The prepared speech of Leader of the Opposition (Lok Sabha) in the debate in Parliament on the Confidence Motion on 21 July2008, as provided by the BJP website. This speech will be replaced by the textof the speech as delivered once the full corrected transcript is available.
Mr. Speaker Sir,
I rise to oppose the Motion.
The UPA government came into being in May 2004. It was sworn in on May 22. Exactly four years and two months later-- that is, tomorrow on July 22 -- it faces the likelihood of being voted out.
As a matter of fact, the government has remained non-functional for a long time. I have seen all thegovernments in New Delhi since 1947. There have been some weak and short-lived governments, too. But never have I seen agovernment in a state of paralysis for such a long time.
About a fortnight ago, I had said that the condition of the government is so bad that it has practically remained in the ICU for the past one year. What will happen to this terminally ill patient tomorrow, is the question being debated by the entire nation.
PM himself has destabilised the UPA government
Mr. Speaker Sir, it is important that the debate is focused on why the Prime Minister was forced to seek a trust vote now. After all, hisgovernment could well have continued in a state of paralysis for its full term of five years. Why did thegovernment of Dr. Manmohan Singh lose its majority? Why did it plunge itself and the country into this crisis?
The first point I would like to emphasise is that the Opposition has played no role in creating this instability. The fact of the matter is, thegovernment has destabilised itself. I would go a step further and affirm that the Prime Minister has personallydestabilised his owngovernment.
It is necessary to appreciate this point because, although we in the Opposition want to defeat thisgovernment on the floor of the House, we cannot be accused of plotting to topple thegovernment. There is a difference between defeating a government and destabilizing it. Sarkar ko haraane ke liye to hum vote denge. Parantu use asthir banaane ka kaam to swayam Pradhan Mantri ne kiya hai.
Here lies the difference between the conduct of the BJP and the Congress. In the past four years, the BJP or the NDA never tried to destabilize the UPAgovernment. In contrast, the Congress destabilized the first Vajpayee governmentin 1999, within 13 months of its coming into being. Earlier, it had destabilized thegovernments of Shri Chandra Shekhar, Shri Deve Gowda and Shri I.K. Gujral.
A long saga of betrayals
This time, however, the instability is entirely the making of the Congress itself. My Party has many serious differences with the Left, and these differences will remain. But I cannot blame the Left parties for destabilizing thegovernment.
The Prime Minister precipitated a situation in which he forced the Left parties to withdraw support to thegovernment. The reasons that led them to take this ultimate decision cannot be treated as an internal matter between the Congress and the Left. They go to the heart of democratic conduct in the era of coalitions.
Our country has entered the era of coalitions. One-party dominance of the Congress has become a thing of the past. Nevertheless, the Congress leadership continues to behave in the old fashion. At the root of the present crisis is the Congress party’s arrogance and inability to work with other parties in the spirit of the Coalition Dharma.
When Shri Vajpayee formed the government in March 1998, the BJP was the only party in the NDA that had included in its election manifesto the commitment to make India a nuclear weapons power. But we discussed this issue with all our alliance partners, secured their support and included it in the common minimum programme of the NDA (which was called the National Agenda of Governance). Those issues on which there was no agreement with our alliance partners were kept out of the common programme, even though they were a part of the BJP’s manifesto.
In contrast, the Indo-US nuclear deal was neither in the election manifesto of the Congress party, nor did the Congress consult with its allies and supporting parties to include this issue in the common minimum programme of the UPA.
This shows the fundamental difference between how Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee ran the NDA coalitiongovernment for six years and how Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi have run the UPA coalitiongovernment for the past four years.
I would like to tell the Prime Minister: You may be seeking a trust vote in the House, but trust has been completely missing in the conduct of your party and yourgovernment. The PM and the Congress president have behaved in an untrustworthy manner with their own supporting parties, with Parliament, and with the Nation as a whole.
Let me illustrate this by asking the Prime Minister a few questions:
Congress does not believe in Coalition Dharma
Today everybody in the Congress has been saying that the Nuclear Deal with America is in the national interest and that there will be no compromise on it. If you felt strongly about it, why did you not include this issue in the Common Minimum Programme of the UPA? Why did you not include it even in the manifesto of the Congress party?
After all, CMP was the basis on which the Left parties, with 62 MPs, had agreed to extend outside support to yourgovernment. Neither the Congress nor the UPA had a majority in this House in May 2004. And yourgovernment could not have come into being without the Left’s support.
Is it ‘coalition dharma’ that you pushed ahead with the Nuclear Deal even though you had no mandate to do so? In spite of the objections raised by both the BJP and the Left parties-- and we objected from our own divergent perspectives -- your government signed the 123 Agreement with the United States. When the Left protested, you devised the mechanism of a UPA-Left Committee to study all aspects of the Nuclear Deal. You made Shri Pranab Mukherjee, the seniormost minister in yourgovernment, chairman of this committee.
On your behalf, Shri Mukherjee gave a solemn assurance to the Left that the findings of the committee would be taken into account before finalizing the draft safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA. You pleaded with the Left to trust you, but you did not keep your word. You went to the IAEA stealthily.
