¸ÉÒ ¶ÉÉÆiÉÉEòÖ¨ÉÉ®ú VÉÉ®úÒ ªÉÊnù ¦ÉÉ®úiÉÒªÉ VÉxÉiÉÉ {ÉÉ]õÒÇ =vÉ®ú ½þÉäiÉÒ, +É{É <vÉ®ú ½þÉäiÉä +Éè®ú +É{É BäºÉÉ Eò®úiÉä iÉÉä ½þ¨É ºÉ¨ÉlÉÇxÉ Eò®úiÉä +Éè®ú nùä¶É Eòä VɶxÉ, nùä¶É Eòä ºÉ¨ÉÉ®úÉä½þ ¨ÉäÆ ¶ÉÉÊ¨É±É ½þÉäiÉä, EªÉÉäÆÊEò ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ EòÒ nÞùʹ]õ ºÉä nùä¶É +Éi¨ÉÊxɦÉÇ®úiÉÉ EòÒ iÉ®ú¡ò ¤Égø ®ú½þÉ ½þè* <ºÉºÉä ¤Éc÷Ò ®úɹ]ÅÒªÉ º´ÉÉʦɨÉÉxÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ +Éè®ú EòÉä<Ç xɽþÒÆ ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉÒ*
BEò ¤ÉÉiÉ ¤ÉÉ®ú-¤ÉÉ®ú {ÉÚUôÒ MÉ<Ç ÊEò {É®úÒIÉhÉ EªÉÉäÆ ÊEòªÉÉ MɪÉÉ, EªÉÉ VÉ°ü®úiÉ lÉÒ* ¨ÉèÆxÉä ºÉÉ®úÒ ¤ÉÉiÉäÆ +É{ÉEòä ºÉɨÉxÉä ®úJÉÒ ½þèÆ* VÉÉìVÉÇ ¡òxÉÉÇÆb÷ÒºÉ xÉä `öÒEò Eò½þÉ ÊEò +É{ÉxÉä xɽþÒÆ ÊEòªÉÉ <ºÉʱÉB ½þ¨ÉäÆ Eò®úxÉÉ {Éc÷É* <ºÉ ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ BEò ʴɶÉä¹É ¤ÉÉiÉ +Éè®ú ½þè ÊEò BäºÉÉ <ºÉʱÉB ½þÖ+É EªÉÉäÆÊEò ʽþ¨¨ÉiÉ´ÉɱÉÉ xÉäiÞÉi´É ªÉ½þÉÆ {É®ú +ɪÉÉ ½þè, ÊxÉhÉÇªÉ ±ÉäxÉä EòÒ Ê½þ¨¨ÉiÉ Eò®úxÉä ´ÉɱÉÉ xÉäiÞÉi´É ªÉ½þÉÆ {É®ú +ɪÉÉ* +É{ÉxÉä 1974 ¨ÉäÆ ÊEòªÉÉ, +É{ÉEòÉä ¤ÉÉ®ú-¤ÉÉ®ú ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç ½þè* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ =ºÉEòä ¤ÉÉnù BäºÉä IÉhÉ +ɪÉä, +¦ÉÒ ¸ÉÒ ´ÉäÆEò]õ®ú¨ÉhÉ VÉÒ EòÉ ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ Uô{ÉÉ ½þè ÊEò VÉ¤É ´É½þ ®úIÉÉ ¨ÉÆjÉÒ lÉä iÉÉä {ÉÉäJÉ®úxÉ ¨ÉäÆ BEºÉ{Éä®úÒ¨ÉäÆ]õ Eò®úxÉä EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ iÉªÉ ½þÉä MÉ<Ç, ´Éä ´É½þÉÆ {É®ú MÉ<Ç, VÉMɽþ nùäJÉ ±ÉÒ, ÊiÉÊlÉ iÉªÉ ½þÉä MÉ<Ç, Ê¡ò®ú ±ÉMÉÉ nùÖÊxɪÉÉ xÉÉ®úÉVÉ ½þÉä VÉɪÉäMÉÒ <ºÉʱÉB {É®úÒIÉhÉ xɽþÒÆ ÊEòªÉÉ MɪÉÉ* <ºÉºÉä ¤Éc÷Ò nùÖJÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ xɽþÒÆ ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉÒ* ªÉÊnù nùä¶É EòÒ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ Eòä ʱÉB {É®úÒIÉhÉ VÉ°ü®úÒ xɽþÒÆ lÉÉ iÉÉä ªÉÉäVÉxÉÉ EªÉÉäÆ ¤ÉxÉÉ<Ç +Éè®ú +MÉ®ú nùä¶É EòÒ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ Eòä ʱÉB {É®úÒIÉhÉ +ɴɶªÉEò lÉÉ iÉÉä ÊEòºÉÒ nùä¶É EòÒ xÉÉ®úÉVÉMÉÒ Eòä EòÉ ®úhÉ =ºÉä ºlÉÊMÉiÉ EªÉÉäÆ ÊEòªÉÉ MɪÉÉ* EòÉä<Ç |ÉIÉä{ÉɺjÉ ½þ¨É ¤ÉxÉÉ ®ú½þä lÉä* EòÉä<Ç nùä¶É xÉÉ®úÉVÉ ½þÉäxÉä ±ÉMÉÉ, =ºÉEòä ʱÉB ªÉÉäVÉxÉÉ ºlÉÊMÉiÉ Eò®ú nùÒ MÉ<Ç* nùä¶É EòÒ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ EòÉä ÊMÉ®ú´ÉÒ ®úJÉxÉä EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ EòÒ MÉ<Ç* <ºÉʱÉB ¨ÉèÆ ºÉ¨ÉZÉiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò +É{É Eò<Ç ¤ÉÉ®ú `öÒEò ºÉ¨ÉªÉ {É®ú, `öÒEò ÊxÉhÉÇªÉ xɽþÒÆ ±Éä ºÉEòä* <ºÉ ¤ÉÉ®ú xÉäiÞÉi´É +ɪÉÉ ½þè ÊVɺÉxÉä nùä¶É EòÒ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ EòÉä ºÉɨÉxÉä ®úJÉEò®ú ÊxÉhÉÇªÉ Ê±ÉªÉÉ +Éè®ú ªÉ½þ <ºÉ ºÉ¨ÉªÉ <ºÉʱÉB ½þÖ+É ½þè EªÉÉäÆÊEò nù¨ÉJÉ¨É ´ÉɱÉÉ, nùä¶É EòÒ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ Eòä ʱÉB ºÉ¤É EòÖUô Eò®ú ºÉEòxÉä EòÒ Ê½þ¨¨ÉiÉ ®úJÉxÉä ´ÉɱÉÉ BEò xÉäiÞÉi´É +ɪÉÉ +Éè®ú =x½þÉäÆxÉä <ºÉ ÊxÉhÉÇªÉ EòÉä ʱɪÉÉ* ½þ¨ÉÉ®úä ʨÉjÉÉäÆ EòÒ ½þɱÉiÉ iÉÉä ªÉ½þ lÉÒ ÊEò VÉèºÉä Eò<Ç ¤ÉÉ®ú EòÉä<Ç ¡òèºÉ±ÉÉ xɽþÒÆ Eò®ú {ÉÉiÉÉ "<®úÉnùä ¤ÉÉÆvÉiÉÉ ½þÚÆ, VÉÉäc÷iÉÉ ½þÚÆ, iÉÉäc÷ nùäiÉÉ ½þÚÆ, Eò½þÒÆ BäºÉÉ xÉ ½þÉä VÉÉB, Eò½þÒÆ ´ÉèºÉÉ xÉ ½þÉä VÉÉB*" +É{ÉEòÒ ªÉ½þÒ ½þɱÉiÉ ®ú½þÒ* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ ¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ xÉä nùä¶É EòÒ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ EòÉä ºÉɨÉxÉä ®úJÉÉ, <®úÉnùÉ ¤ÉÉÆvÉÉ, xÉ iÉÉäc÷É, xÉ VÉÉäc÷É, {ÉÉäJÉ®úxÉ ¨ÉäÆ BEò ¤É½þÖiÉ ¤Éc÷É ¤É¨É ¡òÉäc÷É +Éè®ú =ºÉEòÉ {ÉÊ®úhÉÉ¨É ªÉ½þ ½þÖ+É ÊEò Eò±É {ÉÉÊEòºiÉÉxÉ EòÒ Ê¤É±±ÉÒ ¦ÉÒ lÉè±Éä ºÉä ¤Éɽþ®ú +É MÉ<Ç* +SUôÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ½þè, ÊUô{Éä ½þÖB ½þÊlɪÉÉ®úÉäÆ EòÒ ¤ÉVÉÉªÉ JÉÖ±Éä ½þÖB ½þÊlɪÉÉ®ú ºÉɨÉxÉä ½þÉäÆ iÉÉä =ºÉ SÉÖxÉÉèiÉÒ EòÉ ºÉɨÉxÉÉ Eò®úxÉÉ +ɺÉÉxÉ ½þÉä VÉɪÉäMÉÉ*
BEò ¤ÉÉiÉ =vÉ®ú ºÉä ¤ÉÉ®ú-¤ÉÉ®ú Eò½þÒ MÉ<Ç ÊEò nùä¶É Eòä ºÉƤÉÆvÉ Ê¤ÉMÉc÷ VÉɪÉäÆMÉä* EªÉÉ nùںɮúä nùä¶ÉÉäÆ ºÉä ºÉƤÉÆvÉ ºÉÖvÉÉ®úxÉä EòÉ BEò ½þÒ iÉ®úÒEòÉ ½þè ÊEò Eò¨ÉVÉÉä®ú ½þÉäiÉä VÉÉBÆ* ªÉ½þ iÉEòÇ ºÉ¨ÉZÉ ¨ÉäÆ xɽþÒÆ +ɪÉÉ* ½þ¨É +{ÉxÉä PÉ®ú ¨ÉäÆ ¨ÉÉÊ±É¶É Eò®ú ®ú½þä ½þèÆ, ´ÉÊVÉÇ¶É Eò®ú ®ú½þä ½þèÆ, ªÉÉäMÉɺÉxÉ Eò®ú ®ú½þä ½þèÆ, ¨ÉVɤÉÚiÉ ½þÉäxÉä EòÒ EòÉäÊ¶É¶É Eò®ú ®ú½þä ½þèÆ, =ºÉºÉä ÊEòºÉÒ {Éc÷ÉäºÉÒ EòÉä {É®úä¶ÉÉxÉÒ EªÉÉäÆ ½þÉä* +MÉ®ú ÊEòºÉÒ {Éc÷ÉäºÉÒ EòÉä {É®úä¶ÉÉxÉÒ ½þÉäiÉÒ ½þè iÉÉä <ºÉEòÉ ¨ÉiÉ±É¤É ªÉ½þ ½þè ÊEò =ºÉEòÒ xÉÒªÉiÉ `öÒEò xɽþÒÆ ½þè* ¦ÉÉ®úiÉ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ EòÒ nÞùʹ]õ ºÉä ¨ÉVɤÉÚiÉ ½þÉäxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½þè* ¦ÉÉ®úiÉ Eòä SÉÉ®úÉäÆ iÉ®ú¡ò VÉÉä ºÉÆEò]õ ½þè =ºÉä vªÉÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ ®úJÉEò®ú ¦ÉÉ®úiÉ ¨ÉVɤÉÚiÉ ½þÉäEò®ú BEò º´ÉÉʦɨÉÉxÉ +Éè®ú +Éi¨Éʴɶ´ÉÉºÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò®úxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½þè* =ºÉEòä ʱÉB ¤ÉÉ®ú-¤ÉÉ®ú Eò½þÉ MɪÉÉ ÊEò ºÉƤÉÆvÉ Ê¤ÉMÉc÷ VÉɪÉäÆMÉä iÉÉä EªÉÉ ºÉƤÉÆvÉ ºÉÖvÉÉ®úxÉä Eòä ʱÉB VÉ°ü®úÒ ½þè ÊEò ¦ÉÉ®úiÉ Eò¨ÉVÉÉä®ú ½þÉä VÉÉB* ¦ÉÉ®úiÉ Eòä {ÉÉºÉ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ Eòä ʱÉB EòÖUô xÉ ½þÉä, ªÉ½þ iÉEòÇ Ê¤É±ÉEòÖ±É `öÒEò xɽþÒÆ ½þè +Éè®ú ªÉ½þ ¨ÉxÉÉä´ÞÉÊiiÉ ÊSÉÆiÉÉ EòÉ Ê´É¹ÉªÉ ½þè*
¨ÉèÆ +ÉÊJÉ®ú ¨ÉäÆ BEò ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò½þxÉÉ SÉɽþÚÆMÉÉ* ½þ¨ÉÉ®úä ʨÉjÉÉäÆ xÉä ´ÉèYÉÉÊxÉEòÉäÆ EòÉä ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç nùÒ, ¤É½þÖiÉ +SUôÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ½þè* {ÉÚ®úÉ ®úɹ]Å <ºÉ nùä¶É Eòä ´ÉèYÉÉÊxÉEòÉäÆ EòÉä ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç nùä ®ú½þÉ ½þè, ]õäExÉÒʶɪÉxÉÉäÆ EòÉä ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç nùä ®ú½þÉ ½þè, <ÆVÉÒÊxɪɮúÉäÆ EòÉä ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç nùä ®ú½þÉ ½þè, SÉÚÆÊEò ªÉä ±ÉÉäMÉ ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç Eòä {ÉÉjÉ ½þè* ½þ¨ÉÉ®úä ʨÉjÉ =`öä, ´ÉèYÉÉÊxÉEòÉäÆ EòÉä ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç nùÒ, Ê¡ò®ú nùÉä Eònù¨É +Éè®ú +ÉMÉä ¤Égøä, ]õäExÉÒʶɪÉxÉÉäÆ EòÉä ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç nùÒ, Ê¡ò®ú nùÉä Eònù¨É +Éè®ú +ÉMÉä ¤Égøä, <ÆVÉÒÊxɪɮúÉäÆ EòÉä ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç nùÒ, Ê¡ò®ú ¯ûEò MɪÉä, =ºÉºÉä +ÉMÉä xɽþÒÆ MɪÉä* =ºÉºÉä +ÉMÉä ªÉ½þ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú lÉÒ, =ºÉºÉä +ÉMÉä ¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ lÉä* EªÉÉ =xÉEòÉä ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç xɽþÒÆ nùä ºÉEòiÉä lÉä? EªÉÉ EòÉ®úhÉ lÉÉ* +É{É JÉÖ¶ÉÒ iÉÉä ¨ÉxÉÉ ®ú½þä lÉä, ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç iÉÉä nùä ®ú½þä lÉä, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ +É{ÉEòä ¨ÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ EòÉä<Ç ]õÒºÉ lÉÒ, ÊVɺÉä ½þ¨ÉÉ®úä EòÖUô ʨÉjÉÉäÆ xÉä Eò½þÉ ½þè ÊEò ½þ¨É ¦ÉÒ ªÉ½þÒ Eò®úxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉä lÉä* ¸ÉäªÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ +É{ÉEòä ¨ÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ ½þè, ½þ¨ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ xɽþÒÆ ½þè* <iÉxÉä ¤Éc÷ä nùä¶É EòÒ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ +MÉ®ú Eò¦ÉÒ ¨É½þi´É{ÉÚhÉÇ ÊxÉhÉÇªÉ Ê±ÉªÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ ½þè iÉÉä =ºÉ¨ÉäÆ ¸ÉäªÉ xɽþÒÆ nùäJÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ* ½þÉÆ, EòÉä<Ç EòÉ¨É Eò®úiÉÉ ½þè iÉÉä Eò¦ÉÒ =ºÉä ¸ÉäªÉ ʨɱÉiÉÉ ½þè Eò¦ÉÒ xɽþÒÆ Ê¨É±ÉiÉÉ ½þè* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ ¨Éä®úä ʨÉjÉÉäÆ Eòä Ênù±É +Éè®ú Ênù¨ÉÉMÉ ¨ÉäÆ ¸ÉäªÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ½þè*
ªÉ½þ ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò½þÒ MÉ<Ç ÊEò 1974 ¨ÉäÆ ½þ¨ÉxÉä BEºÉ{Éä®úÒ¨ÉäÆ]õ ÊEòªÉÉ, 1975 ¨ÉäÆ ½þÉ®ú MɪÉä, <ºÉ¨ÉäÆ ½þÉ®ú +Éè®ú VÉÒiÉ EòÉ ºÉ´ÉÉ±É ½þÒ EªÉÉ ½þè, +É{ÉxÉä BEºÉ{ÉäÆ®úÒ¨ÉäÆ]õ ÊEòªÉÉ, ¤É½þÖiÉ +SUôÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ EòÒ* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ +É{ÉEòÉä 1974 Eòä BEºÉ{Éä®úÒ¨ÉäÆ]õ EòÉ +¡òºÉÉäºÉ ½þè ÊEò ½þ¨ÉxÉä 1974 ¨ÉäÆ BEºÉ{Éä®úÒ¨ÉäÆ]õ ÊEòªÉÉ,
±ÉäÊEòxÉ Ê¡ò®ú ¦ÉÒ ½þ¨ÉäÆ ºÉ¡ò±ÉiÉÉ |ÉÉ{iÉ xɽþÒÆ ½þÖ<Ç* ªÉ½þ ¸ÉäªÉ EòÉ ºÉ´ÉÉ±É xɽþÒÆ ½þè* ¨ÉèÆ ºÉ¨ÉZÉiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò <ºÉEòÉ ´ÉèYÉÉÊxÉEòÉäÆ EòÉä ¸ÉäªÉ VÉÉiÉÉ ½þè, ]õäExÉÒʶɪÉxÉÉäÆ +Éè®ú <ÆVÉÒÊxɪɮúÉäÆ EòÉä ¸ÉäªÉ VÉÉiÉÉ ½þè +Éè®ú ªÉ½þ EòÉ¨É 11 +Éè®ú 13 ¨É<Ç EòÉä xɽþÒÆ ½þÖ+É ½þè ¤ÉʱEò ´É½þ ¤É½þÖiÉ {ɽþ±Éä ºÉä ¶ÉÖ°ü lÉÉ* <ºÉEòÉä ¶ÉÖ°ü Eò®úxÉä EòÉ ¸ÉäªÉ +É{ÉEòÉä ½þè, ºÉ¤ÉEòÉä ½þè ±ÉäÊEòxÉ +É{ÉEòä ¨ÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ ªÉ½þ SÉÒVÉ ½þè ÊEò <ºÉEòÉ ¸ÉäªÉ ¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ VÉÒ EòÉä xÉ Ê¨É±Éä, <ºÉ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú EòÉä xÉ Ê¨É±Éä* <ºÉʱÉB +É{ÉEòÒ VÉÉä ¨ÉÖºEòÉxÉ ½þè, =ºÉ¨ÉäÆ ¦ÉÒ lÉEòÉxÉ lÉÒ* +É{ÉEòÒ JÉÖ¶ÉÒ ¨ÉäÆ ¦ÉÒ {É®úä¶ÉÉxÉÒ lÉÒ* +É{ÉEòÒ JÉÖ¶ÉÒ, JÉÖ¶ÉÒ xɽþÒÆ lÉÒ * <ºÉÒ {É®ú ¨ÉÖZÉä BEò MÉÒiÉ EòÒ {ÉÆÊEiÉ ªÉÉnù +ÉiÉÒ ½þè:
"iÉÖ¨É <iÉxÉÉ VÉÉä ¨ÉÖºEòÖ®úÉ ®ú½þä ½þÉä, EªÉÉ MÉ¨É ½þè ÊVɺÉEòÉä UôÖ{ÉÉ ®ú½þä ½þÉä*"
+ÆiÉ ¨ÉäÆ ¨ÉèÆ BEò ½þÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ Eò½þxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò ´ÉEiÉ EòÒ VÉ°ü®úiÉ ½þè, ®úɹ]Å EòÒ VÉ°ü®úiÉ ½þè ÊEò ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ EòÉä nù±ÉÉäÆ EòÒ nùÒ´ÉÉ®úÉäÆ ºÉä >ð{É®ú =`öEò®ú nùäJÉÉ VÉɪÉä* ¨ÉèÆ ¨ÉÉxÉxÉÒªÉ ¶É®únù {É´ÉÉ®ú VÉÒ EòÉä Eò±É EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ Eòä ʱÉB ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç nùäiÉÉ ½þÚÆ +Éè®ú ¤ÉvÉÉ<Ç nùÚÆMÉÉ ªÉÊnù ´É½þ ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉSSÉÒ ½þÉä +Éè®ú +ÉMÉä ¦ÉÒ ¤Égø ºÉEòä* +ÉVÉ VÉ°ü®úiÉ <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ EòÒ ½þè ÊEò ºÉÉ®úÒ ¤ÉÉiÉÉäÆ ºÉä >ð{É®ú =`öEò®ú VÉ¤É {ÉÉÊEòºiÉÉxÉ xÉä BEºÉ{Éä®úÒ¨ÉèÆ]õ ÊEòªÉÉ ½þè, nùä¶É Eòä ºÉɨÉxÉä ¤É½þÖiÉ ¤Éc÷É JÉiÉ®úÉ ½þè, 1962 Eòä PÉÉ´É +¦ÉÒ ½þ®úä ½þèÆ, ʽþ¨ÉɱɪÉ, Ê¶É´É EòÉ Ê¶É´ÉÉ±ÉªÉ PÉÉªÉ±É ½þè--<xÉ ºÉÉ®úÒ ¤ÉÉiÉÉäÆ EòÉä vªÉÉxÉ ¨ÉäÆ ®úJÉEò®ú ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ Eòä´É±É ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ ½þ¨ÉÉ®úÒ {É®ú¨É |ÉÉlÉʨÉEòiÉÉ ½þè +Éè®ú =ºÉ {É®ú ºÉÉ®úÉ ®úɹ]Å BEò ½þè, ªÉ½þ ºÉÆnùä¶É <ºÉ ºÉnùxÉ ºÉä VÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉʽþB* vÉxªÉ´ÉÉnù*
(<ÊiÉ)
