Print


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 ºÉàÉªÉ +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´ÉƶÉ, 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) : àÉcɮɭ]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{ÉºÉ 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 WÉ°ô® ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ 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, àÉcɮɭ]Å, =½ÉÒºÉÉ +ÉÉè® {ÉÆVÉÉ¤É xÉä ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ iÉÉä ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ BÉÖEU ºÉƶÉÉävÉxÉ ºÉÖZÉÉA +ÉÉè® VÉÉä ®ÉVªÉ ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE lÉä ´Éä {ÉÉζSÉàÉ ¤ÉÆMÉÉãÉ, VÉààÉÚ-BÉE¶àÉÉÒ®, BÉEä®ãÉ, àÉäPÉÉãÉªÉ +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 {ÉÉºÉ cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ +ÉÉè® <ºÉ V´ÉÉ<Æ] àÉÉÒÉË]MÉ (ºÉè¶ÉxÉ) BÉEÉÒ VÉ°ô®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 : àÉcɮɭ]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 |ɪÉÉºÉ xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ* VÉÉä ºÉ¤ÉBÉE xÉcÉÓ ãÉäiÉä, =xÉBÉEÉ <ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ 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 ºÉàÉªÉ {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{ÉºÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ *

14.00 hrs.

{É. xÉäc°ô xÉä ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ¤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´ÉÉ¤É 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´ÉÉºÉ 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 ¤ÉäàÉiÉãÉ¤É cè *

càÉ =ààÉÉÒn BÉE®iÉä cé ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ® ªÉc ºÉ®BÉEÉ® <ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ 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 {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ <ºÉä ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE®äMÉÉÒ* ®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ ®ÉVªÉÉå BÉEÉ |ÉÉÊiÉÉÊxÉÉÊvÉi´É BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ ºÉnxÉ cè +ÉÉè® ®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ xÉä VÉ¤É =ºÉBÉEÉä +ɺ´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ® BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ cè, ¤ÉcÖàÉiÉ ºÉä ÉÊMÉ®É ÉÊnªÉÉ cè iÉÉä ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉä ºÉƺÉnÉÒªÉ {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{ÉºÉ 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 ºÉàÉªÉ BÉEä ºÉƺÉn 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 ºÉƺÉn 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 VÉ°ô® 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´ÉÉºÉ 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* {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ 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 ºÉàÉªÉ càÉxÉä <ºÉBÉEÉÒ VÉÉÆSÉ BÉE®É<Ç, =.|É. +Éã{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE +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 ºÉàÉªÉ +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´ÉBÉEÉºÉ 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 {ÉÉºÉ cÉä VÉÉAMÉÉ +ÉÉè® VÉ¤É {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ 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 VÉxÉ䶴ɮ ÉÊàÉgÉ ªÉcÉÆ ¤Éè~ä cÖA cé* ´Éä VÉÉxÉiÉä cé, càÉ £ÉÉÒ VÉÉxÉiÉä cé, <ãÉÉcɤÉÉn BÉEä ABÉE BÉEãÉèBÉD]® BÉEÉÒ xÉÉ®ÉVÉMÉÉÒ {É® 1966 àÉå gÉÉÒ VÉxÉ䶴ɮ ÉÊàÉgÉ BÉEÉä 11 àÉcÉÒxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA bÉÒ.+ÉÉ<Ç.+ÉÉ®. àÉå =xcå VÉäãÉ àÉå bÉãÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ lÉÉ* VɤÉ-VÉ¤É <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 VÉxÉ䶴ɮ 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´ÉVÉªÉ ãÉFàÉÉÒ {ÉÆÉÊbiÉ 1966 àÉå {ÉÚEãÉ{ÉÖ® <ãÉÉcɤÉÉn ºÉä SÉÖxÉÉ´É ãÉb ®cÉÓ lÉÉÒ iÉlÉÉ gÉÉÒ VÉxÉ䶴ɮ ÉÊàÉgÉ VÉÉÒ xÉä VÉäãÉ ºÉä cÉÒ =xÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE +É{ÉxÉÉ {ÉSÉÉÇ nÉÉÊJÉãÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ * ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEÉÒ VÉxÉiÉÉ àÉå VÉxÉ䶴ɮ ÉÊàÉgÉ BÉEÉä VÉäãÉ àÉå bÉãÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE µÉEÉävÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè® àÉiÉnÉiÉÉ gÉÉÒ VÉxÉ䶴ɮ ÉÊàÉgÉ VÉÉÒ BÉEä {ÉFÉ àÉå cÉä ®cä lÉä, =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ ÉÊ´ÉVÉªÉ 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 VÉxÉ䶴ɮ 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 {ÉÉºÉ BÉE®xÉÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè® <ºÉ +ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ ºÉä ¤ÉSÉxÉÉ lÉÉ <ºÉÉÊãÉA {ÉÉä]É BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ´ÉÉÉÊ{ÉºÉ ÉÊãɪÉÉ * nÚºÉ®É 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 ÉÊ´É°ôr ´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 VÉ¤É <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 ÉÊxɪÉÆjÉhÉ xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ* VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEÉä ºÉƺÉn 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 VÉxɺÉÆPÉ BÉEÉÒ ºlÉÉ{ÉxÉÉ BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® ªÉÉ £ÉÉ®iÉÉÒªÉ VÉxÉiÉÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ ºlÉÉ{ÉxÉÉ BÉEä xÉÉàÉ ºÉä 50 ºÉÉãÉ BÉEÉÒ º´ÉhÉÇ VɪÉÆiÉÉÒ 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 oÉέ]BÉEÉähÉ àÉÖºÉãÉàÉÉxÉÉå BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå BÉDªÉÉ cè, <ǺÉÉ<ǪÉÉå BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå BÉDªÉÉ cè, +Éã{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉEÉå 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´ÉÉºÉ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè, BÉEÉä<Ç Éʴɶ´ÉÉºÉ 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® oÉέ]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 xªÉÉªÉ 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{ÉºÉ 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{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉEÉå 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 ¤ÉäxÉBÉEÉ¤É 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 JÉ½É 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* VÉ¤É =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 VÉ°ô® 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´ÉÉºÉ 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´ÉÉºÉ àÉå xÉcÉÓ ÉÊãɪÉÉ* nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ àÉå +ÉÉ{É ÉÊVÉiÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcå ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®É ºÉààÉÉxÉ ¤ÉfÃÉ cè, càÉÉ®É àÉci´É ¤ÉfÃÉ cè, càÉå Éʴɶ´ÉÉºÉ 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® +É¤É £ÉÉÒ SÉÖxÉÉèiÉÉÒ nÉÒ VÉÉ ®cÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉä]Ç BÉEÉ BÉEÉä<Ç {ÉEèºÉãÉÉ cÉä, xªÉɪÉÉãÉªÉ 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´ÉxÉªÉ 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´ÉÉºÉ àÉå ãÉäiÉä, càÉå Éʴɶ´ÉÉºÉ ÉÊnãÉÉiÉä +ÉÉè® ºÉƺÉn BÉEä ºÉ£ÉÉÒ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE nãÉÉå BÉEÉä Éʴɶ´ÉÉºÉ 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´ÉÉºÉ 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, iÉ¤É £ÉÉÒ nä¶É BÉEÉÒ BÉEÉÒàÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ ãÉMÉÉ<Ç VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ* ªÉc cè càÉÉ®É oÉέ]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® +É¤É 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* +É¤É +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 iÉ¤É ¤ÉxÉåMÉä, VÉ¤É +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 xªÉɪÉÉãÉªÉ BÉEä SÉÉÒ{ÉE VÉÉκ]ºÉ ®c SÉÖBÉEä cé, BÉDªÉÉ ´Éc ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ BÉE® ®cä cé ? BÉDªÉÉ ÉÊnããÉÉÒ =SSÉ xªÉɪÉÉãÉªÉ 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 xªÉɪÉÉãÉªÉ (£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 iÉ¤É 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 {É½ä 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´ÉxÉªÉ 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 ºÉàÉªÉ VÉ¤É +ÉÉAMÉÉ iÉ¤É +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 VÉ¤É "{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´ÉÉºÉ 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 {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ nÉÒ MÉ<Ç* {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ +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 {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEÉÒ BÉEàÉÉ<Ç cÉäMÉÉÒ. {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ 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 {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ 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´ÉÉºÉ àÉå xÉcÉÓ ãÉä ®cä cé* +ÉÉ{É nä¶É BÉEÉÒ VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEÉä Éʴɶ´ÉÉºÉ àÉå ãÉå +ÉÉè® {ÉÚ®ä ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉä Éʴɶ´ÉÉºÉ àÉå ãÉå* +ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉÒ àÉÉèBÉEÉ cè, càÉ {ÉÚ®ä ºÉnxÉ ºÉä ÉÊ´ÉxÉ©ÉiÉÉ{ÉÚ´ÉÇBÉE +É{ÉÉÒãÉ BÉE®iÉä cé ÉÊBÉE 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´ÉxÉªÉ 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´ÉxÉªÉ 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 +ÉxÉÖ£É´É ºÉä àÉä®É àÉxÉ ¤ÉcÖiÉ nÖJÉÉÒ cÖ+ÉÉ +ÉÉè® +ÉÉVÉ àÉé <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA, BÉÖEU BÉEcxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA JÉ½É 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 BÉEÉäÉÊ¶É¶É 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 +ÉÉiàÉÉÊxɪÉÆjÉhÉ 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´ÉÉºÉ 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 ºÉàÉªÉ {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 nÚºÉ®É lÉÉ* =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn VÉ¤É VÉxÉiÉÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉÒ cBÉÚEàÉiÉ ¤ÉxÉÉÒ, =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ nÉä xÉÉèVÉ´ÉÉxÉ àÉä®ÉÒ oÉέ] 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´ÉÉºÉ =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 {ÉÉºÉ BÉE® ãÉåMÉä ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ÉʵÉEªÉÉÉÎx´ÉiÉ BÉE®xÉä àÉå +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ºÉ¤ÉBÉEÉ ºÉcªÉÉäMÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* +ÉMÉ® <iÉxÉÉÒ nÚ®-oÉέ] 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 ÉʤÉJÉ®É´É BÉEÉÒ cÉãÉiÉ {ÉènÉ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè* ªÉc {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ÉÊVÉºÉ 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´ÉÉºÉ 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´ÉÉºÉ 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 xªÉÉªÉ 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 {ÉÆVÉÉ¤É 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® UkÉÉÒºÉMÉfà 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 ÉÊ´É´É¶É 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 ÉʴɭɪÉÉå {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´É­ÉªÉ 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 {ɶSÉÉiÉ 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´É­ÉªÉ 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´É­ÉªÉ 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 +ÉxªÉÉªÉ cÉä MɪÉÉ <ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn ºÉä ãɽxÉä BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ càÉ UÉä½ nå ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE {ÉÚ®É ®É­]Å JÉ½É cÉä MɪÉÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè® VÉ¤É 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* VÉ¤É 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´É­ÉªÉ {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 ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ®É­]Å ºÉÆPÉ àÉå |ɺiÉÉ´É {ÉÉºÉ 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 VÉ°ô®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{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE ´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{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE ´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{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE ´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{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ BÉE®iÉä lÉä, <ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä ºÉƤÉÆvÉ àÉå ABÉE £ÉªÉ +Éã{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE ´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 àÉcɮɭ]Å BÉEä +ÉÆn® BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ +ÉɪÉÉ*(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) àÉcɮɭ]Å BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ +ÉÉVÉ BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ´ÉcÉÆ {É® ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE® ®cÉÒ cè* àÉcɮɭ]Å BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå VÉÉä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cé, ´Éä c® oÉέ] 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 {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ 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 ÉÊxɪÉÆjÉhÉ 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, àÉֶɮÇ{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´ÉVÉªÉ 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 JÉÉºÉ 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´ÉÉ¤É nå* ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉä ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉ VÉ´ÉÉ¤É näxÉÉ cè, ºÉàÉªÉ 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´É­ÉªÉ ¤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 {ÉÉºÉ 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 àÉcɮɭ]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, àÉcɮɭ]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 àÉcɮɭ]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 VÉ°ô®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 àÉÆjÉÉãÉªÉ àÉå ®ÉVªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ (gÉÉÒ +ɶÉÉäBÉE |ÉvÉÉxÉ) : VÉ¤É 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 oÉέ] 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´ÉxÉªÉ 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 àÉcɮɭ]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 +ÉxÉÖ£É´É +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 ºÉƤÉÆvÉ 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 ºÉƤÉÆvÉ 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´É­ÉªÉ 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 