnÉÒ
iÉÉè® {É® ªÉÉÊn
càÉ =xÉBÉEÉÒ ¶ÉÉÎJºÉªÉiÉ
àÉå, =xÉBÉEä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉi´É
àÉå ʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®iÉä, iÉÉä
BÉEÉä<Ç VÉàcÚÉÊ®ªÉiÉ,
BÉEÉä<Ç ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÆjÉ
xÉcÉÓ SÉãÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ*
*
£ÉÉVÉ{ÉÉ
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
càÉÉ®ä ÉÊnãÉ àÉå
BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉÆnäc xÉcÉÓ
cè* +ÉÉVÉ ºÉä xÉcÉÓ
ÉÊ´ÉtÉÉlÉÉÔ
VÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ ºÉä
àÉé vÉàÉÇ BÉEä
xÉÉàÉ {É® ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉä MÉãÉiÉ
àÉÉxÉiÉÉ cÚÆ, nä¶É
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA xÉÖBÉEºÉÉxÉnäc
àÉÉxÉiÉÉ cÚÆ, ºÉàÉÉVÉ
BÉEÉä ¤ÉÉÆ]xÉä
´ÉÉãÉÉ àÉÉxÉiÉÉ
cÚÆ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
=xÉ àÉå £ÉÉÒ BÉÖEU
ãÉÉäMÉ AäºÉä cÉäiÉä
cé VÉÉä ºÉàɪÉ
{ɽxÉä {É® ¤ÉcÖiÉ
+ÉSUÉ BÉEÉàÉ £ÉÉÒ
BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä cé* gÉÉÒ
àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc VÉÉÒ +ÉÉè®
càÉ 1975 àÉå ºÉÉlÉ
lÉä* +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ lÉä,
gÉÉÒ +É]ãÉ ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ
´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ lÉä*
=xÉ ÉÊnxÉÉå =xÉBÉEÉ
®ÉäãÉ BÉÖEU nںɮÉ
lÉÉ* =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn
VÉ¤É VÉxÉiÉÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ
BÉEÉÒ cBÉÚEàÉiÉ
¤ÉxÉÉÒ, =ºÉ ºÉàɪÉ
nÉä xÉÉèVÉ´ÉÉxÉ
àÉä®ÉÒ oÉÎ] àÉå
+ÉɪÉä* =xÉ nÉäxÉÉå
BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ +ÉâóhÉ
lÉÉ - ABÉE ¶ÉÉè®ÉÒ
cé +ÉÉè® nںɮä
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ cè* =xɺÉä
càÉå ¤É½ÉÒ =ààÉÉÒn
lÉÉÒ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
+É¤É VÉ¤É näJÉiÉä
cé iÉÉä BÉE£ÉÉÒ-BÉE£ÉÉÒ
ºÉÆnäc cÉäiÉÉ cè
ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ ªÉä
´ÉcÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ ¶ÉÉè®ÉÒ
cé +ÉÉè® ´ÉcÉÒ
+ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ
cé ªÉÉ nںɮä cÉä
MɪÉä cé* <ºÉºÉä
càÉÉ®É Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
=xÉàÉå ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÖ+ÉÉ cè* {É®xiÉÖ
ÉκlÉÉÊiɪÉÉå
BÉEä àÉÖiÉÉÉʤÉBÉE
BÉÖEU ãÉÉäMÉ ZÉÖBÉE
VÉɪÉÉ BÉE®iÉä
cé, ¤ÉnãÉ VÉɪÉÉ
BÉE®iÉä cé*
+ÉÉVÉ gÉÉÒ
VÉÉVÉÇ {ÉExÉÉÇxbÉÒVÉ
BÉEÉä ãÉäBÉE® ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä ¤ÉcÖiÉ MÉÖººÉÉ
+ÉÉiÉÉ cè* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉ¤É àÉé =xÉBÉEÉä
näJÉiÉÉ cÚÆ iÉÉä
àÉä®ä àÉxÉ àÉå
=xÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA +ÉÉn®
{ÉènÉ cÉäiÉÉ cè BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
=xÉBÉEÉ +ÉiÉÉÒiÉ
BÉE£ÉÉÒ £ÉÚãÉiÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè +ÉÉè® =xÉBÉEä
£ÉÉÊ´ÉªÉ BÉEä
¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå £ÉÉÒ
+ÉɶÉÉ BÉE£ÉÉÒ
]Ú]iÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ * ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
àÉé +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ, MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ ºÉä BÉEcÚÆMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉºÉ iÉ®c
ºÉä <ºÉ SÉSÉÉÇ
BÉEÉä SÉãÉɪÉÉ
MɪÉÉ, ´Éc SÉSÉÉÇ
nä¶É BÉEÉä ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä
´ÉÉãÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
lÉÉÒ, nä¶É BÉEÉä
VÉÉä½xÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ lÉÉÒ* VÉèºÉÉ
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ xÉä
BÉEcÉ, ¶ÉÖ°ô ºÉä
ªÉc vÉàÉBÉEÉÒ nÉÒ
MÉ<Ç ÉÊBÉE càÉ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE BÉE®åMÉä,
¤ÉcÖàÉiÉ càÉÉ®É
cÉäMÉÉ +ÉÉè® càÉ
¤ÉcÖàÉiÉ ºÉä <ºÉBÉEÉä
{ÉÉºÉ BÉE®É ãÉåMÉä,
¤ÉcÖàÉiÉ ºÉä {ÉɺÉ
BÉE® ãÉåMÉä ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ÉʵÉEªÉÉÉÎx´ÉiÉ
BÉE®xÉä àÉå +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
ºÉ¤ÉBÉEÉ ºÉcªÉÉäMÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA* +ÉMÉ® <iÉxÉÉÒ
nÚ®-oÉÎ] xÉcÉÓ cè
iÉÉä nä¶É BÉEä |ɶÉɺÉxÉ
BÉEÉä SÉãÉɪÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ*
ÉÊVÉxÉ ®ÉVªÉÉå
BÉEä £É®ÉäºÉä
+ÉÉ{É <ºÉä SÉãÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé, =xÉ BÉEÉä
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä +É{ÉxÉä
ºÉÉlÉ ®JÉxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ*
ÉÊVÉxÉ àÉÖJªÉ
àÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå
BÉEä VÉÉÊ®ªÉä <ºÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä ãÉÉMÉÚ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé,
=xÉ àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ àɪÉÉÇnÉ
BÉEÉ £ÉÉÒ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
vªÉÉxÉ ®JÉxÉÉ cÉäMÉÉ*
àÉéxÉä
¶ÉÖ°ô àÉå cÉÒ
BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE iÉBÉExÉÉÒBÉEÉÒ
iÉÉè® {É® +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉ
ªÉc BÉEcxÉÉ ºÉcÉÒ
cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ
ÉÊãɪÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ àÉÖJªÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ xÉä +ÉMÉ®
+ÉÉ{ɺÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉMÉiÉ
BÉEÉä<Ç ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEÉÒ iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEÉä
<ºÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå nÉäc®ÉxÉÉ
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ MÉßc
àÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉEÉä
ªÉÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä ¶ÉÉä£ÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ näiÉÉ* àÉé
ÉÊ{ÉE® BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÆ BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
<ºÉ iÉ®c BÉEä BªÉ´ÉcÉ®
ºÉä càÉÉ®ä nä¶É
àÉå ABÉE ÉʤÉJɮɴÉ
BÉEÉÒ cÉãÉiÉ {ÉènÉ
cÉä ®cÉÒ cè* ªÉc {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ÉÊVɺÉ
iÉ®c ºÉä ãÉɪÉÉ
MɪÉÉ +ÉÉè® <ºÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊVÉºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä
={ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
cè, MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ àÉå
ÉÊVÉºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä
={ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ,
àÉé =ºÉ BÉEÉä xÉcÉÓ
nÉäc®ÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ =ºÉBÉEä
¤ÉÉn ãÉMÉÉiÉÉ®
àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
BÉEÉ VÉÉä ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ
+ÉÉiÉÉ cè +ÉÉè®
c® ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ BÉEciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE
=xÉBÉEä ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ
BÉEÉä VÉ®É iÉ®Éä½-àÉ®Éä½BÉE®
UÉ{É ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
cè* iÉ®Éä½-àÉ®Éä½
BÉE® UÉ{Éä MɪÉä
¤ÉªÉÉxÉ BÉEÉ +ÉMÉ®
JÉhbxÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉÉ
iÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEä àÉxÉ àÉå ªÉcÉÒ
+ÉɪÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
=xcÉåxÉä ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ
ÉÊnªÉÉ cÉÒ cÉäMÉÉ
+ÉÉè® ´Éc ~ÉÒBÉE
cÉÒ U{ÉÉ cè* AäºÉÉÒ
cÉãÉiÉ àÉå nä¶É
BÉEÉÒ ABÉEiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
®c ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ* nä¶É
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉ Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
xÉcÉÓ ®c ºÉBÉEiÉÉ*
+ÉÉVÉ nä¶É BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
¤ÉÉc® ºÉä +ÉÉxÉä
´ÉÉãÉÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä´ÉãÉ ºÉàɺªÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè* <ºÉ nä¶É
àÉå ºÉàɺªÉÉ
ªÉc cè ÉÊBÉE nä¶É
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉ ÉÊnãÉ ]Ú]É
cÖ+ÉÉ cè* ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉ Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
ÉÊcãÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ cè*
<ºÉ nä¶É BÉEÉ MÉ®ÉÒ¤É
ªÉc ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE =ºÉBÉEÉÒ
ºÉÖxÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ
BÉEÉä<Ç xÉcÉÓ* <ºÉ
nä¶É BÉEÉ nÉÊãÉiÉ
ªÉc ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE =ºÉä xªÉɪÉ
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊàÉãÉiÉÉ*
<ºÉBÉEä +ÉBÉEÉÊãɪÉiÉ
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ ªÉc
ºÉàÉZÉiÉä cé ÉÊBÉE
=xÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉÖ®FÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè* ªÉcÉÆ BÉEÉ
xÉÉèVÉ´ÉÉxÉ ªÉc
ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
=ºÉBÉEä {ÉÉºÉ ®ÉäVÉMÉÉ®
xÉcÉÓ <ºÉÉÊãÉA
=ºÉBÉEÉ BÉEÉä<Ç
£ÉÉÊ´ÉªÉ xÉcÉÓ*
ªÉc º´ÉªÉÆ àÉå
MÉà£ÉÉÒ® ºÉàɺªÉÉ
cè ¤ÉbÉÒ BÉßE{ÉÉ
cÉäiÉÉÒ, +ÉMÉ® càÉ
<ºÉ +ÉÉä® VªÉÉnÉ
vªÉÉxÉ näiÉä* nںɮä
nä¶ÉÉå BÉEÉÒ ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ
ºÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ xÉcÉÓ
cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ* MÉßcàÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ xÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE
61 cVÉÉ® ãÉÉäMÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉʶÉBÉEÉ® cÖA,
BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
´Éä ÉÊnxÉ ªÉÉn
cé VÉ¤É 25 cVÉÉ® ãÉÉäMÉ
BÉEä´ÉãÉ {ÉÆVÉɤÉ
àÉå àÉÉ®ä MɪÉä
lÉä* ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
xÉBÉDºÉãÉÉÒ +ÉÉÆnÉäãÉxÉ
àÉå àÉÉ®ä MɪÉä,
ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
xÉÉMÉÉãÉéb àÉå
àÉÉ®ä MɪÉä,
BÉDªÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
àÉÉÉÊhÉ{ÉÖ® BÉEÉ
+ÉÉè® BÉDªÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
+ÉâóhÉÉSÉãÉ |Énä¶É
BÉEÉ? +ÉÉVÉ
+ÉÉÉÊn´ÉɺÉÉÒ
<ãÉÉBÉEÉå BÉEÉ
BÉDªÉÉ cÉãÉ cè?
ÉÊjÉ{ÉÖ®É
ºÉä ãÉäBÉE® iÉÉÊàÉãÉxÉÉbÖ
iÉBÉE c® +ÉÉÉÊn´ÉɺÉÉÒ
<ãÉÉBÉEÉå àÉå
+ÉÉVÉ ABÉE ¤É´ÉÆb®
JÉ½É cÉä ®cÉ cè, ABÉE
vÉÖÆ+ÉÉ =~ ®cÉ cè* =ºÉä
+ÉÉ{É +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEcå ªÉÉ xÉcÉÓ, càÉÉ®ä
ABÉE ÉÊàÉjÉ +É£ÉÉÒ
BÉEc ®cä lÉä ÉÊBÉE ´Éä
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
BÉE®iÉä cé* ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
BÉE®iÉä ®ÉÊcA, ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
SÉãÉÉiÉä ®ÉÊcA
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ =ºÉÉÒ
+ÉÉÆwÉ |Énä¶É àÉå
ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä <ãÉÉBÉEÉå
àÉå, ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä
ÉÊVÉãÉÉå àÉå
+ÉÉVÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®ÉÒ
+ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ
VÉÉ xÉcÉÓ ºÉBÉEiÉä*
ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä <ãÉÉBÉEÉå
àÉå VÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ
ºÉÖ®ÉÊFÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ
cè* AäºÉÉ BÉEÉä<Ç
¤ÉÉc® ºÉä +ÉɪÉä
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä
BÉEÉ®hÉ xÉcÉÓ cè,
=ºÉ vÉ®iÉÉÒ ºÉä
VÉxàÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
cè* +ÉÉVÉ BÉDªÉÉ
cÉä ®cÉ cè ZÉÉ®JÉÆb
àÉå ? BÉDªÉÉ
cÉãÉiÉ cè càÉÉ®ÉÒ
VÉÉä xɪÉÉ ®ÉVªÉ
àÉvªÉ |Énä¶É ºÉä
BÉE]BÉE® UkÉÉÒºÉMÉfÃ
BÉEÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ cè ?
´ÉcÉÆ ãÉÉäMÉ
ABÉE nںɮä BÉEä nÖ¶àÉxÉ
¤ÉxÉ ®cä cé* <ºÉ ºÉƺÉn
àÉå càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ
ABÉE nںɮä BÉEä nÖ¶àÉxÉ
xÉ ¤ÉxÉä, ABÉE nںɮä
BÉEä ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ
¤ÉxÉä, ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ®Éå
BÉEä àÉiÉ£Éän BÉEä
¤ÉÉ´ÉVÉÚn ®É]ÅÉÒªÉ
ºÉàɺªÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
{É® MÉà£ÉÉÒ®iÉÉ{ÉÚ´ÉÇBÉE
ºÉÉäSÉå * àÉé
ªÉcÉÒ ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ
BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
+É¤É £ÉÉÒ BÉEÉä<Ç
AäºÉÉ àÉÉèBÉEÉ
ÉÊxÉBÉEÉÉÊãɪÉä
ÉÊVɺɺÉä +ÉÉ{ɺÉÉÒ
ÉÊ´É´ÉÉn ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ
cÉä* càÉ nä¶É BÉEä
ºÉÉàÉxÉä +ÉÉè®
nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEä
ºÉÉàÉxÉä ABÉE ÉÊàÉãÉÉÒ-VÉÖãÉÉÒ
iɺ´ÉÉÒ® ®JÉ ºÉBÉEå*
ÉÊVÉºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä
+ÉÉ{É <ºÉ ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE
BÉEÉä {ÉÉºÉ BÉE®ÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé, º´ÉÉÒBÉßEiÉ
BÉE®ÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé, =ºÉBÉEÉä º´ÉÉÒBÉßEiÉ
BÉE®ÉxÉä àÉå ºÉcªÉÉäMÉ
näxÉÉ àÉä®ä VÉèºÉä
BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
ºÉÆ£É´É xÉcÉÓ
+ÉÉè® àÉé ÉʴɴɶÉ
cÉäBÉE® <ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ*
ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ,
xªÉÉªÉ +ÉÉè® BÉEÆ{ÉxÉÉÒ
BÉEɪÉÇ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
(gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ)
: àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ®É]Å{ÉÉÊiÉ
VÉÉÒ xÉä ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
BÉEÉÒ vÉÉ®É 108 BÉEä
iÉciÉ nÉäxÉÉå ºÉnxÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ ªÉc ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE ¤ÉÖãÉÉ<Ç
cè* +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ º´É°ô{É
BÉDªÉÉ cÉä, ´Éc {ÉÉÉÊ®iÉ
cÉä ªÉÉ xÉ cÉä - <ºÉÉÒ
ºÉÆn£ÉÇ àÉå ªÉc
ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ¤Éè~BÉE
¤ÉÖãÉÉ<Ç MÉ<Ç
cè* ¤ÉäciÉ® ªÉc cÉäiÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ºÉÖ¤Éc ºÉä
VÉÉä ¤ÉcºÉ cÉä
®cÉÒ cè, <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
àÉå +ÉMÉ® BÉÖEU BÉEÉÊàɪÉÉÆ
cé, =ºÉBÉEä ºÉÆn£ÉÇ
àÉå BÉÖEU ºÉÖZÉÉ´É
+ÉÉ VÉÉiÉä, BÉÖEU ºÉÖvÉÉ®
BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEä ºÉÖZÉÉ´É
+ÉÉ VÉÉiÉä, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ªÉcÉÆ ¤ÉcºÉ BÉE<Ç
+ÉxªÉ ÉÊ´ÉɪÉÉå
{É® SÉãÉÉÒ MÉ<Ç
ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉ {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ BÉÖEU BÉEàÉ
iÉÉããÉÖBÉE lÉÉ*
=kÉ® |Énä¶É àÉå
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEèºÉÉÒ
cÉäMÉÉÒ, àÉÆÉÊn®
+ÉÉè® àÉÉκVÉn
BÉEÉ àÉÉàÉãÉÉ
ºÉxÉ 1996 àÉå BÉEèºÉä
ÉÊxÉ{É]ÉxÉä BÉEÉ
|ɪÉÉºÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ, ªÉä ÉÊ´ÉɪÉ
àÉci´É{ÉÚhÉÇ cÉä
ºÉBÉEiÉä cé, ºÉnxÉ
BÉEä +ÉÆn® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
£ÉÉÒ SÉSÉÉÇ àÉå
àÉci´É{ÉÚhÉÇ cÉä
ºÉBÉEiÉä cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
<ºÉ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE BÉEÉ ªÉc
ÉÊ´ÉÉªÉ xÉcÉÓ
cè* <ºÉ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE BÉEÉ +ÉÉèÉÊSÉiªÉ
ªÉc cè ÉÊBÉE nÉäxÉÉå
ºÉnxÉÉå BÉEÉ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
àÉiÉ ªÉc ¤ÉxÉä
ÉÊBÉE ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
<ºÉ nä¶É BÉEÉä SÉÉÉÊcA
ªÉÉ xÉcÉÓ SÉÉÉÊcA*
ãÉÉäBÉE ºÉ£ÉÉ
àÉå {ÉÉÉÊ®iÉ
cÉäxÉä BÉEä {ɶSÉÉiÉÂ
VÉ¤É ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ àÉå
{ÉÉºÉ xÉcÉÓ cÖ+ÉÉ
iÉÉä ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
BÉEä ABÉE ¤ÉcÖiÉ |ÉàÉÖJÉ
|É´ÉBÉDiÉÉ xÉä nä¶É
BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
ªÉc BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE càÉ
ÉÊnJÉãÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
lÉä ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ ÉÊ´ÉɪÉ
BÉEä >ó{É® ªÉc nä¶É
¤ÉÆ]É cÖ+ÉÉ cè* "We
wanted to show that the country was divided on this issue."
àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc VÉÉÒ ÉÊVɵÉE
BÉE® ®cä lÉä ÉÊBÉE
+ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ xÉä
+É{ÉxÉä +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
11 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É®
BÉEä ¤ÉÉn BÉEèºÉä
ºÉÆ£ÉÉãÉÉ* +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ
BÉEä +ÉÆn® £ÉÉÒ
ABÉE AÆ]ÉÒ-]è®ÉäÉÊ®WàÉ
ãÉÉì lÉÉ* ´Éä
+É¤É ABÉE xɪÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ãÉä +ÉÉA* {ÉÚ®ä
®É]Å BÉEÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É :
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
xÉä +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ
BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ
ÉÊVɵÉE ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
cè* càÉå ¶ÉɪÉn
BÉEÉä<Ç §ÉàÉ xÉ
®cä, +ÉàÉä®ÉÒBÉEÉ
àÉå VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ãÉÉMÉÚ cÖ+ÉÉ cè,
´Éc +ÉàÉä®ÉÒBÉEÉ
BÉEä ÉÊxÉ´ÉÉÉʺɪÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
<ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ xÉcÉÓ
cÉäMÉÉ* càÉ º{É]
VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé, BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉ{É
ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ BÉEä
ÉÊxÉ´ÉÉÉʺɪÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
=ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ
<ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®åMÉä?
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : àÉé
¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉÉ£ÉÉ®ÉÒ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc VÉÉÒ xÉä
ABÉE ¤ÉcÖiÉ |ÉàÉÖJÉ
ÉÊ´ÉÉªÉ =~ɪÉÉ
cè* SÉSÉÉÇ +ÉÉè®
¤ÉcºÉ BÉEä nÉè®ÉxÉ
BÉE<Ç ¤ÉÉ® +ÉxªÉ
nä¶ÉÉå BÉEä =nÉc®hÉ
£ÉÉÒ +ÉÉiÉä cé*
=xÉ iÉàÉÉàÉ nä¶ÉÉå
BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉä®ä
{ÉÉºÉ cé, àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
ºÉàÉFÉ £ÉäVÉ
£ÉÉÒ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
cÚÆ +ÉÉè® <ºÉ nÉè®ÉxÉ
àÉé <ºÉ ÉÊ´ÉɪÉ
BÉEÉ =kÉ® £ÉÉÒ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
nÚÆMÉÉ* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ABÉE ¤ÉÉiÉ càÉ ªÉÉn
®JÉå ÉÊBÉE +ÉàÉä®ÉÒBÉEÉ
BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
VÉ¤É +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEÉÒ SÉÖxÉÉèiÉÉÒ
+ÉÉ<Ç lÉÉÒ, iÉÉä
+ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ BÉEä
+ÉÆn® ªÉc ¤ÉcºÉ
+ÉÉ®Æ£É xÉcÉÓ
cÖ<Ç lÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉE
®ÆMÉ-£Éän BÉEä +ÉÉvÉÉ®
{É® BÉÖEU ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ +ÉxªÉɪÉ
cÉä MɪÉÉ <ºÉÉÊãÉA
+ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
ºÉä ãɽxÉä BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ càÉ UÉä½
nå ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE {ÉÚ®É
®É]Å JÉ½É cÉä MɪÉÉ
lÉÉ +ÉÉè® VɤÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ =xÉBÉEÉÒ
ºÉÉÒxÉä] BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
+ÉɪÉÉ iÉÉä BÉEä´ÉãÉ
ABÉE àÉiÉ lÉÉ VÉÉä
=ºÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
MɪÉÉ, ¤ÉÉBÉEÉÒ
ºÉ¤É àÉiÉ =ºÉBÉEä
{ÉFÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn® MÉA lÉä
+ÉÉè® {ÉÚ®É ®É]Å
=ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä
ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ àÉå
JÉ½É cÉä MɪÉÉ
lÉÉ* +ÉàÉä®ÉÒBÉEÉ
BÉEä +ÉÆn® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
£ÉÉÒ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ
xÉä, ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
ºÉàÉÉSÉÉ® {ÉjÉ
xÉä, ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
]äãÉÉÒÉÊ´ÉVÉxÉ
SÉèxÉãÉ xÉä, VÉÉä
=ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ BÉEÉ ºÉÆBÉE]
lÉÉ, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉä
näJÉ BÉE® ãÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊxÉ®É¶É cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉä
lÉä, ´Éc nä¶É BÉEä
ºÉÉàÉxÉä xÉcÉÓ
®JÉÉ lÉÉ* ´ÉãbÇ
]Åäb ºÉé]® BÉEÉÆb
àÉå +ÉMÉ® iÉÉÒxÉ
cVÉÉ® ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ àÉßiªÉÖ
cÖ<Ç iÉÉä +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ
BÉEä ®É]Å{ÉÉÊiÉ
xÉä {ÉcãÉä cÉÒ ÉÊnxÉ
AäãÉÉxÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ,
ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉ MÉßc
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
ÉÊVɵÉE BÉE® ®cä lÉä
- "A war has been launched on the United States of America." +ÉàÉä®ÉÒBÉEÉ
BÉEä >ó{É® ªÉÖr BÉEÉÒ
PÉÉäÉhÉÉ BÉE® nÉÒ
MÉ<Ç cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉÉÊãÉA
càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ {ÉÚ®ä
Éʴɶ´É BÉEÉä
ºÉÉlÉ ãÉå, <ºÉBÉEÉ
|ɪÉÉºÉ lÉÉ* VɤÉ
gÉßrÉÆVÉÉÊãÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉAÆ cÉäiÉÉÒ
lÉÉÓ iÉÉä c® nãÉ
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ ´ÉcÉÆ
ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ àÉå
SÉãÉä VÉÉiÉä lÉä*
ABÉE ÉÊnxÉ
+ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ BÉEÉ
v´ÉVÉ =~ÉiÉä lÉä iÉÉä
nںɮä ÉÊnxÉ ´Éä
Jɽä cÉäBÉE® =xÉBÉEä
ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ àÉå
|ÉÉlÉÇxÉÉ ºÉ£ÉÉAÆ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ BÉE®iÉä
lÉä* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ABÉE +É{ÉxÉÉ nä¶É £ÉÉÒ
cè, VÉcÉÆ ®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ
BÉEä +Éxn® BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
{É®ÉÉÊVÉiÉ cÉä
MɪÉÉ iÉÉä |É´ÉBÉDiÉÉ
VÉÉBÉE® ªÉc BÉEcå ÉÊBÉE
càÉ ªÉc ÉÊnJÉãÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä lÉä ÉÊBÉE
<ºÉ ÉÊ´ÉɪÉ
{É® ªÉc nä¶É ¤ÉÆ]É
cÖ+ÉÉ cè* àÉé <ºÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊVɵÉE…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI: Madam, I take strong exception
to it. … (Interruptions) The Hon. Minister himself is dividing the
country and the House. … (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ ºÉÖ®ä¶É
{ÉSÉÉè®ÉÒ : VÉÉä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ +ÉÉ{É
ãÉÉ ®cä cé, ´Éc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ÉÊ´É´ÉÉnɺ{Én
cÉä MɪÉÉ cè, =ºÉ
{É® ºÉcàÉÉÊiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉ
{É® nä¶É BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ
ABÉEàÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ cé*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : +ÉÉn®hÉÉÒªÉ
={ÉÉvªÉFÉÉ VÉÉÒ,
11 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É®
BÉEÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉ BÉEä
¤ÉÉn 28 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É®
BÉEÉä ºÉÆªÉÖBÉDiÉ
®É]Å ºÉÆPÉ àÉå
|ɺiÉÉ´É {ÉɺÉ
cÉä MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
c® ºÉnºªÉ nä¶É +É{ÉxÉä
nä¶É BÉEä +Éxn® BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉÒ BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ
<ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® ºÉä
¤ÉxÉÉAMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
|ÉiªÉFÉ ªÉÉ +É|ÉiªÉFÉ
iÉ®ÉÒBÉEä ºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç
xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
xÉ BÉE® {ÉɪÉä ªÉÉ
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ nںɮä
nä¶É BÉEä xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE
BÉEÉä ´ÉcÉÆ {ÉxÉÉc
xÉ ÉÊàÉãÉ {ÉɪÉä*
+ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ BÉEä
+Éxn® {ÉcãÉä £ÉÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ lÉÉ* +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ
BÉEä +Éxn® {ÉèÉÊ]ÅA]
ABÉD] =ºÉ PÉ]xÉÉ BÉEä
¤ÉÉn ¤ÉxÉÉ* =ºÉBÉEä
¤ÉÉn iÉàÉÉàÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉä*
´ÉcÉÒ xÉcÉÓ, ÉÊ¥É]äxÉ
BÉEä +Éxn® 2000 BÉEä +Éxn®
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ*
+ÉMɺiÉ, 1991 BÉEä +Éxn®
{ÉÉÉÊBÉEºiÉÉxÉ
xÉä £ÉÉÒ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
¤ÉxÉÉ bÉãÉÉ* ªÉc
nÖ£ÉÉÇMªÉ BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ cè ÉÊBÉE nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ
BÉEÉ ABÉE ´Éc nä¶É,
ÉÊVÉºÉ {É® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEÉ |ÉcÉ® ºÉ¤ÉºÉä
+ÉÉÊvÉBÉE cÉä, càÉå
¤ÉcºÉ £ÉÉÒ BÉE®xÉä
BÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ
cÉä ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉÒ
+ÉÉVÉ Vɰô®iÉ £ÉÉÒ
cè ÉÊBÉE xÉcÉÓ cè*
ÉÊVÉºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
BÉEÉÒ ¶É¤nÉ´ÉãÉÉÒ
BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ, I just wish to refer to what the
hon. Leader of Opposition had to say:
"This law is insidious. This is politically motivated.
It meets the narrow end. It is a manipulation of the parliamentary process.
"
I regret that these are the four phrases, which have been
used. Let us make it very clear as to, which is the context in which this
law is being brought.
BÉEÉèxÉ
ºÉÉ UÉä]É ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
ãÉFªÉ cè, VÉÉä nãÉMÉiÉ
®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
ºÉä |ÉäÉÊ®iÉ cè,
®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
º´ÉÉlÉÇ ºÉä |ÉäÉÊ®iÉ
cè, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉä
{ÉÚ®É BÉE®xÉä BÉEä
ÉÊãÉA ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉÒ cè* ´ÉcÉÆ
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉÒ
{ÉcãÉÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉ
cÖ<Ç, ÉÊVɺÉàÉå
3000 ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉÒ
àÉßiªÉÖ cÉä MÉ<Ç*
+ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ BÉEÉ
®É]Å{ÉÉÊiÉ BÉEcä
+ÉÉè® {ÉÚ®É Éʴɶ´É
º´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ® BÉE®
ãÉä ÉÊBÉE +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ
{É® ªÉÖr BÉEÉ AãÉÉxÉ
cÉä MɪÉÉ +ÉÉè®
ªÉcÉÆ 61 cVÉÉ® ãÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä 15 ´ÉÉÉç
àÉå àÉÉ®ä VÉɪÉå,
àÉé xÉäiÉÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ
BÉEÉä ªÉä +ÉÉÆBÉE½ä
ªÉÉn ÉÊnãÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä 15 ´ÉÉÉç
àÉå 61,013 ÉʺÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ
xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉÊãÉ
SÉfÃä cé* +ÉMÉ® <ºÉBÉEÉÒ
iÉÖãÉxÉÉ càÉ BÉE®å
iÉÉä VÉÉä SÉÉ®
ªÉÖr càÉxÉä ãɽä
cé, =xÉ SÉÉ® ªÉÖrÉå
àÉå 5,468 +ÉÉè® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
ºÉä 61 cVÉÉ® ãÉÉäMÉ
àÉ®ä cé* ºÉèÉÊxÉBÉE
+ÉÉè® +ÉvÉǺÉèÉÊxÉBÉE
¤ÉãÉÉå BÉEä 8,706
ºÉnºªÉ àÉ®ä cé*
61 cVÉÉ® +ÉÉè® xÉÉè
cVÉÉ®, BÉÖEãÉ 70 cVÉÉ®
ãÉÉäMÉ ªÉÉÊn
ºÉèÉÊxÉBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
¤ÉÉÊãÉ SÉfà VÉɪÉå,
U& ãÉÉJÉ ãÉÉäMÉ
¤ÉäPÉ® cÉä VÉɪÉå,
45 cVÉÉ® BÉE®Éä½ âó{ɪÉÉ
®ÉVªÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®Éå
BÉEÉ +ÉÉè® BÉEäxp ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉ BÉEä´ÉãÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvɪÉÉå
àÉå ãÉMÉ VÉɪÉä,
ÉÊ{ÉE® BÉDªÉÉå
ªÉc |ɶxÉ {ÉÚUÉ VÉÉ
®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É
®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä |ÉäÉÊ®iÉ
cÉäBÉE® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé* +ÉMÉ® àÉé…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Why not before the Agra Summit?
That is the doubt. … (Interruptions)
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: I wish to remind her that the only
consideration why this law is being brought is to contain terrorism; is
to punish the terrorists and no other reason at all. She had mentioned
that this law is being brought only for politically- motivated reasons
and she alleged that we have turned 180 degree.
I just wish to remind you, please seriously introspect
whether the reason for this Bill is any political motivation or is your
opposition to this Bill politically motivated.… (Interruptions)
Let me now remind you, when you accused us of doing a
180 degree turn, when some Members, who are today in the Government, opposed
the extension of TADA in 1989 and 1991… (Interruptions).
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Mr. Minister, will you
please go via me?
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Absolutely, Madam.
Madam, Deputy-Chairman, when this charge is made that
some Members of the Government in 1989 and 1991 had opposed the continuation
of TADA because TADA was being misused, at that stage they might have had
good reasons to do so because terrorism was predominantly in Punjab. But
does the leader of the Opposition conveniently forget what her own party
colleagues had to say at that time? When this opposition was made, her
party colleagues who are still with her in Parliament, got up and very
clearly said that this country needed an extraordinary law to deal with
an extraordinary situation of terrorism. Terrorism, the then Home Minister
said, cannot be fought with any kind of velvet gloves, terrorism must be
fought with an extraordinary legislation. And when asked how long this
law will continue, he very clearly said that this law would continue as
long as terrorism is to continue. Today we are reminded of the fact that
when a particular party was in power, and that party confesses that when
they were in power in Gujarat and other States, they misused TADA and,
therefore, no other Government in power must now try and legislate an anti-terrorism
law, even though the universal experience today is that to punish the terrorists,
you do require such a law.
={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ABÉE |ÉSÉÉ®
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ
cè* ªÉc |ÉSÉÉ® ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ®
cÉäiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ]ÉbÉ
BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
+Éã{ÉºÉÆJªÉBÉE
´ÉMÉÇ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
cÖ+ÉÉ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
VÉ¤É ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÖ+ÉÉ ªÉÉ ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ
={ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ,
VÉÉä nãÉ =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® àÉå lÉÉ
+ÉÉè® ÉÊVÉºÉ nãÉ
xÉä ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ
|ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ, +ÉÉVÉ ´Éc nä¶É
BÉEÉä nÖcÉ<Ç näiÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE càÉxÉä +Éã{ÉºÉÆJªÉBÉE
´ÉMÉÇ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
=ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
+ÉÉÆBÉE½É º´ÉªÉÆ
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
BÉE®BÉEä BÉEä´ÉãÉ
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉä ®ÉäBÉExÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ªÉä
|ÉSÉÉ® BÉE®iÉä cé
iÉÉä +ÉÉÆBÉE½É
BÉEä´ÉãÉ =ºÉBÉEÉ
£ÉÉÒ ºÉÉlÉ xÉcÉÓ
näiÉÉ*
ªÉÉÊn
BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® +ÉÉè®
MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ BÉEÉä
UÉä½ ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉA
- àÉé BÉE¶àÉÉÒ®
BÉEÉä <ºÉÉÊãÉA
UÉä½ ®cÉ cÚÆ BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® àÉå
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉÒ
BªÉÉ{ÉBÉE ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ
lÉÉÒ* VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
¤ÉÉc® ºÉä +ÉÉiÉä
lÉä, ´Éä £ÉÉÒ
{ÉBÉE½ä VÉÉiÉä lÉä*
MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn®
19000 ÉÊBÉEºÉÉxÉÉå
BÉEÉä {ÉBÉE½É MɪÉÉ*
<xÉ nÉäxÉÉå |ÉÉÆiÉÉå
BÉEÉä UÉä½ ÉÊnªÉÉ
VÉɪÉä VÉcÉÆ BªÉÉ{ÉBÉE
nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ*
{ÉÚ®ä nä¶É BÉEä +ÉÉÆBÉE½ä
cé* ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ +Éã{ÉºÉÆJªÉBÉE
´ÉMÉÇ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
VÉÉä |ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÖ+ÉÉ lÉÉ, ´Éc ºÉÉfÃä
SÉÉ® {ÉEÉÒºÉnÉÒ
lÉÉ* Four-and-a-half per cent was what TADA was used
against the minorities. ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
|ÉäÉÊ®iÉ cè +ÉÉè®
<ºÉÉÊãÉA º´ÉªÉÆ
|ÉSÉÉ® BÉE®åMÉä ÉÊBÉE
VÉ¤É càÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
àÉå lÉä iÉÉä càÉ
ãÉÉäMÉ <ºÉBÉEÉä
+Éã{ÉºÉÆJªÉBÉE
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
|ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
BÉE®iÉä lÉä, <ºÉÉÊãÉA
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉ
àÉå ABÉE £ÉªÉ +Éã{ÉºÉÆJªÉBÉE
´ÉMÉÇ BÉEä àÉxÉ
BÉEä +ÉÆn® ¤ÉxÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ*
ªÉc iÉBÉEÇ £ÉÉÒ
ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä ªÉc
|ÉäÉÊ®iÉ cè* àÉé
|ɶxÉ {ÉÚU ®cÉ lÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE àÉcÉ®É]Å
BÉEä +ÉÆn® BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
+ÉɪÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉcÉ®É]Å
BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ +ÉÉVÉ
BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ´ÉcÉÆ
{É® ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE®
®cÉÒ cè* àÉcÉ®É]Å
BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå
VÉÉä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
cé, ´Éä c® oÉÎ] ºÉä
{ÉÉä]Éä ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ
ºÉJiÉ cé* BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE
BÉEä +ÉÆn® BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cè*
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ,
BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
£ÉÉÒ {ÉÉä]Éä
ºÉä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉE ºÉJiÉ
cè* <xÉ nÉäxÉÉå |ÉÉÆiÉÉå
BÉEä +ÉÆn® BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®å
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä
ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE® ®cÉÒ
cé* =xÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå
£ÉÉÒ ªÉc ÉÊãÉJÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
BÉEÉä ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
¤ÉªÉÉxÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
ÉÊBÉExÉ {ÉÉÊ®ÉκlÉÉÊiɪÉÉå
BÉEä +ÉÆn® ´Éc ¶ÉcÉniÉ
¤ÉxÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè,
MÉ´ÉÉcÉÒ ¤ÉxÉ
ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ cè, VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ
=xÉàÉå £ÉÉÒ BÉE½ÉÒ
BÉE® nÉÒ MÉ<Ç cè* |ÉÉÆiÉÉå
BÉEä +ÉÆn® +ÉÉì®MÉäxÉÉ<Vb
µÉEÉ<àÉ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
VÉÉä ºlÉÉxÉÉÒªÉ
MÉÖÆbä cé, =xÉBÉEä ÉÊMÉ®Éäc
cé, =xÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
iÉÉä ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
~ÉÒBÉE cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉMÉ®
ãɶBÉE®-A-iÉè<¤ÉÉ
+ÉÉè® VÉè¶É-A-àÉÉäcààÉn
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉiÉÉ
cè iÉÉä ´Éc ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä |ÉäÉÊ®iÉ
cè*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
Madam Chairman, the argument given is that you need a
law in the States to fight domestic organised Mafia. But the moment
you have the same law or even a lighter law against terrorist organisations,
that law is going to be politically motivated. Madam Chairman, I would
like, through you, urge upon the principal opposition Party that they have
already taken a 180-degree turn. You brought in an anti-terrorist law;
you told the country what was the logic required for an anti-terrorist
law; you have brought the same legislation for the purposes of tackling
organised crime in the States.
When your State Governments were consulted, without a
single exception, each one of your State Governments said that India needs
such a law. Each one of your State Governments said it and some of them
suggested improvements in the Central legislation that we circulated to
the States saying that there was no provision for intercept of communication.
It was the Maharashtra Government that suggested to us that this law would
be incomplete till such time that you have a provision for interceptions.
We accepted that advice. After we have followed the advice, consulted the
State Governments where your State Governments advised us, suddenly it
is you who took a 180-degree turn and tell us that this law is not required
as far as India is concerned. What does this law say? <ºÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå cè
BÉDªÉÉ? BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
BÉDªÉÉ cé, <ºÉBÉEä
>ó{É® SÉSÉÉÇ xÉcÉÓ
cÉä ®cÉÒ cè, SÉSÉÉÇ
iÉÉä ªÉc cÉä ®cÉÒ
cè ÉÊBÉE nä¶É BÉEÉ
ºÉ´ÉÉæSSÉ |ÉvÉÉxÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉEÉèxÉ
®cÉ? ªÉÚ.{ÉÉÒ.
àÉå ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉBÉEÉÒ
¤ÉxÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA?
MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ BÉEä
+ÉÆn® ªÉä ºÉÉà|ÉnÉÉʪÉBÉEiÉÉ
BÉEÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉAÆ cÉä
®cÉÒ cé iÉÉä <xÉ
{É® ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
ºÉä ÉÊxÉªÉÆjÉhÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè?
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É :
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
xÉä ]ÉäBÉEÉ]ÉäBÉEÉÒ
¶ÉÖâó BÉE® nÉÒ cè*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : <ºÉ
nä¶É àÉå +ÉÉVÉ
BÉEä´ÉãÉ ABÉE |ÉBÉEÉ®
BÉEÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
xÉcÉÓ cè* +É£ÉÉÒ
àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
SÉÆp¶ÉäJÉ® VÉÉÒ
BÉEc ®cä lÉä ÉÊBÉE ÉÊ´ÉÉÊ£ÉxxÉ
|ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
cé* {ÉÆVÉÉ¤É àÉå
10-12 ºÉÉãÉ £ÉÖMÉiÉä
cé* BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® àÉå
ºÉÉÒàÉÉ{ÉÉ®
ºÉä +ÉÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn cè*
{ÉÚ´ÉÇ =kÉ® BÉEä
|ÉÉÆiÉÉå àÉå
àÉÉ+ÉÉä´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
BÉEÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
cè* càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ nä¶É
BÉEä +ÉÆn® näJÉ ®cä cé
ÉÊBÉE ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä
cÉÒ |ÉÉÆiÉÉå àÉå
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉÒ
PÉ]xÉÉAÆ cÉä ®cÉÒ
cé* <ºÉBÉEÉ {ÉÉÊ®hÉÉàÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE BÉEä´ÉãÉ
®É]Å BÉEÉÒ ºÉÖ®FÉÉ
BÉEÉä JÉiÉ®É xÉcÉÓ
cè, ABÉEiÉÉ BÉEÉä JÉiÉ®É
xÉcÉÓ cè ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE
®É]Å BÉEä +ÉÆn® VÉÉä
<BÉEÉäxÉÉìÉÊàÉBÉE
AxÉ´ÉÉìªÉ®xÉàÉå]
cè, VÉÉä +ÉlÉÇ-BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ
cè, =ºÉBÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ
xÉÖBÉEºÉÉxÉ {ÉcÖÆSÉ
ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè +ÉÉè®
=ºÉBÉEä >ó{É® £ÉÉÒ
JÉiÉ®É cè* àÉé BÉEä´ÉãÉ
¤ÉªÉÉxÉ {ÉfÃÚÆ
ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
<ºÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEÉä ¤ÉfÃÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé, ÉʴɶÉäÉ
°ô{É ºÉä ºÉÉÒàÉÉ{ÉÉ®
ºÉä VÉÉä +ÉÉVÉ
£ÉÉÒ JÉiÉ®É cÉä
ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè, àÉÖ¶É®Ç{ÉE
VÉÉÒ BÉEciÉä cé,
"Jihad is not terrorism. Mujahideen organisations
are not terrorist organisations. Jihad had been revived during the
Afghan War and it is now Jihad in Kashmir."
… (Interruptions)
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : In the convention held at
Bangalore, it was stated : "Muslims can stay within India if they can win
the heart of the majority." What does it mean? … (Interruptions)
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Madam, I was only quoting somebody
who has a desire to launch Jehad on India. I do not think that this
should have really provoked anybody in the Opposition. Masood Azhar, the
President of Jaish-e-Mohammad, says: "Our mission is just not Srinagar;
we have to capture New Delhi." Osama bin Laden says : "Fighting Jehad
against India is an Islamic duty of the world. Kashmir issue cannot be
resolved by any means other than Jehad." … (Interruptions)
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : You created terror for Shri
Rajdeep Sardesai and his colleagues. … (Interruptions) They were
asked : "If you are a Muslim, you get out. If you are a Hindu, you can
go further." … (Interruptions) The Law Minister and the Home Minister
should explain this.
bÉì. ÉÊ´ÉVɪÉ
BÉÖEàÉÉ® àÉãcÉäjÉÉ
(nÉÊFÉhÉ ÉÊnããÉÉÒ)
: àÉcÉänªÉ,
+ÉÉ{É <xÉBÉEÉä ®ÉäÉÊBÉEA*
<xÉBÉEä ãÉÉÒb® BÉEÉä
càÉxÉä +ÉÉ®ÉàÉ
ºÉä ºÉÖxÉÉ cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Just a minute please. I
have requested everybody to have a debate at a level. àÉä®É
+ÉÉ{ɺÉä +ÉÉOÉc
cè, BÉßE{ÉÉ BÉE®BÉEä
VÉxÉiÉÉÉÎxjÉBÉE
iÉ®ÉÒBÉEä ºÉä JÉɺÉ
àÉÖqä {É® VÉÉä ¤ÉcºÉ
cÉä ®cÉÒ cè, +ÉcàÉ
àÉÖqÉ cè, ]ÉäBÉEÉ-]ÉBÉEÉÒ
nÉäxÉÉå iÉ®{ÉE ºÉä
xÉ cÉä, iÉÉä ¤ÉäciÉ®
cÉäMÉÉ* àÉä®ÉÒ
BÉEÉxº]ÉÒSÉÖ¶ÉxÉãÉÉÒ
báÉÖ]ÉÒ cè, BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ
BÉEɪÉàÉ ®JÉxÉÉ*
<ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉ{É
ãÉÉäMÉ, SÉÉcä <vÉ®
BÉEä cé ªÉÉ =vÉ® BÉEä
cé, nÉäxÉÉå, £ÉÉÉhÉ
ºÉÖÉÊxÉA* +ÉÉ{É
BÉßE{ɪÉÉ ABÉE ÉÊàÉxÉ]
¶ÉÉÆiÉ ®ÉÊcA* +ÉÉ{É
£ÉÉÉhÉ ºÉÖxÉå,
ÉÊ{ÉE® VÉ´ÉɤÉ
nå* ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉä
ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉ VÉ´ÉɤÉ
näxÉÉ cè, ºÉàɪÉ
ÉÊàÉãÉäMÉÉ*
<ºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä +ÉÉ{É
BÉE®åMÉä, iÉÉä ABÉE
+ÉSUÉÒ UÉÊ´É xÉcÉÓ
¤ÉxÉäMÉÉÒ* {ÉÉä]Éä
+ÉMÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä +ÉSUÉ xÉcÉÓ
ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè ªÉÉ
BÉÖEU JɮɤÉÉÒ
cè; ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä ¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉSUÉ
ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè, iÉÉä
=xÉBÉEÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*
]ÉäBÉEÉ-]ÉäBÉEÉÒ
BÉE®xÉä ºÉä {ÉÉä]Éä
¤ÉnãÉ xÉcÉÓ VÉÉAMÉÉ*
<ºÉÉÊãÉA ¤ÉäciÉ®
cè, ÉÊbºÉBÉE¶ÉxÉ
BÉE®BÉEä BÉEÉÊ®A* ªÉc
àÉéxÉä +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ
iÉÉ®ÉÒ{ÉE àÉå
xÉcÉÓ BÉEcÉ cè*
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): No, I have not said in
favour of or against anybody because I hear a lot of noise from this side
also. So, please do not take it that way. It is for everybody. This is
a very serious issue. It is best to discuss this issue in the serious atmosphere
at the level of this Parliament, Joint-Session of both the Houses. It is
a serious discussion; it is not just a Central Hall where we sit and eat
food. So, please sit down.
… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : àÉcÉänªÉ,
"ÉʺÉÉÊàÉ"
BÉEä nÉä {ÉÉΤãÉBÉEä¶ÉxºÉ
BÉEÉ àÉé =ããÉäJÉ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ
*
It says:
"The ideologies of democracies, secularism and nationalism
have replaced the objects of worship of the past. It is our duty to demolish
these ideologies and establish caliphate as enjoined upon us. Osama bin
Laden is not a terrorist and neither is Jammu and Kashmir an integral part
of India. "
<ºÉ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ
ºÉä ÉÊxÉ{É]xÉÉ
cè, iÉÉä ABÉE ºÉÖZÉÉ´É
àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
nä´ÉäMÉÉèbÉ VÉÉÒ
xÉä ÉÊnªÉÉ* =xÉBÉEÉ
BÉEcxÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
VÉÉä {ÉÖ®ÉxÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
cé, VÉèºÉä IPC +ÉÉè®
CrPC, iÉlÉÉ VÉèºÉÉ
|ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ BÉEÉÒ
xÉäiÉÉ xÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉàºÉÇ ABÉD] ãÉä
ãÉÉÒÉÊVÉA - <xÉ
iÉàÉÉàÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå
BÉEä iÉciÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEä
>ó{É® àÉÖBÉEqàÉÉ
SÉãÉÉ ãÉå*
ªÉc nÖ£ÉÉÇMªÉ
cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ºÉSSÉÉ<Ç
cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä
£ÉÉÒ càÉÉ®ÉÒ
+ÉnÉãÉiÉÉå àÉå
<ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå
BÉEä iÉciÉ ºÉÉÒÉÊ®ªÉºÉ
µÉEÉ<àÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉä
MɪÉä cé, +ÉMÉ® càÉ
näJÉiÉä cé ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®ÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ |ÉÉʵÉEªÉÉ
àÉå BÉDªÉÉ BÉEàÉVÉÉäÉÊ®ªÉÉÆ
cé iÉÉä ªÉc xɪÉÉÒ
SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´ÉɪÉ
¤ÉxÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè*
ºÉÉàÉÉxªÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉÒ iÉciÉ ÉÊVÉxÉ
ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä
ºÉVÉÉ ÉÊàÉãÉiÉÉÒ
cè =ºÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉÆJªÉÉ
+ÉÉVÉ ºÉÉfÃä U&
|ÉÉÊiɶÉiÉ cè* xɪÉÉÒ
|ÉÉʵÉEªÉÉ, xɪÉä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä {ÉɺÉ
xɪÉÉ iÉÆjÉ +ÉÉVÉ
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®xÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA +ÉɪÉÉ
cè =ºÉBÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉÉ iÉÉä
=ºÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉÆJªÉÉ
ºÉÉfÃä U& {ÉEÉÒºÉnÉÒ
cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ <ºÉBÉEä
+É{É´ÉÉn àÉå càÉ
näJÉiÉä cé ÉÊBÉE =xÉBÉEÉÒ
+ÉÉMÉæxÉÉ<VÉä¶ÉxÉ,
àÉÉÉÊ{ÉEªÉÉVÉ
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
àÉcÉ®É]Å àÉå
{ÉÉä]Éä VÉèºÉÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉMÉÚ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
I am sure, the Congress Party is going to get its own time. Let me complete
my speech.
gÉÉÒ ÉʶɴɮÉVÉ
ÉÊ´É.{ÉÉ]ÉÒãÉ
(ãÉÉ]Ú®) : ={ɺɣÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉÉ, àÉcÉ®É]Å
BÉEÉ =nÉc®hÉ ªÉcÉÆ
{É® ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ®
ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ
cè* càÉxÉä <ºÉ {É®
{ÉcãÉä ®ÉäBÉEÉ-]ÉäBÉEÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ BÉEÉÒ* àÉé
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
àÉcÉ®É]Å àÉå
58 BÉEäºÉäVÉ ãÉMÉÉA
MɪÉä +ÉÉè® =ºÉàÉå
75 |ÉÉÊiɶÉiÉ BÉEäºÉäVÉ
àÉå ºÉVÉÉ cÖ<Ç,
nںɮÉÒ VÉMÉcÉå
{É® 75,000 BÉEäºÉäVÉ cÖA
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ =ºÉàÉå
|ÉÉÊiɶÉiÉ BÉEàÉ
cÖ+ÉÉ, <ºÉBÉEÉ vªÉÉxÉ
®JÉxÉÉ ¤ÉcÖiÉ Vɰô®ÉÒ
cè* <ºÉBÉEÉ vªÉÉxÉ
xÉcÉÓ ®JÉåMÉä iÉÉä
càÉÉ®ä ºÉnxÉ àÉå
¤Éè~ä cÖA ºÉnºªÉÉå
BÉEÉä ÉÊn¶ÉÉ-£ÉÚãÉ
cÉä VÉÉAMÉÉÒ* +ÉÉÉÊJÉ®ÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉÆjÉÉÒ
àÉcÉänªÉ BÉEÉä
àÉä®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEÉ =kÉ® näxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
+ÉMÉ® ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ
MÉãÉiÉ cè iÉÉä àÉÆjÉÉÒ
àÉcÉänªÉ BÉEÉä
<ºÉBÉEÉ =kÉ® näxÉä
nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
={É£ÉÉäBÉDiÉÉ
àÉÉàÉãÉä, JÉÉtÉ
+ÉÉè® ºÉÉ´ÉÇVÉÉÊxÉBÉE
ÉÊ´ÉiÉ®hÉ àÉÆjÉÉãɪÉ
àÉå ®ÉVªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
(gÉÉÒ +ɶÉÉäBÉE
|ÉvÉÉxÉ) : VɤÉ
àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉ JÉÖn Jɽä
cÉäBÉE® ¤ÉÉäãÉiÉä
cé iÉ¤É <xÉBÉEÉä
{É®ä¶ÉÉxÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
cÉäiÉÉÒ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÃÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : ¤ÉÉiÉ
ºÉÖÉÊxɪÉä, +É£ÉÉÒ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
xÉä ªÉc +ÉÉOÉc ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE <vÉ®-=vÉ®
BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉå BÉE®xÉä
ºÉä +ÉSUÉ cÉäMÉÉ
+ÉMÉ® {ÉÉä]Éä àÉå
BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉÖvÉÉ®
BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ ºÉVÉä¶ÉxÉ
+ÉÉiÉÉ cè iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEÉä
´Éc ºÉÖxÉåMÉä* ´ÉcÉÒ
´Éc ¤ÉiÉÉ ®cä cé,
BÉEÉä<Ç =xÉBÉEÉä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE xÉcÉÓ
¤ÉÉäãÉ ®cä cé*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Madam, either Shri Patil
should be allowed to speak, or we will also interrupt him.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA) : I would not commit anything.
gÉÉÒ ÉʶɴɮÉVÉ
ÉÊ´É.{ÉÉ]ÉÒãÉ
(ãÉÉ]Ú®) : +ÉÉÉÊJÉ®ÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ àÉé ªÉc
BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE àÉÆjÉÉÒ
àÉcÉänªÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ cé +ÉÉè®
ªÉc SÉSÉÉÇ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
oÉÎ] ºÉä cÉä ®cÉÒ
cè, <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ
=xɺÉä VÉÉxÉxÉÉ
SÉÉcåMÉä ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ BÉEÉèxɺÉÉ
|ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ]ÉbÉ
ºÉä +ÉãÉMÉ cè +ÉÉè®
BÉEÉèxɺÉä |ÉÉìÉÊ´ÉVÉxÉ
BÉEÉÒ àÉnn ºÉä +ÉÉ{É
µÉEÉìºÉ-¤ÉÉbÇ®
]è®äÉÊ®VÉàÉ ®ÉäBÉE
ºÉBÉEiÉä cé*
gÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉxɪÉ
BÉEÉÊ]ªÉÉ® : ={ɺɣÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
àÉÖZÉä ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä
BÉEÉÒ +ÉxÉÖàÉÉÊiÉ
xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
=xÉBÉEÉä nä nÉÒ* ºÉƺÉn
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ºÉä SÉãÉiÉÉÒ
cè, ÉʤÉxÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEä xÉcÉÓ SÉãÉiÉÉÒ*
BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉ{É àÉÖZÉä
£ÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä
BÉEÉÒ +ÉxÉÖàÉÉÊiÉ
nåMÉÉÒ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA) : I will allow you. I would
allow you to come here.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I would permit you, if
you ask for permission. I would allow you. If you get up to ask for a clarification,
I will permit you to come over here and speak, but I would definitely not
permit anybody from this side or that side to just interrupt while the
Law Minister or any other Member is speaking.
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ& àÉé
ÉʶɴɮÉVÉ VÉÉÒ
BÉEÉ +ÉÉ£ÉÉ®ÉÒ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE =xcÉåxÉä
nÉä º{É]ÉÒBÉE®hÉ
<ºÉBÉEä +Éxn® àÉÉÆMÉä
cé*
={ɺɣÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÃÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) ´Éc +ÉÉ£ÉÉ®
àÉÉxÉ ®cä cé*
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ& {ÉcãÉÉ
iÉlªÉ ºÉSÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
ºÉÉàÉÉxªÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ÉÊVÉºÉ BÉEÉ àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
nä´ÉäMÉÉè½É VÉÉÒ
xÉä ÉÊVɵÉE ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEä iÉciÉ
<ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä VÉÉä
àÉÖBÉEnàÉä SÉãÉiÉä
cé, =ºÉàÉå ºÉVÉÉ
BÉEÉÒ n® +ÉÉVÉ ºÉÉfÃä
U& {ÉEÉÒºÉnÉÒ cè*
93 {ÉEÉÒºÉnÉÒ ºÉä
VªÉÉnÉ ãÉÉäMÉ
UÚ]iÉä cé* ]ÉbÉ BÉEä
ºÉà¤ÉxvÉ àÉå
+ÉÉ{ÉxÉä {ÉÚUÉ ÉÊBÉE
BÉDªÉÉå ãÉÉäMÉ
UÚ]iÉä lÉä? <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
àÉå àÉcÉ®É]Å
àÉå cÉãÉÉÆÉÊBÉE
BÉEàÉ ºÉÆJªÉÉ
àÉå àÉÖBÉEnàÉä
SÉãÉä cé ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
77 {É®ºÉé] BÉExÉÉÊ´ÉBÉD¶ÉxÉ
®ä] BÉEèºÉä cé +ÉÉè®
=xÉàÉå BÉDªÉÉ +ÉxiÉ®
cè ´Éc àÉé ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ* {ÉcãÉÉ
+ÉxiÉ® ªÉc lÉÉ +ÉÉè®
àÉé <ºÉä nÉäc®ÉxÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ SÉÉciÉÉ lÉÉ*
+ÉMÉ® MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ
àÉå BÉEÉä<Ç ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
nãÉ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä 19
cVÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉxÉÉå
BÉEÉä {ÉBÉE½ ãÉäMÉÉ
iÉÉä =xÉ 19 cVÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉxÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
]ÉbÉ BÉEä iÉciÉ ºÉVÉÉ
cÉä {ÉÉAMÉÉÒ* ¶ÉɪÉn
ªÉc +É{ÉäFÉÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä xÉcÉÓ lÉÉÒ*
]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ VÉÉä nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
=ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä ¶ÉɺÉxÉ
xÉä ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, =ºÉ
{É® ABÉE BªÉÉ{ÉBÉE SÉSÉÉÇ
cÖ<Ç +ÉÉè® ºÉ¤É
ãÉÉäMÉ =ºÉä º´ÉÉÒBÉE®
BÉE®iÉä cé* ]ÉbÉ BÉEä
+Éxn® ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä ºÉVÉÉ xÉ cÉäxÉä
BÉEä {ÉÉÒUä ABÉE |ÉàÉÖJÉ
BÉEÉ®hÉ ªÉc £ÉÉÒ
lÉÉ*
nںɮÉ,
{ÉÉä]Éä +ÉÉè® ]ÉbÉ
BÉEä ¤ÉÉÒSÉ àÉå
+ÉxiÉ® BÉDªÉÉ cè? ]ÉbÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ 1985 àÉå
¤ÉxÉÉ lÉÉ* 1985 àÉå
+ÉxiÉ®ÉÇ]ÅÉÒªÉ
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ
BÉEä +ÉxªÉ nä¶ÉÉå
àÉå <iÉxÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
lÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä 17 ´ÉÉÉç
àÉå nä¶É BÉEä BÉE<Ç
®ÉVªÉÉå +ÉÉè®
nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEä
BÉE<Ç nä¶ÉÉå BÉEÉä
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ºÉä BÉEèºÉä
ÉÊxÉ{É]xÉÉ cè <ºÉàÉå
=xÉBÉEÉä +ÉxÉ֣ɴÉ
+ÉÉÊvÉBÉE cÖ+ÉÉ cè*
àÉÉèVÉÚnÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉDªÉÉ BÉEciÉÉ cè,
àÉé <ºÉä º{É]
°ô{É ºÉä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
®JÉÚÆ iÉÉä +ÉSUÉ
cÉäMÉÉ* <ºÉBÉEÉÒ
{ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉÉÉ
BÉEä ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉ
àÉå ¤ÉcºÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ
cè* ABÉE £ÉÉÒ =nÉc®hÉ
AäºÉÉ +ÉÉ VÉÉA ÉÊBÉE
BÉEÉèxÉ ºÉÉÒ AäºÉÉÒ
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
PÉ]xÉÉ ªÉÉ MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ
cè, VÉÉä <ºÉ {ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉÉÉ
BÉEä +Éxn® xÉcÉÓ +ÉÉiÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® BÉEÉèxÉ ºÉÉÒ
AäºÉÉÒ xÉÉìxÉ
]è®ÉÉÊ®º] AÉÎBÉD]ÉÊ´É]ÉÒ
cè VÉÉä =ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
àÉå +ÉÉiÉÉÒ cè*
]ÉbÉ BÉEÉÒ VÉÉä {ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉÉÉ
lÉÉÒ, ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ
BÉEÉä]Ç iÉBÉE xÉä =ºÉ
{ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉÉÉ
BÉEä ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉ
àÉå ÉÊ]{{ÉhÉÉÒ
BÉEÉÒ ÉÊBÉE =ºÉ {ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉÉÉ
àÉå nÉäÉ lÉä* ÉÊbºÉ®ÉÎ{]´É
AÉÎBÉD]ÉÊ´É]ÉÒ
BÉDªÉÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ
cè? ÉÊbºÉ®ÉÎ{]´É
AÉÎBÉD]ÉÊ´É]ÉÒ
BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® +ÉxÉäBÉE
|ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ
=ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉä
ãÉä ÉÊãÉA VÉÉiÉä
lÉä VÉÉä <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
àÉå xÉcÉÓ cè* nںɮÉ,
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä
+Éxn® ABÉE º{É] |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
cè VÉÉä ]ÉbÉ àÉå
xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ* VÉÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ |ÉBÉEÉ®
ºÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
BÉEÉä vÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ
ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ näiÉä
cé +ÉÉè® ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä
5-6 ´ÉÉÉç àÉå
nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ àÉå
ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉä
cé, =ºÉBÉEÉ ABÉE {ÉcãÉÚ
ªÉc lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ]è®ÉÉÊ®VàÉ
BÉEÉä {ÉèºÉÉ näxÉÉ,
{ÉEÆb näxÉÉ £ÉÉÒ
]è®ÉÉÊ®º] AÉÎBÉD]ÉÊ´É]ÉÒ
cÉäMÉÉÒ. ´Éc £ÉÉÒ
+É{É®ÉvÉ cÉäMÉÉ*
ªÉc BÉEÉä<Ç nÉä ÉÊ´ÉɪÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉä*
BÉEÉä<Ç BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ
BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® àÉå
ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ bÉìãÉ®
£ÉäVÉiÉÉ cè …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
I am not yielding.
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I am not permitting you.
Please take your seat.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Madam, I am not yielding… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN(RAJYA SABHA) : Hon. Member, I am not allowing
you because the hon. Minister is not yielding.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Nothing is going on record.
(Interruptions)*
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please take your seat.
He has to finish his speech and then there are other hon. Members who have
to speak. Please take your seat.
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ& ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, BÉEÉä<Ç
BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEÉÒ ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
nä¶É BÉEä £ÉÉÒiÉ®
ªÉÉ ÉÊ´Énä¶É
ºÉä +ÉMÉ® vÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ
ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ BÉE®iÉÉ
cè, ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ
àÉÖpÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ
BÉE®iÉÉ cè iÉÉä +ÉÉVÉ
ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ àÉÖpÉ
BÉEä ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉ
àÉå nä¶É àÉå ¤É½É
xÉ®àÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
{ÉEäàÉÉ xÉÉàÉ
BÉEÉ cè* BÉE¶àÉÉÒ®
àÉå VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
{ÉBÉE½ä VÉÉ ®cä cé,
BÉDªÉÉ BÉEä´ÉãÉ
=ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ
|ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ =xÉ {É®
ãÉMÉÉ BÉE® BÉÖEU cVÉÉÇxÉÉ
BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉA
ªÉÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA {ÉèºÉÉ
+ÉÉiÉÉ cè iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEÉä
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ
àÉÉxÉÉ VÉÉA, ªÉc
|ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ {ÉÉä]Éä
àÉå ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ cè* nںɮÉ,
|ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ VÉÉä
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä +Éxn®
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ
ºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ
vÉxÉ ªÉÉ ºÉà{ÉÉÊkÉ
¤ÉxÉÉiÉÉ cè iÉÉä
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® =ºÉ ºÉà{ÉÉÊkÉ
BÉEÉä VɤiÉ BÉE® ãÉäMÉÉÒ*
VÉ¤É BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉ ¶ÉɺÉxÉ
lÉÉ, AäºÉä +ÉxÉäBÉEÉå
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉä
ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä iɺBÉE®ÉÒ
ºÉä vÉxÉ BÉEàÉÉiÉÉ
cè, bÅMºÉ ºàÉMÉÉËãÉMÉ
ºÉä VÉÉä vÉxÉ BÉEàÉÉiÉÉ
cè, =ºÉBÉEÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
ºÉà{ÉÉÊkÉ xÉcÉÓ
àÉÉxÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ,
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® =ºÉä VɤiÉ
BÉE® ãÉäMÉÉÒ* VɤÉ
iɺBÉE®ÉÒ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
ªÉc ãÉÉMÉÚ cÉä
ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè iÉÉä
º´ÉÉ£ÉÉÉÊ´ÉBÉE
cè ÉÊBÉE nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ
BÉEä c® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå ªÉc
|ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cè* {ÉÉä]Éä
àÉå ªÉc |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
{ÉcãÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉ®
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
cè* Profits of terrorist crimes would be confiscated by the
State. ªÉcÉÆ ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ®
ÉÊVɵÉE +ÉÉiÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå {É®
|ÉÉÊiɤɯvÉ ãÉMÉäMÉÉ*
+É¤É +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå {É®
|ÉÉÊiɤɯvÉ ãÉMÉÉxÉÉ,
]ÉìbÉì BÉEä +ÉÆiÉMÉÇiÉ
<ºÉBÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ* ªÉc |ÉÉÊiɤɯvÉ
{ÉcãÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉ®
{ÉÉä]Éä àÉå ãÉɪÉÉ
MɪÉÉ cè* VÉÉä ãÉÉì
BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ xÉä
{ÉcãÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ lÉÉ,
=ºÉ bÅÉ{ÉD] àÉå xÉcÉÓ
lÉÉ* càÉxÉä Éʴɶ´É
àÉå ÉʴɶÉäÉBÉE®
ÉÊ¥É]äxÉ BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
näJÉÉ cè ÉÊVɺɺÉä
càÉå ãÉMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
<ºÉBÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè* ªÉcÉÆ <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ
BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
BÉEÉÒ BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉnºªÉiÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉÉÒ* ÉÊ{ÉE®
ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
{ÉiÉÉ SÉãÉäMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉä<Ç =ºÉBÉEÉ
ºÉnºªÉ cè ªÉÉ
*Not Recorded.
xÉcÉÓ?* <ºÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå º{É]
°ô{É ºÉä ÉÊãÉJÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ® |ÉÉÊiɤɯvÉ
ãÉMÉxÉä BÉEä ¤ÉÉn
BÉEÉä<Ç BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ
=ºÉBÉEÉÒ MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvɪÉÉä
àÉå ¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ
cÉäiÉÉ cè iÉÉä ´Éc
=ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉnºªÉ àÉÉxÉÉ
VÉɪÉäMÉÉ* ªÉcÉÆ
iÉBÉE ÉÊBÉE àÉcÉ®É]Å
+ÉÉè® BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE
àÉå VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
cé, VÉèºÉä ªÉcÉÆ
+ÉÉ®MxÉÉ<Vb ÉʵÉEÉÊàÉxÉãÉ
É˺ÉÉÊbBÉEä] - AäºÉä
¶É¤nÉå BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
cè* +ÉMÉ® ªÉcÉÒ iÉBÉEÇ
=xÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå
BÉEä ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉ
àÉå ãÉMÉiÉÉ iÉÉä
µÉEÉ<àÉ É˺ÉÉÊbBÉEä]
BÉEÉÒ BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉnºªÉiÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉÉÒ*
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉÉä É˺ÉÉÊbBÉEä]
BÉEä ºÉnºªÉ BÉEä °ô{É
àÉå =ºÉBÉEÉÒ MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvɪÉÉä
àÉå ¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ
cÉäiÉÉ cè +ÉÉè®
ÉÊVÉºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
BÉEÉÒ ´ÉcÉÆ ºÉ{ÉEãÉiÉÉ
ÉÊàÉãÉ ®cÉÒ
cè +ÉÉè® ºÉBÉDºÉèºÉ
®ä] 77 |ÉÉÊiɶÉiÉ
BÉEciÉä cé, ¶ÉɪÉn
´ÉcÉÒ |ÉÉ´ÉÉÒVÉxÉ
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä
+ÉÆn® ãÉÉMÉÚ cè*
+ÉMÉ® gÉÉÒ ÉʶɴɮÉVÉ
{ÉÉ]ÉÒãÉ VÉÉÒ
<ºÉ +ÉÉä® vªÉÉxÉ
nåMÉä iÉÉä àÉÉãÉÚàÉ
cÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉ
ºÉ¤ÉºÉä ¤ÉÖÉÊxɪÉÉnÉÒ
+ÉÆiÉ® ]ÉìbÉ {É®
{ɽÉ* ]ÉìbÉ àÉå
<ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® nÚ®-ºÉÆSÉÉ®
BÉEÉ àÉÉvªÉàÉ
lÉÉ, =xÉBÉEÉä <Æ]®ºÉè{]
BÉE®xÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
=ºÉ <Æ]®ºÉè{] BÉEÉä
AäÉÊ´ÉbåºÉ BÉEä
°ô{É àÉå |ɪÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉxÉÉ
]ÉìbÉ àÉå xÉcÉÓ
lÉÉ* +ÉMÉ® àÉcÉ®É]Å
àÉå ºÉBÉDºÉèºÉ
®ä] 77 {É®ºÉå] cè iÉÉä
=ºÉBÉEÉ ªÉcÉÒ BÉEÉ®hÉ
cè*
càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ
gÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉãÉɺɮɴÉ
VÉÉÒ BÉEä +ÉÉ£ÉÉ®ÉÒ
cé ÉÊVÉxcÉåxÉä ªÉc
ºÉÖZÉÉ´É ÉÊnªÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä
bÅÉ{ÉD] àÉå AäºÉÉ
|ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ
®JÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè +ÉÉè®
<ºÉä +É{ÉxÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
àÉå ãÉÉ<ªÉä
BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE àÉcÉ®É]Å
àÉå <ºÉBÉEÉ +ÉxÉ֣ɴÉ
ºÉ{ÉEãÉiÉÉ{ÉÚ®Â
´ÉBÉE ®cÉ cè* +ÉÉVÉ
VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ ]è®äÉÊ®º]
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
MÉ´ÉÉcÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
näiÉä cé, =xÉ ºÉä b®iÉä
cé, =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä
àÉå BÉEc ®cä lÉä ÉÊBÉE
{ÉÚ´ÉÇ ºÉäxÉÉ
|ÉàÉÖJÉ BÉEä {ÉÉÊ®´ÉÉ®
BÉEä ºÉnºªÉ MÉ´ÉÉcÉÒ
BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä +ÉÉMÉä
xÉcÉÓ +ÉɪÉä +ÉÉè®
´Éä ãÉÉäMÉ UÚ]iÉä
®cä* ªÉÉÊn <Æ]®ºÉè{]
cÉäMÉÉ iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEä
àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
BÉEÉ {ÉiÉÉ SÉãÉäMÉÉ*
nںɮä, ªÉc àÉÉãÉÚàÉ
cÉäMÉÉ VÉèºÉÉ
<Æ]®ºÉè{] àÉå ÉÊãÉJÉÉ
cè, ÉÊBÉE =xÉBÉEÉÒ
AäÉÊ´ÉbåºÉ BÉEÉä]Ç
àÉå =xÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
|ɪÉÉäMÉ àÉå
ãÉɪÉÉÒ VÉɪÉäMÉÉÒ*
<ºÉBÉEä +ÉÆn® |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
AäºÉÉ cè ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉÒ
ºÉ¤É ºÉä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉE
+ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ
cÉäiÉÉÒ cè* ªÉc +ÉiªÉÆiÉ
JÉän BÉEÉ ÉÊ´ÉɪÉ
cè* VÉÉä VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ
BÉEä ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉ
àÉå |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
]ÉìbÉì àÉå lÉä,
=ºÉä xÉ BÉEä´ÉãÉ
ºÉ®ãÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ cè ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE
ªÉc ÉÊãÉJÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ
BÉEÉ ªÉc |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
ABÉE ´ÉÉÇ BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä
ãÉÉMÉÚ cÉäMÉÉ
+ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn
ºÉÉàÉÉxªÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ãÉÉMÉÚ cÉäMÉÉ
The tight bail provisions will apply only for one year. Thereafter,
the normal bail provisions will apply.
+É¤É ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ®
càÉå BÉEcÉ VÉÉiÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE <ºÉàÉå
¤ÉäãÉ |ÉÉä´ÉÉÒVÉxÉ
bÅäBÉEÉäÉÊxɪÉxÉ
cé* <ºÉ ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉ
àÉå {ÉcãÉÉ |ɶxÉ
ªÉc cè ÉÊBÉE ]è®äÉÊ®º]
BÉEÉ VÉÉä +ÉÉiàÉPÉÉiÉÉÒ
VÉilÉÉ cè, BÉDªÉÉ
´Éc £ÉÉ®iÉ BÉEä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä <VVÉiÉ
näMÉÉ, àÉÉxªÉiÉÉ
näMÉÉ? AäºÉÉÒ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè* =xcå VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ
ÉÊàÉãÉäMÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® +ÉnÉãÉiÉ
BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
+ÉMÉãÉÉÒ {Éä¶ÉÉÒ
àÉå +ÉɪÉäMÉÉ,
<ºÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉÆ£ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ
£ÉÉÒ ¤ÉcÖiÉ BÉEàÉ
cè* BÉE<Ç ãÉÉäMÉ
ªÉcÉÆ |ɶxÉ =~É ®cä
cé ÉÊBÉE =xcå VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ
ÉÊàÉãÉä* iÉÉä
àÉé ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
=xÉBÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä
VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEÉ
|ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cè, ÉʴɶÉäÉ
|ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ABÉE
´ÉÉÇ BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä
cè* càÉå BÉEcÉ VÉÉ
®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ªÉc ¤ÉcÖiÉ
BÉE½´ÉÉ, ¤ãÉèBÉE
ãÉÉì +ÉÉè® bÅäBÉEÉäÉÊxɪÉxÉ
cè*
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ
ºÉä BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
BÉEä ºÉnºªÉÉå BÉEÉä
ªÉÉn ÉÊnãÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
ªÉcÉÒ ABÉEàÉÉjÉ
AäºÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE
1974 àÉå, VÉ¤É BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ºÉé]®
àÉå lÉÉÒ, xÉÉì®BÉEÉäÉÊ]BÉDºÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ, <Ç.ºÉÉÒ.A.BÉEä
ºÉƶÉÉäÉÊvÉiÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ
BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
lÉÉ +ÉÉè® VɤÉ
béVÉ® AÆb bèàÉäVÉ
+ÉÉì{ÉE ÉʺÉÉÊ´ÉãÉ
AäÉÊ´ÉA¶ÉxÉ BÉEÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ 1989 àÉå
ãÉɪÉä, =ºÉàÉå
VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEÉ
|ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ lÉÉ*
àÉcÉ®É]Å,, BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE,
+ÉÉxwÉ |Énä¶É BÉEä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå àÉå
ªÉc |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ càÉå
BÉEcÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉ{É ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä ªÉc
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉäBÉE®
+ÉɪÉä cé* càÉ <ºÉä
®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
BÉEÉ®hÉÉä ºÉä ãÉɪÉä
cé ªÉÉ +ÉÉ{É ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®
®cä cé, <ºÉ ÉÊ´ÉɪÉ
{É® nÉäxÉÉå ºÉnxÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉàÉ ºÉcàÉÉÊiÉ
ºÉä iÉªÉ cÉä VÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcªÉä* <ºÉàÉå
xÉäiÉÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ
xÉä ABÉE +ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ
ªÉc BÉEÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE
{ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEÉä
ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
¤ÉªÉÉxÉ - Confessional statements
made to the police are admissible evidence. ªÉcÉ
ABÉEàÉÉjÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè VÉcÉÆ AäºÉÉÒ
ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ cè* àÉcÉ®É]Å
+ÉÉè® BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE
BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå
BÉEÉä xÉäiÉÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ
xÉä {ÉÉèÉÊãÉÉÊ]BÉEãÉ
àÉÉäÉÊ]´Éä]äb
xÉcÉÓ BÉEcÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉ¤É +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ
VÉÉ ®cÉ cè iÉÉä càÉå
BÉEcÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
<ºÉBÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEä {ÉÉÒUä ªÉc iÉBÉEÇ
cè ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ
BÉEä {ÉÉÒUä ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä
£ÉÉÒ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
ºÉÆMÉ~xÉ cÉäiÉä
cé, VÉ¤É =xÉBÉEÉÒ
MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvɪÉÉÆ
SÉãÉiÉÉÒ cé, =xÉBÉEä
£ÉÉÒiÉ® ÉbªÉÆjÉ
®SÉä VÉÉiÉä cé, =ºÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ BÉEÉä<Ç
¤ÉÉc® BÉEÉ +ÉÉnàÉÉÒ
+ÉÉBÉE® xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉiÉÉiÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ ®SÉÉ
MɪÉÉ* ÉÊVÉxÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå
xÉä ºÉÆºÉn {É® |ÉcÉ®
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, =xÉBÉEä
{ÉÉÒUä BÉEÉèxÉ lÉÉ,
=xÉBÉEÉ MÉÉWÉÉÒ
¤ÉɤÉÉ ºÉä BÉDªÉÉ
ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉ lÉÉ,
ªÉc +ÉÉ{É ãÉÉäMÉÉå
àÉå ºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç
xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉiÉãÉÉ
ºÉBÉEiÉÉ* <ºÉä =ºÉ
ºÉÆMÉ~xÉ BÉEä £ÉÉÒiÉ®
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ ¤ÉiÉÉ
ºÉBÉEiÉä cé*
ªÉcÉÆ
ÉÊVɵÉE ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ +ÉÉè® ªÉc
nÖ£ÉÉÇMªÉ BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä SÉãÉiÉä càÉÉ®ä
nÉä £ÉÚiÉ{ÉÚ´ÉÇ
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ àÉßiªÉÖ
cÖ<Ç* =xÉàÉå ºÉä
ABÉE àÉÖBÉEnàÉä àÉå
VÉ¤É àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
®ÉVÉÉÒ´É MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ciªÉÉ
cÖ<Ç iÉÉä BÉEä´ÉãÉ
´ÉcÉÒ ºÉÆMÉ~xÉ
AãÉ.]ÉÒ.]ÉÒ.<Ç. BÉEä
ãÉÉäMÉ £ÉÉÒiÉ®
ºÉä ¤ÉiÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä
lÉä ÉÊBÉE ÉbáÉÆjÉ
àÉå BÉEÉèxÉ-BÉEÉèxÉ
¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ lÉÉ
+ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEÉÒ
MÉ´ÉÉcÉÒ nä ºÉBÉEiÉä
lÉä* ¤ÉÉc® BÉEÉ BÉEÉä<Ç
BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ ªÉc +ÉÉBÉE®
xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉiÉãÉÉ
ºÉBÉEiÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
AãÉ.]ÉÒ.]ÉÒ.<Ç. BÉEä
BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
¤Éè~BÉEÉä àÉå
BÉDªÉÉ iÉªÉ BÉE®iÉä
lÉä, BÉEÉèxÉ {ÉèºÉÉ
näMÉÉ, +ÉÉ®.bÉÒ.ABÉDºÉ.