SHRI INDER KUMAR GUJRAL (JALANDHAR): Sir, I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to address this august House today. If I may say so, it is for the first time since the elections that I am addressing the House. I am addressing the House at a moment when I feel the situation so demands that with all seriousness and with all application of mind, we address ourselves to the issues that are emerging before us. It is no use emotionalising the issue; it is no use raising slogans about it. Matured nations, serious nations, analyse the situations and try to evolve policies to meet them.
I was initially thinking of speaking yesterday. If I had spoken yesterday, I would have addressed myself to the issues arising out of Pokhran-II. But today I am speaking in a different background because Pakistan also has tested its devices. Therefore, when I talk today about these issues that have arisen, I cannot but talk in terms of the immediate situations that have come before us. These are compounded issues, and the two tests have to be read together so that we are able to evolve a policy and come to some conclusions.
There are several issues which involve both India and Pakistan and, for several years, we have been talking about them. For several years, we have discussed them; for several years, we have been able to meet many of the difficulties that have been confronted and that we have to meet.
At the moment, when I am standing here before you, Sir, I am reminded of a long history. But I am not going to take your time to go into that history. It is no more possible to really undo that history. It is no more possible to discuss at the moment the Indo-Pakistan relations in the context that existed before the two tests were there. But before I address myself to the subject as such, may I, first of all, join rest of the House in also offering my homage to the scientists and the technologists because viewed purely in scientific terms, I think, the Pokhran-II has proved, if any proof was really required for, that our scientists and our technologists are second to none in the world and they are a world-class scientists themselves.