ºÉƤÉÆvÉ 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* VÉ¤É 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® |ÉÉÊiɤÉÆvÉ ãÉMÉäMÉÉ* +É¤É +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå {É® |ÉÉÊiɤÉÆvÉ ãÉMÉÉxÉÉ, ]ÉìbÉì BÉEä +ÉÆiÉMÉÇiÉ <ºÉBÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ* ªÉc |ÉÉÊiɤÉÆvÉ {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® |ÉÉÊiɤÉÆvÉ ãÉMÉxÉä BÉEä ¤ÉÉn BÉEÉä<Ç BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ =ºÉBÉEÉÒ MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvɪÉÉä àÉå ¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ cÉäiÉÉ cè iÉÉä ´Éc =ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉnºªÉ àÉÉxÉÉ VÉɪÉäMÉÉ* ªÉcÉÆ iÉBÉE ÉÊBÉE àÉcɮɭ]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 ºÉƤÉÆvÉ 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® àÉcɮɭ]Å àÉå ºÉBÉDºÉèºÉ ®ä] 77 {É®ºÉå] cè iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEÉ ªÉcÉÒ BÉEÉ®hÉ cè*

càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ gÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉãÉÉºÉ®É´É 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 àÉcɮɭ]Å àÉå <ºÉBÉEÉ +ÉxÉÖ£É´É ºÉ{ÉEãÉiÉÉ{Éڮ ´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´É­ÉªÉ cè* VÉÉä VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEä ºÉƤÉÆvÉ 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 ºÉƤÉÆvÉ 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® VÉ¤É béVÉ® AÆb bèàÉäVÉ +ÉÉì{ÉE ÉʺÉÉÊ´ÉãÉ AäÉÊ´ÉA¶ÉxÉ BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ 1989 àÉå ãÉɪÉä, =ºÉàÉå VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ lÉÉ* àÉcɮɭ]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´É­ÉªÉ {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* àÉcɮɭ]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 ºÉƺÉn {É® |ÉcÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, =xÉBÉEä {ÉÉÒUä BÉEÉèxÉ lÉÉ, =xÉBÉEÉ MÉÉWÉÉÒ ¤ÉɤÉÉ ºÉä BÉDªÉÉ ºÉƤÉÆvÉ 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 ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉà ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ* ÉÊ{ÉE® BÉEcÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä º]ä]Ö]®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉìbÉÒ ÿªÉÚàÉèxÉ ®É<]弃 BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ cè, ÿªÉÚàÉèxÉ ®É<]弃 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 +ÉxÉÖ£É´É 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´É­ÉªÉ <ºÉ ºÉƤÉÆvÉ àÉå ®JÉxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ* ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä ªÉc ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ +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<]弃 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* VÉ¤É ãÉÉì BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ xÉä ºÉ¤ÉBÉEÉÒ ®ÉªÉ ãÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ SÉÉÉÊcA iÉÉä àÉé BÉEä´ÉãÉ nÉä ´ÉÉBÉDªÉ {Éfà 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 |ɪÉÉºÉ cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* BÉEä´ÉãÉ {ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉ­ÉÉ BÉEÉÒ oÉέ] 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 àÉcɮɭ]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 àÉcɮɭ]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 VÉ°ô°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® ¤ÉÉ°ôn £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 àÉÆjÉÉãÉªÉ 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 iÉªÉ BÉE®äMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE ãɽÉ<Ç àÉå 180 BÉEÉ ÉÊbOÉÉÒ BÉEÉ ]xÉÇ ÉÊBÉEºÉ xÉä ÉÊãɪÉÉ cè * ªÉc <ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ iÉªÉ 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´ÉÉºÉ 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 ÉÊVÉºÉ 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 VÉ°ô®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´ÉÉ¤É nä {ÉÉAÆMÉä ´ÉxÉÉÇ +ÉÉ{É BÉDªÉÉ VÉ´ÉÉ¤É 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´ÉÉ¤É 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´ÉxÉªÉ 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 +ɤÉÉìÉÊãÉ¶É 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 VÉ°ô®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 àÉÆjÉÉãÉªÉ àÉå ®ÉVªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ (gÉÉÒ ÉÊnÉÎM´ÉVÉªÉ 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 VÉ°ô®iÉ àÉcºÉÚºÉ BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç* <ºÉÉÒ BÉEäxpÉÒªÉ BÉEFÉ àÉå +ÉÉVÉ càÉ iÉÉҺɮÉÒ ¤ÉÉ® ÉÊàÉãÉ ®cä cé* 1961 àÉå +ÉÉè® 1978 àÉå ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ +ÉÉÊvÉ´Éä¶ÉxÉÉå BÉEÉÒ VÉÉä ¤Éè~BÉEå cÖ<Ç lÉÉÓ, ´Éc ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEä BÉEÉàÉBÉEÉVÉ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ lÉÉÒ* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉVÉ ÉÊVÉºÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ {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 |ɪÉÉºÉ 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|ÉBÉEÉ¶É xÉɮɪÉhÉ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ¶ÉiÉɤnÉÒ BÉEÉ ªÉc ´É­ÉÇ cè +ÉÉè® 1975 àÉå VÉ¤É +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 {ɺÉÆn BÉE®Éä, ´ÉcÉÓ nںɮÉÒ +ÉÉä® VÉ¤É ´ÉcÉÒ ãÉÉäMÉ <ºÉ ºÉkÉÉ àÉå ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ 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 {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ 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 {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ +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 {ɺÉÆn 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 {ɺÉÆn 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 ºÉƤÉÆvÉ 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 {ÉÖÉέ] 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´ÉVÉªÉ 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´ÉÉºÉ ¤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 ºÉàÉªÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA càÉå UÉä½xÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ* àÉé ÉÊ´É{ÉFÉ BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ ºÉä MÉÖVÉÉÉÊ®¶É BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ, +ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉÒ, +É£ÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ, ºÉàÉªÉ 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 VÉ°ô® BÉE®å, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ càÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ªÉBÉEÉÒxÉ +ÉÉè® Éʴɶ´ÉÉºÉ 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´ÉÉºÉ 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* VÉ¤É ®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 xÉÉBÉEÉàɪÉÉ¤É ®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{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE 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<]弃 +ÉÉè® ÉʺÉÉÊ´ÉãÉ ÉÊãɤÉ]ÉÔ nÉäxÉÉå BÉEÉ cxÉxÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cè*

xÉä¶ÉxÉãÉ ÿªÉÚàÉxÉ ®É<]弃 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 +ÉxÉÖ£É´É cè* ºÉ¤É ãÉÉäMÉ º´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ® BÉE®iÉä cé ÉÊBÉE ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ* =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® xÉä +ÉxÉÖ£É´É 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<]弃 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 ºÉàÉªÉ <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 +ÉlÉÉÇiÉ {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, ºÉɪÉÆBÉEÉãÉ 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]MÉ 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 ºÉÆVÉªÉ ÉÊxÉâó{ÉàÉ (àÉcɮɭ]Å) : àÉé ABÉE ºÉÚSÉxÉÉ ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉä näxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ, ÉÊVÉºÉ 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® VÉ°ô®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 VÉ°ô®iÉ xÉcÉÓ cè ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä ãÉɪÉÉ VÉɪÉä, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ =ºÉBÉEÉä ºÉÆ´ÉèvÉÉÉÊxÉBÉE °ô{É ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉɪÉä, ªÉc ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ àÉƶÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® =ºÉ àÉƶÉÉ BÉEÉä {ÉÚ®É BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA +ÉÉVÉ ªÉc VÉÉä<Æ] ÉʺÉÉË]MÉ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè, =ºÉàÉå {ÉÉä]Éä {ÉÉºÉ 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 àÉƶÉÉ 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 nÚºÉ®ä 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{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉEÉå {É® <ºÉBÉEÉ ¤ÉäVÉÉ <ºiÉäàÉÉãÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ* àÉé BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ àÉƶÉÉ +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 {ÉÚhÉÇ°ô{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 ={É®ÉÆiÉ ¤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 VÉ¤É ¤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, VÉ¤É 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 <ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ cè, ÉÊVɺÉä ABÉE ãÉà¤Éä ºÉàÉªÉ iÉBÉE ¶ÉɺÉxÉ àÉå ®cxÉä BÉEÉ +ÉxÉÖ£É´É 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 ºÉƤÉÆvÉ 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 VÉªÉ |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|ÉBÉEÉ¶É 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 ºÉàÉÖnÉªÉ 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´ÉÉºÉ ({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.