BÉEÉèxÉ näMÉÉ, A.BÉEä.-47
BÉEÉèxÉ näMÉÉ +ÉÉè®
<ºÉÉÊãÉA iÉàÉÉàÉ
Ax]ÉÒ-]è®äÉÊ®º] ãÉÉìVÉ
àÉå Ax]ÉÒ-<xɺÉVÉæxºÉÉÒ
ãÉÉìVÉ àÉå <ºÉ
|ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
BÉEÉä bÉãÉxÉÉ, =ºÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉÒ
àÉnn BÉE®xÉÉ cè, ÉÊVɺɺÉä
ÉÊBÉE ºÉàÉÉVÉ
BÉEÉä =ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ºÉä càÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉ {ÉɪÉå*
ªÉc BÉEä´ÉãÉ +É{ÉxÉä
ªÉcÉÆ xÉcÉÓ cè* <ºÉ
|ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ,
ÉʴɶÉäÉ BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ
+ÉxªÉ ºlÉÉxÉÉÒªÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå àÉå
<ºÉ nä¶É BÉEä +ÉÆn®
BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç cè +ÉÉè®
=xÉBÉEÉ ºÉ{ÉEãÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ
®cÉ cè*
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ®
ÉÊVɵÉE +ÉÉiÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
ÉÊBÉEºÉºÉä SÉSÉÉÇ
BÉEÉÒ* |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ
BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEÉÒ £ÉÉÒ ¤Éè~BÉE
cÖ<Ç, cÉäàÉ ÉÊàÉÉÊxɺ]ÅÉÒ
BÉEÉÒ BÉEƺÉã]äÉÊ]´É
BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ BÉEÉÒ
nÉä ¤Éè~BÉEå cÖ<ÇÆ,
àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå
ºÉä ®ÉªÉ àÉÉÆMÉÉÒ
MÉ<Ç, +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEiÉ®
®ÉVªÉÉå xÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ
ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ*
ãÉÉì BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ
ºÉä {ÉÚUÉ MɪÉÉ,
ãÉÉì BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ
xÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉÃ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ* ÉÊ{ÉE®
BÉEcÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
VÉÉä º]ä]Ö]®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉìbÉÒ
ÿªÉÚàÉèxÉ ®É<]ºÉ
BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ cè,
ÿªÉÚàÉèxÉ ®É<]ºÉ
BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ xÉä
BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè <ºÉÉÊãÉA
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA* àÉé ¤É½ÉÒ
ÉÊ´ÉxÉ©ÉiÉÉ
ºÉä BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ãɽÉ<Ç BÉEèºÉä
ãɽÉÒ VÉÉiÉÉÒ
cè* ÉÊVÉxÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä Ax]ÉÒ-<xɺÉVÉæxºÉÉÒ
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ãɽÉ<Ç ãɽxÉä
BÉEÉ +ÉxÉ֣ɴÉ
cè, VÉÉä ºÉÖ®FÉÉ
ÉÊ´É£ÉÉMÉÉå
àÉå +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ
®cä cé, =xÉàÉå <ºÉ
ÉÊ´ÉÉªÉ àÉå
BÉEcÉÓ nÉä àÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ
cé* ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ àÉå
nÉä àÉiÉ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉä
cé* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ÉʺÉBÉDªÉÖÉÊ®]ÉÒ
ABÉDºÉ{É]ºÉÇ àÉå
<ºÉ nä¶É àÉå BÉEcÉÓ
nÉä àÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ cé
ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
Ax]ÉÒ <xɺÉVÉæxºÉÉÒ
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*
~ÉÒBÉE cè, ÿªÉÚàÉèxÉ
®É<]弃 BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ
xÉä BÉEcÉ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
àÉé ªÉc £ÉÉÒ
¤ÉiÉãÉÉ nÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
ªÉc £ÉÉÒ ¶ÉÆBÉEÉ
BªÉBÉDiÉ BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç
ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
£ÉÉÒ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè*
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé
nÉä ÉÊ´ÉɪÉ
<ºÉ ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉ
àÉå ®JÉxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ*
ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç
BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
ªÉc ÉÊ´ÉɪÉ
+ÉɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ
<ºÉ ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè +ÉÉè®
BÉDªÉÉ ºÉàÉÉVÉ
BÉEÉä <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉÒ
+ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè* ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ
BÉEÉä]Ç xÉä ªÉc BÉEcÉ
-
"It is the duty of the courts to accept a construction
which promotes the objects of the legislation and also prevents its possible
abuse even though the mere possibility of abuse of a provision does not
affect its constitutionality or construction. Abuse has to be checked by
constant vigilance and monitoring of individual cases, and this can be
done by screening cases by a suitable machinery at a high level. Persons
aware of instances of abuse including the National Human Rights Commission
can assist by reporting such instances with particulars to the machinery
for prompt and effective cure.
However, that is no reason in law to doubt its constitutionality
or to alter the proper construction when there is a felt need by Parliament
for enacting such a law to cope with and prevent terrorist and disruptive
activities threatening the unity and integrity of the country."
àÉé ªÉc
ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç
BÉEä {ÉEèºÉãÉä
ºÉä {Éfà ®cÉ lÉÉ*
BÉEÉÊ{ÉãÉ VÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä ªÉä ¶É¤n {ÉcSÉÉxÉä
cÖA ãÉMÉ ®cä cé, BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
¶ÉɪÉn ´ÉcÉÒ
<ºÉàÉå {Éä¶É
cÖA lÉä +ÉÉè® àÉÉèVÉÚnÉ
ÿªÉÚàÉèxÉ ®É<]ºÉ
BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ BÉEä
SÉäªÉ®àÉèxÉ gÉÉÒ
VÉä.AºÉ.´ÉàÉÉÇ
xÉä <xÉ ¶É¤nÉå BÉEä
+ÉÆn® ÉÊBÉE A¤ªÉÚVÉ
cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè, <ºÉÉÊãÉA
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉÉ
UÉä½ nÉä, ªÉc BÉEÉä<Ç
iÉBÉEÇ xÉcÉÓ cè* VɤÉ
ãÉÉì BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ
xÉä ºÉ¤ÉBÉEÉÒ
®ÉªÉ ãÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉE
ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ SÉÉÉÊcA
iÉÉä àÉé BÉEä´ÉãÉ
nÉä ´ÉÉBÉDªÉ {ÉfÃ
näiÉÉ cÚÆ -
"Is the existing law without a slightly more stringent
law to deal with the special situation sufficient? Or should there ought
to be some special provisions for dealing with this extraordinary situation?
Now, the state in the country is such that this extraordinary
situation really has not improved. If at all, it has worsened particularly
in some areas…. "
16.00 hrs.
"… Now, if the terrorist activities and militancy have
to be controlled which are continuing and while this does not seem likely,
in the near future, that it will get over, then should we not have a special
law for that purpose? I will tell you straightway personally my own view
– that is the personal opinion – that is, some special provisions are needed
to deal with this extraordinary situation. I cannot be doubted that wherever
there is a conflict of this kind, you have to choose between the available
options, then public interest and society’s interest have to be uppermost
and that must prevail over individual interest; if it is not possible to
preserve both, even in such a situation, care should be taken to ensure
that the impact of individual interest is also minimal possible."
This is what the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission
had to tell the Law Commission that the larger interest of the society,
in a society affected by terrorism and insurgency must really prevail;
and therefore, it must prevail where individual interests are involved.
àÉcÉänªÉ,
VÉ¤É ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ®
ªÉc +ÉÉ®Éä{É ãÉMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÖ+ÉÉ, +ÉÉè® xÉA BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
xÉ cÉä {ÉÉA, ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ <ºÉ
ÉÊ´ÉÉªÉ BÉEÉÒ
ÉÊSÉxiÉÉ lÉÉÒ, +ÉÉè®
ãÉÉì BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ
BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ <ºÉ
ÉÊ´ÉÉªÉ BÉEÉÒ
ÉÊSÉxiÉÉ lÉÉÒ* ÿªÉÚàÉxÉ
®É<]弃 BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ
BÉEä SÉäªÉ®àÉèxÉ
xÉä £ÉÉÒ BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE
näÉÊJɪÉä <ºÉàÉå
nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ BÉEÉÒ
ºÉÆ£ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ
ºÉ¤ÉºÉä BÉEàÉ
BÉEÉÒ VÉÉA, <ºÉBÉEä
ÉÊãÉA |ɪÉɺÉ
cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* BÉEä´ÉãÉ
{ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉÉÉ
BÉEÉÒ oÉÎ] ºÉä
xÉcÉÓ ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ
BÉEÉ MÉ~xÉ cÉäiÉÉ*
¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® ªÉc
iÉBÉEÇ ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä ®äBªÉÚ
BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
¤ÉxÉÉ<Ç cè =ºÉBÉEä
BÉEä´ÉãÉ ÉÊ®]ɪÉbÇ
VÉVÉ ªÉÉ ÉʺÉÉË]MÉ
VÉVÉ +ÉvªÉFÉ cÉåMÉä
+ÉÉè® nÉä ÉʴɶÉäÉ
ºÉÉÊSÉ´É cÉåMÉä,
<ºÉÉÊãÉA ªÉc ®äBªÉÚ
BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ ~ÉÒBÉE
xÉcÉÓ cè* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
àÉcÉ®É]Å +ÉÉè®
BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE àÉå
VÉÉä ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ
¤ÉxÉÉ<Ç MÉ<Ç, =ºÉàÉå
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ VÉVÉ
BÉEÉä ®JÉÉ cÉÒ xÉcÉÓ,
SÉÉÒ{ÉE ºÉèµÉEä]®ÉÒ
BÉEÉä =ºÉBÉEÉ +ÉvªÉFÉ
¤ÉxÉÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ
+ÉÉè® nÉä ºÉèµÉEä]®ÉÒWÉ
BÉEÉä =ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉnºªÉ
¤ÉxÉÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
+ÉàÉ® É˺Éc
VÉÉÒ +ÉMÉ® ªÉc AiÉ®ÉWÉ
®JÉiÉä cé iÉÉä …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
+ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ® cÉäMÉÉ,
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ¶ÉɪÉn
ªÉc ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ® +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
ºÉÉlÉ ¤Éè~ä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
ºÉä +ÉÉiÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
BÉEäxp àÉå cÉ<Ç BÉEÉä]Ç
BÉEÉ VÉVÉ +ÉvªÉFÉ
cè iÉÉä ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ
¶ÉèàÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
àÉcÉ®É]Å ªÉÉ
BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE àÉå
SÉÉÒ{ÉE ºÉèµÉEä]®ÉÒ
+ÉvªÉFÉ cè iÉÉä =xÉBÉEä
ºÉÉlÉ nÉäxÉÉå
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ =ºÉ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ
ºÉä ÉÊxÉ{É]xÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ~ÉÒBÉE
cé* ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ
c® |ÉÉÆiÉ àÉå VÉÉä
¤ÉxÉÉ<Ç MÉ<Ç cè
=xÉ nÉäxÉÉå BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå
àÉå, =ºÉBÉEÉ SÉÉÒ{ÉE
ºÉèµÉEä]®ÉÒ +ÉvªÉFÉ
cè +ÉÉè® nÉä ºÉèµÉEä]®ÉÒWÉ
=ºÉBÉEä ºÉnºªÉ cé*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉcÉänªÉ,
MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ àÉå
VÉÉä ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ
¤ÉxÉäMÉÉÒ, BÉEäxp
BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä
iÉciÉ ¤ÉxÉäMÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® cÉ<Ç BÉEÉä]Ç
VÉVÉ =ºÉBÉEÉ +ÉvªÉFÉ
cÉäMÉÉ* +ÉMÉ® =ºÉBÉEÉ
nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÉäiÉÉ
cè iÉÉä cÉ<Ç BÉEÉä]Ç
VÉVÉ =ºÉBÉEä nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
BÉEÉä ®ÉäBÉEäMÉÉ*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ªÉc ÉÊSÉxiÉÉ
lÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® ªÉc
ÉÊSÉxiÉÉ º´ÉÉ£ÉÉÉÊ´ÉBÉE
lÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ
{ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEÉä
ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
¤ÉªÉÉxÉ BÉEÉä]Ç
àÉå ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ
+ÉÉè® AÉÊ´ÉbäxºÉ
àÉÉxÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè* ]ÉbÉ BÉEä iÉciÉ àÉÉxÉÉ
VÉÉiÉÉ lÉÉ* <ºÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ
BÉEÉä]Ç xÉä +ÉÉè®
ãÉÉì BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ
xÉä ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä ºÉä{ÉEMÉÉbÇ
¤ÉiÉÉA, =iÉxÉä càÉxÉä
bÉãÉä* {ÉcãÉÉ ºÉä{ÉEMÉÉbÇ
ªÉc ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ
BÉExÉ{ÉEèºÉ BÉE®iÉÉ
cè, +É{ÉxÉÉ ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ
{ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEÉä
näiÉÉ cè, 48 PÉÆ]ä BÉEä
£ÉÉÒiÉ® xªÉÉÉʪÉBÉE
+ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ
BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
=ºÉä {Éä¶É ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉAMÉÉ* xªÉÉÉʪÉBÉE
+ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ
=ºÉºÉä {ÉÚUäMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
ªÉc ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ
ªÉÉ xÉcÉÓ* ªÉÉÊn
´Éc BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEciÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE àÉÖZÉä
ªÉÉiÉxÉÉ näBÉE®
ªÉÉ VÉÉä®-WɤÉnǺiÉÉÒ
ºÉä ªÉc ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ
ÉÊãÉJÉ´ÉɪÉÉ
MɪÉÉ iÉÉä ´Éc
=ºÉBÉEÉÒ àÉäÉÊbBÉEãÉ
VÉÉÆSÉ BÉE®´ÉÉAMÉÉ*
VÉ¤É =ºÉBÉEÉ <Æ]è®ÉäMÉä¶ÉxÉ
cÉäMÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEä nÉè®ÉxÉ
=ºÉBÉEÉ ´ÉBÉEÉÒãÉ
àÉÉèVÉÚn cÉäMÉÉ*
´ÉBÉEÉÒãÉ ºÉä
=ºÉBÉEÉä ÉÊàÉãÉxÉä
BÉEÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®
ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ*
ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç
xÉä ¤ÉºÉÚ BÉEä
àÉÖBÉEnàÉä àÉå
VÉÉä ºÉä{ÉE MÉÉbÇ
¤ÉiÉÉA lÉä =xÉ ºÉÉ®ä
ºÉä{ÉEMÉÉbÉç BÉEÉä
<ºÉBÉEä +ÉÆn® ¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
cè* VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEä
àÉÉàÉãÉä àÉå
£ÉÉÒ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : The entire nation is watching
the telecast.… (Interruptions) Will the Law Minister enlighten the
House as to how many terrorists belonging either to the Lashkar-e-Taiba
or Harkat-ul-Mujahedeen have been arrested so far?… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : àÉcÉänªÉÉ,
àÉé ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ
ÉÊBÉE…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): As per the list that I
have, Shri Kapil Sibal will be speaking after the Law Minister.
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ, +ÉÉ{É VÉãnÉÒ
JÉiàÉ BÉEÉÒÉÊVÉA*
… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : àÉcÉänªÉÉ,
VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEä àÉÉàÉãÉä
àÉå £ÉÉÒ ABÉE ´ÉÉÇ
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ªÉc |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
ãÉÉMÉÚ cÉäMÉÉ*
=ºÉàÉå ªÉc ABÉE ºÉä{ÉE
MÉÉbÇ ®JÉÉ MɪÉÉ
cè* =xÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå
àÉå ªÉc xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ*
®ÉVªÉÉå BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå
àÉå ªÉc xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ,
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ <ºÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå ªÉc
cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé
BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ
ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä
£ÉÉÒ ºÉä{ÉEMÉÉbÇ
lÉä, ´Éä <ºÉàÉå
®JÉä MÉA cé*
ABÉE |ɶxÉ
àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc VÉÉÒ xÉä
ªÉc =~ɪÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
+ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ BÉEä
+ÉÆn® BÉDªÉÉ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ
cè* àÉéxÉä BÉE<Ç
¤ÉÉ® ªÉc {ÉfÃÉ
ÉÊBÉE +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ
BÉEä +ÉÆn® iÉÉä ªÉc
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
BÉEÉä<Ç ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEÉ
ºlÉÉxÉÉÒªÉ xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE
ºÉÉiÉ ÉÊnxÉ ºÉä
VªÉÉnÉ VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ
{É® {ÉBÉE½ÉÒ cÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
lÉÉ* +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ
àÉå {ÉcãÉä £ÉÉÒ
ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ lÉÉ
+ÉÉè® 11 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É®
BÉEÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉ BÉEä
¤ÉÉn £ÉÉÒ xɪÉÉ
ÉʴɶÉäÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
¤ÉxÉÉ* ÉÊ¥É]äxÉ
àÉå ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä
´ÉÉÇ ¤ÉxÉÉ,
VÉàÉÇxÉÉÒ àÉå
¤ÉxÉÉ, |ÉEÉÆºÉ
àÉå ¤ÉxÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É :
´ÉcÉÆ VÉÉä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉMÉÚ
cè ´Éc ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEä
®cxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉå
{É® ãÉÉMÉÚ xÉcÉÓ
cÉäMÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : àÉcÉänªÉÉ,
ªÉÖxÉÉ<]äb xÉä¶ÉxºÉ
BÉEÉ VÉÉä 28 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É®
BÉEÉ 1373 |ɺiÉÉ´É
lÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn
c® ºÉnºªÉ nä¶É BÉEä
ÉÊãÉA ªÉc +ÉÉÊxÉ´ÉɪÉÇ
lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ´Éc +É{ÉxÉä
ªÉcÉÆ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
¤ÉxÉÉA ªÉcÉÆ iÉBÉE
ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉÉÊBÉEºiÉÉxÉ
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA £ÉÉÒ*
{ÉÉÉÊBÉEºiÉÉxÉ
xÉä {ÉcãÉä +ÉMɺiÉ
àÉå VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ, =ºÉàÉå
iɤÉnÉÒãÉÉÒ
BÉEÉÒ Vɰô°ôiÉ {ɽÉÒ*
+ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ BÉEÉÒ
ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ +ÉÉ{É
lÉÉä½ÉÒ ºÉàÉZÉ
ãÉÉÒÉÊVÉA* ªÉcÉÆ
BÉEcÉ MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
11 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É®
BÉEÉÒ VÉÉä PÉ]xÉÉ
cÖ<Ç …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉcÉänªÉÉ,
àÉé àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc VÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ
¶ÉÆBÉEÉ BÉEÉ =kÉ®
nÚÆ ÉÊBÉE 11 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É®
BÉEÉÒ PÉ]xÉä BÉEä ¤ÉÉn
AäºÉÉ àÉÉxÉÉ
VÉÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
=ºÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉÆJªÉÉ
iÉBÉE xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ MÉ<Ç
cè* àÉé ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
1200 ºÉä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉE ãÉÉäMÉ
{ÉBÉE½ä MÉA cé* =xÉàÉå
ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ
cé, VÉäcÉnÉÒ £ÉÉÒ
cé, ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEä xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE
£ÉÉÒ cé* =xÉàÉå
´ÉcÉÆ BÉEä {ÉɺÉ{ÉÉä]Ç
cÉäãb® £ÉÉÒ cé*
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEÉä
VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ,
BÉEÉä<Ç UÚ]É xÉcÉÓ*
ÉÊBÉExÉ ÉÊ]ŤªÉÚxÉãºÉ
BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
=xÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
àÉÖBÉEnàÉä SÉãÉ
®cä cé |ÉäºÉÉÒb嶪ÉãÉ
ÉÊbµÉEÉÒVÉ BÉEä
iÉciÉ, =ºÉBÉEÉ càÉ
ãÉÉäMÉ {ÉÚ®É
+ÉvªÉªÉxÉ BÉE® ãÉå
+ÉÉè® ªÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
VÉÉä MÉãÉiÉ |ÉSÉÉ®
BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
¤ÉÉÒSÉ àÉå BÉEciÉä
cé ÉÊBÉE ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEä
ºlÉÉxÉÉÒªÉ xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn £ÉÉÒ
BÉE®åMÉä, ´ÉãbÇ
]Åäb ºÉå]® {É® ¤Éɰôn
£ÉÉÒ {ÉEåBÉEåMÉä
+ÉÉè® =xÉBÉEÉä {ÉBÉE½É
£ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ VÉÉAMÉÉ
? …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É :
+ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ
àÉå ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä
{ÉBÉE½ä MÉA, ªÉc ºÉÆJªÉÉ
¤ÉiÉÉAÆ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : ´Éc
àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
ÉÊ´Énä¶É àÉÆjÉÉãɪÉ
ºÉä {ÉiÉÉ BÉE® BÉEä
¤ÉiÉÉ nÚÆMÉÉ* ªÉc
BÉEèºÉä cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE ºlÉÉxÉÉÒªÉ
xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉE®äMÉÉ +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEä
ÉÊ´Éâór +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊ´Éâór BÉEɮǴÉÉ<Ç
xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉÒ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉcÉänªÉÉ,
ªÉc <ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ iɪÉ
BÉE®äMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ãɽÉ<Ç àÉå 180
BÉEÉ ÉÊbOÉÉÒ BÉEÉ
]xÉÇ ÉÊBÉEºÉ xÉä
ÉÊãɪÉÉ cè * ªÉc
<ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ iɪÉ
BÉE®äMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ãɽÉ<Ç àÉå càÉ
ªÉc SÉÉciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE
ªÉc nä¶É ¤ÉÆ]É
cÖ+ÉÉ ÉÊnJÉÉ<Ç
nä ªÉÉ ABÉE ÉÊnJÉÉ<Ç
nä* àÉÖZÉä Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉ nÉäxÉÉå
ºÉnxÉÉå BÉEÉÒ <ºÉ
ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ¤Éè~BÉE
àÉå VÉÉä +ÉÉàÉ
®ÉªÉ ¤ÉxÉäMÉÉÒ,
<ºÉ nä¶É BÉEÉÒ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
®ÉªÉ ªÉcÉÒ ¤ÉxÉäMÉÉÒ
ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ ®É]Å
BÉEÉä, <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè*
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I gave your paper which
you sent to me to the Law Minister. Whatever explanation you had asked
for, I have passed it on to him. Now, I call upon, Shri Kapil Sibal.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Where is a gavel over here?
I do not have one.
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL (BIHAR): Madam Deputy-Chairperson…… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Now, he has got the right
to speak in whichever language he wants to speak. You cannot force anybody
to speak in one language. He can speak in any language he likes. ´Éc
£ÉÉ®iÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊVɺÉ
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ
£ÉÉÉÉ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉÉ
SÉÉcå, =ºÉàÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ
ºÉBÉEiÉä cé*
...(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Madam Deputy-Chairperson, I consider
it my good fortune to be standing before you today to participate in this
historic debate in a Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament. But I
also consider it my misfortune that I am participating in a debate that
has sought to and will continue to seek to divide this nation.
I have great respect both for the Home Minister and my
good friend, Shri Jaitley and I was a little puzzled when Shri Jaitley
talked about 11th September and referred to the manner in which
the people of the United States stood united behind the President of the
United States. Let me remind him that on December 13, when the attack took
place on Parliament, all political parties stood united against terrorism.
I only want to ask my learned friend one question. In the United States,
do we have a Governor of any State who quotes the Newton’s third law of
motion? In the United States, do you have the likes of Shri Narendra Modi?…
(Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down. MÉÉèiÉàÉ
VÉÉÒ, +ÉÉ{É BÉDªÉÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé* +ÉÉ{É ¤Éè~
VÉÉ<ªÉä* Everybody should sit
down.
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : In the United States, have we had,
in the recent past, evidence of State-sponsored terrorism? In the United
States, have we had a Godhra and the killings after Godhra?… (Interruptions)
={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +É£ÉÉÒ
ºÉ¤É +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ
VÉÉ ®cä cé, =xcå £ÉÉÒ
VÉÉxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Everyone referred to the United
States. He is also referring to it now. Please sit down.
… (Interruptions)
={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : ºÉ®ÉäVÉ
VÉÉÒ, +ÉÉ{É £ÉÉÒ
¤Éè~ VÉÉ<A* +ÉÉ{É
ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä
àÉÉ<BÉE BÉEÉÒ Vɰô®iÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè, àÉÖZÉä
iÉÉä àÉÉ<BÉE £ÉÉÒ
SÉÉÉÊcA cÉäiÉÉ cè
and still you do not hear.
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Shri Jaitley, one last question. In
the United States did we ever have a macabre by choreographed dance of
terror of mayhem, arson and loot that made blood thirsty animals of otherwise
decent human beings? … (Interruptions)
={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : BÉßE{ɪÉÉ
iɶɮÉÒ{ÉE ®ÉÊJÉA,
+É{ÉxÉÉ ºlÉÉxÉ OÉchÉ
BÉEÉÒÉÊVÉA* ¤Éè~
VÉÉ<A* =xcå ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä
nÉÒÉÊVÉA*
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Listen to him first and
then I will permit you.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I cannot hear you, please
sit down. The question was put to the Law Minister and I think the Law
Minister is competent enough to answer it. So, let him answer the question.
Why should everyone of you become the Law Minister? Everyone is becoming
a Minister. He is questioning the Law Minister. If the Law Minister wants
to answer, I will permit him. But why everybody wants to don the mantle
of the Law Minister without taking the oath as such? Please sit down.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I have not allowed you.
I will allow you if you ask for my permission.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Okay. But, let him speak
first.
gÉÉÒ BÉEÉÊ{ÉãÉ
ÉʺɤÉãÉ : +ÉÉ{É
<iÉxÉÉ =kÉäÉÊVÉiÉ
BÉDªÉÉå cÉä ®cä cé?…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +ÉÉ{É
ABÉE ÉÊàÉxÉ] ¤Éè~
VÉÉ<A*
… (Interruptions)
={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +É£ÉÉÒ
=xcÉåxÉä £ÉÉÉhÉ
¶ÉÖ°ô xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +ÉÉ{É
<vÉ® +ÉÉBÉE® ¤ÉÉäÉÊãÉA*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN(RAJYA SABHA) : Let him have the clarification.
Law is equal to everybody at least as far as I am concerned.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD (DARBHANGA): I would like to seek
a clarification. You have permitted me to seek a clarification. They cannot
take away my right. … (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN(RAJYA SABHA) : Please sit down. I had
allowed Shri Shivraj Patil. I allowed two people. Now please sit down.
You were not in the House when I allowed Shri Shivraj Patil. I allowed
Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav also. Justification demands that he should also
be allowed.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I am doing my constitutional
duty. I am neither on this side nor that side. I have allowed two people
from this side; so, one person will be allowed from that side also. Shri
Azad, are you sure that you want to seek a clarification?
SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD: Yes, Madam. … (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down. I cannot
hear you. Let me handle it.
… (Interruptions)
={ɺɣÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +ÉÉ{É
¤ÉèÉÊ~ªÉä, àÉÖZÉä
ºÉÖxÉxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA
xÉ* +ÉÉ{É ABÉE ÉÊàÉxÉ]
¤ÉèÉÊ~ªÉä*
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I allowed Shri Shivraj
Patil.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Madam, I have the right to
ask as to how he is there to speak. Under what capacity he is allowed to
speak? I would like to know on this point…… (Interruptions)
SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD : Madam, how can he mislead the House
like this? I just want a clarification from him. After all, I am also a
Member of Parliament and I am entitled to ask him a clarification. You
have permitted me to speak. They have no right to infringe upon my right
as you have given me permission..… (Interruptions) He is misleading
the House at the very beginning itself. So, why should I not be allowed
to speak?..… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Let him at least start
his speech.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD : At the very beginning of his speech,
he has misled the House by giving wrong information. I want a clarification
on that point. That is it…… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): If you all speak like this,
I cannot preside. I will not preside, if you do not allow me to speak.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please take your seats.
Let my voice be heard.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): You may speak if he yields.
Shri Kapil Sibal, are you yielding?
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : No.
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Shri Azad, he is not yielding.
Please go back to your seat.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): He has agreed to go back
to his seat. Shri Azad, I promise that I will allow you afterwards and
not now. Let him finish his speech.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I would have permitted
if Shri Kapil Sibal had yielded. He is not yielding. I will allow you later
on. Please go back to your seat.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD : Madam, on your promise, I am going
back and not on their protesting…… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Now, will you take your
seats?
… (Interruptions)
={ɺɣÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +ÉÉ{É
BÉßE{ɪÉÉ ¤Éè~
VÉɪÉå* ABÉE ÉÊàÉxÉ]
¤ÉèÉÊ~ªÉä iÉÉä,
¶ÉÉÉÎxiÉ ºÉä ¤ÉèÉÊ~ªÉä*
¤Éè~ VÉÉ<ªÉä*
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down. I cannot
shout like you even with two mikes. Please sit down.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will permit.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will permit him, not
now.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): There is some kind of a
rule. I am telling you. Just one minute. I know the rules very well. Please
sit down. Take your seats. Cool down. I will permit him. Please sit down.
I will permit him. Please sit down. +ÉÉ{É
¤ÉèÉÊ~A iÉÉä* +ÉÉ{É
700 ãÉÉäMÉ ABÉE ºÉÉlÉ
¤ÉÉäãÉåMÉä iÉÉä
àÉä®ÉÒ +ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉ
ºÉÖxÉÉ<Ç xÉcÉÓ
näMÉÉÒ*
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will permit him. Only
when the Law Minister yielded, did I allow the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition,
Lok Sabha, to speak. Let Shri Kapil Sibal yield, I will permit him. I did
not allow Shri Deve Gowda to speak. He wrote it down and I gave it to the
Law Minister. Please take your seats.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will permit him later.
Please sit down. £ÉÉÉhÉ
iÉÉä cÉäxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*
… (Interruptions)
SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD : Madam, I am sitting down only because
of you, and not because of them. … (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Thank you very much. I
am very obliged to you. Please sit down.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): All right. I will give
you time.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will give you time. Let
him speak.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Cool down.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN(RAJYA SABHA) : Now no interruptions please.
Let us hear Shri Kapil Sibal. I did not allow anybody to interrupt the
Law Minister. Only when he yielded, I allowed. If he yields, I will allow
him now. Since he is not yielding, I will allow him later on. I promise
that I will allow you later on, but not now and not immediately.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Let Shri Kapil Sibal speak.
… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): You are eating up the time
of Shri Kapil Sibal. Please do not do that.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Madam, Deputy-Chairperson, there really
was no need for us to have this special sitting of both the Houses, if
the Government had looked at the matter with some objectivity. The speeches
made in this House today are evidence of the fact that not only is the
polity of the country divided on this issue, but the people of this country
are also divided on this issue. … (Interruptions) Time and again,
on several occasions, we beseeched this Government, we requested this Government
to send the matter to a Joint ParliamentaryCommittee.
When the matter was moved in the Council of States, I
moved an amendment for matter to be referred to a House Committee. But
the Government did not yield because the Government really was not interested
in negotiations.… (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please listen to him. If
you do not listen to him, how are you going to answer him if your chance
comes? So, you better listen to him peacefully.
… (Interruptions)
={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +ÉÉ{É
+ÉMÉ® ¶ÉÉÆÉÊiÉ
ºÉä £ÉÉÉhÉ ºÉÖxÉåMÉä
iÉÉä cÉÒ VÉ´ÉɤÉ
nä {ÉÉAÆMÉä ´ÉxÉÉÇ
+ÉÉ{É BÉDªÉÉ VÉ´ÉɤÉ
nåMÉä, <ºÉÉÊãÉA
ºÉÖÉÊxÉA*
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : There is still time. The Government
can even today decide to have the matter referred to a Committee so that
all points of view can be taken care of, and, if necessary, a law of this
nature may be passed or the existing provisions may be amended. … (Interruptions)
That has been our position. That continues to be our position. In fact,
I do believe that this is the time to heal and bring together, not to stigmatise,
to move forward through dialogue and consensus, not move backward in time
and civilised conduct to push through such a legislation as the one that
we have selected to discuss today. It is ironic that those who swear by
POTO also swear by democracy. The manner in which POTO is being pushed
through with the iron fist of a brutal and brutalised majority is contemptuous,
undemocratic, in disregard of the feelings, fears and insecurities of millions
of our citizens. +ÉÉ{É ãÉÉäMÉ
VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé ÉÊBÉE càÉ <ºÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉDªÉÉå BÉE® ®cä cé
+ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEÉ VÉ´ÉɤÉ
àÉé +ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
ºÉÉàÉxÉä ®JÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
àÉé BÉEÉä<Ç ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
¤ÉÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
+ÉMÉ® +ÉÉ{É
ºÉÖxÉåMÉä xÉcÉÓ
iÉÉä nä¶É BÉEÉÒ
VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEÉä AäºÉÉ
ãÉMÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉ{É nÚºÉ®É BªÉÚ-{´ÉÉ<Æ]
ºÉÖxÉxÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
SÉÉciÉä cé* +ÉMÉ® +ÉÉ{É
ªÉcÉÒ SÉÉciÉä cé
iÉÉä àÉé VÉÉBÉE®
¤Éè~ VÉÉ>óÆMÉÉ
+ÉÉè® +É{ÉxÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
{ÉÉºÉ BÉE®É ãÉÉÒÉÊVÉA*
+ÉMÉ® +ÉÉ{É AäºÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé iÉÉä àÉé
¤ÉcºÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ*
+ÉÉ{É ºÉÖxÉxÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ SÉÉciÉä cé
iÉÉä BÉEc nÉÒÉÊVÉA,
=~BÉE® Jɽä cÉä VÉÉ<A
+ÉÉè® BÉEc nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +ÉãÉMÉ-+ÉãÉMÉ
iÉ®c BÉEä JªÉÉãÉÉiÉ
cÉäiÉä cé, +ÉãÉMÉ-+ÉãÉMÉ
iÉ®c BÉEä BªÉÚ-{´ÉÉ<Æ]ºÉ
cÉäiÉä cé, +ÉãÉMÉ
iÉ®c BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉ<ÉÊbªÉÉäãÉÉìVÉÉÒºÉ
cÉäiÉÉÒ cè, =ºÉÉÒ
BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ VÉxÉiÉÆjÉ
cè, bèàÉÉäµÉEäºÉÉÒ
cè* +ÉMÉ® <iÉxÉÉ £ÉÉÒ
ºÉÖxÉxÉä BÉEÉ ºÉÉcºÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè iÉÉä ªÉc
+ÉSUÉÒ |ÉlÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
bÉãÉ ®cä cé* =xÉBÉEÉä
¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ
àÉÉèBÉEÉ ÉÊàÉãÉäMÉÉ
iÉÉä +ÉÉ{É ¤ÉÉäãÉ
ãÉÉÒÉÊVÉAMÉÉ*
+É£ÉÉÒ iÉÉä ¤ÉÉiÉ
cÉÒ ¶ÉÖ°ô xÉcÉÓ
cÖ<Ç cè, +ÉÉ{É ¤Éè~
VÉÉ<A* +É¤É BÉEÉä<Ç
+ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®åMÉä*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will be highly obliged
to you if you listen peacefully.
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Madam, on the 20th of July,
1999, the Law Commission wrote to the Human Rights Commission to find out
the state of the police and how it is exercising its powers under the ordinary
laws of this country. I refer to Report Number 177 of the Sixteenth Law
Commission. They looked at several States and the way the Police conducts
itself in several States in this country. They chose particular districts.
Some startling data - which perhaps is to the knowledge of the Government,
now that I got it from the web-site of the Law Commission - has come to
light. When I place that data before you, you will then realise the reason
for our opposition to POTO. This is not a political issue but it affects
the basic structure of our polity. Let me place those facts before you.
The Human Rights Commission set up a Committee. In the
State of Uttar Pradesh, this is what is found. What was found was that
the total number of persons arrested, surrendered is around three lakh;
the number of persons arrested under preventive provision of law is as
high as 4,79,404. Obviously, preventive provisions mean provisions like
Sections 151, 107, 111 of the Cr Pc and similar provisions in local enactments.
Another disturbing feature is the percentage of arrests
made in relation to bailable offences. It is as high as 45 per cent. What
does that show you? That shows you the conduct of a police officer, who
is liable, who is obliged under the law to grant a bail in respect of a
bailable offence. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, 50 per cent of the people
are arrested despite the offences being bailable. I now go to the State
of Maharashtra. I am not excluding the Congress-ruled States. This is the
Report of 1999-2000. In Maharashtra, the situation is like this. This is
what the Law Commission states: "Then, again, the arrest made in relation
to bailable offences is something un-understandable. It is 72 per cent
and 67 per cent respectively in the State of Maharashtra."
Then, comes the State of Gujarat. It is said:
"The Committee is of the view that more and more powers
are being given to the Police under various social and economic laws including
the power of arrest. This should also be reviewed in the
light of increasing allegations of misuse of power by
the law enforcement agencies..."
This is the same Law Commission which has made a draft proposal
on POTO. It is the same Law Commission which is saying that the increasing
allegations of misuse of power by the law enforcement agencies should result
in curbing the power of police officers. What are we doing under POTO?
We are giving them such drastic powers which the Police under ordinary
law misuses in a rampant manner. What will they do under POTO ? … (Interruptions)
I am talking of the ordinary law. If under the ordinary
law, this is the state of enforcement agencies of this country, we can
imagine what will be the position if drastic powers are given to Police
officers under POTO? What will happen to the ordinary citizens of this
country? That is the question before all of you today.
In the State of Karnataka, the arrests in bailable offences
are as high as 84.8 per cent. I can go on from State to State. But ultimately,
this is what the Law Commission says and the broad features disclosed through
this data are:
"The percentage of arrests in bailable offences is unusually
large, ranging from 30 per cent to more than 80 per cent. The said material
fully bears out the statement in the Third Report of the National Police
Commission to the fact that the arrests made 60 per cent were either unnecessary
or unjustified and that just unjustified Police action accounted for 43.2
per cent of the expenditure in jails."
gÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉxɪÉ
BÉEÉÊ]ªÉÉ® : =ºÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
BÉEÉ ¶ÉɺÉxÉ lÉÉ*
+ÉÉ{É +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
cÉÒ àÉÖJÉÉÉÊãÉ{ÉEiÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: The Law Commission furthers says:
"Those are 20-year-old figures. The position cannot
be better if not worse."
I am very intrigued to hear my good friend, Shri Jaitley
to talk about the 180-degree turn that the Congress Party is supposed to
have made. Let me remind my good friend and hon. Members of the Treasury
Benches what some of them said as far back as 1989 when TADA was brought
for extension. I quote Shri Yashwant Sinha. ÉʺÉxcÉ
ºÉÉc¤É, 11 àÉ<Ç,
1989 àÉå ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉä nÉä ºÉÉãÉ
¤ÉfÃÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ {É® +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
BÉEcÉ lÉÉ*
May I remind you? You said:
"I would like to go on record for posterity that if
ever there was an Act which was a blot on the fair name of democracy, it
is this. By this Act we have destroyed completely perhaps for all times
to come what is known as the rule of law."
It is the TADA. Now, of course, you must be upholding the
rule of law. You further said:
"If the Rowlatt Act was not fit for human beings, I
wonder how TADA is fit for human beings. What would be a greater shame
than that, what would be a greater blot on the name of democracy? I did
not compare Rowlatt Act with this TADA, I said it is much worse than the
Rowlatt Act."
gÉÉÒ xÉ®äxp
àÉÉäcxÉ (=kÉ® |Énä¶É)
: càÉå ]ÉbÉ
{É® xÉcÉÓ ºÉÖxÉxÉÉ
cè* {ÉÉä]Éä {É® ¤ÉÉäÉÊãÉA*
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: That is what he had said.