29.05.98 Uncorrected/Not for Publication ###
)) was really required for, that our scientists and our technologists are second to none in the world and they are a world-class scientists themselves.
When I talk about Pokhran and I pay my homage and compliments to the nuclear scientists, I pay my homage to the scientific community in totality. Science cannot be divided into parts. Even Pokhran-II would not have been possible, if other dimensions of the scientific growth had not taken place. It was only a few months back that in your State we have gone and seen the spectacle of Sriharikota, how Indian science made us proud and how Indian scientists made us proud when we are able to launch a satellite on our own, particularly when some months back or a year back or two years back, America denied its cryogenic engine to India. Here are our people who did it themselves and we made this piece. I am aware that more satellites are about to be launched by us and now we have reached that stage when many countries are approaching us to engage our services for that purpose.
I also wish to talk about the super-computer. You will kindly recall and the House will recall that the super-computer was denied to us and here are our scientists and technoloigists who have made the super-computer themselves. Not that they made it themselves, but also today there is a market for it and many countries which were proud of their scientific achievements are in the queue to buy this super-computer. Without this super-computer, nuclear dimension was not possible and, therefore, when I pay my homage -- I repeat -- that I feel that I pay homage to the entire scientific community. They had met the challenge before them and that was they who have turned every denial into an opportunity. Everything that was denied, they turned into an opportunity.
It was my modest effort and a dimension of homage that some months back, India for the first time offered Bharat Ratna to a living scientist.
When I talk of homage to India, I have to talk of Nehru. But for his vision, but for his commitment to scientific growth, but for the way he led us and set up the first laboratories in this country and the best way in which he spelt out the vision for us, we would not have been where we are. When I pay homage to him, I am also reminded not only in terms of science -- Modern India would not have been modern India -- but for Nehru's, his visionary leadership.
In these 50 years that we have travelled, in this House itself you will recall and my friend Shri P. A. Sangma was presiding there, when we got together and for nearly a week, we discussed the pluses and minuses of our society, what we had achieved and what we had not achieved. At the same time, I think we should ask ourselves the question that if we had not achieved anything in these 50 years, what would have been the expectations of our nation about our performance in the coming years?
Therefore, I feel that the important thing for us is that science must continue to receive our focussed attention. Science and technology must receive our attention all the time. Without scientific and technological growth, we will never be able to fulfil the tryst that Nehru spelt out for us. Science does not prosper in hot houses. Science does not prosper in the minds which are obscurantist. Science does not prosper in those areas where minds are not modern. Science prospers only if your schools, colleges and universities provide a wide base for the pyramid and from there, generation after generation we produce scientists who come to the summit and when they reach there, they will perform things as they have done now. I feel, therefore, that it is extremely important that we see to it that the base of science education is spread. That is the homage.
We see that in our schools and colleges there is a great deal of work done for the education of science. We also earmark funds for education. Since my friend, the hon. Finance Minister, is sitting here, I would request him to see that he earmarks a sizable amount of money for Research and Development.
I said a little while ago that science and scientific attitudes do not come unless your base for scientific temper is there. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru often talked about it. May I say, in my own humble way, Sir, when I was assuming office of the Prime Ministership, I had drawn the attention of this nation to this. Scientific temper is the base on which science and technology prospers and also scientific temper defeats obscurantism and andhvishwas. Unless you defeat andhvishwas, you cannot think in terms of scientific temper.
May I say with some pain and some anguish one thing? When we are trying to glorify science, is it not a cruel irony that we are thinking of building temples, we are thinking of carrying the dust, and we are thinking in terms of new situations which encourage our obscurantism and not scientific temper? It is no use passing resolutions here. It is no use paying compliments here from that side and this side if it does not lead you to encouragement of scientific temper. If you are going to turn scientific achievements into the basic temples, dusts and all these things, then, I am very worried about the future of science in this country. Therefore, I hope that if we pay any compliment and if the House decides to pass a resolution - which I would like to share - complimenting and paying homage to our scientific community, we should say in the resolution that we want the country to encourage scientific temper. Therefore, unless scientific temper is encouraged, it is no use passing any resolution. You will know that encouraging scientific temper is also a part of the Directive Principles of the Constitution. That is also what the Constitution has said. That is what we must do. We must pay a great deal of attention to this aspect.