ÉÊVÉºÉ 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 ãÉƤÉä ºÉàÉªÉ 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 VÉ¤É 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, VÉ¤É +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´ÉÉ¤É 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 ÉʺÉiÉƤɮ 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´ÉÉºÉ 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{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉEÉå BÉEä +ÉÆn® £ÉªÉ {ÉènÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ ´ÉÉiÉÉ´É®hÉ iÉèªÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉA, ABÉE {ÉEÉҪɮ ºÉɪÉBÉEÉäÉÊºÉºÉ 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 àÉƶÉÉ 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* {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ 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 {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ 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 {ÉÉºÉ 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 ºÉÆVÉªÉ ÉÊxÉâó{ÉàÉ (àÉcɮɭ]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 àÉcɮɭ]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* àÉcɮɭ]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 ºÉÆVÉªÉ 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 {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ 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 ºÉÆVÉªÉ 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 ºÉÆVÉªÉ 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 ºÉÆVÉªÉ ÉÊxÉ°ô{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 ºÉÆVÉªÉ ÉÊxÉ°ô{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 ÉÊxÉhÉÇªÉ 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 ºÉàÉªÉ 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 VÉ¤É 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 àÉiÉãÉ¤É 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 ºÉƤÉÆÉÊvÉiÉ 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® VÉ¤É iÉBÉE ãÉÉäMÉ àÉÖZÉä SÉÉciÉä cé, àÉé ®cÚÆMÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +É¤É 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 ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ¤Éè~BÉE àÉå VÉÉä àÉéxÉä £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ, àÉé =ºÉä +É£ÉÉÒ {Éfà ®cÉ lÉÉ* ´Éc ncäVÉ BÉEä ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ {É® ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ¤Éè~BÉE cÖ<Ç lÉÉÒ* àÉéxÉä =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ 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 àÉiÉãÉ¤É 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, VÉ¤É 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 àÉiÉãÉ¤É 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 JÉ½É 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{ÉºÉ 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 ÉÊVÉºÉ 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 +ɺÉƺÉnÉÒªÉ ¶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 àÉiÉãÉ¤É 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 ºÉƤÉÆvÉÉÒ +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 VÉ°ô®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 |ɪÉÉºÉ 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 +ɺÉƺÉnÉÒªÉ £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 VÉ°ô®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{ãÉÉäÉÊºÉ´É àÉè]ÉÒÉÊ®ªÉãÉ |ÉÉ{iÉ cÖA lÉä* =ºÉàÉå U& ãÉÉäMÉ ÉÊMÉ®{ÉDiÉÉ® cÖA lÉä* iÉÉÒºÉ®É 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 VÉ°ô® 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* àÉcɮɭ]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 àÉcɮɭ]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 ÉÊxÉhÉÇªÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉɪÉä ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ º´ÉÉÒBÉEɪÉÇ cè* àÉé ºÉƺÉn 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