What had Shri Jaswant Singh said? He said:
"I find this piece of legislation runs counter to every
concept of civilised values."
+ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ
ÉʺÉÉÊ´ÉãÉÉ<Vb
´ÉèãªÉÚVÉ BÉDªÉÉ
cè, àÉé =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä
àÉå ÉÊ]{{ÉhÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÆ* I would like to now ask the Treasury Benches why
the 180-degree turn. Why are you suddenly so enamoured of POTO when you
said that this was a law which opposed every concept of civilised values?
You must explain to the people of this country.
Madam, Shri George Fernandes is sitting here and he is
supporting this Bill. What did he say 11 years ago? Let me quote what he
said on the 12th August, 1991. He said:
"It has now been proved that such a law cannot abolish
any kind of violence or terrorism."
So, it could not abolish it in 1991, but will it abolish
in 2002? 11 ºÉÉãÉ
¤ÉÉÒiÉxÉä BÉEä
¤ÉÉn +ÉÉVÉ AäºÉÉ
BÉDªÉÉ cÉä MɪÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉ cÉÒ
BÉEä ÉÊnxÉ +ɤÉÉìÉÊãɶÉ
cÉäMÉÉ, iÉ¤É xÉcÉÓ
cÖ+ÉÉ*
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): He has a right to speak
what he wants to speak. He is not going to speak what you want him to speak.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: When the TADA Amendment Bill of 1991
was moved, who were the ones who voted against it? Shri L.K. Advani, now
the Home Minister, voted against it. Now, suddenly after 10 years, why
does he support it. We will have to find out from him. He says, he supports
it because there is a United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 adopted
on the 28th September, 2001, which required the international
community to pass the law and therefore India had to enact a law. We do
not oppose that. Let that law be enacted. But did the international community
tell you to enact this law, which is contrary to all civilised values of
a democratic society?
+É¤É BÉÖEU
+ɺÉÉÊãɪÉiÉ
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
®JÉå, ´Éc Vɰô®ÉÒ
cè* When POTO was promulgated on 24th October,
2001, the first casualty of POTO in Kashmir was a gentleman by the name
Shri Dar. Shri Dar had a tenant in his house who was paying him a rental
of Rs. 300 a month and who told him that he was a photographer from Delhi.
That tenant turned out to be, according to the prosecution, according to
those who arrested him, a terrorist. So, Shri Dar was taken into custody
under the provisions of POTO. On what ground was he taken into custody?
It was on the ground that his tenant, who said that he was a photographer
in Delhi, happened to be a terrorist. So, Shri Dar became a terrorist because
he assisted and supported terrorism. This is how terrorism and POTO actually
works at the ground level.
Let us come to Gujarat now because the proof of the pudding
is in the eating. What happened in Gujarat? … (Interruptions)
DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): The Deputy-Speaker announced
in the morning that we are going to have voting at 5.30 p.m., but I do
not think we can have voting at 5.30 p.m. now. I have two lists of speakers
with me. If the discussion is not allowed, we will have to sit till 5.00
a.m. in the morning. So, please let everybody speak. Please quietly listen
to everyone and abide by time.
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : My good friend, Shri Jaitley, remarked
that the Leader of the Opposition has said that this law is insidious,
politically-motivated and a manipulation of the parliamentary process.
Now, I want to show to him how this law is insidious,
how it is politically motivated and how it is a manipulation of the parliamentary
process. The facts will be before him in a second. In Gujarat, what has
happened? In Gujarat, after the Godhra massacre, 62 persons were arrested
and 21 of them were proceeded against under POTO. For the atrocities, that
were committed after Godhra, about 800 persons were arrested. Not a single
person was proceeded against under POTO.
Why they were not proceeded AGAINST is another matter.
But I want to place before this country what really happened I give you
an example. I give you an example. An FIR was lodged by one V.K. Solanki,
a Sub-Inspector of the Naroda Police Station, who named five VHP and Bajrang
Dal leaders for the Naroda-Patia massacre. Among them is a Bajrang Dal
activist, Babu Bajrangi, who has a long criminal record. Three persons
have, so far, been arrested. But those named in the FIR are still at large.
… (Interruptions) Now, please let me place the facts. … (Interruptions)
An ordinary person or Congress worker did not lodge this FIR. A Sub-Inspector
of Police lodged this FIR. Now, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shri
Barot – I name him – who was in charge of the investigation, questioned
the action of the local Police. I quote what he has said. … (Interruptions)
This is no way. … (Interruptions) This is not fair. … (Interruptions)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): There are so many people.
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: The Assistant Commissioner of Police
says:
"Before arresting Bajrangi and others named in the FIR,
we have to be sure of their involvement."
The Deputy Superintendent indicts them in the FIR. The ACP
says: "I am not sure of their involvement." This is the state of affairs
in Gujarat. … (Interruptions) Forget POTO. This is the way the State
is using the Police personnel in protecting those who are covered by the
present definition of POTO. The Minister of Law says: "The POTO is to contain
terrorism." No; the object is "to perpetuate State terrorism". That is
the object.
In the course of the mayhem that took place in Gujarat,
may I just give the figures? More persons died in Gujarat than in the Kargil
conflict. More persons were massacred in Gujarat than the loss of lives
in the Kargil conflict.
About 1,679 houses were set on fire, 76 religious places
were burnt, 1,965 shops were burnt, 200 shops were looted, 90 vehicles
were torched and yet none of those responsible have, till date, been arrested
under POTO.
Now, comes the icing on the cake, so to say. Now, it is
found that the Gujarat Government says - it is very surprising - that they
will not prosecute any of the people who are responsible for the Godhra
massacre under POTO because there is an opinion of the Advocate-General
to that effect. Well, let us assume, there is an opinion of the Advocate-General.
The people of this country should know that this is merely a tactical move
for the simple reason that at any stage of the investigation, the offence
under POTO can be added. They are only waiting for this debate to be over,
for POTO to be passed and then directing that very investigating agency
to include the offence of POTO which they have tactically withdrawn for
the moment. That is their real motive. That is the political motive, Mr.
Law Minister, that I was talking about.
What is even more interesting is that it was found that
seven persons who were booked under POTO were young boys going to school.
I will quote a person who arrested these young boys and this is what he
said: "The Inspector of Godhra Town Police Station, Trivedi says, it was
not possible to check their age at the time of arrest, they were seen near
the site of the incident, so they were arrested under POTO." The reason
given is they were arrested under POTO because they were seen at the site
of the incident. Is this not insidious, Mr. Law Minister? Is this not politically-motivated,
Mr. Law Minister? Is this not a manipulation of the parliamentary process
that while POTO is law, you do not take any action for those who massacred
people and who burnt people alive? Please answer, I would like the hon.
Home Minister to answer that.
What further has happened is that all those officers,
who tried to enforce the law have now been transferred. I can give you
the names of officers. Some of those officers have said, in fact, one Shri
Rahul Sharma, who was incharge of Bhavnagar, said: that Mr. Govardhan,
the Home Minister told him on the phone, please book these people under
safe IPC clauses. What does that mean? You say: "This law is only to deal
with and contain terrorism." But if you want to contain terrorism, why
do your Ministers in Gujrat tell Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors to book
certain accused under safe IPC clauses? Is that how you want to deal with
terrorism?
The other thing which is most interesting is that Shri
Jaitley has given us some very interesting figures. He says: "61,000 people
lost their lives because of terrorism in this country." He says, "8000
security people lost their lives."
This is true. Sixty thousand people lost their lives in
the last 20 years when TADA was in force. But, after the October 24, 2001,
POTO has been in force. Let me tell the Home Minister some interesting
figures when POTO was in force. I will talk about Kashmir. On January 1,
2002, a woman, two children and six of her family were massacred alive
in Jammu & Kashmir. POTO was in force. On January 7, 2002, it was a
night of terror. Seventeen persons were massacred in Jammu & Kashmir.
POTO was in force. On January 11, 2002, there was a blast in the Jammu
& Kashmir High Court. Fifteen persons were killed. POTO was in force.
On January 31, 2002, five children were killed. POTO was in force. I can
go on and on and on.
You want to tell us that because of POTO, you will be
able to catch hold of a suicide bomber, will you be able to do away with
terrorism because of POTO? The answer is, ‘no’. The real purpose of POTO
is to use this draconian piece of legislation against your own citizens.
That is the real purpose of POTO. That is why, this law is insidious. That
is why, we will not accept it.
Now, Shri Jaitley, let us come to some substantive provisions
of the law, to which we have grave objection. My learned friend, the Law
Minister has been saying time and again that the Congress Party has never
told them what their real objection to the substantive provisions of the
law is.
Objection number one is about the definition of a terrorist
act under POTO in comparison to the definition of a terrorist act under
TADA. I will read the definition under TADA and then I will read the definition
under POTO. Under TADA, this is what the definition was:
"Whoever with intent to overawe the Government, as by
law established or to strike terror in the people or any section of the
people or to alienate any section of the people or to adversely affect
the harmony amongst different sections of the people uses weapons and arms,
commits a terrorist act."
What you have done in POTO is that you have excluded two
very important clauses of the definition of a terrorist act. This is what
you have excluded:
"Or to alienate any section of the people or to adversely
affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people. "
This part of the definition has been selectively excluded
by this Government in the definition of a terrorist act under POTO. We
will not accept this. Do you have any answer as to why you have excluded
it? The answer is what is happening in Gujarat. The answer is, if this
definition was there, then the activities of the Sangh Pariwar in
Gujarat, of VHP and the Bajrang Dal in Gujarat would be squarely covered
under the definition of a terrorist act under POTO, and you would be obliged
to arrest them under POTO.
My second substantive objection is this. Please note it.
This law says that as long as you are a member of a terrorist organisation,
you are deemed to be a terrorist. Shri Jaitley has said that the accused
can always tell us that after the organisation became a terrorist organisation,
he was not a member of that organisation, he did not do any activities
for that organisation. That is true, Shri Jaitley. But the fact of the
matter is when will the poor accused have to say that. The poor accused
will have to say that only in his defence. There is no obligation under
the law for the prosecution to prove that he is a member of a terrorist
gang because under the definition, as long as the prosecution says he is
a member, he is deemed to be a terrorist. We will not accept that.
The next objection is this. Madam Chairperson, when POTO
was first promulgated on October 24, there was a Schedule to Section 18,
which included only SIMI as an organisation, which would be deemed to be
a terrorist organisation. There was a great hue and cry in this country
and the reason was simple because organisations which had their objective
as terrorism were excluded from the Schedule. I will name two such organisations,
and that is, the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninst) called the
People’s War Group, and the Maoist Communist Centre, MCC.
17.00 hrs.
These two organizations which profess to be terrorist
organizations were excluded. Why? What is the answer of the Home Minister?
If the intention was to fight terrorism, if the intention was to curb terrorist
activity, then on 24th of October when the Schedule was enacted,
these two organizations should have been included. But they were not included.
Your eye was on the UP election. You knew that the UP election was coming.
You wanted to make this into a political issue. But then Shri Chandrababu
Naidu, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, at the end of October and
November asked why you have not included the People’s War Group. So, on
5th December, 2001, you amended the Schedule and included the
People’s War Group and the MCC but one organization is still not included.
Which is that organization? It is the NSCN (IM) which professes to be a
terrorist organization. Why is it not included? It is because your Home
Minister is holding parleys with that organization. This also shows that
when POTO was enacted, you had a specific purpose in mind.
Then, let me come to my fourth substantive objection.
Unauthorised possession of arms is an offence under the POTO. Under TADA
this provision was incorporated in Section 5. Many people, who had revolvers
for which the licences have expired, continued to be in possession of those
revolvers. And under the TADA, they were deemed to be terrorists because
they were in possession of unauthorised arms. You have a similar provision
now under this Act. So a person will be deemed to be a terrorist if he
has a revolver or a gun for which the license has expired. How can any
civilised society accept provisions of this nature? Please do explain that
to us.
17.04 hrs (Shri K. Yerrannaidu in the Chair)
My next objection is this. You have a witness protection
programme. You talked about the US law, the UK law and many other laws.
Let me tell you this.
"In the United States Constitution, the due process
of law in all criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence, the right
of the defendant to an open and speedy trial and the rights of the defendant
to confront witnesses against him are neither suspended nor circumscribed
by that law. "
Please note that, in the United States, the presumption of
innocence is not dislocated. But under POTO, it is dislocated. There is
no witness protection programme in the United States as under POTO. There
is no suspension of the fundamental rights of the individual in the US
or under POTO. So, please do not compare the US law with the Indian law.
You made a song and dance about the US law when Shri Mulayam Singh asked
you a question. àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc VÉÉÒ xÉä
+ÉÉ{ɺÉä BÉDªÉÉ
{ÉÚUÉ? =xcÉåxÉä {ÉÚUÉ
ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ
BÉEÉ ãÉÉì cè, =ºÉàÉå
VÉÉä AÉÊãɪÉxºÉ
cé, =xÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
´Éc ãÉÉì ãÉÉMÉÚ
cÉäiÉÉ cè? iÉÉä +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE xÉcÉÓ,
+ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉExÉ
ÉʺÉÉÊ]WÉxºÉ BÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE £ÉÉÒ
ãÉÉMÉÚ cÉäiÉÉ
cè +ÉÉè® +ÉÉ{É ºÉcÉÒ
cé* The issue was not that. The issue is that there can be
no preventive detention of citizens of the United States.
Under POTO, you could have preventive detention for 180
days before the chargesheet is filed. Under the American law, you cannot
have such detention. Under the American law, you do have the normal bail
provisions. Under this law, the bail provisions are drastic. So, please
do not compare the American law with the Indian law.
Let me give you another example of the UK law. Under the
UK law, for example, if a person is arrested up to five days preventively
through an order of the Home Minister, the European convention on Human
Rights has held that such a provision is unconstitutional even for aliens.
In other words, under POTO, we treat our citizens much worse than the US
and the UK laws treat their aliens. This is our objection and you have
not answered it. We raised this objection not once but several times during
the course of the debate but you have not dealt with this. … (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN : Please conclude now.
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : I was interrupted for a long time.
I will have to answer some of the questions that have been raised. … (Interruptions)
Let me now deal with the issue of MACOCA. Much has been
made about the rate of conviction under MACOCA. The hon. Law Minister said
that under TADA and under other laws of this country, the rate of conviction
was 6.5 per cent but under MACOCA the rate of conviction was 76 per cent
and this showed that MACOCA is efficacious. I do not know whether it is
a legal argument or not but you can have a law in this country where the
rate of conviction could also be 100 per cent. But will that show that
that law is good or that law is efficacious? Why is it that you have a
rate of conviction of 76 per cent? It is because the normal investigating
agencies do not investigate the cases normally. What they do is to extract
a confession. That confession becomes substantive evidence; that substantive
evidence is made the basis of conviction; and so the rate of conviction
would be high. But such a procedure is not recognised under civilized jurisprudence.
Do we have such confessions in the United States? Do we have such confessions
in the UK? The answer is ‘No’. So, the issue is not whether the rate of
conviction is 76 per cent or 6.5 per cent. The issue is, in a civil society,
will you adopt such procedures that tend to incriminate innocent persons
who cannot fight against the State? This is what happens here.
Under MACOCA, you have the definition of organised crime.
The definition of organised crime has nothing to do with the definition
of terrorism. These are two different concepts. Let me read out the definition
of organised crime under MACOCA. … (Interruptions)
‘Organised crime’, under MACOCA means, ‘any continuing
unlawful activity by an individual’. Before anything becomes an organised
crime, the prosecution has to show continuing unlawful activity, which
is also defined under the Act but there is no such definition under POTO
because you do not have to do any continuing unlawful activity if you have
to be a terrorist. If you are a member of a terrorist gang, as the prosecution
says, you are a terrorist. You do not have to be involved in any continuing
illegal activity. So, please do not fool the country. Please do not talk
about organised crime under MACOCA and compare it with terrorism under
POTO. Under MACOCA you have organised gangs that are not defined like terrorist
organisations. So, please do not compare apples with potatoes. That is
exactly what you did.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please try to conclude now.
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Let me just answer the question on
confessions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There are two more hon. Members from your
party who want to speak. Please try to conclude in one more minute.
SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Let me mention what the National Human
Rights Commission says about confessions. This is what it says:
"This would increase the possibility of coercion and
torture in securing confessions and thus be inconsistent with Article 43
(f) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which
requires that everyone shall be entitled to the guarantee of not being
compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt."
This provision of ICCPR is consistent with article 23 of
the Constitution, making confessions before a police officer, admissible
in evidence would also imperil respect for Article 7 of ICCPR, which categorically
asserts and I quote:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment close doors."
If you, therefore, extract a confession through torture and
then say that the rate of conviction has become 76 per cent, how can the
people of this country accept such a law? Do not give the rate of conviction
and justify a law of this nature.
Mr. Chairman, Sir, I have now almost done. I will end
by saying the following:-
A terrorist is a terrorist. There are no good or bad terrorists
depending upon which side of the fence they stand. The record of the agency
for implementation of POTO inspires no confidence in its objectivity, in
its professionalism or its belief in the rule of law. You have seen the
observations of the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
on the lack of competence and lack of efficiency of the Gujarat Government,
its real record for veracity and the inaccuracy of its proclamation that
the situation in Gujarat had been brought under control in 72 hours. The
Chairman of the NHRC says that the pall of insecurity still stands heavy
on Gujarat and the Government’s actions and reports have been perfunctory.
The Chief Minister has made his mindset clear through his own pronouncement.
He saw the reprisals of innocent men, women and children as the operation
of Newton’s third law of motion and not as the wanton criminal shedding
of blood of those whose security was his constitutional responsibility.
His kind of logic, one would have thought, was buried with the second world
war and that Nero’s fiddle had ceased to resonate beyond the Roman empire.
Its notes, however, seem painfully alive in Gujarat today. The terrorist
is an enemy of the people and, as I have said before, there are no good
or bad terrorists. However, the prism of the Gujarat Government through
which terrorists were perceived as such and treated differentially was
against all civilised canons and mores of action. The burnings in Godhra
or in Gulburg society were two sides of the same coin and equally reprehensible.
The State of Gujarat saw them otherwise. Unless we can learn a lesson from
this and hasten slowly to this exercise that we have embarked upon with
insufficient forethought and foresight, we will, I am confident, rue that
day, we used the mailed fist through this legislation to bring a black
law on our statute books that may unleash dark deeds of the blackest colour,
stain human rights violations with shedding of innocent blood and trampling
civil liberties under the hobnails of an enforcement agency that will exercise
unrestrained power without the reins of necessary checks. We should not
allow POTO to become an instrument of narrow partisan ends or division
and dissentions that will fracture rather than integrate; generate distrust
and discord that is violative of democracy and consensus. Let us be chary
of passing a law not through persuasion but through brute force. Let us
be patient, be ready for a dialogue, scrutinize together the inadequacies
of the Act before us, and take time to give it a shape that may achieve
purposes to which this Joint Session can commit itself.
If we can do this, we would not have met today in vain. But if not,
a day may come when each one of us must deeply regret the loss of the unique
opportunity we have today to pull back from the precipice on which we stand.
The mindless pursuit of a narrow agenda has belittled
the greatness of this country as never before in history. Please do not
aggravate the situation by pushing through a divisive piece of mistaken
legislation.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Shri Prabhunath Singh – Not present.
Shri P.H. Pandian.
SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD : What about calling me, Sir?
MR. CHAIRMAN : Madam Deputy-Chairman has promised you.
I shall call you after Shri Pandian.
SHRI P.H. PANDIAN (TIRUNELVELI): Mr. Chairman, I, on my
own behalf and on behalf of AIDMK, express my views on this POTO Bill.
I thought for a while that had this Bill been tabled on
13th December, immediately after the attack on Parliament, it
would have been passed here, in the Central Hall, without discussion.
Since morning up to this time, this Bill was viewed with
political objective and lastly, legally, my learned friends Shri Arun Jaitley
and Shri Kapil Sibal have spoken on this Bill.
Law must be in tune with the time. In 1860, when Macaulay
enacted the Indian Penal Code, he never thought that terrorists would be
produced and they would attack every country. So, the principle of criminal
jurisprudence, the presumption of innocence, was followed in India. We
have not followed the French system of jurisprudence. You know that in
the French system of jurisprudence, presumption of guilt is enunciated.
Here, in India, the accused can sit coolly. It is for the prosecution to
prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If there is a little doubt, the
benefit goes to the accused.
SHRIMATI MARGARET ALVA: You lodged Shri Karunanidhi in
jail without POTO. Why do you need this law?
SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : Under the presumption of guilt theory,
you have passed the law. In India, whether this party was in power or that
party was in power, we have been in the middle. For example, whether it
is the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act or the Prevention of Corruption
Act, the onus of proof has been shifted from the prosecution to the accused.
The benefit of doubt has been given a go-bye. Recently, in 1989, when there
was oppression and suppression of Scheduled Castes, the Parliament enacted
a law - the Central Act No. 33 of 1989 - namely, the Scheduled Castes and
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, providing that there will be no
anticipatory bail. The bail provision was deleted. The aggrieved persons
went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, no, anticipatory
is not guaranteed to every citizen. It is not a Fundamental Right. On that
score, in 1976, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature passed a law.
Section 438 concerning anticipatory bail was deleted.
So, legally, I am of the view that this Bill is within the purview of the
Constitution. As far as the definition is concerned, Section 3 clearly
spelt out that ‘whoever’ – he may be belonging to a minority or to a majority;
it comes from the word ‘whoever’ – with the intent to threaten the unity,
the sovereignty and security of India can be booked under the provisions
of this Act. I would like to say that but for TADA the prosecution would
not have procured a conviction in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The
accused was booked under TADA, tried under TADA and the witnesses were
saved. They were given safe custody. The prosecution was able to prove
the case.
Not all persons catch the eye of the Police. The Police
suspects only the suspected persons; the Police suspects only a suspected
individual and not all the law-abiding citizens. I would say that the collective
wisdom of Parliament, at the present juncture is that a stringent law is
necessary to deal with stringent situations, to arrest the incorrigible
offenders, to arrest the terrorists. Drunken brawls, street rowdyisms have
not gone upto the terrorist activity. The ISI is operating inside India.
They cannot operate without any inner support. Without any Indian support,
nobody can enter into the soil of India. So, I would say that the ISI is
operating within India and this legislation will curb the ISI activity.
This legislation will curb the cross-border terrorism.
We talk about cross-border terrorism. We visited Kargil.
We heard different reports that the President of Pakistan is still encouraging
cross-border terrorism. Gen. Pervez Musharraf has already said it. He is
not on friendly terms with India. So, in that way, when the President of
Pakistan categorically said that he would not hand over the 20 terrorists,
where is the law to contain terrorism? He has categorically said it and
he has asked the Indian Government to identify. Who will identify when
he is having those 20 terrorists?
In Mumbai, the property of Dawood Ibrahim was auctioned.
There was no taker for this property. There was no taker for Dawood Ibrahim’s
property. Why are you afraid? Had this law been there, anybody could have
participated in that auction. Here, in India, you are afraid to take part
in an auction. This is an individual who is in Pakistan, whom Gen. Pervez
Musharraf refuses to hand over to India whom you are not able to take,
arrest or prosecute him. The Bombay blasts case is there. In Coimbatore,
an attempt was made on the life of the hon. Minister of Home Affairs during
the elections to Parliament in 1998.
How many prosecutions were there? How many bomb blasts
were there? I would say that let us not view this law with a political
angle. As a lawyer and as a parliamentarian I would say that this is the
law to deal with terrorists which should be necessary. It is necessary.
Then, the crime is the product of law. We all know that.
If there is a law passed by Parliament, then, there will be a crime also.
You do not pass a law, there will be no crime. Section 3 says that whoever
has an intent to threaten the security, integrity and sovereignty of India
will be booked. Shri Kapil Sibal said that innocent persons may be booked.
Does he mean to say that in all the cases? I heard the conviction rate,
acquittal rate. Please do not go by the statistics. Acquittal is based
on different factors. Lawyers and certain judges are pro-prosecution or
pro-defence. There are so many factors when witnesses turn to be hostile.
So, I would say that we support this law. On behalf of AIADMK and on my
own behalf, we support the POTO in toto because in Tamil Nadu we
experience so much of terrorist activity which would not have been witnessed
outside. In Tamil Nadu, Tamil Liberation Movement is closer to Sri Lanka.
It is closer to so many neighbouring countries. So, I would say ..… (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN : Please do not disturb.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : This is not the way. I am talking
for the country, not for you. … (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Ramesh Chennithala, please sit down.
No argument please.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : I am speaking for the country, not
for you. … (Interruptions) Madam, your husband has been murdered,
assassinated. Late Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated. … (Interruptions)
Even for that reason, you should support this Bill. … (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Pandian, please address the Chair.
Do not argue with them.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : Now, barring three Members from Lok
Sabha – we have 39 Members from Tamil Nadu – all are supporting this Bill.
… (Interruptions) irrespective of party affiliations. Barring three
Members, all are supporting this Bill. So, you must understand the terrorist
echo in Tamil Nadu. What about Veerappan? You want that Veerappan to be
handled by IPC; he should be handled under TADA. … (Interruptions)
In that way, hardened criminals should be dealt with severely, with stringent
provisions. The attack on railway coach at Godhra took place. We visited
and we saw that coach. Madam Sonia Gandhi also visited. We saw the carriage
that was attacked. Who was the aggressor? First, you must think about the
aggressor and then only the next event, the subsequent event. Who is the
aggressor? So, I would say that we support POTO Bill lock, stock and barrel.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Digvijay Singh.
… (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Akhilesh, we will decide about it later.
So many Members are there to speak.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI SONTOSH MOHAN DEV (SILCHAR): Where is the Home Minister?
Where is the Prime Minister? … (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Sontosh Mohan Dev, please sit down.
I have called Shri Digvijay Singh.
®äãÉ àÉÆjÉÉãɪÉ
àÉå ®ÉVªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
(gÉÉÒ ÉÊnÉÎM´ÉVɪÉ
É˺Éc) : ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, <ºÉ ºÉnxÉ
àÉå càÉ ºÉ¤É
ãÉÉäMÉ nä¶É BÉEä
àÉci´É{ÉÚhÉÇ àÉÖqä
{É® SÉSÉÉÇ BÉE® ®cä
cé* <ºÉÉÒ BÉEäxpÉÒªÉ
BÉEFÉ àÉå <ºÉ nä¶É
BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉVÉÉnÉÒ
BÉEÉÒ ãɽÉ<Ç
ãɽxÉä ´ÉÉãÉä
nÉÒ´ÉÉxÉÉå BÉEä
ºÉ{ÉxÉÉå BÉEÉ ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ*
=ºÉBÉEä ºÉÉlÉ-ºÉÉlÉ
ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ºÉnxÉ
BÉEÉÒ £ÉÉÒ Vɰô®iÉ
àÉcºÉÚºÉ BÉEÉÒ
MÉ<Ç* <ºÉÉÒ BÉEäxpÉÒªÉ
BÉEFÉ àÉå +ÉÉVÉ
càÉ iÉÉҺɮÉÒ
¤ÉÉ® ÉÊàÉãÉ
®cä cé* 1961 àÉå +ÉÉè®
1978 àÉå ºÉÆªÉÖBÉDiÉ
+ÉÉÊvÉ´Éä¶ÉxÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ VÉÉä ¤Éè~BÉEå
cÖ<Ç lÉÉÓ, ´Éc ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEä BÉEÉàÉBÉEÉVÉ
BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ lÉÉÒ*
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉVÉ
ÉÊVÉºÉ ÉÊ´ÉɪÉ
{É® càÉ ªÉcÉÆ <BÉE]Â~É
cÖA cé, ´Éc nä¶É BÉEÉÒ
ºÉÖ®FÉÉ ºÉä VÉÖ½ä
cÖA ºÉ´ÉÉãÉÉå
BÉEÉ cè* VÉ¤É àÉé
<ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ
ÉÊVɵÉE BÉE® ®cÉ
cÚÆ iÉÉä ¤É½ÉÒ
MÉà£ÉÉÒ®iÉÉ
ºÉä {ÉÚ®ä ºÉnxÉ
BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
<ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉä
®JÉxÉä BÉEÉ |ɪÉɺÉ
BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ÉÊVɺÉBÉEä
¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå càÉ
ºÉ¤É ãÉÉäMÉ
ªÉcÉÆ <BÉE]Â~É cÖA
cé {ÉÉºÉ BÉE®xÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA, <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
BÉE<Ç iÉ®c BÉEÉÒ §ÉÉÆÉÊiɪÉÉÆ
+É{ÉxÉä àÉxÉ àÉå
ªÉÉ iÉÉä ÉʤÉ~É
ãÉÉÒ MÉ<Ç cé ªÉÉ
¤ÉÉäãÉÉÒ VÉÉ
®cÉÒ cé*
àÉé <ºÉ
ºÉnxÉ àÉå ABÉE cÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ {ÉÚUxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÆ* BÉEÉ{ÉEÉÒ àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉ ªÉcÉÆ ¤Éè~ä
cÖA cé* ªÉc BÉDªÉÉ {ÉcãÉÉÒ
¤ÉÉ® AäºÉÉ cÉä
®cÉ cè? ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
BÉEä nÉªÉ®ä ºÉä
¤ÉÉc® ºÉÉiÉ ¤ÉÉ®
{ÉcãÉä £ÉÉÒ AäºÉÉ
BÉEÉàÉ cÉä SÉÖBÉEÉ
cè* àÉÖZÉä ªÉÉn
cè ÉÊBÉE ABÉE BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
"àÉÉÒºÉÉ"
<ºÉÉÒ nä¶É àÉå
¤ÉxÉÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè®
=ºÉBÉEä iÉciÉ ºÉnxÉ
BÉEä +ÉÉvÉä VÉÉä
ºÉààÉÉÉÊxÉiÉ
ºÉnºªÉ cé, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEä
+ÉÆiÉMÉÇiÉ £ÉÉ®iÉ
BÉEä |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® {ÉÚ´ÉÇ
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ® VÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® +É]ãÉ ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ
´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ ºÉ¤É ãÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ® cÉä
SÉÖBÉEä cé*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉé ´Éc xÉcÉÓ SÉÉciÉÉ*
àÉé ÉʺÉ{ÉEÇ
<ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉÒ
ªÉÉn ÉÊnãÉÉ ®cÉ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ãÉÉäBÉE
xÉɪÉBÉE VɪÉ|ÉBÉEɶÉ
xÉɮɪÉhÉ VÉÉÒ
BÉEÉÒ ¶ÉiÉɤnÉÒ
BÉEÉ ªÉc ´ÉÉÇ
cè +ÉÉè® 1975 àÉå VɤÉ
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ãÉÉMÉÚ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ lÉÉ iÉÉä
{ÉÚ®ä nä¶É BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä =xcÉåxÉä VÉcÉÆ
ABÉE +ÉÉä® ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä |ÉäÉÊ®iÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE |ÉVÉÉiÉÆjÉ
VÉxÉiÉÆjÉ BÉEÉÒ
ÉÊc{ÉEÉVÉiÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
+É{ÉxÉä PÉ®Éå BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉVÉÉA VÉäãÉ àÉå
®cxÉÉ {ÉºÉÆn BÉE®Éä,
´ÉcÉÓ nںɮÉÒ
+ÉÉä® VÉ¤É ´ÉcÉÒ
ãÉÉäMÉ <ºÉ ºÉkÉÉ
àÉå ´ÉÉ{ɺÉ
ãÉÉè]BÉE® +ÉÉA iÉÉä
àÉÉä®É® VÉÉÒ
näºÉÉ<Ç ºÉä ãÉäBÉE®
SÉ®hÉÉ˺Éc VÉÉÒ
iÉBÉE +ÉÉè® SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ®
VÉÉÒ ºÉä ãÉäBÉE®
+É]ãÉ ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ
´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ iÉBÉE iÉÉä =ºÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ £ÉÉÒ
=xÉBÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
ªÉc SÉÖxÉÉèiÉÉÒ
lÉÉÒ VÉÉä ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
àÉå vÉÉ®É 352 BÉEÉ
|ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ cè, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEä
iÉciÉ AàÉVÉçºÉÉÒ
ãÉMÉÉ<Ç VÉÉiÉÉÒ
cè SÉÉcä <Æ]®xÉãÉ
AàÉVÉçºÉÉÒ cÉä
ªÉÉ ABÉDºÉ]xÉÇãÉ
AàÉVÉçºÉÉÒ cÉä
+ÉÉè® =ºÉÉÒ BÉEä
iÉciÉ ºÉ¤É ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
cÖA lÉä* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
xÉäiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ xÉä
BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ ºÉä
¤É½É ÉʺÉrÉÆiÉ
+ÉÉè® ÉʺÉqÉÆiÉ
ºÉä ¤É½É nä¶É
BÉEÉä ºÉàÉZÉÉ
lÉÉ* <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA
vÉÉ®É 352 BÉEÉä ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
ºÉä c]ɪÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
lÉÉ ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE =ºÉBÉEÉ
ºÉààÉÉxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ*
càÉ VÉÉxÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉ
£ÉÉÒ "{ÉÉä]Éä"
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
VÉÉä ¤ÉÉiÉå BÉEcÉÒ
VÉÉ ®cÉÒ cé, BÉDªÉÉ
ªÉc ºÉiªÉ xÉcÉÓ
cè ÉÊBÉE VÉ¤É "]ÉbÉ"
ãÉMÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ
lÉÉ iÉÉä ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ
BÉEÉä]Ç BÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE
ºÉä |ɺiÉÉ´É lÉÉ
+ÉÉè® 6 ºÉä{ÉEMÉÉbºÉÇ
ÉÊnªÉä MɪÉä lÉä
+ÉÉè® +ÉÉVÉ "{ÉÉä]Éä"
VÉÉä ®JÉÉ VÉÉ
®cÉ cè, =ºÉBÉEä +ÉÉÉÌ]BÉEãÉ
52 +ÉÉè® 58 BÉEÉä VÉ®É
{ÉfÃÉ VÉɪÉä* +ÉÉÉÌ]BÉEãÉ
58 àÉå BÉEcÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
BÉEÉ BÉEÉä<Ç +É{ÉEºÉ®
VªÉÉniÉÉÒ BÉE®iÉÉ
cè iÉÉä ªÉc iÉÉBÉEiÉ,
¶ÉÉÎBÉDiÉ =ºÉ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ
BÉEä {ÉÉºÉ cÉäMÉÉÒ
ÉÊVÉºÉ {É® ªÉc <ãWÉÉàÉ
ãÉMÉÉBÉE® ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEä iÉciÉ =ºÉ {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
+É{ÉEºÉ® BÉEÉä nÉä
ºÉÉãÉ ºÉä ãÉäBÉE®
{ÉÉÆSÉ ºÉÉãÉ
iÉBÉE ºÉVÉÉ ºÉÖxÉÉ<Ç
VÉÉA* ªÉc <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
àÉå |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
cè +ÉÉè® càɺÉä
BÉEcÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
"{ÉÉä]Éä "
BÉEÉ <ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ
càÉ ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
|ÉÉÊiÉuÆÉÊuªÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉE®åMÉä*
<ºÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® àÉå
+ÉÉvÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
AäºÉä cé ÉÊVÉxcÉåxÉä
|ÉVÉÉiÉÆjÉ +ÉÉè®
VÉxÉ iÉÆjÉ BÉEÉÒ
BÉEÉÒàÉiÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
ABÉE xÉcÉÓ nÉä xÉcÉÓ
19 àÉcÉÒxÉä iÉBÉE
VÉäãÉ àÉå ®cxÉÉ
{ÉºÉÆn ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ VÉxÉiÉÆjÉ
BÉEÉÒ ÉÊc}ÉEÉVÉiÉ
àÉå BÉEÉä<Ç BÉEàÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ +ÉÉxÉä nÉÒ*
<ºÉÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
àÉå VÉÉVÉÇ {ÉExÉÉÈbÉÒVÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ cé, ÉÊBÉEºÉ
®ÉVÉxÉäiÉÉ ºÉä
àÉé {ÉÚUxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊBÉEºÉ
VÉxÉiÉÆjÉ àÉå, ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ
BÉEÉÒ VÉàcÚÉÊ®ªÉiÉ
àÉå clÉBÉE½ÉÒ ãÉMÉÉBÉE®
VÉäãÉÉå àÉå
ãÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ
lÉÉ? VÉxÉiÉÆjÉ
BÉEÉÒ ÉÊc{ÉEÉVÉiÉ
àÉå ãÉÉäMÉÉå
xÉä clÉBÉE½ÉÒ {ÉcxÉxÉÉ
{ÉºÉÆn ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ nä¶É
BÉEä VÉxÉiÉÆjÉ BÉEÉÒ
<VVÉiÉ +ÉÉè® ÉÊc}ÉEÉVÉiÉ
BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ ºÉàÉZÉÉèiÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ*
<ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉå
={Énä¶É xÉcÉÓ ÉÊnªÉÉ
VÉɪÉä +ÉÉè® càÉ
{É® <ãVÉÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ
ãÉMÉɪÉÉ VÉɪÉä
ÉÊBÉE càÉ <ºÉ iÉ®c
BÉEä BÉEÉàÉÉå BÉEÉä
BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
"{ÉÉä]Éä"
BÉEÉ <ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé* àÉÖZÉä
iÉÉä |ɺÉxxÉiÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ® ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
BÉEÉä càɺÉä JÉÉÉÊàɪÉÉVÉÉ
£ÉÖMÉiÉxÉä àÉå
b® ãÉMÉ ®cÉ cè iÉÉä
àÉé ªÉc ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ
lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ® ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉä® ºÉä
ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ºÉnxÉ
àÉå ªÉc |ɺiÉÉ´É
{ÉÉÉÊ®iÉ cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ
+ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn
£ÉÉÒ ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
BÉEä BÉEÉä<Ç ÉÊcººÉä
àÉå ªÉc MÉÖÆVÉÉ<¶É
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä
+ÉÉÊvÉÉÊxɪÉàÉ
àÉå ¤ÉxÉÉÒ cÖ<Ç
lÉÉÒ iÉÉä càÉ <ºÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊ®BªÉÚ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä
lÉä* càÉ BÉÖEU ºÉƶÉÉävÉxÉ
ãÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä lÉä*
+ÉÉVÉ <ºÉ àÉÉàÉãÉä
àÉå, <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEä ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉ
àÉå {ÉÚ®ÉÒ nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ
càÉå näJÉ ®cÉÒ cè*
®É]Å BÉEä
c® ºÉÆBÉE] {É® nä¶É
ABÉE JÉ½É cÖ+ÉÉ lÉÉ*
ÉÊ´É{ÉÉÊkÉ BÉEä
ºÉàÉªÉ nä¶É ABÉE
cÉäBÉE® +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
+ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉ BÉEÉä
¤ÉÖãÉxn BÉE®iÉÉ
®cÉ cè +ÉÉè® 13 ÉÊnºÉà¤É®
BÉEÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉ BÉEä
¤ÉÉn ºÉƺÉn BÉEä
nÉäxÉÉå ºÉnxÉÉå
xÉä <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉÒ
{ÉÖÉÎ] BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç
ÉÊBÉE nä¶É ABÉE cÉäBÉE®
JÉ½É cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ ¤ÉºÉÖnä´É
+ÉÉSÉɪÉÇ (¤ÉÉÆBÉÖE®É)
: BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
{ÉcãÉä ºÉä cÉÒ
lÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ ÉÊnÉÎM´ÉVɪÉ
É˺Éc : +ÉÉ{É
ºÉcÉÒ BÉEc ®cä cé * BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEä ®ciÉä cÖA, {ÉÉä]Éä
+ÉBÉD]ڤɮ àÉå
ãÉÉMÉÚ cÖ+ÉÉ, PÉ]xÉÉ
PÉ]ÉÒ* àÉé ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ
<ºÉÉÊãÉA BÉEc ®cÉ
cÚÆ, BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä
®ciÉä cÖA, +ÉvªÉÉnä¶É
BÉEä ®ciÉä cÖA, càÉxÉä
=ºÉ ºÉÆBÉE] BÉEÉä
näJÉÉ +ÉÉè® ZÉäãÉÉ*
BÉEÉä<Ç ABÉE ÉÊnxÉ
àÉå BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ
àÉÉ{ÉnÆb iÉªÉ xÉcÉÓ
cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ cè - ¤ÉºÉÖnä´É
+ÉÉSÉɪÉÇ VÉÉÒ*
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä xÉcÉÓ
ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
U& àÉcÉÒxÉä àÉå
nä¶É àÉå ªÉBÉEÉÒxÉ
+ÉÉè® Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
¤ÉfÃÉ cè* +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
AäºÉÉ xÉcÉÓ ãÉMÉiÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä
ÉÊnxÉÉå àÉå ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉ àÉxÉÉä¤ÉãÉ
¤ÉfÃÉ cè* +ÉMÉ® nä¶É
àÉå ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEä àÉxÉÉä¤ÉãÉ
BÉEÉä ¤ÉfÃÉxÉÉ
cè, iÉÉä <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEÉä càÉ ºÉ¤É
ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä
ÉÊàÉãÉBÉE® ºÉÉäSÉxÉÉ
+ÉÉè® ºÉàÉZÉxÉÉ
cÉäMÉÉ*
àÉcÉänªÉ,
xªÉÉªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ xÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE
ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ nä¶É
BÉEä nÚºÉ®ä ®ÉVªÉÉå
àÉå <ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ
cÉä ®cÉ cè, iÉÉä ºÉ®ÉcxÉÉÒªÉ
cè, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉMÉ®
´ÉcÉÒ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
£ÉÉ®iÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE ºÉä
{Éä¶É BÉE® ®cä cé, iÉÉä
´Éc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå
{É® VÉÖãàÉ fÉxÉä
BÉEÉ +ÉÆMÉ ¤ÉxÉ
®cÉ cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA
àÉé +ÉÉ{ɺÉä
MÉÖVÉÉÉÊ®¶É BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
VÉèºÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
nںɮÉÒ VÉMÉcÉå
{É® <ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ
cè, =ºÉºÉä VªÉÉnÉ
VÉxiÉÉÉÎxjÉBÉE BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå
®JÉÉÒ MÉ<Ç cè* àÉé
ÉÊVÉºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEÉ ÉÊVɵÉE xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ lÉÉ,
ãÉäÉÊBÉEàÉ àÉVɤÉÚ®xÉ
àÉé BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ,
ºÉ¤É ãÉÉäMÉ
<ºÉàÉå ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
°ô{É näJÉ ®cä cé* <ºÉ
®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
°ô{É BÉEÉä BÉÖEU ºÉàɪÉ
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA càÉå
UÉä½xÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ*
àÉé ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
ºÉä MÉÖVÉÉÉÊ®¶É
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ,
+ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉÒ, +É£ÉÉÒ
£ÉÉÒ, ºÉàɪÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE càÉ ºÉ¤É
ãÉÉäMÉ <ºÉ ºÉnxÉ
àÉå VÉ¤É àÉiÉnÉxÉ
cÉä, iÉÉä ºÉÆBÉE]
BÉEÉÒ PɽÉÒ àÉå
ABÉE ºÉÉlÉ Jɽä cÉå*
ABÉE ºÉÉlÉ Jɽä cÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ cÉä, nä¶É BÉEÉÒ
ABÉEiÉÉ +ÉÉè® +ÉJÉhbiÉÉ
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ¤ÉxÉÉA
cÖA BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå
+ÉMÉ® ¶ÉBÉE BÉEÉÒ
BÉEÉä<Ç MÉÖÆVÉÉ<¶É
cÉä, iÉÉä lÉÉä½ä
ºÉàÉªÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
+ÉÉ{É càÉ {É® ¶ÉBÉE
Vɰô® BÉE®å, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
càÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ªÉBÉEÉÒxÉ
+ÉÉè® Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
ÉÊnãÉÉiÉä cé ÉÊBÉE
ªÉc ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉE£ÉÉÒ
£ÉÉÒ <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ºÉä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
|ÉÉÊiÉuÉÎxuiÉÉ BÉEÉä
ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ BÉE®xÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA <ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®äMÉÉÒ*
<ºÉ +ÉɶÉÉ +ÉÉè®
Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ àÉé
<ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ*
bÉì. ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É
|ɺÉÉn É˺Éc (´Éè¶ÉÉãÉÉÒ)
: ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä {ÉÉä]É
¤ÉxÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé, <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA
nÉäxÉÉå ºÉnxÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ V´ÉÉ<Æ] ºÉÉÒÉË]MÉ
¤ÉÖãÉÉ<Ç MÉ<Ç
cè* AäºÉÉ ãÉMÉiÉÉ
cè, ºÉkÉÉ {ÉFÉ BÉEä
ºÉnºªÉ ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA iÉèªÉÉ®
xÉcÉÓ cé, àÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå
BÉEÉ BÉEà{ÉÉÒÉÊ]¶ÉxÉ
SÉãÉ ®cÉ cè* ºÉkÉÉ
{ÉFÉ BÉEä ºÉnºªÉÉå
BÉEÉä ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä
BÉEÉ àÉÉèBÉEÉ xÉcÉÓ
ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ
cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ xÉä BÉE<Ç +ɴɺɮÉå
{É® ¤ªÉÉxÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE nä¶É àÉå
+ÉÉàÉ-ºÉcàÉÉÊiÉ
ºÉä ®ÉVÉ SÉãÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé* +ÉÉàÉ
ºÉcàÉÉÊiÉ àÉå
®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ àÉå
{É®ÉVÉªÉ BÉEä ¤ÉÉn
ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
BÉEÉÒ vÉÉ®É 108 BÉEä
|ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ BÉEÉ
<ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ BÉE®xÉÉ
{ɽ ®cÉ cè * <ºÉºÉä
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉ fÉäãÉ
BÉEÉ {ÉÉäãÉ JÉÖãÉ
MɪÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ´Éä
+ÉÉàÉ-ºÉcàÉÉÊiÉ
ºÉä ®ÉVÉ xÉcÉÓ
SÉãÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé* ®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ
àÉå ¤ÉcÖàÉiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÖ+ÉÉ, iÉÉä
nÉäxÉÉå ºÉnxÉÉå
BÉEÉä ABÉE ºÉÉlÉ ¤ÉÖãÉÉBÉE®
¤ÉcÖàÉiÉ BÉE®BÉEä
<ºÉ BÉEÉãÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉä {ÉÉºÉ BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé*
àÉcÉänªÉ,
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEä àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉ´ÉÉ¤É nå - MÉßc
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
ºÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE ´Éä
<ºÉ ÉʤÉãÉ BÉEÉä
VÉãnÉÒ àÉå xÉcÉÓ
ãÉÉMÉA cé* +ÉMÉ® ´Éä
VÉãnÉÒ àÉå xÉcÉÓ
ãÉÉA cé, iÉÉä +ÉÉÉÌbxÉåºÉ
ãÉÉxÉä ºÉä {ÉcãÉä
<ºÉ ÉʤÉãÉ BÉEÉä
ºÉƺÉn àÉå BÉDªÉÉå
xÉcÉÓ ãÉɪÉÉ
MɪÉÉ?