Having said this, I think it is important for me to come and talk to you here how wild I look at the present situation. As I said a little while ago, I was thinking in a different framework yesterday to talk here. But today I am talking in a different scenario, in a different framework. I had, some time back, written two letters to the hon . Prime Minister. These two letters were of 13th and 22nd May, after the tests were performed. When I saw the environment building up in the country, I thought it was my duty to write to him. I said several things in those letters. One of the things that I suggested was that for God's sake please see to it that the Government speaks in one voice. The Government was speaking in five voices, all divergent, all confusing, all giving different messages and those who listened to them were confused. I do not know whether those whom he talked to were confused or not. So, I urged the hon. Prime Minister twice to see to it that the Government speaks in one voice, and ensures that everything that is said in the name of the Government has the Prime Minister's prior clearance so that we know that these are the authentic words of the Government. Well, I do now know if any attention was paid to that or not. But I also suggested to him that he may kindly ensure that...(Interruptions) The letters are here. But I will not try to read them. At the same time, I had also suggested in the letters that he must see to it that his colleagues manifest and exhibit some maturity, maturity of thought, exhibit the maturity of the office that they occupy, and exhibit the dignity of the office that they occupy. They were talking out of turn all the time creating a new type of atmosphere in the country.
Sometimes jingoism was talked of, sometimes war-mongering was talked of, sometimes challenges were given and sometimes new emotions were roused as if overnight the country was on the brink of a war. I had also suggested to him that the maturity of India is that once we create an atmosphere of war without the intention of going to a war, that is an extremely dangerous thing. For God's sake, take care of this.
I also wrote to him and suggested that India has one basic strength of consensus. Since I had the privilege of being the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister for some time, I had practised that consensus. I do not have to ask for your credit. But I think, we showed them in practice this consensus whether it was the CTBT or neighbours' relationship or the United Nations. We explained to everybody how consensus can be built. And I see in the Prime Minister's statement as also in the Prime Minister's speech saying that he supported all those things himself. I say, for God's sake, please do it again. Do not try to make it look your Party's achievement. It is not your Party's achievement. If you want to say that it is your Party's achievement and if you are thinking of elections, it is fine.
I was very disappointed when my learned friend Shri Jag Mohan whom I respect a great deal otherwise, tried to talk in a partisan spirit.
SHRI JAG MOHAN (NEW DELHI): No.
SHRI INDER KUMAR GUJRAL: You did it. If you read your speech again, you will come to the same conclusion and you need not intervene now. The main point, I am trying to say is that consensus is the strength of India, consensus is the strength of a party. I had requested the Prime Minister to ensure that whatever policies he was following, he should try to build a consensus. I also told him when I met him that there is a difference between consensus and `giving of information'. There is a very vital difference. You call the leaders of the parties and give them information. That is not consensus. Consensus-building involves flexibility. It involves accommodation. It involves trying to understand the other man's point of view. It involves trying to understand what the other man is saying is of some value or not, and he then either tries to persuade or tries to get persuaded. Then only you can evolve a consensus. But I say this with a great deal of regret that even now, I do not see the process of consensus emerging particularly after yesterday when new challenges were being thought of. Everybody is talking in a different tone and in a different context. I think, this was the time when we should have sat together and evolved a consensus. My friend, the Leader of the Opposition, offered it yesterday. What did he say? He said: "If the challenge is grave, let us know it; let us understand the challenge. If we understand the challenge, perhaps, we will be able to come together". But there is no response, no consensus building effort. If you do not build consensus, how do you wield the situation? If attitudes are rigid, if attitudes are unaccommodative, if attitudes are un-appreciative, if attitudes are that we know everything, that we have achieved our glory, that we have arrived somewhere where we do not need anybody, then I am sorry, this is not the way to carry the country forward.
[NEXT PAGE]
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