+É£ÉÉÒ
iÉBÉE VÉÉä £ÉÉÒ
MÉÆ£ÉÉÒ® |ÉBÉßEÉÊiÉ
BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ
cè, ºÉ£ÉÉÒ BÉEÉä
V´ÉÉ<Æ] ÉʺÉãÉèBÉD]
BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ +ÉlÉ´ÉÉ
{ÉÉÉÌãɪÉÉàÉå]ÅÉÒ
BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ àÉå
ãÉä VÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ
cè* <ºÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
àÉå ÉÊcààÉiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè ÉÊBÉE ºÉÉÒvÉä
ºÉƺÉn àÉå BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ãÉÉiÉÉÒ +ÉÉè®
V´ÉÉ<Æ] BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ
ªÉÉ º]éÉËbMÉ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ
àÉå MÉcxÉ UÉxɤÉÉÒxÉ
=ºÉBÉEÉÒ cÉäiÉÉÒ*
AäºÉÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ ÉÊcààÉiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÖ<Ç* VɤÉ
®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ àÉå
ºÉÆJªÉÉ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ cÖ<Ç iÉÉä
®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ +ÉÉè®
ãÉÉäBÉE ºÉ£ÉÉ
nÉäxÉÉå BÉEÉä VÉÉä½BÉE®
ªÉc +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ÉÊMÉxÉiÉÉÒ
{ÉÚ®ÉÒ BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉÒ cè* ªÉc
VɤɮnºiÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
SÉãÉäMÉÉÒ* càÉ
<ºÉä ãÉäBÉE® VÉxÉiÉÉ
àÉå VÉÉAÆMÉä*
11 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É®
BÉEÉä +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ
àÉå cÖ<Ç PÉ]xÉÉ
BÉEä ¤ÉÉn nÖÉÊxɪÉɣɮ
àÉå +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
VÉxÉàÉiÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ,
Éʴɶ´É VÉxÉàÉiÉ
iÉèªÉÉ® cÖ+ÉÉ*
£ÉÉ®iÉ àÉå £ÉÉÒ
càÉÉ®ÉÒ ºÉƺÉn
{É® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
càÉãÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ, VÉààÉÚ-BÉE¶àÉÉÒ®
ÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ
{É® càÉãÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ*
ÉÊ´ÉÉÊ£ÉxxÉ
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
PÉ]xÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEä
¤ÉÉn ÉËcnÖºiÉÉxÉ
àÉå £ÉÉÒ VÉxÉàÉiÉ
iÉèªÉÉ® cÖ+ÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
<xÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå xÉä
=ºÉ VÉxÉàÉiÉ BÉEÉ
+ÉÉn® xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ,
=ºÉBÉEÉä ºÉä¤ÉÉä]ÉìVÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ* VÉÉä
VÉxÉàÉiÉ =£É®É
lÉÉ =ºÉBÉEÉä JÉÆb-JÉÆb
BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ* +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
VÉÉä VÉxÉàÉiÉ =£É®É
+ÉÉè® ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
xÉä VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ =ºÉàÉå
ABÉE-nÉä BÉDãÉÉìVÉ
BÉEàÉ BÉE®BÉEä ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ
nãÉÉå BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
ÉÊãɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ*
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ
nãÉÉå àÉå £ÉÉÒ
¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
<ºÉ {É® Aä¤ÉºÉå]ÉÒ
cé* ªÉc VÉ¤É <ºÉ
{É® ®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ
àÉå VÉÉÒiÉ xÉcÉÓ
ºÉBÉEä iÉÉä <ºÉä
ªÉcÉÆ ãÉÉA cé* +ÉMÉ®
<xÉBÉEÉÒ xÉÉÒªÉiÉ
ºÉÉ{ÉE cÉäiÉÉÒ
ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEÉ ºÉ{ÉEɪÉÉ
cÉä iÉÉä ªÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ BÉEÉä
£ÉÉÒ BÉEÉìxÉÉÊ{ÉEbåºÉ
àÉå ãÉäiÉä, +É{ÉxÉä
ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ nãÉÉå
BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ BÉEÉìxÉÉÊ{ÉEbåºÉ
àÉå ãÉäiÉä* |ÉEèBÉDSÉbÇ
VÉxÉàÉiÉ ºÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEÉ àÉÖBÉEɤÉãÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ*
ÉÊ{ÉE® AäºÉÉ ªÉc
BÉDªÉÉå BÉE® ®cä cé*
AäºÉÉ ªÉc <ºÉÉÊãÉA
BÉE® ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE "
BÉEcÉÓ {Éä ÉÊxÉMÉÉcå
BÉEcÉÓ {É® ÉÊxɶÉÉxÉÉ,
VÉÉÒxÉä BÉEÉ VÉÉÉÊãÉàÉ
¤ÉxÉÉ+ÉÉä xÉ ¤ÉcÉxÉÉ"
* ªÉc ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
c® FÉäjÉ àÉå xÉÉBÉEÉàɪÉɤÉ
®cÉÒ cè* +ÉÉÉÌlÉBÉE
àÉÉäSÉæ {É® ÉÊ´É{ÉEãÉ
cé, ¤Éä®ÉäVÉMÉÉ®ÉÒ
¤Éfà ®cÉÒ cè +ÉÉè®
<xcÉåxÉä ÉÊàÉ]Â]ÉÒ
BÉEä iÉäãÉ BÉEä nÉàÉ
¤ÉfÃÉ ÉÊnªÉä
cé, VÉxÉiÉÉ <xÉBÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA
<xÉBÉEÉä AäºÉÉ cÉÊlɪÉÉ®
SÉÉÉÊcA lÉÉ ÉÊVɺɺÉä
nàÉxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ºÉBÉEä* <ºÉÉÊãÉA
<xÉBÉEÉÒ xÉVÉ®Éå
àÉå ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
cè, àÉÉ<xÉÉäÉÊ®]ÉÒVÉ
cé, +Éã{ÉºÉÆJªÉBÉE
cé, ]Åäb-ªÉÚÉÊxɪÉxÉ
cé, àÉVÉnÚ® xÉäiÉÉ
ãÉÉäMÉ cé, ÉÊVÉxÉBÉEÉ
nàÉxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ºÉBÉEä* <ºÉÉÊãÉA
<xÉBÉEÉÒ ÉÊxÉMÉÉcå
BÉEcÉÓ {É® cé +ÉÉè®
ÉÊxɶÉÉxÉÉ BÉEcÉÓ
{É® cè* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
AäºÉÉ cÉäxÉä xÉcÉÓ
ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ*
´ÉÉxÉ® BÉEä cÉlÉ
àÉå iÉãÉ´ÉÉ®
xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ VÉÉAMÉÉÒ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
<xÉBÉEä cÉlÉ
àÉå {ÉÉä]Éä VÉèºÉÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ xÉcÉÓ
ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA* {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ bÅèBÉEÉäÉÊxɪÉxÉ
cè, AÆ]ÉÒ-bèàÉÉäµÉEäÉÊ]BÉE
cè ÉÊVɺÉàÉå
xÉÉä-nãÉÉÒãÉ,
xÉÉä-´ÉBÉEÉÒãÉ,
xÉÉä-+É{ÉÉÒãÉ
´ÉÉãÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
cè iÉlÉÉ ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
{ÉEÆbÉàÉå]ãÉ ®É<]ºÉ
+ÉÉè® ÉʺÉÉÊ´ÉãÉ
ÉÊãɤÉ]ÉÔ nÉäxÉÉå
BÉEÉ cxÉxÉ BÉE®iÉÉ
cè*
xÉä¶ÉxÉãÉ
ÿªÉÚàÉxÉ ®É<]ºÉ
BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ xÉä
BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
ºÉcÉÒ xÉcÉÓ cè +ÉÉè®
<ºÉä xÉcÉÓ ãÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA* ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ
BÉEÉä]Ç xÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE
<ºÉ iÉ®c BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉ ¤É½É nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÉäiÉÉ cè* AäºÉä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå BÉEä
nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ BÉEÉ
=nÉc®hÉ ºÉ¤É BÉEä
ºÉÉàÉxÉä cè* ªÉc
+ÉxÉ֣ɴÉcÉÒxÉ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cè, c~ÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cè VɤÉÉÊBÉE
<xcå ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉ +ÉxÉ֣ɴÉ
cè* ºÉ¤É ãÉÉäMÉ
º´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ® BÉE®iÉä
cé ÉÊBÉE ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ
nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ*
=ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ BÉEÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® xÉä +ÉxÉ֣ɴÉ
BÉEä +ÉÉvÉÉ® {É®
ºÉ¤É ¤ÉÉiÉå
ºÉÉàÉxÉä ®JÉÉÓ*
<ºÉ {É® VÉxÉàÉiÉ
BÉE®ÉxÉä BÉEä ¤ÉÉn
=ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä
JÉiàÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ* ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊnãÉÉå àÉå
~äºÉ {ÉcÖÆSÉÉxÉä
BÉEä ¤ÉÉn £ÉÉÒ
<xÉàÉå ¤ÉÖÉÊr
xÉcÉÓ +ÉÉ<Ç* <xcÉåxÉä
+ÉxÉÖ£É´É BÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE BÉEÉàÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ +ÉÉè®
ÉÊ{ÉE® ºÉä ]ÉbÉ
BÉEÉÒ iÉ®c {ÉÉä]Éä
bÅèBÉEÉäÉÊxɪÉxÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä ãÉÉBÉE®
ÉʺÉÉÊ´ÉãÉ
®É<]ºÉ, BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ
BÉEÉÒ º´ÉiÉÆjÉiÉÉ,
{ÉEÆbÉàÉé]ãÉ ®É<]ºÉ
BÉEÉä UÉÒxÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ
ºÉÉÉÊVÉ¶É ®SÉÉÒ*
ªÉc {ÉEÉÉʺɺ]´ÉÉnÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cè* ªÉc ABÉE
BÉEÉãÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
cè* àÉé ºÉnxÉ ºÉä
|ÉÉlÉÇxÉÉ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ´Éc <ºÉä JÉÉÉÊ®VÉ
BÉE®ä* <ºÉ ºÉàɪÉ
<xÉBÉEä ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ
nãÉ ãÉÉSÉÉ® cé*
SÉÚÆÉÊBÉE ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
BÉEÉä<Ç ÉÊ´ÉBÉEã{É
xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉxÉÉ {ÉɪÉÉ
<ºÉÉÊãÉA ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ
nãÉ <xcå ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
nä ®cä cé* <xÉBÉEä ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ
nãÉ MÉÉãÉÉÒ ºÉc
BÉE® £ÉÉÒ =vÉ® ÉÊSÉ{ÉBÉEä
cé* ªÉcÉÆ ºÉÉà|ÉnÉÉʪÉBÉEiÉÉ
nÖiBÉEÉ® ®cÉÒ cè* càÉÉ®É
vÉàÉÇ ÉÊxÉ®{ÉäFÉ
®É]Å cè* <ºÉÉÒ
xÉÉÒÉÊiÉ BÉEÉä
+É{ÉxÉÉiÉä cÖA BÉEnàÉ
=~ÉA VÉÉAÆ*
ºÉkÉÉ
{ÉFÉ ´ÉÉãÉä BÉEciÉä
cé ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
<xÉBÉEä nÉä àÉÆjÉÉÒ
gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ
¶ÉÉä®ÉÒ xÉä ¶ÉÖâó
àÉå ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ
ÉÊnªÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉxªÉ
ºÉÉ®ä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉä
BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÉäiÉÉ cè iÉÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ
£ÉÉÒ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* <xÉBÉEÉÒ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEä nÉä àÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå
BÉEÉ ªÉc BÉEcxÉÉ cè*
´Éä ªÉc xÉcÉÓ BÉEciÉä
ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE
BÉEciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉ
nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÉäMÉÉ*
<ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
¶ÉÖâó £ÉÉÒ cÉä
MɪÉÉ cè* +É£ÉÉÒ
cÉãÉ cÉÒ àÉå ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
´ÉMÉÇ ÉʴɶÉäÉ
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
{ÉÉä]Éä ãÉÉMÉÚ
BÉE®BÉEä ¤ÉÉn àÉå
=ºÉä c]É ÉÊnªÉÉ*
<xcÉåxÉä 62 BªÉÉÎBÉDiɪÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
ABÉE iÉ®{ÉEÉ {ÉÉä]Éä
ãÉÉMÉÚ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ*
+ɺÉãÉÉÒ nÆMÉÉ<ªÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
{ÉÉä]Éä ãÉÉMÉÚ
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ*
+ÉÉ{É Éʴɶ´É
ÉÊcxnÚ {ÉÉÊ®Én,
¤ÉVÉ®ÆMÉ nãÉ, nÆMÉÉ<ªÉÉå
+ÉÉè® gÉÉÒ xÉ®äxp
àÉÉänÉÒ BÉEÉä
{ÉÉä]Éä àÉå ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
BÉE®å* càÉ £ÉÉÒ
<ºÉºÉä ºÉcàÉiÉ
cÉåMÉä +ÉÉè® ªÉcÉÒ
BÉEcåMÉä ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉä {ÉÉºÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉA* <ºÉàÉå £Éän£ÉÉ´É
cÉä ®cÉ cè* nÆMÉÉ<ªÉÉå
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
BÉEɮǴÉÉ<Ç BÉEÉÒ
BÉEÉä<Ç ¤ÉÉiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè*
nä¶É BÉEÉä iÉÉä½xÉä
´ÉÉãÉÉÒ VÉÉä
¶ÉÉÎBÉDiɪÉÉÆ
+ÉÉè® ºÉÆMÉ~xÉ
cé, =xÉBÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ
<ºÉàÉå xÉcÉÓ cè*
<ºÉºÉä ºÉÉ{ÉE
ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ AÆ]ÉÒ
àÉÉ<xÉÉìÉÊ®]ÉÒ.
AÆ]ÉÒ {ÉÉÒ{ÉÖãÉ
+ÉÉè® ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
BÉEÉä n¤ÉÉxÉä BÉEä
ÉÊãÉA ABÉE nàÉxÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA
càÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
cn iÉBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä
<xÉ ]Éä]Éä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
cé +ÉÉè® ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉEiÉ
BÉE®iÉä ®cåMÉä* ªÉÉÊn
+ÉÉ{É xÉcÉÓ àÉÉxÉåMÉä
iÉÉä VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEä
¤ÉÉÒSÉ VÉÉAÆMÉä*
ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ
VÉxÉiÉÉ VÉxÉiÉÆjÉ
+ÉÉè® ºÉèBÉÖEÉÊ®VàÉ
BÉEÉä {ɺÉxn BÉE®iÉÉÒ
cè* <xcÉåxÉä {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉä ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä àÉÖqÉ
¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
SÉÉ®Éå ®ÉVªÉÉå
ºÉä <xÉBÉEÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉnÉ<Ç
cÉä MÉ<Ç* +É¤É ªÉc
nä¶É £É® àÉå {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉä àÉÖqÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ
®cä cé* ªÉcÉÆ ÉÊnããÉÉÒ
ºÉä £ÉÉÒ <xÉBÉEÉÒ
ÉÊ´ÉnÉ<Ç ÉÊxÉÉζSÉiÉ
cè* nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEÉÒ
BÉEÉä<Ç iÉÉBÉEiÉ
<xÉBÉEä ºÉ{ÉEÉA BÉEÉä
®ÉäBÉE xÉcÉÓ ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ*
ªÉc {ÉÉÆSÉ ºÉÉãÉ
BÉEÉÒ |ÉiÉÉÒFÉÉ
àÉå cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ªÉc ºÉ®BÉEÉ® {ÉÉÆSÉ
ºÉÉãÉ £ÉÉÒ
{ÉÚ®ä xÉcÉÓ BÉE®
{ÉÉAMÉÉÒ* bÉBÉD]®
ãÉÉäÉÊcªÉÉ xÉä
BÉEcÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉÆSÉ
ºÉÉãÉ iÉBÉE AäºÉÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉ <ÆiÉVÉÉ®
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®xÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA*
¤ÉÉÒSÉ àÉå cÉÒ
=xcå c]É näxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*
càÉ £ÉÉÒ AäºÉÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉ ºÉ{ÉEɪÉÉ
BÉE®åMÉä* ªÉc 20 ®ÉVªÉÉå
ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ àÉå
MÉÉªÉ¤É cé* <xÉBÉEÉÒ
BÉEä´ÉãÉ 2-3 VÉMÉc
nÆMÉÉ<Ç ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
cè* {ÉÉä]Éä VÉèºÉä
BÉEÉãÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉä JÉiàÉ BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA* ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
VÉàcÚÉÊ®ªÉiÉ BÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE cè +ÉÉè®
ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ BÉEä
àÉÉlÉä {É® BÉEãÉÆBÉE
cè* +ÉÉVÉ MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ
àÉå nÆMÉÉ<Ç xÉÉSÉ
®cä cé*
* <ºÉÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ
àÉé {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE +ÉÉÿ´ÉÉxÉ
BÉE®iÉä cÖA ªÉc BÉEcxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
ªÉc nä¶É BÉEÉ BÉEÉãÉÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ cè, VÉxÉiÉÆjÉ
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
cè, àÉÉxÉ´É +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉÉÊ®ªÉÉå
BÉEÉ cxÉxÉ BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ cè* +ÉÉÉÌlÉBÉE
FÉäjÉ àÉå ªÉc ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
{ÉEäãÉ ®cÉÒ* ªÉc
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® MÉ®ÉÒ¤ÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ nÖ¶àÉxÉ cè*
ªÉc nÆMÉÉ<ªÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cè*
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉä JÉÉÉÊ®VÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA* <iÉxÉÉ cÉÒ
àÉÖZÉä BÉEcxÉÉ cè*
*Expunged as ordered by the Chair.
SHRI BHARTRUHARI MAHTAB (CUTTACK): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As has been said today, this is an extraordinary situation
and we are enacting a law which is equally extraordinary.
I had said, while discussing this Bill in the Lok Sabha,
that when there is a demand in the State, the society itself gives more
powers to the State or to the establishment to restore law and order.
In this country, with so much of bloodshed and with so
much of killing, there is a necessity to have a stringent law. Two aspects
have been dealt with in this Bill – one is terrorist activities and the
other is disruptive activities.
Regarding the terrorist activities, there is nothing more
for me to add to what has been said today. But regarding disruptive activities,
the whole nation is affected by it. I had drawn the attention of the House
to one aspect of this Bill – how the Member from Purulia had been raising
objections. I want to draw the attention of the Members of both the Houses
to the case relating to the Purulia arms drop. When this Bill is enacted
as a law, it should look into this aspect also.
It is not only the cross-border terrorism, not only terrorism
being exported by our neighbouring countries, that this Act should take
care of, but those countries or those elements who are sending arms and
ammunition to create disruptive activities in different tribal areas should
come under its purview.
Another question was raised while discussing this in both
the Houses – why have we deployed so much of armed forces in our Western
front. The reply was given by the hon. Defence Minister in Lok Sabha. The
reply was that after the attacks on Talibans by the Allied Forces under
the leadership of the United States, the Pakistan Army pulled out all its
armed forces and positioned them on the Indian border. Why did it do so?
Due to that we have deployed a large part of our Armed Forces on the Western
border. Now, the snow will be melting and a lot of infiltration will be
taking place. That is the main reason why we should have this law. It is
to apprehend those terrorists.
There are three aspects which are to be looked into. They
are, to target terrorists, to target those people who will be sheltering
the terrorists, and to those who will be providing finances to them. These
are the three aspects which should be taken care of by this. On behalf
of the Biju Janata Dal, we extend full support to this Bill and I support
this Bill in toto.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Another 20 speakers are there to participate
in this discussion. They will be completing as early as possible. Kindly
cooperate so that we can complete it early.
SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH (ANDHRA PRADESH): Sir, we the TDP,
have supported this Bill both in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and we extend
our unequivocal support even at this eventful Joint Parliamentary Sitting.
Everybody is aware and everybody has to accept that state
terrorism has assumed gigantic proportions not only in this country but
also at the global level. It is the primary duty of any civilised Government
to provide security to the people which can be only possible by curbing
the terrorism at grass-root level. One important aspect of this terrorism
is that it adversely affects the economic growth of the country. Some mis-utilisation
of a particular law has been discussed. We have been entertaining hallucinations
and imaginations and the need of the hour is to provide safety to the citizens
of the country. We should make them live with a sense of security and with
peace and tranquillity. It is not possible unless the Government contains
terrorism.
After India opted for economic liberalisation, it was
genuinely believed by the economic experts, the financial managers of this
country that having the tenth largest production base and one of the largest
scientific pools in the world with an indigenous Space and Atomic Energy
programmes, with free Press, free economy, free democracy and the English
speaking capability, we should naturally attract billions of rupees in
this country as FDIs but which was not the case. What is the reason? Let
us have an introspection.
The Government is trying to create a conducive atmosphere
for the industrialisation of the country and in spite of that we are unable
to get it. Take for example the case of China. With a regimented society,
with no free Press, no free democracy and with no free economy it has been
getting 40 billion of dollars per annum. The only conclusion I can draw
is that it has got a disciplined society, perfect law and order and tranquillity
in which people are living there. So, the Western countries may criticise
China but China is the greatest beneficiary as far as the economy is concerned.
Sir, this is mainly because of the law and order situation in our country.
To take the case in a post-liberalised scenario where there is no licensing,
to direct the direction of investments in a particular State or a place,
only a State which can project itself as a showcase can attract the investments.
I can say at this juncture that no Chief Minister in this country has ever
tried as Shri Chandrababu Naidu to get the foreign investment in spite
of that we regret to say that our efforts are not encouraging because of
the extremist problems that are being faced by our State, which we are
trying to solve and we have gone to the extent of negotiating with them,
making terms with them so that the glass can be cut. Such efforts are needed
today. We should not politicise the issue or take any political advantage
out of it.
At this juncture, it should be the endeavour of all political
Parties, not only one particular Party to make such efforts. Today one
Party is in power and the same Party may be in the Opposition tomorrow.
We should not derive political advantage out of everything. A gentleman
was talking about the civil rights. Can anybody have the moral right to
ask about the civil rights? Can anybody arrogate himself as the champion
of civil rights? In this country an emergency was declared when a particular
individual lost the elections. More than three lakh persons, including
Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narain, were arrested. Censorship was imposed. Black
laws were executed. And, in a particular incident when a person was shot
dead by an official, there was no appellate authority, no appeal. That
was the state of affairs at the time of emergency.
18.00 hrs.
I wonder how some of us are arrogating to ourselves the
right of talking about civil rights. It is very unfortunate. Let us be
pragmatic.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Now, the time is 6 p.m. and another 15
speakers are there. If the House agrees, we could extend the time till
the completion of the business.
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, the House agrees to extend the time
of the House till the completion of business.
SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH : Sir, that is why my appeal to
all the Members is that we should cooperate with the Government and the
Government should also leave no stone unturned in its endeavour to uproot
terrorism from the country in whichever form it may be there. When we look
at the problem of terrorism, we know that the actual breeding centres are
somewhere outside the country. Sir, without the connivance and without
the abetment of the local people, terrorist incidents cannot take place.
So, it is high time that the Government sincerely take all the constructive
measures to curb terrorism.
Sir, very profusely the American and British laws have
been quoted. I wonder do we need American laws here? We need laws to suit
this country. We need Indian economic policies to suit this country. Let
us not import policies which are prevailing in America or United Kingdom.…
(Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do not interfere.
SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH : I have not taken the wakalat
on behalf of the Law Minister. I am talking on my own behalf… (Interruptions)
Sir, having said this, I, as a parliamentarian, appeal
to the Government to kindly ensure that this law is not misused… (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: You please maintain dignity and decorum
of the House. Why are you laughing like this.
SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH : Let us not live in hypocrisy.
When you are in power, you want a different law but when you are in the
Opposition, you are opposing it.… (Interruptions). You are responsible
for the destruction of all the democratic institutions in this country.
You have stifled with the judiciary. You wanted a committed judiciary.
You are responsible for all the evils of the society and now you are preaching
all these things. It is a very sorry state of affairs. Let us discard all
this… (Interruptions) I repeat it with all the force at my command
and I will never mince words. That was the fact. That is the history. How
long you would play havoc with the economy of this country? Forty-nine
per cent urban population and 42 per cent of the rural population is still
under-nourished in this country. Twenty-five per cent population is living
with low calorie value and we are not caring about them. We are not caring
about the masses. We are not caring about the people living below the poverty
line. We want to make political advantage out of a law which has got no
significance. I will tell you that. Let us be very frank and let us be
pragmatic. After all we have been elected by the people to serve the people
and to strengthen them economically. That should have been our attitude.…
(Interruptions). Kindly do not provoke me to make comments which
you cannot relish. Sir, this Act has to be implemented by a very lower
rung officer like SI.
It may be under the supervision of a Superintendent of
Police. It cannot be run by Ministers. What is your difficulty? You have
fourteen States under your control. Do you not have confidence in your
own Chief Ministers and Home Ministers of the States run by your Party?
The philosophy or the logic put forward by the Opposition is that supposing
there is a lock-up death in a police-station, you destroy or remove the
police-station itself. This is no way. Let us talk with the Government
so that we can bring out a statute which may be useful to the society and
the people can live in utmost tranquillity. That should have been the spirit.
I would request the opposition to stand by this Bill.
Let us receive all the pragmatic suggestions so that the Act can be made
more effective. I also find that there is virtually no judicial jurisdiction
in this Bill. I am aware of it. Therefore, let there be some Committees
at the State level consisting of retired civil servants and jurists so
that they can act as an appellate authority in order to see that no abnormal
thing or aberration takes place in the country. That is why I appeal to
the main political parties not to entertain any misplaced doubt or suspicion.
Let us be very pragmatic; let us come out with some amendments if you want
them so that this statute can be made and effectively implemented.
bÉì. ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É
|ɺÉÉn É˺Éc :
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, |ÉvÉÉxÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ,
MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ,
iÉÉÒxÉÉå cÉÒ ºÉnxÉ
àÉå ={ÉÉκlÉiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cé* àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä
VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ
´Éä {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉä
´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ ãÉäxÉä
{É® {ÉÖxÉÉÌ´ÉSÉÉ®
BÉE®xÉä +ÉlÉÉÇiÉÂÂ
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉä JÉiàÉ
BÉE®xÉä {É® ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ®-ÉÊ´ÉàɶÉÇ
BÉE®xÉä MÉA cé ? ªÉc
càÉå ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ
VÉÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. CHAIRMAN : So many Ministers are here. They will also
come shortly.
… (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I will call the Home Minister. The
Home Minister is coming. Please sit down.
… (Interruptions)
DR. RAGHUVANSH PRASAD SINGH : Rethinking process has started.
The Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Law Minister are absent.
… (Interruptions)
BÉÖEÆ´É®
+ÉÉÊJÉãÉä¶É É˺Éc
(àÉcÉ®ÉVÉMÉÆVÉ,
=.|É.) : ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ºÉÉªÉÆBÉEÉãÉ
BÉEä U& ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ
BÉEÉ ºÉàÉªÉ cÉä
MɪÉÉ cè, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
+É£ÉÉÒ iÉBÉE ´ÉÉäÉË]MÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®É<Ç MÉ<Ç
cè* àÉä®É +ÉÉ{ɺÉä
+ÉÉOÉc cè ÉÊBÉE ´ÉÉäÉË]MÉ
BÉEÉ ºÉàÉªÉ ÉÊxÉÉζSÉiÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉA +ÉÉè®
càÉå ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ
VÉÉA ÉÊBÉE ´ÉÉäÉË]MÉÂ
BÉE¤É cÉäMÉÉÒ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. CHAIRMAN: If everybody agrees, we will go for voting.
Please sit down. Now, Shri J. Chitharanjan to speak.
… (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Akhilesh, please sit down. I have already
called one Member and he is on his legs. He is about to speak. This is
not the way.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI J. CHITHARANJAN (KERALA): Mr. Chairman Sir, I, on
my own behalf and on behalf of the Communist Party of India, oppose the
Prevention of Terrorism Bill in toto.
After the Bill was defeated in the Rajya Sabha, I thought
that the hon. Prime Minister, hon. Home Minister and the Government as
a whole will reconsider their stand so that a consensus could be worked
out and steps could be taken for that. Unfortunately, they have not done
that. Instead of that, they have taken steps to convene a joint sitting
of the two Houses. And of course, this is a part of the confrontation.
I thought that the Prime Minister will definitely think about resorting
to some other method so that a consensus could be worked out because the
Prime Minister had always been, since the time he has taken charge, repeating
that he will proceed on the basis of consensus. But here, regarding this
Bill, it has become clear that there is terrific opposition involving large
sections of people. Not only the Members of the Legislatures but even the
National Human Rights Commission have unanimously expressed their view
that this law is not at all needed at this moment to face the terrorists.
They have also stated that the existing laws – I do not name the existing
laws – will be enough to deal with them provided they are implemented effectively
and proper machinery is being arranged so that implementation may be carried
out.
18.09 hrs (Shri Suresh Pachouri in the Chair.)
This is what the National Commission on Human Rights has
said. It is not said by persons like me or even other people but said by
a very authentic and statutory body, the Chairman of which had been the
Chief Justice of India for some time and is a reputed person. It is not
only that. Please look at the national papers. Almost all the national
papers have written against it. All the national papers have condemned
the attempt to convene a Joint Session of the two Houses to push through
this Bill.
Then several legal luminaries have also expressed their
views. For example, Justice V. Krishna Iyer, Shri Nariman and several legal
luminaries have expressed their views that this will be curtailing the
democratic rights of the citizens which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Therefore, they have all expressed their views. Besides that, several other
organisations have expressed their views. A large number of political parties
are also opposing it. It has not occurred in the case of any other Bill.
Therefore, it is a very unusual situation. In that case, if the Government
tries to push through the Bill in this joint sitting, then that will be
ignoring the biggest opposition that is there for this Bill. That will
not be correct.
Secondly, I have to say something regarding the provisions
of the Bill. I do not want to go into the details but generally speaking,
there are several provisions and Clauses of the Bill which are very objectionable.
For example, Clauses 3 is giving the definition of terrorists. The definition
given in the Bill is very vague and nebulous. Therefore, it can be misused
to a greater extent. Then, Clause 14 is regarding furnishing information
in the possession of individuals as well as institutions. Clause 18 is
likely to be used against organisations critical of Government or even
political opponents. Then, there are Clauses 32, 37 and 45 which are objectionable.
These provisions are in contravention of all the basic principles of jurisprudence
and also against the principles of the Evidence Act and several other legislations.
Therefore, these provisions are highly objectionable and the Bill itself
is totally objectionable.
Then, coming to another point, why is the Government particular
about insisting on this Bill?
gÉÉÒ ºÉiªÉµÉiÉ
SÉiÉÖ´ÉænÉÒ (JÉVÉÖ®ÉcÉä)
: ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉä®É
xÉÉàÉ ºÉÚSÉÉÒ
àÉå cè* +ÉÉ{É àÉÖZÉä
¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä BÉEÉ
àÉÉèBÉEÉ BÉE¤É
nåMÉä ?
MR. CHAIRMAN : I will let you know. Please wait for some
time.
SHRI J. CHITHARANJAN : Of course, the Home Minister has
argued that such a Bill is necessary in order to control the terrorist
situation. Along with that, he came out with two reasons. One is that the
United Nation’s Security Council has passed a Resolution. He did not say
what exactly is stated in that Resolution. What the United Nation Resolution
has said is that, a comprehensive and effective measure will have to be
taken. That is all. Then, why should they insist for a law like this, when
there is a serious opposition to this Bill at this time? What they have
said is that, when they go to America or Britain, people are asking what
you are doing. If the Bill is not passed, they will ask us, even though
you are suffering from terrorism, why you are not taking sufficient steps?
A little while ago, the Prime Minister himself has said that we cannot
depend on anybody else to prevent terrorism. We have to face these terrorist
attacks and we have to contain this terrorism using our own strength. If
we have to face it ourselves, then why are you bothered about the questions
that would be raised by the Britain or the United States officials. Why
are you not worried about the questions and opposition raised by various
sections of people in the country? Legislators, State Governments, National
Human Rights Commission and several important organisations and establishments
have already raised objections. You are not interested in replying to them.
You are not concerned about them.
Therefore, what I have to say is this. This Bill should
be rejected or else the Government should take other measures to bring
about consensus as to how to face this problem of terrorism, if some new
measures are needed. Instead of that, if you push through it, really you
will be dividing the society. The Home Minister and the Law Minister raised
a question as to why should we question the methods of the Government and
as to why we should question the Government’s bona fides. Let us
be very clear about it. There is a very strong feeling among the people
that the Government is taking a partisan attitude. Take, for example, there
are organisations in this country which are declaring that for security
we should not depend on police, but we have to get arms, not only get arms,
but keep them in our houses. An organisation which is very much connected
with the BJP is making that statement.
Recently, an organisation has passed a Resolution that
minorities, if they want to subsist here in a peaceful manner, they will
have to get favour of the majority community. If this is the case, the
basic fundamental principles of our Constitution are being thrown overboard.
Moreover, when this Government came into power, the first thing they did
was to review the Constitution. They appointed a Commission. They have
expressed some views. They said that Presidential form of Government is
required. Therefore, people have their own doubts. What has happened in
Gujarat? That had aggravated or increased the feelings and fears of minorities
and other sections of the people. We also fear that this will be used against
the working class, peasants and other sections of toiling masses who will
have to fight against the anti-people policies of the Government. They
will also be attacked by POTO. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this
should not be adopted. Therefore, I appeal to the Joint Session that this
Bill should be rejected.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Dr. Sushil Kumar Indora to speak now.
… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVɪÉ
ÉÊxÉâó{ÉàÉ (àÉcÉ®É]Å)
: àÉé ABÉE ºÉÚSÉxÉÉ
ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉä näxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ, ÉÊVɺÉ
ÉÊ´ÉÉªÉ {É®
+É£ÉÉÒ ºÉnxÉ àÉå
SÉSÉÉÇ SÉãÉ ®cÉÒ
cè*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉé ABÉE àÉci´É{ÉÚhÉÇ
ºÉÚSÉxÉÉ näxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ*
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Sanjay, please take your seat. I have
called the next speaker to speak.
… (Interruptions)
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
VÉÉä ÉÊxÉvÉÉÇÉÊ®iÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ lÉÉ, ´Éc
xÉÉè ÉÊàÉxÉ] lÉÉ,
+ÉÉìãÉ®äbÉÒ 29
ÉÊàÉxÉ] <xcÉäxÉå
ãÉä ÉÊãÉA MɪÉä
cé*
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I have called the next speaker to speak.
… (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing will go on record.
(Interruptions)*
gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVɪÉ,
àÉéxÉä =xÉBÉEÉä
¤ÉÖãÉÉ ÉÊãɪÉÉ
cè*
...(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have called the next speaker to speak.
Please take your seat.
*Not Recorded.
bÉì. ºÉÖ¶ÉÉÒãÉ
BÉÖEàÉÉ® <xnÉè®É
(ÉʺɮºÉÉ) : ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉÉVÉ
nÉä ¤É½ÉÒ {ÉÆSÉɪÉiÉå
<BÉE]Â~ÉÒ cÉäBÉE®
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä iÉciÉ
ABÉE àÉci´É{ÉÚhÉÇ
àÉÖqä {É® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
ÉÊxÉ®ÉävÉBÉE BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEä iÉciÉ ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ
BÉEÉÒ nÉä ¤É½ÉÒ
{ÉÆSÉɪÉiÉå ABÉE
{ÉEèºÉãÉÉ ãÉäxÉä
´ÉÉãÉÉÒ cé ÉÊBÉE
nä¶É àÉå +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
®cä ªÉÉ xÉ ®cä* ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
xÉä àÉÖqÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ
+ÉÉè® +ÉÉVÉ nä¶É
BÉEä cÉãÉÉiÉ {ÉÖBÉEÉ®-{ÉÖBÉEÉ®
BÉE® <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉä
BÉEc ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®ä
nä¶É àÉå ABÉE AäºÉÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ cÉäxÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEä
iÉciÉ +ÉÉVÉ VÉÉä
ÉÊxÉnÉæÉ ãÉÉäMÉ
àÉÉ®ä VÉÉ ®cä cé,
ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉå ºÉä
vÉxÉ +ÉÉ ®cÉ cè, =ºÉ
vÉxÉ BÉEä ¤ÉãɤÉÚiÉä
{É® ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ
ãÉÉäMÉ +ÉÉBÉE®
càÉÉ®ä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä ¤É®MÉãÉÉ
BÉE® ªÉcÉÆ JÉÚxÉ-JɮɤÉÉ
BÉE®iÉä cé, BÉEiãÉä-+ÉÉàÉ
BÉE®iÉä cé, +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
{ÉEèãÉÉiÉä cé* ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
+ÉÉVÉ cÉãÉÉiÉ BÉEÉä
àÉqäxÉVÉ® ®JÉiÉä
cÖA ªÉc BÉEciÉÉÒ cè
ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä ABÉE
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ
VÉɪÉä* ´ÉèºÉä
iÉÉä àÉé ABÉE ¤ÉÉiÉ
ªÉc £ÉÉÒ BÉEcÚÆMÉÉ,
àÉä®ÉÒ ABÉE ºÉÉäSÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
+É{ÉxÉä +ÉÉ{ÉàÉå
iÉÉBÉEiÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ
cè, SÉÉcä ´Éc |Énä¶É
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cÉä
+ÉÉè® SÉÉcä nä¶É
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cÉä*
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® +É{ÉxÉä
+ÉÉ{ÉàÉå ºÉFÉàÉ
cÉäiÉÉÒ cè, +ÉMÉ®
cÉãÉÉiÉ BÉEä àÉÖqäxÉVÉ®
Vɰô®iÉ xÉ cÉä iÉÉä
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® c® SÉÉÒVÉ
{É® BÉEɤÉÚ {ÉÉ
ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ cè, SÉÉcä
´Éc §É]ÉSÉÉ® cÉä,
SÉÉcä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
cÉä* +ÉMÉ® =xÉ cÉãÉÉiÉ
BÉEÉä näJÉå iÉÉä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉÒ
Vɰô®iÉ xÉcÉÓ cè
ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä ãÉɪÉÉ
VÉɪÉä, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
=ºÉBÉEÉä ºÉÆ´ÉèvÉÉÉÊxÉBÉE
°ô{É ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉɪÉä,
ªÉc ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ
àÉÆ¶ÉÉ cè +ÉÉè®
=ºÉ àÉÆ¶ÉÉ BÉEÉä
{ÉÚ®É BÉE®xÉä BÉEä
ÉÊãÉA +ÉÉVÉ ªÉc
VÉÉä<Æ] ÉʺÉÉË]MÉ
cÉä ®cÉÒ cè, =ºÉàÉå
{ÉÉä]Éä {ÉɺÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ
cè*
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
¤ÉxÉÉxÉÉ BÉEÉä<Ç
¤ÉÖ®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉ¤É ºÉä àÉé
cÉ=ºÉ àÉå ¤Éè~É
cÖ+ÉÉ näJÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ
ÉÊBÉE ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
xÉä £ÉÉÒ BÉDãÉÉVÉ
]Ú BÉDãÉÉVÉ {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä
näJÉÉ cè, VÉÉä ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉä
ãÉÉäMÉ cé, =xÉàÉå
ºÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
xÉä £ÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
BÉDãÉÉVÉ BÉEÉä xÉcÉÓ
näJÉÉ cè* ABÉE-nÉä BÉEÉä
UÉä½ nå iÉÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
BÉDãÉÉVÉ {É® ÉÊ]{{ÉhÉÉÒ
xÉ BÉE®iÉä cÖA ÉʺÉ{ÉEÇ
ABÉE ¤ÉÉiÉ ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ®
BÉEcÉÒ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊàɺɪÉÚVÉ
cÉäMÉÉ* ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ®
ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcÉÒ
MÉ<Ç ÉÊBÉE ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
iÉÉè® {É® àÉÉ<xÉÉäÉÊ®]ÉÒVÉ
{É® ÉÊàɺɪÉÚVÉ
cÉäMÉÉ* +ÉÉVÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
<xÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉÒ
cè, càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEä ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ
cé, càÉ ¤ÉÉÒSÉ
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
BÉDªÉÉ ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ ªÉc
¤ÉiÉÉAÆMÉä, cÉãÉÉiÉ
¤ÉnãÉiÉä nä® xÉcÉÓ
ãÉMÉiÉÉ, <vÉ® ºÉä
=vÉ® +ÉÉè® =vÉ® ºÉä
<vÉ® cÉäiÉä cÖA nä®
xÉcÉÓ ãÉMÉiÉÉÒ,
iÉ¤É BÉDªÉÉ <ºÉÉÒ
ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉä +Éɶ´ÉºiÉ
BÉE®åMÉä ÉÊBÉE =ºÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊàɺɪÉÚVÉ
cÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE xÉcÉÓ
cÉäMÉÉ? cÉãÉÉiÉ
BÉE£ÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ
¤ÉnãÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä
cé, ªÉc iÉÉä nä¶ÉÉÊciÉ
BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè,
+ÉMÉ® <vÉ® BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ
<vÉ® +ÉÉ MɪÉä iÉÉä
BÉDªÉÉ ªÉä ªÉcÉÒ
¶ÉÆBÉEÉ VÉÉÉÊc®
BÉE®åMÉä ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊàɺɪÉÚVÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ, <ºÉBÉEÉ
àÉÉ<xÉÉäÉÊ®]ÉÒVÉ
{É® ÉÊàɺɪÉÚVÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ, +ÉMÉ®
BÉEãÉ BÉEÉä cÉãÉÉiÉ
AäºÉä £ÉÉÒ {ÉènÉ
cÉä VÉɪÉå iÉÉä
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä <ºÉ iÉ®c
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
cÉlÉ VÉÉä½BÉE® BÉEcxÉÉ
{ɽäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE càÉ
nä¶É àÉå ABÉE AäºÉÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé, ÉÊVɺÉàÉå
càÉÉ®É ºÉcªÉÉäMÉ
BÉEÉÊ®ªÉä* +ÉÉVÉ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® nä¶ÉÉÊciÉ
àÉå, BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
xÉ BÉEä´ÉãÉ {ÉÚ®ä
®É]Å àÉå, ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE
+ÉxiÉ®ÉÇ]ÅÉÒªÉ
ºiÉ® {É® <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEÉä =~ɪÉÉ VÉÉ
®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE {ÉÚ®ä
ºÉƺÉÉ® àÉå
VÉ¤É +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
¤Éfà ®cÉ cè, BÉEÉä<Ç
£ÉÉÒ nä¶É <ºÉºÉä
+ÉUÚiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cè,
+ÉãÉMÉ-+ÉãÉMÉ nä¶É
+É{ÉxÉä-+É{ÉxÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
¤ÉxÉÉ ®cä cé* càÉ
+É{ÉxÉä nä¶É àÉå
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉå,
=ºÉBÉEÉä ºÉÆ´ÉèvÉÉÉÊxÉBÉE
°ô{É nå* +ÉMÉ® BÉEcÉÓ
càÉÉ®ÉÒ BÉEÉÊàɪÉÉÆ
®cå, cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE BÉEcÉÓ BÉEÉÊàɪÉÉÆ
®cÉÒ cÉå iÉÉä =ºÉàÉå
AàÉåbàÉå] ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè*
+ÉÉVÉ càÉå xÉcÉÓ
ãÉMÉiÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉÒ àÉÆ¶ÉÉ
JÉ®É¤É cè* càÉå
xÉcÉÓ ãÉMÉiÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® <ºÉBÉEÉ
nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉÒ cè* <ºÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä
´ÉÉãÉä càÉ cé,
ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE®xÉä
´ÉÉãÉä càÉ cé
iÉÉä càÉ ABÉE nںɮä
ºÉä BÉDªÉÉå b®å?
+ÉÉVÉ càÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ
®cä cé, =ºÉBÉEÉä ãÉÉMÉÚ
BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉä
ãÉÉäMÉ £ÉÉÒ
càÉÉ®ä cé, iÉÉä
càÉå ÉÊBÉEºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEÉ b® cè* càÉ BÉDªÉÉå
ªÉc SÉSÉÉÇ ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ®
BÉE® ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉ
nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÉäMÉÉ
+ÉÉè® +Éã{ÉºÉÆJªÉBÉEÉå
{É® <ºÉBÉEÉ ¤ÉäVÉÉ
<ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉAMÉÉ* àÉé BÉEcxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ àÉÆ¶ÉÉ
+ÉSUÉÒ cè +ÉÉè® ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
<ºÉä +ÉSUä fÆMÉ ºÉä
ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE®äMÉÉÒ*
àÉä®É iÉÉä ªÉc
£ÉÉÒ BÉEcxÉÉ cè
ÉÊBÉE càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ iÉÉä ¤ÉxÉÉ
näiÉä cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ÉÊVÉºÉ àÉÖqä BÉEä
ÉÊãÉA ¤ÉxÉÉiÉä
cé, =ºÉ {É® {ÉÚ®ÉÒ
iÉ®c +ÉàÉãÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®iÉä, <ºÉÉÊãÉA
àÉé <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEÉ {ÉFÉvÉ® cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
<ºÉàÉå AäºÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*
càÉÉ®ÉÒ ºÉÉäSÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
càÉ ¤ÉxÉÉAÆ, ´Éc
ºÉcÉÒ fÆMÉ ºÉä
ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE®å* BÉE<Ç
¤ÉÉ® näJÉÉ MɪÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE BÉE<Ç BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
AäºÉä cÉÒ {É½ä ®c
VÉÉiÉä cé, ªÉc xÉcÉÓ
cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* nä¶É
àÉå +ÉàÉxÉ SÉèxÉ
cÉä, {É®º{É® |ÉäàÉ
+ÉÉè® £ÉÉ<ÇSÉÉ®ä
BÉEÉ àÉÉcÉèãÉ
¤ÉxÉä, c® VÉÉÉÊiÉ
+ÉÉè® vÉàÉÇ BÉEä
ãÉÉäMÉ ÉÊàÉãÉVÉÖãÉ
BÉE® ®cå +ÉÉè® ¤ÉÉc®
ºÉä +ÉÉBÉE® ãÉÉäMÉ
càÉå =BÉEºÉÉAÆ xÉ
<ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉ ºÉcÉÒ fÆMÉ ºÉä
<ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ cÉä*
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé
ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ BÉEä àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉÉå ºÉä
£ÉÉÒ +ÉxÉÖ®ÉävÉ
BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
nä¶É àÉå ªÉcÉÆ
ºÉä ABÉE ºÉÆnä¶É
VÉÉA ÉÊBÉE càÉ <ºÉ
àÉÉàÉãÉä àÉå
ºÉÉ®ä <BÉE]Â~ä cé*
<ºÉÉÊãÉA ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ £ÉÉÒ
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
BÉE®BÉEä ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉä àÉVɤÉÚiÉÉÒ
|ÉnÉxÉ BÉE®å* ªÉc xÉ
BÉEä´ÉãÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè,
¤ÉÉÎãBÉE ºÉÉ®ä
nä¶É BÉEä ÉÊciÉ BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ cè* nä¶É BÉEä
ÉÊciÉ àÉå VÉÉä
càÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä
VÉÉ ®cä cé, =ºÉBÉEÉä
{ÉÚhÉǰô{ÉähÉ
ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE®å, ªÉcÉÒ
càÉ SÉÉciÉä cé* àÉé
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ
£É®{ÉÚ® ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ +ÉÉè®
ªÉcÉÒ BÉEciÉÉ cÚÆ
ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉä ºÉcÉÒ
fÆMÉ ºÉä ãÉÉMÉÚ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉA*
BÉÖEÆ´É®
+ÉÉÊJÉãÉä¶É É˺Éc
: càÉå ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ
VÉÉA ÉÊBÉE àÉiÉnÉxÉ
BÉE¤É cÉäMÉÉ ?
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : ºÉ£ÉÉÒ
®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
{ÉÉÉÌ]ªÉÉå BÉEä
´ÉBÉDiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
BÉEÉä +ɴɺɮ ÉÊnªÉÉ
VÉÉAMÉÉ* ºÉƺÉnÉÒªÉ
BÉEɪÉÇ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ ºÉä SÉSÉÉÇ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ={ɮɯiÉ
¤ÉiÉÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ
VÉÉAMÉÉ*
SHRI PURNO A. SANGMA (TURA): Mr. Chairman, Sir, much has
already been said about POTO today. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha have
debated separately. I do not want to take much of the time of the House.
I would basically make three-four points.
There are different dimensions of terrorism. The first
dimension is to deal with the export of terrorism into our country, which
we call `cross-border terrorism’. The second dimension is domestic insurgency.
I come from an area and region where we experience everyday as to what
domestic insurgency means. The third dimension of terrorism is the combination
of the first and the second one, that is, the exported terrorism and the
domestic insurgency. The fourth dimension is narco terrorism, which includes
terrorism across the borders and the related crimes. Then, of course, the
fifth dimension of terrorism, that is, the organised crimes and terrorism
operating in tandem.
Another one, which perhaps we sometimes forget to think
about it, is the way terrorism is growing technologically. Terrorism growing
technological with highly destructive weaponry and the use of communication
system. Last but not least is globalisation of terrorism. It is no more
the crime confined to a particular country or any particular area. It has
become global.
Sir, Al Qaeda is reported to have their operation
centres in 21 countries including India. Now, given these dimensions of
terrorism, how do we deal with that is a very pertinent question. The question
arises whether the present type of terrorism that is existing here and
everywhere, particularly in India, can be dealt with by the existing legal
systems, the Indian Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code – TADA has
been repealed – can this problem be dealt with by the existing law is a
question before the nation. My humble opinion is that the dimension of
terrorism has taken such a shape – I have given some examples – that this
problem cannot be tackled by the existing legal system, within the framework
of the existing laws.
What is terrorism? What does our law say about terrorism?
Is terrorism a crime under the Indian Penal Code? Has terrorism been defined
in the Indian Penal Code? To my knowledge, ‘no’; terrorism has not been
defined. Therefore, we feel that there is a need for a separate legislation
to tackle terrorism in our country. We are the country which has suffered
maximum due to cross-border terrorism and India has been pleading with
the whole world at every international forum, impressing upon the world
community the dangers of terrorism, the dangers of cross-border terrorism.
I had the privilege of leading Indian Delegations many
times to many countries. In every international forum we had impressed
upon them to recognise how dangerous it was, how India was facing cross-border
terrorism. We did not get much of a response, to be very frank. Even recently,
the Government of India was very kind to send Parliamentary Delegations
to many countries. I had the privilege of leading the Delegation to the
European Parliament. We went there to tell the European community what
cross-border terrorism means, what terrorism means. Shrimati Margaret Alva
is just back from the IPU Conference at Marakkesh and Shrimati Najma Heptulla
is the Chairperson of the IPU. I know that there was an Indian-sponsored
Resolution in the IPU Conference, because when I went abroad, to European
countries, I got a lot of fax messages saying that I must campaign for
getting support to the Resolution to be tabled by India on terrorism. When
we have been doing all this and we have been trying to mobilise the world
opinion against terrorism, how can we say that we should not have a law
to curb terrorism? I do not think we can sell this idea now. A law is required.
We will have to have a law and terrorism has to be dealt with very seriously.
When this Ordinance was promulgated, we had reservations.
We had a party meeting chaired by our President Shri Sharad Pawar. We asked
our Legal Cell to advise us. We had a lot of reservations about the Ordinance,
but when the Prime Minister called the All Party Meeting, my leader Shri
Sharad Pawar attended and he proposed eight specific amendments to be carried
out in the revised Bill.
I must thank the Government. The Government has accepted
most of the amendments that we suggested in that meeting. We are very grateful
for that.
The apprehension that is being expressed is very genuine.
There might be a misuse of this law as TADA had been misused. Particularly
the minority communities in this country are very apprehensive. We must
recognise that aspect. We must ensure that this law is not misused.
But the point is that it will be misused. I do not think
there is any law in our country that is not misused. Every law is being
misused. In my view, that apprehension for misuse of the law should not
be a reason for not enacting a law. How can this be a reason not to enact
a law?
Now, who will do the misuse? That authority which is implementing
it will do the misuse. It is the State Government that will invoke POTA.
It is the State Government that will implement this law. As Shri Somnath
Chatterjee has rightly pointed out, most of the States in this country
are being run by the Opposition parties. So, I do not know why they are
thinking of misusing it. They should not. I appeal to them not to misuse
this law.
With these words, I extend our support to the Bill.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Now, Shri H.K. Javare Gowda. According
to the strength of your party, the time allotted is three minutes. But
you may speak for five minutes.
SHRI H.K. JAVARE GOWDA (KARNATAKA): All right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be brief.
SHRI H.K. JAVARE GOWDA : Mr. Chairman, Sir, I thank you
for having given me this opportunity. Many senior and learned Members have
spoken about the sequence of events and the acts of omission committed
by various parties and the misdeeds committed by the past Governments and
the present Government? I am going to stick on to a particular aspect of
the law. I ask the Treasury Benches to please look into the definition.
In the definition, the suspicion is there. When you suspect a man, you
are going to invoke POTO. The suspicion is not a truth. It is only an assumption.
But unfortunately a man has to suffer for one year without any piece of
evidence.
I am going to urge upon the Treasury Benches about another
point. Please look into Section 3, sub-clause (7). Mr. Law Minister, I
would like to draw your kind attention. What is that? Section 3, sub-clause
(7) prescribes punishment for a maximum period of three years or fine or
both. I am a Mofussil lawyer. You are practising in the Supreme
Court. You are a legal luminary of this country. After conviction, what
has the court to do? If fine is there, an option is there. There will be
only fine, and not jail. Under those circumstances, Section 49, sub-clause
7 says: "For one year without trial, he has to be in jail." Why? Are you
going to rectify that or not? That is my moot question. You please answer
that.
Many advocates and Members have spoken regarding Section
32 of the POTO and the Indian Evidence Act. Even today, the Indian Evidence
Act is one of the best pieces of legislation in the world. But under this
Act, you have given a go-by and an over-riding effect. If a man is alleged
to have committed an offence under this Section, the agency will put him
behind the bars. Even after one year, if you are going to acquit that person,
what will be the fate of his family?
18.39 hrs (Shri T.N. Chaturvedi in the Chair)
In what way are you going to compensate the man who has
suffered for no fault of his in life in a jail? That is to be answered
by you.
The second point that I am going to urge upon the hon.
Members is this. I am not going to make a political speech in this House.
I ask all the hon. Members that you have all suffered under MISA, you have
all suffered under TADA, and now you are going to suffer under POTO.
After 19th of this month, what is the good
conscience and what is the bad conscience of Gujarat Government that made
them to invoke POTO against the so-called accused? On 22-3-2002, what is
the good conscience and what is the bad conscience of the Gujarat Government
that made them to revoke that Section? Please explain that.
SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN (KERALA): Thank you Mr. Chairman
for giving me this opportunity to vindicate the views of RSP, my party,
regarding the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2002, which is passed by the
Lok Sabha and rejected by the Rajya Sabha, in this historic Joint Session
of this Parliament.
At the outset, I strongly and vehemently oppose the Bill,
POTO 2002, as it infringes the basic fundamental rights, violates the human
rights and civil liberties of the people of this country. So, I would like
to describe it as a draconian piece of legislation since it is lacking
human values and freedom. If this Bill is enacted as a law, definitely
it will be a set back for the promotion and protection of civil liberties
and human rights in this country. So, I appeal to the whole House that
this draconian piece of legislation, this black law has to be rejected
in toto by the Joint Session of this House. That is my first appeal.
Regarding the promulgation of the Ordinance, the Ordinance
was first issued on 24th October, 2001 and immediately after
that during the Winter Session, it was sought to be introduced before the
House. Due to vehement opposition, it could not be introduced. On 30th
December again, the second Ordinance was promulgated and in the Lok Sabha
it was passed in the Budget Session, but in the Rajya Sabha it could not
be passed.
Why the Government has, introduced POTO, Bill in this
Joint Session if it is believing in democratic principles? If this Government
is believing in democratic principles, the Government ought to have tried
for a consensus between the parties to have a reconsideration and review
of the harsh provisions of this Bill. Instead of taking such a step, this
Government has taken a hasty step to convene the Joint Session to get the
Bill passed. There lies the intention of the Government and the intention
of the Government is not bona fide. Is it an attempt to curb terrorism?
No.
The Leader of the Opposition in the morning has said that
this Bill is introduced with a mala fide political motive and intention
and the parliamentary procedure has been used for the same. I fully support
the Leader of Opposition because this Bill is intented to suppress the
democratic movement in this country. Against this Government, because of
the economic and labour reforms, strong agitation is coming in this country.
The Government wants to suppress the democratic moves in this country.
The Government also wants to misuse the provisions of this Bill so that
the interests of the minorities will be adversely affected, and that the
Hindutva political doctrine of BJP can be implemented in this country.
That is why we are saying that this is lacking bona fide intentions.
Mr. Chairman Sir, when the hon. Home Minister was replying
to the debate in the Rajya Sabha, he has been appealing to the House not
to attribute motives on us and not to doubt the sincerity of the Government.
I would like to very vehemently say that we are doubting the bona fides
of this Government because of the recent happenings that we saw in Gujarat.
POTO has been used against a particular community, but it has not been
used against the other community. So, the discrimination, the misuse, the
selective use of POTO against a particular minority community has been
established in the recent Gujarat episode. Then how can we rely upon the
Government? How can we rely upon the bona fide intentions of this
Government?
Due to paucity of time, I am not going into the details
of this Bill.
So, if the present laws, which are now in existence are
sufficient to deal with the terrorist acts in this country, what is the
need of this draconian legislation? It is against the principles of criminal
jurisprudence, against the principles of natural justice and against the
principles of common law, and this draconian legislation has to be rejected
by this House also.
Sir, I would like to say that in order to protect the
secular fabric of this country and also the democratic values of this country,
this Bill has to be rejected.
With these words, I oppose this Bill and I hope, I believe
and I appeal to the House that this POTO Bill may be rejected in toto
so that the secular fabric and the democratic values of this country
will be protected.
SHRI P.D. ELANGOVAN (DHARMAPURI): Mr. Chairman, Sir, on
behalf of our Party, Pattali Makkal Katchi, and our beloved leader,
Dr. Ramdas Ayya, I wish to convey our views in this historic Joint
Sitting of both the Houses of Parliament. I wish to speak in Tamil.
*Sir, I thank the Chair for giving me an opportunity to
speak on the historic occasion to pass POTO as an Act in the joint sitting
of the Parliament. I would like to put forth my view on behalf of our founder
leader Dr Ramadoss and on behalf of our party Pattali Makkal Katchi – PMK.
Nation, in the present scenario, needs to have prevention
of terrorism law. The dastardly acts perpetrated by the terrorists have
to be contained. In their disruptive acts whoever lend them support either
directly or indirectly thereby causing damage to the country’s unity and
peace must be identified and must be brought to book. In order to bring
them before law and to punish them accordingly POTO is essential at this
juncture.
Those who resort to terrorism and those who extend support
to the terrorists are both against the society and humanity. They are enemies
to the human kind. Showing concern to such inhuman people would be like
venturing into the hiding place of a poisonous cobra.
A specific community particularly the minority community
may be hunted down with POTO is the apprehension in the minds of some people.
Political parties may settle scores with one another using POTO is another
misapprehension in the minds of some others. Though these are needless
apprehensions, we cannot deny that there is no basis for these apprehensions.
What happened in the past suggests that there is basis.
POTO aims at crushing down terrorists. The apprehension
that it may pounce on innocent citizens can be dispelled only when they
are judiciously exercised.
Both the Union and the State Governments, through their
fair implementation must give a guarantee to the Parliament that passes
this Bill. I
have no doubt and fervently hope that they will all be
fair.
When an individual is booked under POTA, an impartial
and objective enquiry must be there to ascertain their family and social
background.
A person held under POTA if proved innocent must be adequately
compensated. It they have been deliberately wronged the official concerned
who misused or abused the law must be punished.
When exercising the authority conferred by POTA, every
official especially the police officers must be above board, non-partisan
and objective with impeccable integrity beyond doubt. Both the Union and
the State Governments must ensure this. The conduct of such officials in
the past, their service history and their current assignments must be carefully
monitored.
POTA, as a law, must be handled by the Union and the State
Governments in a transparent manner. Care must be taken to avoid wreaking
vengeance and settling scores. It can be evolved to have a fortnightly
review by a Standing Committee of the Parliament. Every State may also
constitute such review Committees comprising of a Human Rights Jurist,
a senior journalist, a retired judge of a High Court, a member of an NGO
for the cause of Human Rights, and the representatives of recognised political
parties.
Press being one of the pillars of democracy, press must
have its press freedom uncurtailed. The POTO Bill incorporates amended
provisions to ensure this. Still the responsibility vests with the Union
and State Governments.
The danger potential of the terrorists cannot be gauged
by the sparse arrest of terrorists here and there. Those who plot terrorism
evolving plans paving way for destruction and those who provide help to
such terrorists to execute their evil designs must be severely dealt with.
Our PMK whole-heartedly support this law that needs to
be implemented in a fair manner. On behalf of our founder leader Dr Ramadoss
and on behalf of my party – Pattali Makkal Katchi – PMK I extend my support
to this Bill.
*English Translation of the speech originally delivered
in Tamil.
gÉÉÒ ®ÉàÉVÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ
É˺Éc (¤ÉÉÊãɪÉÉ,
ÉʤÉcÉ®) : ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ºÉ´Éä®ä
ºÉä {ÉÉä]Éä {É®
SÉSÉÉÇ SÉãÉ ®cÉÒ
cè* ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä ¶É®nBÉEÉãÉÉÒxÉ
+ÉÉÊvÉ´Éä¶ÉxÉ
àÉå VÉ¤É <ºÉ +ÉvªÉÉnä¶É
{É® SÉSÉÉÇ cÉäxÉä
´ÉÉãÉÉÒ lÉÉÒ
iÉÉä ÉÊnããÉÉÒ
àÉå BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉÉÒ
àÉÖJªÉàÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ ABÉE ¤Éè~BÉE
cÖ<Ç* ¶ÉɪÉn =ºÉàÉå
BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉÉÒ
àÉÖJªÉàÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå
xÉä {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ
ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ VɤÉ
¤ÉÉiÉ ]ÉÒ.´ÉÉÒ.
{É® +ÉÉ<Ç iÉÉä àÉéxÉä
ºÉÖxÉÉ ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
+ÉvªÉFÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä
àÉå cè* àÉÖJªÉàÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå
BÉEÉÒ ¤Éè~BÉE SÉãÉ
®cÉÒ cè, ¤ÉÉÒSÉ
BÉEÉ ®ÉºiÉÉ ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉÉ
VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* ®ÉiÉ 9 ¤ÉVÉä
¤Éè~BÉE ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ
cÖ<Ç* BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
|É´ÉBÉDiÉÉ ¤Éè~BÉE
ºÉä ¤ÉÉc® +ÉɪÉä
+ÉÉè® BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE
càÉ {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ
<ºÉÉÊãɪÉä ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
càɺÉä {ÉÚUÉ xÉcÉÓ
MɪÉÉ …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ ; <xcÉäxÉä
]ÉÒ.´ÉÉÒ. {É® ºÉÖxÉÉ*
gÉÉÒ ®ÉàÉVÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ
É˺Éc : ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, VɤÉ
àÉé BÉÖEU BÉEc ®cÉ cÚÆ
iÉÉä àÉé {ÉÚ®ÉÒ
VÉ´ÉɤÉnäcÉÒ
BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ BÉEc ®cÉ
cÚÆ* àÉéxÉä ]ÉÒ.´ÉÉÒ.
{É® ºÉÖxÉÉ +ÉÉè®
àÉÖZÉä ãÉMÉÉ
VÉÉä +ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉÒ
BÉEciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ <iÉxÉÉÒ
¤É½ÉÒ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ
cè, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉ 100
´ÉÉÇ ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ
BÉEÉ <ÉÊiÉcɺÉ
cè, ÉÊVɺÉä ABÉE ãÉà¤Éä
ºÉàÉªÉ iÉBÉE ¶ÉɺÉxÉ
àÉå ®cxÉä BÉEÉ +ÉxÉ֣ɴÉ
cè, ´Éc ªÉc BÉEcä ÉÊBÉE
càÉå {ÉÚUÉ xÉcÉÓ,
<ºÉÉÊãɪÉä ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉE® ®cä cé* àÉé BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ ºÉä ªÉcÉÒ
BÉEcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®ÉÒ
gÉÉÒ +É]ãÉ ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ
´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® +ÉÉ{É
ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉ
<iÉxÉÉ vªÉÉxÉ ®JÉiÉÉÒ
cè, +ÉÉ{É ãÉÉäMÉÉä
ºÉä <iÉxÉÉ b®iÉÉÒ
cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
xÉäiÉÉ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ
ABÉE àÉÉÊcãÉÉ ®ÉVªÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ uÉ®É
WÉ®É ºÉÉÒ Uä½Uɽ
BÉE®xÉä {É® =xÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É£ÉÉMÉ ¤ÉnãÉ
ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ*
<ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn £ÉÉÒ
+ÉÉ{É BÉEciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉ{ɺÉä {ÉÚUÉ
xÉcÉÓ VÉÉiÉÉ cè…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : +ÉÉ{É
ÉÊ´ÉÉªÉ {É®
+ÉÉ<ªÉä* BÉßE{ɪÉÉ
vÉèªÉÇ ®ÉÊJɪÉä*
gÉÉÒ ®ÉàÉVÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ
É˺Éc : ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, <ºÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É
BÉEÉä {Éä¶É BÉE®iÉä
cÖªÉä àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
xÉä {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä
ºÉÉ®ä {ÉcãÉÖ+ÉÉäÆ
{É® SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉÒ*
iÉi{ɶSÉÉiÉ càÉÉ®ä
ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ àÉjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ xÉä {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉDªÉÉ cè, <ºÉBÉEÉÒ
SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊBÉE
BÉDªÉÉå <ºÉBÉEÉÒ
+ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ
{ɽÉÒ, <ºÉBÉEÉÒ
BÉDªÉÉ +ÉcÉÊàɪÉiÉ
cè, <ºÉàÉå BÉEcÉÆ-BÉEcÉÆ
AäºÉä àÉÖqä cé ÉÊVÉxÉ
{É® +ÉÉ{ÉÉÊkÉ cÉä
ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ cè, ºÉÉʴɺiÉÉ®
¤É½ÉÒ ¤ÉÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉÒ
ºÉä SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉÒ*
àÉé =xÉ ¤ÉÉiÉÉå
BÉEÉä nÉäc®ÉxÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ SÉÉciÉÉ BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
ºÉàÉªÉ ¤ÉcÖiÉ
BÉEàÉ cè*
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ABÉE +ÉÉ®Éä{É
ªÉc ãÉMÉɪÉÉ
MɪÉÉ, {ÉFÉ-ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
BÉEä BÉE<Ç ´ÉBÉDiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ
xÉä <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ
=ããÉäJÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
+ÉÉè® <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEÉÒ ºÉÆ£ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ
BªÉBÉDiÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊBÉE
<ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉɪÉäMÉÉ*
+ÉÉVÉÉnÉÒ BÉEä ¤ÉÉn
ºÉä ãÉäBÉE® +ÉÉVÉ
iÉBÉE <ºÉ nä¶É BÉEÉ
ABÉE £ÉÉÒ àÉÉxªÉiÉÉ|ÉÉ{iÉ
®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE
nãÉ xÉcÉÓ ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉÒ
BÉE£ÉÉÒ +ÉBÉEäãÉÉÒ
ªÉÉ ºÉÉÆZÉÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
xÉ ¤ÉxÉÉÒ cÉä ªÉÉ
=ºÉä ºÉ®BÉEÉ® àÉå
+ÉÉxÉä BÉEÉ àÉÉèBÉEÉ
xÉ ÉÊàÉãÉÉ cÉä
ªÉÉ <ºÉ ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉ
àÉå BÉEäxp ªÉÉ ®ÉVªÉ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ®Éå {É®
ªÉc +ÉÉ®Éä{É xÉ
ãÉMÉÉ cÉä ÉÊBÉE
<ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ
=ããÉÆPÉxÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
cè ªÉÉ =ããÉÆPÉxÉ
cÉä ®cÉ cè* 1974 àÉå
VÉ¤É gÉÉÒ VɪÉ
|ÉBÉEÉ¶É xÉɮɪÉhÉ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉ +ÉÉxnÉäãÉxÉ
SÉãÉ ®cÉ lÉÉ * àÉéxÉä
ÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxɺɣÉÉ
ºÉä <ºiÉÉÒ{ÉEÉ
ÉÊnªÉÉ iÉlÉÉ +ÉÉxnÉäãÉxÉ
àÉå BÉEÉàÉ BÉE®
®cÉ lÉÉ*
ABÉE ¤ÉÉ®
4 +ÉMɺiÉ, 1974 BÉEä ÉÊnxÉ
gÉÉÒ VɪÉ|ÉBÉEɶÉ
xÉɮɪÉhÉ VÉÉÒ
càÉÉ®ä ªÉcÉÆ VÉÉxÉä
´ÉÉãÉä lÉä* àÉé
=ºÉBÉEÉ +ÉÉMÉæxÉÉ<VÉ®
lÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
{ÉcãÉÉÒ +ÉMɺiÉ
BÉEÉä àÉÖZÉä ABÉE
vÉÉ®É 379 BÉEä +ÉÆiÉMÉÇiÉ
ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ* =ºÉBÉEÉÒ
A{ÉE.+ÉÉ<Ç.+ÉÉ®. BÉEÉÒ
+ÉMÉ® àÉé ªÉcÉÆ
SÉSÉÉÇ BÉE°ôÆ ÉÊBÉE
´Éc BÉDªÉÉ A{ÉE.+ÉÉ<Ç.+ÉÉ®.
lÉÉÒ - ABÉE ãɽBÉEÉ
A{ÉE.+ÉÉ<Ç.+ÉÉ®. BÉE®ÉiÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE àÉé +ÉÉVÉ
{ÉEãÉÉÆ BÉEÉìÉÊãÉVÉ
àÉå 11 ¤ÉVÉä {É®ÉÒFÉÉ
näxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
VÉÉ ®cÉ lÉÉ, nÉä ãɽBÉEä
+ÉɪÉä +ÉÉè® ´Éä
{ÉBÉE½BÉE® àÉÖZÉä
ABÉE ´ÉBÉEÉÒãÉ BÉEä
ªÉcÉÆ ãÉä MɪÉä,
àÉä®ÉÒ BÉEÉ{ÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® {ÉäÉÎxºÉãÉ
UÉÒxÉ ãÉÉÒ +ÉÉè®
12 ¤ÉVÉä àÉÖZÉä
UÉä½ ÉÊnªÉÉ* ´Éc
ãɽBÉEÉ BÉEc ®cÉ lÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ®ÉàÉVÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ
¤ÉɤÉÚ £ÉÉÒ
+ÉÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉä
cé <ºÉÉÊãɪÉä
vÉÉ®É 379 BÉEä iÉciÉ
àÉÖZÉä ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ,
VÉäãÉ àÉå ¤ÉÆn
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
+ÉÉè® ¤ÉÉn àÉå
UÉäbÉ MɪÉÉ* BÉDªÉÉ
+ÉÉ{É <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉä c]É nåMÉä*
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé
ABÉE ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ =ããÉÆPÉxÉ
|ɶÉɺÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®iÉÉ cè* ¶ÉɺÉxÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ BÉE®iÉÉ
cè * ¶ÉɺÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ
VÉèºÉÉÒ £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ
cÉäiÉÉÒ cè, |ɶÉɺÉxÉ
´ÉèºÉÉ cÉÒ BÉE®iÉÉ
cè* àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
ABÉE ÉÊBÉEººÉÉ ¤ÉiÉÉiÉÉ
cÚÆ* ABÉE ¤ÉÉ® +ÉBÉE¤É®
xÉä ¤ÉéMÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ
ºÉ¤VÉÉÒ JÉÉ<Ç*
=ºÉä ¤É½ÉÒ +ÉSUÉÒ
ãÉMÉÉÒ* VÉ¤É ´Éc
n®¤ÉÉ® àÉå MɪÉÉ
iÉÉä =ºÉxÉä BÉEcÉ
¤ÉÉÒ®¤ÉãÉ àÉéxÉä
¤ÉéMÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ¤VÉÉÒ
JÉÉ<Ç cè, àÉÖZÉä
¤É½ÉÒ +ÉSUÉÒ ãÉMÉÉÒ*
¤ÉÉÒ®¤ÉãÉ xÉä
BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE VÉcÉÆ{ÉxÉÉc
¤ÉéMÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ¤VÉÉÒ
ºÉä ¤ÉäciÉ®ÉÒxÉ
ºÉ¤VÉÉÒ +ÉÉè®
BÉEÉä<Ç xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉÉÒ
cè* ABÉE ºÉ{iÉÉc ¤ÉÉn
+ÉBÉE¤É® xÉä ¤ÉéMÉxÉ
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ¤VÉÉÒ
ÉÊ{ÉE® JÉÉ<Ç, ÉÊVɺɺÉä
=ºÉBÉE {Éä] àÉå lÉÉä½É
nnÇ cÖ+ÉÉ, ´ÉɪÉÖ-ÉÊ´ÉBÉEÉ®
cÖ+ÉÉ* VÉ¤É ´Éc n®¤ÉÉ®
àÉå MɪÉÉ iÉÉä
=ºÉxÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE
¤ÉÉÒ®¤ÉãÉ näJÉÉä
àÉéxÉä ¤ÉéMÉxÉ
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ¤VÉÉÒ
JÉÉ<Ç cè, =ºÉºÉä
àÉä®ä {Éä] àÉå
nnÇ cÉä MɪÉÉ* ¤ÉÉÒ®¤ÉãÉ
xÉä BÉEcÉ, VÉcÉÆ{ÉxÉÉc
{ÉÚÉÊUªÉä àÉiÉ,
¤ÉéMÉxÉ ºÉä ¤ÉniÉ®
nںɮÉÒ BÉEÉä<Ç
ºÉ¤VÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
cÉäiÉÉÒ* +ÉBÉE¤É®
xÉä BÉEcÉ, ¤ÉÉÒ®¤ÉãÉ
àÉä®ÉÒ ºÉàÉZÉ
àÉå ABÉE ¤ÉÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ
+ÉÉ<Ç, ABÉE ºÉ{iÉÉc
{ÉcãÉä iÉÖàÉxÉä
BÉEcÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ¤ÉéMÉxÉ
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ¤VÉÉÒ
ºÉä ¤ÉäciÉ®ÉÒxÉ
BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉ¤VÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè
+ÉÉè® +ÉÉVÉ BÉEciÉä
cÉä ÉÊBÉE ¤ÉéMÉxÉ
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ¤VÉÉÒ
¤ÉniÉ® cÉäiÉÉÒ
cè* ¤ÉÉÒ®¤ÉãÉ
xÉä BÉEcÉ, VÉcÉÆ{ÉxÉÉc
àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉ xÉÉèBÉE®
cÚÆ, ¤ÉéMÉxÉ BÉEÉ
xÉÉèBÉE® xÉcÉÓ cÚÆ*
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ VÉèºÉÉÒ
£ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ
cè, àÉä®ÉÒ £ÉÉÉÉ
´ÉèºÉÉÒ cÉÒ
¤ÉxÉ VÉÉiÉÉÒ cè*
¶ÉɺÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ
VÉèºÉÉÒ £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ
cÉäiÉÉÒ cè |ɶÉɺÉxÉ
´ÉèºÉÉ cÉÒ cÉäiÉÉ
cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé
+ÉÆÉÊiÉàÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ
cÉä MɪÉÉ cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ ®ÉàÉVÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ
É˺Éc : àÉé
+ÉÆÉÊiÉàÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ
ªÉcÉÆ BÉEcÉ MɪÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ
BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ
ABÉE ºÉàÉÖnɪÉ
ÉʴɶÉäÉ BÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE cÉäMÉÉ*
àÉé |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ
BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä +Éɶ´ÉºiÉ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ
ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É ªÉÉn
®JÉÉä VÉÉä ´ÉÉä]
´ÉÉãÉÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
cÉäiÉÉÒ cè, ÉÊVɺÉä
´ÉÉä] BÉEÉ b® cÉäMÉÉ,
´Éc ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
xÉcÉÓ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ
cè* <ºÉÉÒ nä¶É àÉå
+É{ÉxÉä ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
VÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ àÉå
àÉéxÉä AäºÉÉÒ
{ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉä ¤ÉxÉiÉä
näJÉÉ, VÉ¤É ´Éc {ÉÉ]ÉÔ
¤ÉxÉÉÒ iÉÉä =ºÉxÉä
BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊiÉãÉBÉE,
iÉ®ÉVÉÚ +ÉÉè®
iÉãÉ´ÉÉ®, =ºÉBÉEÉä
àÉÉ®Éä VÉÚiÉä
SÉÉ®* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉ¤É SÉÖxÉÉ´É
BÉEä àÉènÉxÉ àÉå
´ÉcÉÒ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ +ÉÉ<Ç
iÉÉä =ºÉxÉä BÉEcÉ
ÉÊBÉE càÉ ºÉ£ÉÉÒ
´ÉMÉÇ BÉEÉÒ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ
cè, <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉÒ BÉEÉä
ºÉÉlÉ àÉå ãÉäBÉE®
SÉãÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé* <ºÉÉÊãÉA VÉÉä
´ÉÉä] ´ÉÉãÉÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cÉäMÉÉÒ,
VÉÉä ´ÉÉä] ºÉä
¤ÉxÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cÉäMÉÉÒ,
´Éc ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
ºÉàÉÖnÉªÉ BÉEä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE BÉEÉàÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ*
ªÉÉÊn ´Éc AäºÉÉ
BÉE®äMÉÉÒ iÉÉä
VÉxÉiÉÉ =ºÉä BÉE£ÉÉÒ
¤ÉnÉǶiÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®äMÉÉÒ +ÉÉè®
càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ £ÉÉÒ
=ºÉä BÉE£ÉÉÒ ¤ÉnÉǶiÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®åMÉä* <xcÉÓ
¶É¤nÉå BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ
àÉé VÉxÉiÉÉ nãÉ
(ªÉÚ) BÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE
ºÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ*
gÉÉÒ nä´ÉµÉiÉ
Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
({ÉÉζSÉàÉ ¤ÉÆMÉÉãÉ)
: àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ªÉcÉÆ
ÉÊVÉºÉ ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE
BÉEÉä {ÉÉÉÊ®iÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ +ÉÉÊvÉ´Éä¶ÉxÉ
¤ÉÖãÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ
cè, àÉé =ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
JÉ½É cÖ+ÉÉ cÚÆ* ªÉc
ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ +ÉÉÊvÉ´Éä¶ÉxÉ
<ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ àÉå
ABÉE BÉEÉãÉä ÉÊnxÉ
BÉEä °ô{É àÉå ÉÊSÉÉÎÿxÉiÉ
cÉäMÉÉ* àÉä®ä àÉxÉ
àÉå ªÉc |ɶxÉ =~iÉÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
<ºÉ {ÉÉä]Éä ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE
BÉEÉä {ÉÉÉÊ®iÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
<iÉxÉÉÒ ÉÊVÉn BÉDªÉÉå
BÉE® ®cÉÒ cè*
19.00 hrs.
ÉÊVɺÉ
ÉÊnxÉ ºÉä {ÉÉä]Éä
+ÉÉìÉÌbxÉäxºÉ
BÉEä °ô{É àÉå ãÉÉMÉÚ
cÖ+ÉÉ, <ºÉBÉEÉ ={ɪÉÉäMÉ
BÉE®BÉEä BÉE¶àÉÉÒ®
ªÉÉ ÉÊnããÉÉÒ
àÉå BÉEcÉÓ £ÉÉÒ
+ÉÉ{É +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
ºÉä ÉÊxÉ{É] xÉcÉÓ
ºÉBÉEä* +ÉÉVÉ <ºÉ
ºÉnxÉ àÉå VÉÉä
ãÉÉäMÉ ¤Éè~ä
cé, SÉÉcä =ºÉ {ÉFÉ
àÉå cÉå ªÉÉ <ºÉ
{ÉFÉ àÉå cÉå, ºÉ£ÉÉÒ
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn ºÉä
VÉÚZÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA,
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉä
JÉiàÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä
ÉÊãÉA ºÉcàÉiÉ
cé* +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
VÉÉä ºÉÉÒàÉÉ
{ÉÉ® ºÉä càÉÉ®ä
nä¶É BÉEä >ó{É® ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä
ãÉÆ¤Éä ºÉàɪÉ
ºÉä SÉãÉ ®cÉ cè,
<ºÉä ºÉ£ÉÉÒ
£ÉÖMÉiÉ ®cä cé +ÉÉè®
ºÉ£ÉÉÒ ÉÊàÉãÉBÉE®
nä¶É BÉEÉÒ ºÉÖ®FÉÉ
+ÉÉè® ABÉEiÉÉ BÉEä
ÉÊãÉA ãɽxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
<ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉ´ÉVÉÚn
+ÉÉVÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® <ºÉ
{É® ÉÊWÉn BÉE® ®cÉÒ
cè*
àÉä®ä
àÉxÉ àÉå ABÉE |ɶxÉ
=~iÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE VɤÉ
àÉÉxÉ´ÉÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®
+ÉɪÉÉäMÉ <ºÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®
®cÉ cè, VÉ¤É VÉÉxÉä
àÉÉxÉä {ÉjÉBÉEÉ®
ãÉÉäMÉ ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä
SÉÉ®-{ÉÉÆSÉ àÉcÉÒxÉä
ºÉä +É{ÉxÉä AÉÊb]ÉäÉÊ®ªÉãºÉ
BÉEä uÉ®É <ºÉBÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®
®cä cé, +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä {ÉFÉ
àÉå xÉcÉÓ cé, VɤÉ
+ÉÉ{É VÉÉxÉiÉä cé
ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉä
ºÉÉàÉxÉä ®JÉBÉEBÉE®
ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä SÉÖxÉÉ´ÉÉå
àÉå +ÉÉ{É ÉÊ´ÉVɪÉÉÒ
xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉxÉä, ãÉÉäMÉÉå
xÉä +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉ ºÉÉlÉ
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊnªÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEä
¤ÉÉ´ÉVÉÚn £ÉÉÒ
+ÉÉ{É {ÉÉä]Éä ãÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé* <ºÉBÉEÉ
VÉ´ÉÉ¤É £ÉÉÒ
àÉä®ä àÉxÉ àÉå
+ÉÉiÉÉ cè, £ÉãÉä
cÉÒ VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
ªÉcÉÆ ¤Éè~ä cé
=ºÉºÉä ºÉcàÉiÉ
xÉ cÉå àÉMÉ® àÉä®ä
àÉxÉ àÉå <ºÉ |ɶxÉ
BÉEÉ =kÉ® cè +ÉÉè®
<ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ ¤ÉiÉÉAMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE VÉ´ÉɤÉ
BÉDªÉÉ cÉäMÉÉ* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
àÉä®ä àÉxÉ àÉå
VÉÉä ÉÊxÉÉζSÉiÉ
VÉ´ÉÉ¤É +ÉɪÉÉ,
´Éc ªÉc ÉÊBÉE càÉ
<ºÉ nä¶É àÉå ´ÉcÉÒ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé
VÉÉä ªÉÚ.AºÉ.A. SÉÉciÉÉ
cè* <ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊWɵÉE
<ºÉ {ÉFÉ +ÉÉè® =ºÉ
{ÉFÉ BÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE
ºÉä £ÉÉÒ ÉÊnªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ªÉÚ.AºÉ.A.
ÉÊVÉºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ®
SÉÉciÉÉ cè càÉÉ®ä
nä¶É BÉEÉä =ºÉÉÒ
BÉEä +ÉxÉÖºÉÉ® SÉãÉxÉÉ
{ɽäMÉÉ* =ºÉÉÒ
®ÉºiÉä {É® càÉÉ®ä
+ÉÉÉÌlÉBÉE, ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE
+ÉÉè® ºÉÉàÉÉÉÊVÉBÉE
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉåMÉä*
11 ÉʺÉiÉÆ¤É® BÉEÉä
VÉ¤É +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ
{É® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
uÉ®É càÉãÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
iÉÉä ºÉÉ®ÉÒ nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ
àÉå +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
àÉå ãɽÉ<Ç ãɽxÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA =xcÉåxÉä
AäãÉÉxÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ
+ÉÉè® càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ
=ºÉÉÒ BÉEä +ÉxÉÖºÉÉ®
ªÉcÉÆ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉMÉÚ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé*
nںɮÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ àÉä®ä àÉxÉ
àÉå +ÉÉiÉÉÒ cè
+ÉÉè® <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
ºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç <ÆBÉEÉ®
xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ,
SÉÉcä AxÉ.bÉÒ.A BÉEÉÊcªÉä
ªÉÉ VÉÉä £ÉÉÒ
BÉEÉÊcªÉä, àÉMÉ®
ªÉc ¤ÉÉÒ.VÉä.{ÉÉÒ.
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cè
+ÉÉè® <ºÉ ¤ÉÉÒ.VÉä.{ÉÉÒ.
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉ
ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÆjÉ {É®
Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè*
àÉcÉänªÉ,
iÉÉҺɮÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ
àÉé ªÉc BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉ <ºÉ
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä BÉEÉ®hÉ
ãÉÉäMÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé ÉÊBÉE nä¶É BÉEä
+Éã{ÉºÉÆJªÉBÉEÉå
BÉEä +ÉÆn® £ÉªÉ {ÉènÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ ´ÉÉiÉÉ´É®hÉ
iÉèªÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉA, ABÉE {ÉEÉҪɮ
ºÉɪÉBÉEÉäÉʺɺÉ
iÉèªÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉA +ÉÉè® ºÉÉà|ÉnÉÉʪÉBÉE
£ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ {ÉènÉ
BÉE®å iÉÉÉÊBÉE SÉÖxÉÉ´É
àÉå nÖ¤ÉÉ®É VÉÉÒiÉ
BÉE® ºÉkÉÉ cÉÉʺÉãÉ
BÉE® ºÉBÉEå* ªÉc +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ
àÉÆ¶ÉÉ cè*
àÉcÉänªÉ,
VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEä cÉlÉ àÉå cé,
´Éä {ɪÉÉÇ{iÉ
cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ
~ÉÒBÉE xÉcÉÓ cè* +ÉÉVÉ
|ɶÉɺÉÉÊxÉBÉE
BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ SÉ®àÉ®É
MÉ<Ç cè* {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ £ÉÉÒ
~ÉÒBÉE xÉcÉÓ cè* VÉÉä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä
{ÉÉºÉ ´ÉiÉÇàÉÉxÉ
àÉå cé =xcå +ÉÉ{É
ãÉÉMÉÚ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉciÉä cé* =xÉBÉEÉä
ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE®xÉä
BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ
BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ MÉãÉiÉ
cè* BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå
BÉEä ~ÉÒBÉE |ÉBÉEÉ®
ºÉä ãÉÉMÉÚ xÉcÉÓ
cÉäxÉä BÉEä BÉEÉ®hÉ
+ÉÉVÉ nÉÊãÉiÉÉå
{É® VªÉÉnÉÊiɪÉÉÆ
cÉä ®cÉÒ cé* =xÉBÉEÉÒ
®FÉÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉä
cé ´Éä ãÉÉMÉÚ
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEA VÉÉ
®cä cé* =ºÉÉÒ {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
BÉEä cÉlÉ àÉå +ÉÉ{É
nÖ¤ÉÉ®É AäºÉÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ näxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé*
àÉcÉänªÉ,
+ÉÉVÉ <xÉBÉEÉä iÉBÉEãÉÉÒ{ÉE
cÉä ®cÉÒ cè BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉVÉ |ÉvÉÉxÉ ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉÉÒ
nãÉ <xÉBÉEä <ºÉ {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä ÉÊ´Éâór
JÉ½É cÖ+ÉÉ cè* ªÉc
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä cè®ÉxÉ
cÉäxÉä BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE
+ÉÉxÉÆÉÊniÉ cÉäxÉä
BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè
BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É
+ÉiÉÉÒiÉ ºÉä ÉʶÉFÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ ãÉäxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé* <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA
+ÉÉ{É {ÉÉä]Éä VÉèºÉÉ
BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉ ®cä
cé* ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
{ÉFÉ {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®
®cÉ cè, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
+ÉÉ{É =ºÉºÉä ÉʶÉFÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ ãÉäxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé*
àÉcÉänªÉ,
SÉÚÆÉÊBÉE ºÉkÉÉ
nãÉ BÉEÉ <ºÉ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE àÉä ¤ÉcÖàÉiÉ
cè, <ºÉÉÊãÉA ªÉä
ãÉÉäMÉ <ºÉä +ÉÉVÉ
ºÉnxÉ àÉå {ÉɺÉ
BÉE®É ãÉåMÉä, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
àÉènÉxÉ àÉå +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ
<ºÉ cäiÉÖ xÉcÉÓ ÉÊàÉãÉäMÉÉ*
<ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé
<ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ*
SHRI E. AHAMED (MANJERI): Mr. Chairman, Sir, I oppose
the proposed POTO Bill vehemently. My party, the Indian Union Muslim League,
has already made it abundantly clear that we will oppose it tooth and nail.
Due to paucity of time, I would like to confine my argument only to one
or two points.
At the outset, I would like to ask the present Government,
what is the mandate they have to bring this piece of legislation here?
They have just faced the people in elections in four States and in all
the four elections, BJP has been miserably defeated. When they have lost
their mandate, how do they dare to come over to this House and create a
manipulated mandate while making use of the provisions of the Constitution?
If this House passes this piece of legislation, I have absolutely no doubt
to say that this will be the darkest day in the democratic history of this
country. Unfortunately, the provision of the Constitution has been misused.
Once they have been defeated by the people in the last elections held in
four States where they have been campaigning in the name of this POTO,
in the name of national security, and when the people have rejected the
BJP Government, that Government has come here with the same piece of legislation.
This, I would say, is a fraud committed on the people of this country by
the BJP Government.
Secondly, one thing we are sure that this law is most
likely to be misused. My friend Shri Sangma said, all laws are being misused.
But I would like to take this opportunity to remind Shri Sangma that when
a Draconian law is misused, it will affect, it will wreck thousands of
families in this country. They must bear in mind that this is not an ordinary
law.
This is a draconian law. This has been aimed against the
political enemies. This has been aimed against the religious minorities.
I am not saying about the religious minorities simply as a matter of argument.
For the last several months, since the BJP came to power, you have been
campaigning against them. All the Parties that are allied with the BJP,
the ultra-communal parties, the ultra-communal fundamentalist parties like
the VHP, Bajrang Dal, RSS are campaigning against a particular community.
A hate campaign is going on unnecessarily and without any justification
they have been saying that all the Muslim organisations are communal organisations
or anti-national organisations.
Mr. Chairman, Sir, I would say that you have taken the
POTO as a barometer to measure the nationalism of an individual. One cannot
accept it. I have my nationalism. I have my commitment to this country.
Who is this Government to measure it and using this POTO as a barometer
to say – "You are anti-national since you oppose this POTO and you are
national only if you will support this POTO?" Who are these people to take
monopoly of the nationalism and our commitment to the country? We cannot
accept this.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Shri Ahamed, please wind up.
SHRI E. AHAMED : Sir, this is an important occasion to
express my opinion. I may be given some time. I have to speak what we are
feeling.
MR. CHAIRMAN : There is constraint of time.
SHRI E. AHAMED : Sir, I will take just one minute. What
happened in Gujarat? It has been closely discussed. In Godhra in Gujarat,
you have charged the accused people under POTO. But when thousands and
thousands of people have been put to suffering in other parts of Gujarat,
what did you do? When more than 800 people have been arrested there, you
have not given any justification nor shown courtesy to bring those criminals
under POTO? What happened in Gujarat?
MR. CHAIRMAN : Shri Ahamed, please wind up now. I cannot
allow it.
SHRI E. AHAMED : Sir, please allow me for one minute.
I will speak about Gujarat. If a man goes mad, you can chain him. But from
what you have heard from the Chief Minister, if the chain goes mad, what
can you do? In Gujarat the chains have gone mad and not the people. If
the people will go mad, you can chain them. If the chain itself goes mad,
you cannot do anything. That is why I say this.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Shri Ahamed, I am bound by the tyranny
of the clock. Please wind up.
SHRI E. AHAMED : Sir, just one minute. I will abide by
your direction. I would only say that I have one demand. I would like to
state that in the interest of the country, in the interest of the nationalism
and in the interest of the future of this country, the communal harmony
and also the religious harmony, I would request everyone of you to please
show it by rejecting this POTO in toto.
SHRI R.S. GAVAI (MAHARASHTRA): Mr. Chairman, Sir, at the
outset I strongly oppose this POTO Bill which is contrary to the spirit
of the human dignity, liberty and equality. I will be very brief to indicate
that I, on behalf of my Party, am strongly opposing this Bill.
Sir, much has been said by both the sides. I apprehend
that the existing Bill is being misused. On the contrary, assurances from
the Government side have been given that this Bill is not being misused.
I have been hearing the speeches patiently. One can agree with me that
there is a strong case being pleaded today that there is every possibility
that this existing Bill will be misused.
It will be misused not only in future, but Shri Kapil
Sibal, the hon. Member of Rajya Sabha, has given illustrations – the Bill
is still at Ordinance stage and not an Act yet – and instances of how it
is being misused. I may not narrate them again. At the same time, from
the Government side, the Government of Maharashtra’s legislations are being
quoted and that too more than a dozen times in their speeches as if the
legislation passed by the Government of Maharashtra is a standard one.
I do not think so. Though I am a supporter of that Government, I opposed
such a legislation earlier and now also. At the same time, it is stated
that the legislations in Maharashtra are the standard ones and the versions
given by the Human Rights Commission and Law Commission are being ignored
as if the legislation of the Maharashtra is more supreme than the version
given by the Human Rights Commission and Law Commission.
Sir, there is no doubt that we are there to deal with
terrorism. It should be curbed. But at the same time, national security
is very paramount. I agree. Sir, national security and the security of
the individual dignity, equality and liberty is a correlated terminology.
If the individual of this country is not free, is not having the liberty,
equality and dignity, how will we have the national security? I would say
that there should be a good message which should go to the world. What
do you mean by a good message? It is also a correlated term. Sir, it is
said here:
"This Act is being condemned internationally on the
pretext that this highlights the spirit of the international treaty and
its obligation. "
Sir, liberty was the goal during our Struggle of Independence.
We got it and we set it. We are not there to keep what we have achieved
during the Freedom Struggle; we are there to give it up.
Sir, the Constitution of India has assured us, every individual,
dignity, liberty, equality, secularism and a society free from exploitation.
So, it is not that the Constitution has given us only the Universal Declaration
for the Human Rights. How can we give it up? My friends, Shri Chitaranjan….
MR. CHAIRMAN : Please wind up.
SHRI R.S. GAVAI : Sir, I wind up. We are not there at
the cost of human liberty and dignity. I again oppose this Bill.
DR. JAYANT RONGPI (AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT-ASSAM): Mr. Chairman,
Sir, I stand here to oppose this POTO Bill on behalf of myself and on behalf
of my party, the CPI (ML). Sir, I was taken aback by the intensity of the
misplaced political will of the Government to pass, to get through this
piece of legislation.
19.20 hrs (Shrimati Margaret Alva in the
Chair)
On the earlier occasions, in the name of lack of political
consciousness, in the name of lack of unity among the political parties,
many important legislations, like the Women’s Reservation Bill, have been
deferred again and again.
However, this time, even after it has been defeated in
the Rajya Sabha, the Government has called this Joint Sitting to pass this
POTO. I would expect rather I would like to question the Government whether
similar political will, will be expressed by the Government to call a Joint
Sitting to pass the Women’s Reservation Bill.
Mr. Chairman, Sir, our senior Member, Shri P.A. Sangma,
said that he is from the North-East, which is the hotbed of insurgency
or militancy problem. I also belong to that area, but I differ with his
point of view. I would like to say very humbly that the other draconian
laws, like TADA, MISA, have created more terrorists in the North-East than
solving this problem. In the beginning, as per the Government record, there
were only 2,000 ULFA cadres, but after these draconian laws were introduced,
5,000 ULFA cadres have surrendered and, still a couple of thousands are
left. Therefore, this has proved that to fight terrorism, the law is not
the solution.
We can take lessons from our own country. Terrorism in
Punjab was contained not because of POTO, not because of TADA, not because
of any draconian law, but because the people of Punjab stood unitedly to
fight terrorism. It is the people of Punjab who defeatd terrorism. If the
Government is sincere in its will to fight terrorism, I think, there is
consensus in this country. Everybody wants to fight terrorism, but there
are differences in the political parties, in the Indian polity, and in
the Indian society. The Law Minister was angry when somebody said that
there are divisions. Why should he be angry? He should look at his own
Alliance. Even there is a division within the NDA on this POTO.
If we want to fight terrorism, then there should be unity,
and there is no doubt about it. However, if we want to fight terrorism,
this type of draconian law will not serve the purpose. For that, the people
of India should be united, and there should be a common will to fight terrorism.
That cannot be achieved, if the communal agenda, the religious agenda,
is followed to divide the people of India in the name of religion, caste,
and creed. If this continues, then people will never be united, and the
purpose of fighting against terrorism will be defeated.
Therefore, I call upon the Government, I request the Government,
to muster enough political courage to abandon the agenda of Hindutva
or the agenda on communal and political lines, and to rather unite
the people against terrorism and to chalk out a new course of action.
With these words, I firmly and with all sincerity and
all the strength at my command, I protest; and I express, register, my
strong opposition to POTO. Inside this Parliament, I assure you, with my
limited strength, I will see that POTO is fought in every street, every
nook and corner of the North-East region.
gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVɪÉ
ÉÊxÉâó{ÉàÉ (àÉcÉ®É]Å)
: +ÉÉn®hÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ºÉÉ®ÉÒ
SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEä ¤ÉÉn
+ÉÉVÉ àÉÖZÉä <ºÉ
AäÉÊiÉcÉÉʺÉBÉE
ºÉ£ÉÉ BÉEÉ ABÉE ÉÊàÉxÉ]
BÉEÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ ÉÊàÉãÉÉ
cè, àÉé <ºÉBÉEä
ÉÊãÉA +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉ
¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉÉ£ÉÉ®
BªÉBÉDiÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ,
ÉʴɶÉäÉBÉE®
àÉé ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉ +ÉÉ£ÉÉ®
BªÉBÉDiÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ*
+ÉÉVÉ àÉé
<ºÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå ABÉEnàÉ
iÉÉVÉÉ Jɤɮ ¤ÉiÉÉxÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA =iºÉÖBÉE
lÉÉ, <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé
BÉEÉ{ÉEÉÒ nä® ºÉä
+ÉxÉÖ®ÉävÉ BÉE® ®cÉ
lÉÉ* àÉÖZÉä ªÉc
¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
àÉcÉ®É]Å ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
xÉä BÉÖEU àÉÉc {ÉcãÉä
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä iÉciÉ
ABÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
BÉEÉä ªÉÉ iÉlÉÉBÉEÉÊlÉiÉ
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
BÉEÉä ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ* +ÉÉVÉ
nÉä{Éc® nÉä ¤ÉVÉä
=ºÉä àÉÖà¤É<Ç
BÉEÉÒ ABÉE ºÉè¶ÉxÉ
BÉEÉä]Ç àÉå {Éä¶É
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ*
àÉcÉ®É]Å ºÉ®BÉEÉ®
BÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE ºÉä
ºÉ®BÉEÉ®ÉÒ ´ÉBÉEÉÒãÉ
gÉÉÒ =VVÉ´ÉãÉ ÉÊxÉMÉàÉ
xÉä AäºÉÉÒ +É{ÉÉÒãÉ
BÉEÉÒ, AäºÉÉ A{ÉEÉÒbäÉÊ´É]
ÉÊnªÉÉ, AäºÉÉ cãÉ{ÉExÉÉàÉÉ
ÉÊnªÉÉ ÉÊBÉE àÉÉè.
+É{ÉE®ÉäVÉ {É® ºÉä
{ÉÉä]Éä c]É ÉÊnªÉÉ
VÉɪÉä*
àÉé <ºÉ
ºÉnxÉ BÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ
ºÉä ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ BÉEÉÒ
xÉäiÉÉ gÉÉÒàÉiÉÉÒ
ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ
MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ ºÉä
{ÉÚUxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÆ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉé ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉÉ BÉEä
àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä
{ÉÚUxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÆ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
|ɶxÉ iÉÉä {ÉÚUxÉÉ
{ɽäMÉÉ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : +ÉÉ{É
ãÉÉäMÉ ¤Éè~ VÉÉAÆ*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVɪÉ
ÉÊxÉâó{ÉàÉ :
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉÉ, àÉé
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ
ºÉä nä¶É BÉEä ºÉ¤ÉºÉä
¤É½ä ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
nãÉ ºÉä {ÉÚUxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
ÉÊVÉºÉ àÉÉäcààÉn
+É{ÉE®ÉäVÉ xÉä {ÉÖÉÊãɺÉ
BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä
+ÉÉiàɺÉàÉ{ÉÇhÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ +ÉÉè®
º´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE =xÉBÉEÉ <®ÉnÉ
<ÆMãÉéb, £ÉÉ®iÉ
+ÉÉè® +Éɺ]ÅäÉÊãɪÉÉ
àÉå +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
BÉEɮǴÉÉ<Ç BÉE®xÉÉ
lÉÉ* =ºÉ {É® ªÉä
ãÉÉäMÉ {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉDªÉÉå c]ÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä
cé…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉé ªÉcÉÒ {ÉÚUxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
+É{ÉE®ÉäVÉ VÉèºÉä
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉxÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉDªÉÉå
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ
cè…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉÖZÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ JÉiàÉ BÉE®xÉÉÒ
cè, àÉÖZÉä ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉÉ xÉä
ºÉàÉªÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ
cè <ºÉÉÊãÉA ¤ÉÉÒSÉ
àÉå ®ÉäBÉE]ÉäBÉE
xÉcÉÓ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉÖZÉä ´ÉBÉDiÉ
ÉÊnªÉÉ cè SÉäªÉ®
xÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEcxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
<ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉÖZÉä
{ÉÚ®É +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®
cè ÉÊBÉE àÉé +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ ªÉcÉÆ ®JÉÚÆ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRIMATI AMBIKA SONI (DELHI): Madam, Chairperson, he should
take his words back… (Interruptions)
SHRIMATI RENUKA CHOWDHURY (KHAMMAM): Madam, it should
be deleted from the records… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVɪÉ
ÉÊxÉâó{ÉàÉ :
ªÉc BÉEÉèxÉ
ºÉÉÒ ºÉƺÉnÉÒªÉ
{É®à{É®É cè, ªÉc
BÉEÉèxÉ ºÉÉ MÉhÉiÉÆjÉÉÒªÉ
{É®à{É®É cè* àÉÖZÉä
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉÉ xÉä
ºÉàÉªÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ
cè, àÉé +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ
cÚÆ* ªÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
àÉÖZÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ £ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ
BÉEcxÉä näxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please take your seats. You cannot come
to the Well of the House.
… (Interruptions)
19.27 hrs
(At this stage, Shri Raju Bhai Parmar and some other
hon. Members came
and stood on the floor near the Table.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please go back to your seats.
… (Interruptions)
19.28 hrs
(At this stage, Shri Raju Bhai Parmar and some other
hon. Members
went back to their seats.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please sit down now.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL : Madam, I am on a point of order…
(Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVɪÉ
ÉÊxÉâó{ÉàÉ :
=xÉBÉEÉ BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ
BÉEÉ |ɶxÉ cè, ´Éc
+ÉÉ{É ºÉÖxÉ ãÉå*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL : Madam, I am referring to rule
356. I would read that rule. It says:
"The Speaker, after having called the attention of the
House to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or in tedious
repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other
Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue in his speech."
Madam, I am saying as to how he can speak irrelevant things…
(Interruptions) How does, what has happened in Mumbai, become relevant
here?… (Interruptions) I would like to know as to how this has become
relevant to this debate… (Interruptions) The rule says that irrelevant
things should not be raised… (Interruptions) Simply because something
has happened in Mumbai, does it become relevant? … (Interruptions)
What is being spoken should have some relevance… (Interruptions)
It is an exhaustive point… (Interruptions) If he is allowed to raise
such irrelevant issues here, then other Members who are hoping to raise
relevant points would not get their chance to do so.
My submission is that under the Rules, he should be asked
to withdraw.…(Interruptions)
SHRI SANJAY NIRUPAM : I will have to make my submission.
… (Interruptions) àÉÖZÉä
+É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ
{ÉÚ®ÉÒ BÉE®xÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. CHAIRMAN : Let him finish his submission and go back.
I cannot ask him to leave.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI SANJAY NIRUPAM : How can I be asked to go away? …
(Interruptions) àÉÖZÉä
+É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ
{ÉÚ®ÉÒ BÉE®xÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
¤ÉÉÒVÉä{ÉÉÒ
xÉä +É{ÉxÉä ]É<àÉ
àÉå ºÉä nÉä ÉÊàÉxÉ]
ÉÊnªÉä lÉä* nÉä ÉÊàÉxÉ]
ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ cÉä MÉA
cé* +É¤É +ÉÉ{É +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ
BÉEÉÊ®A*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVɪÉ
ÉÊxɰô{ÉàÉ :
àÉÖZÉä ªÉc
¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE àÉé VÉÉä
ÉÊ´ÉÉªÉ ®JÉ
®cÉ cÚÆ, ´Éc ®äãÉä´Éå]
xÉcÉÓ cè*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉé ªÉc ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE
"{ÉÉä]Éä"
VÉèºÉä àÉci´É{ÉÚhÉÇ
ÉÊ´ÉÉªÉ {É®
ÉÊVÉºÉ {É® ªÉcÉ
SÉSÉÉÇ cÉä ®cÉÒ
cè,…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉÖZÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ {ÉcãÉä ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ
BÉE®xÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I say something, please. Can I not say
anything?
… (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, this is not the way. If there
is anything objectionable, I will expunge it from the record. It will be
looked into and expunged. What else can I say?
… (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Nirupam, please conclude.
SHRI SANJAY NIRUPAM : I will conclude, Madam but I should
be allowed to make my submission. ªÉc
BÉEÉä<Ç iÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
19.34 hrs (Mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I will hear you. Please resume your
seats.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am on my legs. Will you please go
to your seats?
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Whatever is objectionable, unparliamentary,
and derogatory, I will expunge it. Please go to your seats.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Let me understand what it is. If you
behave like this, how can I understand things. Please resume your seats.
… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVɪÉ
ÉÊxɰô{ÉàÉ :
+ÉÆiÉiÉ& àÉÖZÉä
<iÉxÉÉ BÉEcxÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉ{É +É{ÉxÉÉÒ
+ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ
¤ÉnÉǶiÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä cé * +ÉÉ{É
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
<ºÉ ÉÊãÉA BÉE® ®cä
cé, BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉ ºÉBÉEå*
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
<ºÉÉÊãÉA BÉE® ®cä
cé ÉÊBÉE àÉÉäcààÉn
+É{ÉE®ÉäWÉ VÉèºÉä
+ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ
BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉ ºÉBÉEå*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I will hear you. Please
resume your seats first.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If there is anything objectionable
or unparliamentary or derogatory, I will expunge it from the records.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I will re-look into the records. Please
resume your seats.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, please resume your seats
now.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have already taken more than 7
hours.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There are still a few more speakers.
So, we will have to sit for one to two hours more.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Please cooperate with me. We have
to pass the Bill.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I have
to make a request to you… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is a lot of noise in the House.
Order, please. I am asking the hon. Members, who are standing, to resume
their seats.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, we were
asked to be present here at 5 p.m. for voting. It is already 7.40 pm. It
is high time that we should ask the Home Minister to reply to the debate,
and then have voting… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I will get the sense of the House,
and then we will do it accordingly.
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É :
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ,
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ +ÉvªÉFÉiÉÉ
àÉå ºÉÖ¤Éc ¤Éè~BÉE
cÖ<Ç lÉÉÒ* º{É] iÉÉè®
{É® ªÉc ÉÊxÉhÉǪÉ
ÉÊãɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ
lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉÆSÉ
¤ÉVÉä {ÉÚ®ÉÒ
BÉEÉÒ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ ¤ÉcºÉ
ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ cÉä VÉÉAMÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® ºÉÉfÃä SÉÉ®
¤ÉVÉä MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ
BÉEcåMÉä* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
<iÉxÉÉ ºÉàɪÉ
cÉä MɪÉÉ cè, càÉãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä +É{ÉxÉÉ BÉEɪÉǵÉEàÉ
=ºÉÉÒ +ÉÉvÉÉ®
{É® ¤ÉxÉÉxÉÉ cè*
+ÉMÉ® +ÉÉ{É BÉEcå,
iÉÉä ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉÒ
BÉEɪÉÇ´ÉÉcÉÒ
BÉEãÉ cÉä VÉÉA ªÉÉ
<ºÉBÉEÉä ¤Éxn BÉE®
ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉA* +ÉÉVÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®xÉÉ cè,
iÉÉä +ÉÉVÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
iÉªÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA lÉÉ* <ºÉBÉEÉä
¤Éxn BÉEÉÒÉÊVÉA*
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ®
VÉÉÒ xÉä £ÉÉÒ
ªÉcÉÒ ºÉÖZÉÉ´É
ÉÊnªÉÉ cè* Is it the sense
of the House that now we have the reply by the hon. Home Minister and then
voting?
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All right. Then, I will call the hon.
Home Minister to reply.
… (Interruptions)
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, MINISTER OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND MINISTER OF OCEAN DEVELOPMENT (DR. MURLI MANOHAR
JOSHI): Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, the hon. Prime Minister is also expected
to intervene… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the hon. Prime Minister
wanted to intervene, and he is expected to come any moment.
DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI: In the meanwhile, Sir, you may
call another speaker to participate.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In the meanwhile, I cannot do that.
There are seven to eight more speakers. If I allow one or two, again there
will be a problem.
…..(Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Or, we will adjourn the House and
continue tomorrow. Otherwise, it will be difficult.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI A.C. JOS (TRICHUR): Sir, let the Home Minister start
his reply. When the Prime Minister comes, he may also intervene… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now, let the hon. Home Minister may
kindly reply.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There are 7 or 8 more hon. Members
to speak. I cannot allow anybody now. Please forgive me.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Please forgive me. Shri Athawale,
please resume your seat.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is the sense of the House that
the hon. Home Minister should reply and the debate should end here. I am
bound by the sense of the House.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Home Minister may kindly reply
now.
… (Interruptions)
THE MINISTER OF HOME AEEAIRS(SHRI L.K. ADVANI): Sir, I
will start. But the Prime Minister wanted to intervene. If the hon. Prime
Minister comes in-between, then, I will sit down just for him to intervene.
You may please permit it. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That would be rather difficult. If
you are replaying and in-between he wants to intervene, that would be difficult.
That is rather difficult.
… (Interruptions)
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: He wants to intervene. He is coming
for that. It was communicated to him that there are many more hon. Members
to speak. … (Interruptions) Sir, I will do as you direct. … (Interruptions)
If you direct me to reply now, I will do it. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Home Minister is replying.
Please resume your seats.
… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ
BÉßEhÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ
: àÉÉxªÉ´É®
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ,
+ÉÉVÉ |ÉÉiÉ&BÉEÉãÉ
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä
àÉéxÉä ´ÉSÉxÉ
ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
àÉé +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ
®cÉ cÚÆ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉ´ÉÉ¤É ÉËcnÉÒ
àÉå nÚÆMÉÉ* àÉÖZÉä
JÉän cè ÉÊBÉE àÉä®ä
£ÉÉÉÉ BÉEä |ɪÉÉäMÉ
BÉEä >ó{É® <iÉxÉÉÒ
]ÉÒBÉEÉ-ÉÊ]{{ÉhÉÉÒ
cÖ<Ç +ÉÉè® ªÉcÉÆ
iÉBÉE BÉEcÉ MɪÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä º´É£ÉÉÉÉ
BÉEÉ ºÉààÉÉxÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®äMÉÉ ´Éc
º´Énä¶É BÉEä ÉÊãÉA
BÉDªÉÉ BÉE®äMÉÉ*
àÉä®ÉÒ ªÉc BÉEàÉVÉÉä®ÉÒ
cè àÉÉxªÉ´É® ÉÊBÉE
àÉä®ÉÒ àÉÉiÉߣÉÉÉÉ
ÉËcnÉÒ xÉcÉÓ cè*
àÉä®ÉÒ àÉÉiÉߣÉÉÉÉ
É˺ÉvÉÉÒ cè*
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É :
+ÉÉ{É É˺ÉvÉÉÒ
àÉå ¤ÉÉäÉÊãɪÉä*
gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ
BÉßEhÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ
: àÉä®ÉÒ
ÉʶÉFÉhÉ BÉEÉÒ
£ÉÉÉÉ +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ
®cÉÒ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
àÉéxÉä |ɪÉixÉ{ÉÚ´ÉÇBÉE
ÉËcnÉÒ ºÉÉÒJÉÉÒ
cè*
… (Interruptions)
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, the hon. Prime Minister has come.
Will you permit him to intervene now? … (Interruptions)
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ xÉä àÉÖZɺÉä
+ÉxÉÖ®ÉävÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ lÉÉä½É ºÉÉ
<Æ]®´Éå¶ÉxÉ BÉE®xÉä
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA* +ÉMÉ®
cÉ=ºÉ +ÉãÉÉ>ó BÉE®ä
iÉÉä |ÉvÉÉxÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä àÉéxÉä ¤ÉÖãÉɪÉÉ
cè, =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn cÉäàÉ-ÉÊàÉÉÊxɺ]®
BÉEÉä ¤ÉÖãÉÉAÆMÉä*
|ÉvÉÉxÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ (gÉÉÒ
+É]ãÉ ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ
´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ)
: ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, <ºÉ SÉSÉÉÇ
àÉå £ÉÉMÉ ãÉäxÉä
BÉEÉ àÉä®É <®ÉnÉ
xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are already late. Please give him
a patient hearing.
… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ +É]ãÉ
ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ&
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ VɤÉ
àÉéxÉä ºÉÖxÉÉ
+ÉÉè® {ÉfÃÉ ÉÊBÉE
àÉä®ä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ BÉEÉÒ
xÉäjÉÉÒ gÉÉÒàÉiÉÉÒ
ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ
MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ xÉä ÉʴɶÉäÉ
=ããÉäJÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
cè iÉÉä àÉÖZÉä
+É{ÉxÉÉ º{É]ÉÒBÉE®hÉ
näxÉÉ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉE
cÉä MɪÉÉ* ¶ÉÉä®-¶É®É¤Éä
àÉå =xÉBÉEä ¶É¤n
ºÉ£ÉÉÒ ºÉnºªÉÉå
xÉä º{É]iÉ& ºÉÖxÉä
ªÉÉ xÉcÉÓ, àÉé
xÉcÉÓ BÉEc ºÉBÉEiÉÉ*
àÉé ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ
lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE SÉãÉiÉä-SÉãÉiÉä
àÉä®É =ããÉäJÉ
cÉä ®cÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
VÉ¤É ¤ÉÉn àÉå
àÉéxÉä {ÉÚ®É
£ÉÉÉhÉ {ÉfÃÉ
iÉÉä àÉÖZÉä ãÉMÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE ªÉc SÉãÉiÉä-SÉãÉiÉä
xÉcÉÓ cè, ªÉc U{ÉiÉä-U{ÉiÉä
£ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ cè, ªÉc
{ÉÚ®ÉÒ iÉ®c ºÉä
ºÉÉäSÉ-ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ®
BÉE®BÉEä £ÉÉÉhÉ
ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
cè* àÉé =xÉBÉEä ¶É¤nÉå
BÉEÉä =rßiÉ BÉE® ®cÉ
cÚÆ :
"The Prime Minister, as the head of this Government,
has to decide whether his primary duty is to protect the welfare of the
people of India or to succumb to the internal pressure of his Party and
its sister organisations. "
<ºÉBÉEÉ
BÉDªÉÉ àÉiÉãɤÉ
cè? gÉÉÒàÉiÉÉÒ
ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ
MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ BÉDªÉÉ
BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉÒ
cé? =xcÉåxÉä |ÉvÉÉxÉ
àÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉEä xÉÉiÉä
àÉä®ä |ÉÉlÉÉÊàÉBÉE
BÉEiÉÇBªÉ BÉEÉÒ ªÉÉn
ÉÊnãÉɪÉÉÒ
cè* VÉèºÉä +ÉÉè®
BÉEiÉÇBªÉ àÉci´É{ÉÚhÉÇ
xÉcÉÓ cé* {ÉÉÊ®´ÉÉ®
BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå
+ÉÉxÉÉ ªÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
+ÉÉxÉÉ, +É{ÉxÉÉ
BÉEiÉÇBªÉ {ÉÚ®É
BÉE®xÉÉ ªÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®xÉÉ +ÉÉè® BÉEiÉÇBªÉ
BÉEÉÒ ºÉ¤ÉºÉä
¤É½ÉÒ BÉEºÉÉè]ÉÒ
=xÉBÉEÉÒ ªÉcÉÒ cè
ÉÊBÉE àÉé BÉEcÉÓ
+ÉxªÉ ºÉÆ¤ÉÆÉÊvÉiÉ
ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå BÉEä
n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå iÉÉä
xÉcÉÓ +ÉÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ*
VÉÉä càÉÉ®ä {ÉÉÊ®´ÉÉ®
BÉEÉ àÉÉàÉãÉÉ
cè, =ºÉàÉå ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ
VÉÉÒ nJÉãÉ xÉ nå*
àÉé |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEÉÒ
BÉßE{ÉÉ ºÉä xÉcÉÓ
cÚÆ, BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ
BÉEä ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ´ÉVÉÚn
cÚÆ +ÉÉè® VɤÉ
iÉBÉE ãÉÉäMÉ àÉÖZÉä
SÉÉciÉä cé, àÉé ®cÚÆMÉÉ
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ɤÉ
àÉä®ä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
<iÉxÉÉÒ âóÉÊSÉ
ãÉäxÉä BÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ
BÉDªÉÉ cè? ÉÊ{ÉE®
+ÉÉMÉä ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ
näÉÊJÉA*
"Will he be submissive and weak in his leadership or
will he uphold the prestige of the high office he holds? "
<ºÉBÉEä
{ÉÉÒUä BÉDªÉÉ £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉAÆ
cé? ªÉc BÉEcxÉä BÉEÉ
àÉiÉãÉ¤É BÉDªÉÉ
cè? ªÉc àÉä®ä >ó{É®
+ÉÉ®Éä{É cè ÉÊBÉE
àÉé n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå
BÉEÉàÉ BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ,
MÉãÉiÉ cè*
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé
ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEä
n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®iÉÉ* {ÉÉÉÌãɪÉÉàÉé]
BÉEÉ VÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ <ºÉ
¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ ºÉÉFÉÉÒ
cè* 1961 àÉå ºÉÆªÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE àÉå VÉÉä
àÉéxÉä £ÉÉÉhÉ
ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ, àÉé
=ºÉä +É£ÉÉÒ {ÉfÃ
®cÉ lÉÉ* ´Éc ncäVÉ BÉEä
ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ {É® ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE cÖ<Ç lÉÉÒ*
àÉéxÉä =ºÉ ºÉàɪÉ
ncäVÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ* àÉÖZÉä
¤ÉÉn àÉå SÉSÉÉÇ
àÉå ºÉÖxÉxÉÉ
{ÉfÃÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É
{ÉÖ®ÉiÉxÉ´ÉÉnÉÒ
cé, {É®à{ɮɴÉÉnÉÒ
cé, ªÉcÉÆ ncäVÉ BÉEÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉDªÉÉå
BÉE® ®cä cé?
gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ
É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É :
xÉ +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä
ncäVÉ ÉÊãɪÉÉ
cè +ÉÉè® xÉ ncäVÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ
cè*
gÉÉÒ +É]ãÉ
ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ
: ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ªÉc 1961 BÉEÉÒ
¤ÉÉiÉ cè* àÉé 1957
àÉå {ÉcãÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉ®
ãÉÉäBÉE ºÉ£ÉÉ
BÉEÉ ºÉnºªÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ
BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉä® ºÉä
SÉÖxÉÉ MɪÉÉ* +ÉMÉ®
àÉé n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå
BÉEÉàÉ BÉE®iÉÉ iÉÉä
ÉÊ{ÉE® {ÉiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉDªÉÉ cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ?
n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ àÉiÉãɤÉ
cè ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEä
n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå ?…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
¤É½ÉÒ ÉÊSÉxiÉÉ
cÉä ®cÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE
àÉé ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå
xÉ ®cÚÆ* +É£ÉÉÒ
BÉEcÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE
càÉ {ÉÉÊ®´ÉÉ®
BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå
cé* càÉÉ®ä ´ÉÉàÉ{ÉÆlÉÉÒ
ºÉnºªÉ BÉEciÉä cé
ÉÊBÉE càÉ +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ
ªÉÉ ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ
¶ÉÉÎBÉDiɪÉÉå
BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå
cé* +ÉMÉ® càÉ n¤ÉÉ´É
àÉå cè +ÉÉè® n¤ÉÉ´É
àÉå BÉEÉàÉ BÉE®iÉä
cé iÉÉä ÉÊ{ÉE® àÉä®É
nãÉ +ÉÉè® àÉä®ä
ÉÊàÉjÉ nãÉ àÉä®É
ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ BÉDªÉÉå
BÉE® ®cä cé? <ºÉBÉEÉ
+ÉÉèÉÊSÉiªÉ BÉDªÉÉ
cè? ´Éä VÉÉxÉiÉä
cè ÉÊBÉE àÉé n¤ÉÉ´É
àÉå BÉEÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE®iÉÉ* ºÉƺÉÉ®
BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ
àÉÉäãÉ ãÉäBÉE®
càÉxÉä +ÉhÉÖ {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, càÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå xÉcÉÓ
+ÉɪÉä* {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ
BÉEä àÉÉàÉãÉä
àÉå càÉÉ®ä ABÉE
{ÉÚ´ÉÇ |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ
xÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉ iÉ®c
BÉEÉ BªÉ´ÉcÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ, àÉé ºÉÉ®É
ÉÊSÉ]Â~É ºÉnxÉ BÉEä
ºÉÉàÉxÉä ®JÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ
cÚÆ* ABÉE ¤ÉÉ® {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä
MÉbÂfÉ JÉÉän ÉÊnªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ lÉÉ, ºÉÖ®ÆMÉ
iÉèªÉÉ® cÉä MÉ<Ç
lÉÉÒ, {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ
BÉEÉÒ ÉÊiÉÉÊlÉ
iÉªÉ cÉä MÉ<Ç lÉÉÒ,
àÉMÉ® AäxÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ
{É® {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ BÉEÉä
®q BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ
BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ
n¤ÉÉ´É lÉÉ* àÉé
n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE®iÉÉ …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
+ÉÉ{É SÉÖ{É
®ÉÊcªÉä* ABÉE ºÉÉÒàÉÉ
cÉäiÉÉÒ cè ºÉÖxÉxÉä
BÉEÉÒ*
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, VɤÉ
BÉEÉ®ÉÊMÉãÉ BÉEÉ
ªÉÖr SÉãÉ ®cÉ lÉÉ
iÉÉä ®É]Å{ÉÉÊiÉ
ÉÏBÉDãÉ]xÉ xÉä xªÉÚªÉÉBÉEÇ
+ÉÉè® ´ÉÉÉ˶ÉMÉ]xÉ
àÉå àÉÖZÉä ¤ÉÖãÉɪÉÉ*
=xcÉåxÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE
{ÉÉÉÊBÉEºiÉÉxÉ
BÉEä |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ
+ÉÉ MÉA cé, +ÉÉ{É £ÉÉÒ
+ÉÉ VÉÉ<ªÉä* nÉäxÉÉå
ÉÊàÉãÉBÉE® ¤ÉèÉÊ~ªÉä,
càÉ ºÉ´ÉÉãÉÉå
BÉEÉä iÉªÉ BÉE®åMÉä*
càÉxÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE
VÉ¤É iÉBÉE {ÉÉÉÊBÉEºiÉÉxÉ
BÉEä BÉE¤VÉä àÉå
£ÉÉ®iÉ BÉEÉÒ càÉÉ®ÉÒ
ABÉE <ÆSÉ £ÉÚÉÊàÉ
£ÉÉÒ cè, iÉ¤É iÉBÉE
àÉé ¤ÉÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ
BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ* àÉé
+ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ xÉcÉÓ
MɪÉÉ, +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ
BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå
xÉcÉÓ +ÉɪÉÉ …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
<xÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå
BÉEÉä BÉDªÉÉå ¤ÉäSÉèxÉÉÒ
cÉä ®cÉÒ cè? àÉÖZÉä
]ÉäBÉExÉä BÉEÉ BÉDªÉÉ
àÉiÉãÉ¤É cè? +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä
ºÉSÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉÖxÉxÉÉ
BÉE½´ÉÉ ãÉMÉiÉÉ
cè* <ºÉBÉEä +ÉÉMÉä
näÉÊJɪÉä- Þ His
moment of reckoning has come.
ªÉc xÉäiÉÉ
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
nãÉ BÉEÉ £ÉÉÉhÉ
cè* ªÉä |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
¤ÉÉäãÉÉÒ MÉ<Ç
£ÉÉÉɪÉå cé,
<ºÉBÉEÉ £ÉÉ´É
BÉDªÉÉ cè? àÉä®ÉÒ
{É®ÉÒFÉÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊnxÉ
+ÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè, <ºÉBÉEÉ
BÉDªÉÉ àÉiÉãɤÉ
cè? àÉé ®ÉäWÉ-®ÉäWÉ
{É®ÉÒFÉÉ nä ®cÉ
cÚÆ* VÉ¤É ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ
VÉÉÒ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ
ºÉä BÉEÉäºÉÉå
nÚ® lÉÉÓ, iÉ¤É ºÉä
àÉé <ºÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå,
<ºÉ ºÉƺÉn àÉå
BªÉ´ÉcÉ® BÉE® ®cÉ
cÚÆ* +ÉÉVÉ àÉÖZÉä
BÉE]PÉ®ä àÉå JɽÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ
cè.* =xcå BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®
cè?… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, please.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I appeal to all of you to please resume
your seats.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Let me regulate the House.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All the hon. Members may please resume
their seats.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I appeal to all of you to resume your
seats. If there is anything, we can certainly sort it out.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will you please resume your seats?
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: May I request all of you to resume
your seats?
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All the hon. Members may please resume
their seats. If there is anything objectionable or anything that has to
be sorted out, we can hear that and settle. Now, please go to your seats.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I appeal to you to resume your seats.
If there is anything that is to be settled, we can settle it if you cooperate
with the Chair. Please resume your seats now.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will you please resume your seats?
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I appeal to all the Whips and the
Leaders to please cooperate with the Chair. If there is anything objectionable
we can talk and settle it. Will you please resume your seats? I appeal
to all the Whips and all the Leaders. Please resume your seats now.
… (Interruptions)
20.00 hrs.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Prime Minister, you may continue
now.
… (Interruptions)
gÉÉÒ +ÉVÉÇÖxÉ
É˺Éc (àÉvªÉ |Énä¶É)
: ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ,
àÉé BÉÖEU BÉEcxÉÉ
SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÄ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ +É]ãÉ
ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ
: àÉé BÉÖEU ºÉÖxÉ
xÉcÉÓ {ÉÉ ®cÉ cÚÄ*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Arjun Singh, you can come here
and speak.
… (Interruptions)
20.01 hrs. (<ºÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ gÉÉÒ
|É£ÉÖxÉÉlÉ É˺Éc,
gÉÉÒ AºÉ.AºÉ.+ÉÉcãÉÚ´ÉÉÉÊãɪÉÉ,
gÉÉÒ SÉÆpBÉEÉÆiÉ
JÉè®ä
iÉlÉÉ
BÉÖEU +ÉxªÉ àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉ +ÉÉA +ÉÉè®
ºÉ£ÉÉ {É]ãÉ BÉEä
ÉÊxÉBÉE] {ÉE¶ÉÇ Jɽä
cÉä MÉA*)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is only point of order. Please
help me. I will rule it out.
… (Interruptions)
20.02 hrs.
(<ºÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ gÉÉÒ
ºÉÆiÉÉäÉ àÉÉäcxÉ
nä´É, gÉÉÒ ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É
|ɺÉÉn É˺Éc iÉlÉÉ
BÉÖEU +ÉxªÉ
àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉ +ÉÉA +ÉÉè®
ºÉ£ÉÉ {É]ãÉ BÉEä
ÉÊxÉBÉE] {ÉE¶ÉÇ {É®
Jɽä cÉä MÉA*)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, please
go back to your seat. What is this going on with all the leaders?
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Hon.
Prime Minister will yield only to a point of order.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, please hear me for a
minute. Why are you not hearing me?
… (Interruptions)
20.04 hrs.
(<ºÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ gÉÉÒ
|É£ÉÖxÉÉlÉ É˺Éc,
gÉÉÒ AºÉ.AºÉ.+ÉÉcãÉÚ´ÉÉÉÊãɪÉÉ,
gÉÉÒ SÉÆpBÉEÉÆiÉ
JÉè®ä iÉlÉÉ BÉÖEU
+ÉxªÉ àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉ +ÉÉA +ÉÉè®
+É{ÉxÉä-+É{ÉxÉä ºlÉÉxÉÉå
{É® ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ SÉãÉä
MÉA*)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Prime Minister is prepared to
hear him. Please take your seats.
… (Interruptions)
20.05 hrs. (<ºÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ gÉÉÒ
ºÉÆiÉÉäÉ àÉÉäcxÉ
nä´É, gÉÉÒ ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É
|ɺÉÉn É˺Éc iÉlÉÉ
BÉÖEU +ÉxªÉ
àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
ºÉnºªÉ +ÉÉA +ÉÉè®+É{ÉxÉä-+É{ÉxÉä
ºlÉÉxÉÉå {É® ´ÉÉ{ɺÉ
SÉãÉä MÉA*)
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You are not even hearing. Then, what
is the fun of my talking?
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Prime Minister is not yielding.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, will you please resume
your seats?
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Prime Minister has agreed that Shri
Arjun Singh will speak for two minutes. Hon. Members, will you please resume
your seats?
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, please resume your seats.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Prime Minister has agreed to
yield to Shri Arjun Singh. So, Shri Arjun Singh will speak for two minutes.
He has yielded to him. So, please resume your seats. Shri Bagrodia, please
resume your seat.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would like to inform all Leaders,
Whips and hon. Members that hon. Prime Minister has agreed to yield to
him for two minutes. Please patiently hear him and then the Prime Minister
will speak. Order please. Hon. Members, you please take your seats.
May I request Sardar Buta Singh to take his seat?
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Pramod Mahajan, please tell your
Members to take their seats.
… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, please
tell your Members to take their seats. The hon. Prime Minister has agreed
to yield to Shri Arjun Singh for two minutes. Then, the hon. Prime Minister
will continue with his speech. I would request you to maintain order in
the House.
gÉÉÒ +ÉVÉÇÖxÉ
É˺Éc : +ÉÉn®hÉÉÒªÉ
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ,
àÉÖZÉä ªÉcÉÆ +ÉÉBÉE®
¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä àÉå
BÉEÉä<Ç |ɺÉxxÉiÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè*
àÉé +ÉÉVÉ VÉÉä
BÉEc ®cÉ cÚÆ, ´Éc ¤ÉcÖiÉ
nÖJÉÉÒ àÉxÉ ºÉä
BÉEc ®cÉ cÚÆ* ªÉc ´Éc
ºlÉÉxÉ cè VÉcÉÆ £ÉÉ®iÉ
BÉEä ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
BÉEÉÒ ®SÉxÉÉ cÖ<Ç
cè* ªÉc ´Éc ºlÉÉxÉ
cè VÉcÉÆ £ÉÉ®iÉ
BÉEä º´ÉiÉÆjÉiÉÉ
ºÉÆOÉÉàÉ ºÉäxÉÉÉÊxɪÉÉå
xÉä +É{ÉxÉä ºÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå
BÉEä ºÉÆPÉÉÇ BÉEÉ
+ÉÆÉÊiÉàÉ °ô{É
ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ
BÉEä °ô{É àÉå nä¶É
BÉEÉä ÉÊnªÉÉ cè*
AäºÉä ºlÉÉxÉ {É®
àÉÖZÉä JÉän BÉEä
ºÉÉlÉ ªÉc BÉEcxÉÉ
{ɽ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVɺÉ
iÉ®ÉÒBÉEä ºÉä …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
ªÉÖ´ÉBÉE
BÉEɪÉǵÉEàÉ
+ÉÉè® JÉäãÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
(BÉÖEàÉÉ®ÉÒ =àÉÉ
£ÉÉ®iÉÉÒ) : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, ªÉc £ÉÉÉhÉ
nä ®cä cé* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Sanjay Nirupam, what are you
doing? I am trying to control the House. I seek the cooperation of all
the leaders in maintaining order.
gÉÉÒ +ÉVÉÇÖxÉ
É˺Éc : nÉä
ÉÊàÉxÉ] àÉå +ÉÉè®
BÉDªÉÉ BÉE®åMÉä
? BÉDªÉÉ Jɽä
cÉäBÉE® àÉÉãÉÉ
VÉ{ÉåMÉä ? …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What is this? The hon. Prime Minister
will speak now. Already, we are late. We will take another one-and-a-half
hours.
gÉÉÒ +ÉVÉÇÖxÉ
É˺Éc : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, BÉÖEU SÉÉÒVÉå
BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ BÉEÉÒ
cÉäiÉÉÒ cé* BÉÖEU SÉÉÒVÉå
{ÉÚ®ä ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉÒ
àɪÉÉÇnÉ BÉEÉÒ
cÉäiÉÉÒ cé* àÉé
ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ cÚÆ
ÉÊBÉE =ºÉ àɪÉÉÇnÉ
BÉEÉ =ããÉÆPÉxÉ cÖ+ÉÉ
cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA
àÉé ºÉnxÉ ºÉä
+ÉÉè® |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ ºÉä ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ
BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ*
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
VÉÉÒ xÉä àÉÖZÉä
¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä BÉEÉ
+ɴɺɮ ÉÊnªÉÉ,
=xcÉåxÉä <ºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä
¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉSUÉÒ {É®à{É®É
BÉEɪÉàÉ BÉEÉÒ*
àÉé =xcå vÉxªÉ´ÉÉn
näiÉÉ cÚÆ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
ºÉnxÉ àÉå |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ
BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ BÉEÉ ºlÉÉxÉ
£ÉÉÒ AäºÉÉ cÉäiÉÉ
cè ÉÊVɺÉä xÉVÉ®+ÉÆnÉVÉ
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ* àÉé
ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ cÚÆ
ÉÊBÉE àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ
|ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ
xÉä ÉÊVÉºÉ ãÉcWÉä
ºÉä =xÉBÉEä ¶É¤nÉå
BÉEÉä ªÉcÉÆ ãÉäBÉE®
+É{ÉxÉÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ®ÉävÉ
VÉÉÉÊc® BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ
BÉEÉäÉÊ¶É¶É BÉEÉÒ
cè, ´Éc =xcå ¶ÉÉä£ÉÉ
xÉcÉÓ näiÉÉ cè* ªÉcÉÒ
àÉä®ÉÒ àÉÉxªÉiÉÉ
cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ +É]ãÉ
ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ
: ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉMÉ®
àÉéxÉä +É{ÉxÉä
£ÉÉÉhÉ àÉå ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ
+ÉºÉÆºÉnÉÒªÉ
¶É¤n BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè iÉÉä
+ÉÉ{É =ºÉä näJÉ ãÉå*
=ºÉBÉEÉä ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉ
nå, àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉÉÊkÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ*
+É¤É àÉä®ä ãÉcWÉä
{É® AiÉ®ÉVÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* àÉé ãÉcWÉÉ
iÉÉä <ºÉ =©É àÉå
¤ÉnãÉ xÉcÉÓ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ*
…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ VÉ´ÉÉc®
ãÉÉãÉ xÉäc°ô VÉÉÒ
xÉä àÉä®É ªÉc ãÉcWÉÉ
º´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEä
¤ÉÉn VÉÉä {ÉÉÒfÃÉÒ
+ÉÉ<Ç, =ºÉºÉä £ÉÉÒ
àÉÖZÉä BÉE£ÉÉÒ
AäºÉä ¶É¤n xÉcÉÓ
ºÉÖxÉxÉä {ɽä, VÉèºÉä
<ºÉ ÉÊãÉÉÊJÉiÉ
£ÉÉÉhÉ àÉå ºÉÖxÉxÉä
BÉEÉä ÉÊàÉãÉä
cé* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
+É£ÉÉÒ àÉéxÉä
gÉÉÒàÉiÉÉÒ ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ
MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ BÉEÉ {ÉÚ®É
£ÉÉÉhÉ {ÉfÃÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè* àÉé =ºÉä
=rßiÉ BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ :
-
"There is, I am afraid, neither moral integrity nor
sincerity of purpose among those who are trying to force this law on the
nation today. "
ªÉc àÉÉä®ãÉ
<Æ]ÉÒÉÊOÉ]ÉÒ BÉDªÉÉ
cè ?What is moral integrity? <ºÉBÉEÉ
BÉDªÉÉ àÉiÉãɤÉ
cè ? +ÉMÉ® ºÉkÉÉ
{ÉFÉ àÉå …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
<xÉ ¶É¤nÉå
BÉEä ÉÊãÉA gÉÉÒàÉiÉÉÒ
ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ
MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä JÉän |ÉBÉE] BÉE®xÉÉ
SÉÉÉÊcA* +É{ÉxÉä ãÉà¤Éä
ºÉƺÉnÉÒªÉ VÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ
àÉå àÉéxÉä xÉ
BÉE£ÉÉÒ +É£Ép £ÉÉÉÉ
BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
cè +ÉÉè® xÉ BÉE£ÉÉÒ
+É£Ép +ÉÉSÉ®hÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
cè àÉMÉ® VÉÉä càÉå
={Énä¶É nä ®cä cé* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
cÉÒ iÉÉä ªÉä +ÉÉ®Éä{É
ãÉMÉÉA VÉÉ ®cä cé*
xÉÉÒªÉiÉ {É® ¶ÉBÉE
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ
cè* ¤ÉÉäxÉÉ{ÉEÉ<bÉÒWÉ
BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cÉä
®cÉÒ cè* +ÉÉ{É +ÉMÉ®
]ÉbÉ ãÉÉA iÉÉä ~ÉÒBÉE
cè* +ÉÉ{É +ÉMÉ® àÉÉÒºÉÉ
ãÉÉA iÉÉä ~ÉÒBÉE
cè* iÉ¤É càÉxÉä +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ
xÉÉÒªÉiÉ {É® ¶ÉBÉE
xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
lÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ
+ÉÉVÉ càÉÉ®ÉÒ
xÉÉÒªÉiÉ {É® ¶ÉBÉE
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ
cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA
àÉÖZÉä {ÉÉÒ½É
cÉäiÉÉÒ cè* +ÉMÉ®
¤ÉcÖàÉiÉ xÉèÉÊiÉBÉEiÉÉ
ºÉä xÉcÉÓ SÉãÉ
®cÉ iÉÉä ÉÊ{ÉE® BÉDªÉÉ
càÉ +Éã{ÉàÉiÉ ºÉä
+ÉɶÉÉ BÉE®å ÉÊBÉE
´Éc xÉèÉÊiÉBÉEiÉÉ
BÉEÉÒ nÖcÉ<Ç nä* ÉÊVÉxÉ
¶É¤nÉå BÉEÉ ªÉcÉÆ
|ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ
MɪÉÉ cè, ´ÉèºÉä
àÉé ABÉE ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ
BÉEÉä ãÉäBÉE® ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ
VÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ iÉÉ®ÉÒ{ÉE
BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ
lÉÉ, <ºÉÉÒ £ÉÉÉhÉ
àÉå =xcÉåxÉä BÉEcÉ
cè ÉÊBÉE càÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn
BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE
+ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ºÉÉlÉ
JÉ½ä ®cåMÉä, ãɽåMÉä,
ãɽiÉä ®cä cé, +ÉÉMÉä
£ÉÉÒ ãɽäMÉä*
=ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn =xcÉåxÉä
ãɽÉ<Ç àÉä®ä
ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE Uä½
nÉÒ* ªÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉMÉiÉ
+ÉÉ®Éä{É cé* ªÉä
xÉÉÒÉÊiÉ ºÉÆ¤ÉÆvÉÉÒ
+ÉÉ®Éä{É xÉcÉÓ
cé* ªÉä ÉʺÉrÉxiÉÉå
BÉEÉ JÉÆbxÉ-àÉÆbxÉ
xÉcÉÓ cè* ªÉc àÉä®ä
BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉi´É {É®
ãÉÉÆUxÉ cè +ÉÉè®
àÉé <ºÉä ¤ÉnÉǶiÉ
xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
àÉä®ä
ºÉÉàÉxÉä nÉä cÉÒ
®ÉºiÉä cé - ªÉÉ iÉÉä
àÉé VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEä
BÉEãªÉÉhÉ {É® SÉãÉÚÆ
ªÉÉ n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå
+ÉÉ>óÆ* +É¤É ªÉc
BÉEÉèxÉ iÉªÉ BÉE®äMÉÉ?
+ÉÉÉÊJÉ® àÉÖZÉä
VÉxÉiÉÉ xÉä ªÉcÉÆ
{ÉcÖÆSÉɪÉÉ cè
+ÉÉè® +ÉMÉ® àÉé
n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ
BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ iÉÉä
àÉä®ä ºÉÉlÉÉÒ
£ÉÉÒ àÉÖZÉä UÉä½
nåMÉä, àÉä®É nãÉ
àÉÖZÉä UÉä½ näMÉÉ*
ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ
{ÉFÉ BÉEÉÒ xÉäjÉÉÒ
BÉEÉä ªÉc ¤ÉiÉÉxÉä
BÉEÉÒ Vɰô®iÉ xÉcÉÓ
cè ÉÊBÉE ªÉÉ iÉÉä
àÉé n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå
BÉEÉàÉ BÉE°ôÆ, xÉcÉÓ
iÉÉä |ɺlÉÉxÉ BÉE°ôÆ*
àÉé +É{ÉxÉä fÆMÉ
ºÉä nä¶É BÉEÉÒ ºÉä´ÉÉ
BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ |ɪÉɺÉ
BÉE®iÉÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ +ÉÉè®
+ÉÉMÉä £ÉÉÒ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ*
ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉMÉ®
àÉÖZÉä +ÉÉ{ÉÉÊkÉVÉxÉBÉE
¤ÉÉiÉå ºÉÖxÉxÉÉÒ
{ɽåMÉÉÒ iÉÉä
àÉÖZÉä =xÉBÉEÉ =kÉ®
näxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ* +ÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, +É£ÉÉÒ
£ÉÉÒ àÉé +ÉÉ{ɺÉä
ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ BÉE®
®cÉ cÚÆ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ : àÉé
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ cÚÆ*
gÉÉÒ +É]ãÉ
ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ
: +É£ÉÉÒ
£ÉÉÒ àÉé +ÉÉ{ɺÉä
ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ BÉE®
®cÉ cÚÆ ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ
àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉMÉ®
àÉéxÉä BÉEÉä<Ç
+ÉºÉÆºÉnÉÒªÉ
£ÉÉÉÉ BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè, àÉä®ä
£ÉÉÉhÉ àÉå ºÉä
=ºÉä ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉ
nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
BÉDªÉÉå xÉcÉÓ
cè? iÉÉä ÉÊ{ÉE® <iÉxÉÉ
àÉÉxÉ ãÉÉÒÉÊVÉA
ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä VÉÉä
¶ÉÉä®-MÉÖãÉ àÉSÉɪÉÉ,
´Éc ¤ÉäBÉEÉ® lÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ
BÉßEhÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ
: àÉÉxªÉ´É®
={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ,
àÉé ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉÒ
£ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ BÉEÉ
+ÉÉn® BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ*
àÉÖZÉä xÉcÉÓ ãÉMÉiÉÉ
ÉÊBÉE VÉ¤É {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEä {ÉFÉ àÉå +ÉÉè®
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ
àÉå ºÉ¤É iÉBÉEÇ
nä ÉÊnªÉä MɪÉä
cé, àÉÖZÉä BÉÖEU +ÉÉè®
VÉÉä½xÉä BÉEÉÒ
Vɰô®iÉ cè*
ABÉE cÉÒ iÉlªÉÉå
BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå
àÉÖZɺÉä VÉÉä
VÉÉxÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ àÉÉÆMÉÉÒ
MÉ<Ç, BÉÖEU ãÉÉäMÉÉå
xÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä
BÉEä +ÉvÉÉÒxÉ <xÉ
ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä {ÉÉÆSÉ
àÉcÉÒxÉÉå àÉå
ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä ãÉÉäMÉ
ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ® cÖA
cé, iÉÉä àÉÖZÉä
VÉÉä +É£ÉÉÒ iÉBÉE
VÉÉxÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ ÉÊàÉãÉÉÒ
cè, =ºÉBÉEä +ÉxÉÖºÉÉ®
ÉÊnããÉÉÒ àÉå
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä +ÉvÉÉÒxÉ
SÉÉ® BÉEäºÉäVÉ àÉå
18 ãÉÉäMÉ ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
cÖA cé* ABÉE BÉEäºÉ ºÉƺÉn
{É® càÉãÉä BÉEÉ
cè, ÉÊVɺÉàÉå
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä +ÉvÉÉÒxÉ
SÉÉ® ãÉÉäMÉ ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
cÖA cé* nÚºÉ®É BÉEäºÉ
cè ÉÊVɺÉàÉå
4.28 ÉÊBÉEãÉÉäOÉÉàºÉ
+ÉÉ®.bÉÒ.ABÉDºÉ. ¤É®ÉàÉn
cÖ+ÉÉ lÉÉ, 35 ãÉÉJÉ
âó{ɪÉä BÉEè¶É
c´ÉÉãÉÉ BÉEä |ÉÉ{iÉ
cÖA lÉä +ÉÉè® BÉE<Ç
+ÉÉè® ABÉDºÉ{ãÉÉäÉʺɴÉ
àÉè]ÉÒÉÊ®ªÉãÉ
|ÉÉ{iÉ cÖA lÉä* =ºÉàÉå
U& ãÉÉäMÉ ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
cÖA lÉä* iÉÉҺɮÉ
BÉEäºÉ àÉå ÉÊnããÉÉÒ
àÉå U& ãÉÉäMÉ,
{ÉÉÆSÉ {ÉÉÉÊBÉEºiÉÉxÉÉÒ
+ÉÉè® ABÉE ¤ÉÆMÉãÉÉnä¶ÉÉÒ
ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ® cÖA,
<ºÉàÉå =xɺÉä
+ÉÉàºÉÇ +ÉÉè®
AàªÉÖxÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ
=xɺÉä ÉÊ®BÉE´É®
cÖA* ªÉä U& BÉEä U&, VÉÉä
BÉEÉäãÉBÉEiÉÉ àÉå
càÉãÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ lÉÉ,
=xɺÉä ºÉà¤ÉÉÎxvÉiÉ
cé* SÉÉèlÉä BÉEäºÉ
àÉå ªÉcÉÆ {É® {ÉÉÒ{ÉÖãºÉ
ÉÊãÉ¥Éä¶ÉxÉ
+ÉÉàÉÉÔ +ÉÉì{ÉE
àÉÉÊhÉ{ÉÖ® BÉEä
nÉä ãÉÉäMÉ ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
cÖA* ÉÊnããÉÉÒ àÉå
ªÉä SÉÉ® BÉEäºÉäVÉ
cé, ÉÊVÉxÉàÉå BÉÖEãÉ
ÉÊàÉãÉÉBÉE®
18 ãÉÉäMÉ ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ®
cÖA cé*
VÉààÉÚ-BÉE¶àÉÉÒ®
àÉå Vɰô® 91 ãÉÉäMÉ
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä +ÉvÉÉÒxÉ
ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ® cÖA
cé* =xÉàÉå ºÉä ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä
ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ cé,
ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä £ÉÉ®iÉ
BÉEä cé, <ºÉBÉEÉ <ºÉ
ºÉàÉªÉ àÉä®ä
{ÉÉºÉ ÉÊ´É´ÉäSÉxÉ
xÉcÉÓ cé* àÉcÉ®É]Å
àÉå ABÉE BÉEäºÉ àÉå
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ
cÖ+ÉÉ cè, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEä
¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå £ÉÉÒ
+É£ÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉn àÉå
VÉÉxÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ ÉÊàÉãÉÉÒ
ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉ BÉEÉä]Ç
àÉå ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEÉÒ
àÉcÉ®É]Å BÉEÉÒ
ºÉ®BÉEÉ® xÉä =ºÉ
{ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä BÉEäºÉ
BÉEÉä ÉÊ´ÉlÉbÅÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè*
àÉé ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ
cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEä
+ÉÉMÉä <ºÉ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
ºÉjÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
¤Éè~BÉE BÉEÉ VÉÉä
|ÉàÉÖJÉ =qä¶ªÉ cè
ÉÊBÉE VÉ¤É nÉä ºÉnxÉÉå
BÉEä ¤ÉÉÒSÉ àÉå
àÉiÉ£Éän cÉä iÉÉä
=ºÉ àÉiÉ£Éän BÉEä
ÉÊxÉ´ÉÉ®hÉ BÉEä
ÉÊãÉA ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ
+ÉÉÊvÉ´Éä¶ÉxÉ
¤ÉÖãÉɪÉÉ VÉɪÉä
+ÉÉè® =ºÉàÉå àÉiÉnÉxÉ
BÉE®BÉEä ÉÊxÉhÉǪÉ
ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉɪÉä
ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ
º´ÉÉÒBÉEɪÉÇ
cè* àÉé ºÉÆºÉnÂ
ºÉä +ÉxÉÖ®ÉävÉ
BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE
+ÉÉ{É <ºÉ BÉEɪÉÇ
BÉEÉä BÉE®å* ÉÊVÉxÉ
ãÉÉäMÉÉå xÉä
¤ÉcºÉ àÉå £ÉÉMÉ
ÉÊãɪÉÉ, =xÉ ºÉ¤É
BÉEÉ àÉé +ÉÉ£ÉÉ®
|ÉBÉE] BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ,
=xÉ ºÉ¤É BÉEÉä vÉxªÉ´ÉÉn
näiÉÉ cÚÆ*
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question is:
"That the Bill to make provisions for the prevention
of, and for dealing with, terrorist activities and for matters connected
therewith, as passed by Lok Sabha and rejected by Rajya Sabha, be taken
into consideration for the purpose of deliberating on the Bill."
SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, we want
division.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All right. Let the Lobbies be cleared
–
There will be division by distribution of ‘Aye’ and ‘No’
slips in accordance with Rule 367AA of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct
of Business in Lok Sabha. The Secretary-General may now announce the procedure
with regard to division by distribution of slips.
SECRETARY-GENERAL: Kind attention of hon. Members is invited
to the procedure regarding voting by distribution of ‘Aye’ and ‘No’ slips.
A single slip will be given to each hon. Member at the time of division.
The slip on which matter is printed in green ink is meant for recording
of vote for ‘Ayes’ and that printed in red ink for recording of vote for
‘Noes’.
Hon. Members are requested to write legibly the following
details on the slip at the time of recording votes: (i) Name; (ii) Division
Number (this will be the same as the Division Number allotted to the Member
in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha); and (iii) House to which he belongs.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There are three slips: ‘green’ for
‘Aye’; ‘red’ for ‘No’; and ‘golden’ for ‘Abstention’ .
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now, the Lobbies have been cleared.
The question is:
"That the Bill to make provisions for the prevention
of, and for dealing with, terrorist activities and for matters connected
therewith, as passed by Lok Sabha and rejected by Rajya Sabha, be taken
into consideration for the purpose of deliberating on the Bill."
The Lok Sabha divided:
20.40 hrs. AYES
A.Narendra, Shri
Abdullah, Shri Omar
Acharya, Shri Prasanna
Adhi Sankar, Shri
Aditya Nath, Yogi
Adsul, Shri Anandrao Vithoba
Advani, Shri L.K.
Agarwal, Shri Lakkhiram
Agarwal, Shri Ramdas
Agarwalla, Shri Parmeshwar Kumar
Agniraj, Shri S.
Ahluwalia, Shri S.S.
Ananth Kumar, Shri
Angle,Shri Ramakant
Apte, Shri B.P.
Argal,Shri Ashok
Arya, Dr.(Shrimati) Anita
Atkinson, Shri Denzil B.
Azad, Shri Kirti Jha
Baalu, Shri T.R.
Bachani Lekhraj, Shri
‘Bachda’, Shri Bachi Singh Rawat
Badnore, Shri Vijayendra Pal Singh
Bainda, Shri Ramchander
Bais, Shri Ramesh
Baitha, Shri Mahendra
Bakht, Sh