Disrespect for Parliament
In quick succession, you also betrayed the Nation. Your government had been reduced to a minoritygovernment when the Left parties withdrew their support. On that day, Shri Pranab Mukherjee publicly assured that thegovernment would not go the IAEA before seeking a trust vote in Parliament. Moreover, he even stated that he was giving this assurance after telephonically speaking to the Prime Minister, who was in Japan at the time to attend the G-8 Summit. This assurance was also flouted.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker Sir, I was stunned into disbelief when the Prime Minister wantonly disregarded an assurance given by his own Foreign Minister. I demand an answer from the Prime Minister why he did so? This House has a right to know who was right-- the PM or his seniormost colleague? Only one of the two could have been truthful.
Moreover, what kind of a government is this in which the Prime Minister not only betrays the trust of the supporting parties, but also shows lack of trust in his own Foreign Minister? Does such agovernment, in which everything about the Nuclear Deal is so secretive that it is not even shared with the Foreign Minister, deserve to continue? NO!
Let me give another example of the government’s lack of transparency. It claimed that the draft safeguards agreement is a "classified" document. But the same so-called "classified" document was up on the Internet as soon it reached Vienna! What an irony it is that the political parties andgovernments of the countries represented on the Board of Governors of the IAEA have an opportunity to debate the contents of the draft safeguards agreement concerning India, but the people and the political parties in India are deprived of that opportunity.
Is it not a poor reflection on our democracy that Members of Parliament do not have an opportunity to discuss the contents of an agreement that binds our country in perpetuity? Is this not disrespect for Parliament? And does agovernment that has no confidence in Parliament have the right to claim the confidence of Members of Parliament? NO!
Where is the ‘broad national consensus’?
Mr. Speaker Sir, I now wish to draw the attention of the House to an even more glaring instance of the Prime Minister breaking his own assurance to Parliament.
I have with me here the transcript of the press conference that Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh addressed in Washington on 20 July 2005-- that is, two days after he and US President George Bush issued a joint statement about the Indo-US nuclear deal. It is worth reminding the House that back home, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee had already issued a statement criticizing the joint statement. Some of the senior leaders of my party had met at the residence of Shri Atalji, discussed the contents of the joint statement, and expressed our serious concerns at that very initial stage.
One press correspondent asked Dr. Manmohan Singh a pointed question: "Mr. Prime Minister, do you see any resistance coming forward from your allies and the opposition in putting the new India-U.S. policy to practice? And will you seek a parliamentary consensus or approval to the new direction you seem to be taking in foreign policy?"
This is how the PM replied. "Well, the Parliament in our country is sovereign," he said. "It goes without saying that we can move forward only on the basis of a broad national consensus."
If Dr. Manmohan Singh truly believes that "Parliament in our country is sovereign", why did he not seek a sense of the two Houses before rushing into the 123 Agreement and the safeguards agreement with the IAEA?
I would also like to know from the Prime Minister whether he thinks that there is a "broad national consensus" behind the Nuclear Deal in its present form. The answer is as clear as daylight. Why then has he chosen to move forward?
Today the House wants to know what efforts he made to create a broad national consensus. Did you convene a single all-party meeting on the Nuclear Deal?
Honourable Members of Parliament will recall that my Party and the NDA had repeatedly voiced the demand for setting up a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), with representatives from all parties, to study all aspects of the Nuclear Deal. Thegovernment did not accept the demand. Why? Even though the Nuclear Deal has far-reaching implications for India, the PM probably thought that the MPs are incapable of giving considered views on the subject. Does this not mean lack of confidence in the MPs? If thegovernment did not trust the MPs, what right does it now have to seek their trust?
Strategic Partnership with USA, but on equal terms
It is my charge against the Prime Minister that he has reduced an important agreement between two sovereign nations into a private agreement between two individuals-- himself and President Bush. He has behaved as a junior partner in this partnership.
Indeed, both the text and the context of the Nuclear Deal right from the beginning have created an uneasy sense among Indians that the UPAgovernment wants India to accept an inferior position in the world order.
Let me make it clear -- and this is where my party differs sharply with the Left-- that the BJP wants to see friendly relations between India and the United States. Indeed, as the world’s largest democracy and the world’s strongest democracy, I believe that our two countries should forge a strategic partnership to pursue common goals.
It goes without saying that India should also simultaneously deepen friendship and cooperation with all the other major powers-- Russia, Japan and others -- in today’s world, which we want to see as a multi-polar world tomorrow. A multi-polar world in which India itself becomes an important pole, working for the welfare of the entire mankind.
Let me emphasise, however, that we want a strategic partnership with the US on equal terms. The BJP will never support a relationship with any country, howsoever strong and powerful it may be, in which India becomes its client or a subservient partner.
It is shocking that the Prime Minister wants India to accept "strategic subservience" in its relationship with the United States. The aspect of "strategic subservience" is most evident in the restrictions that thegovernment has accepted on our strategic programme.
The Nuclear Deal in its present form is nothing but acceptance of severe curbs on our strategic weapons programme. All the American interlocutors, whether belonging to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party or are independent experts, have made it clear that, as far as their country is concerned, their principal objective is to bring India into the Non-Proliferation Regime. What they want fits in well with the critical stand that Dr. Manmohan Singh took after Pokharan II in 1998. Both want India to come within the Non-Proliferation Regimedictated by the US.
Therefore, the Nuclear Deal in its present form means that India will not be allowed to perform Pokharan III or Pokharan IV, without inviting termination of the agreement and severe punitive action. This is unacceptable to my party, to the NDA, to the majority of MPs in this House, and to the people at large.
UPA government’s false claims and dismal track record on ‘Bijlee for All’
Mr. Speaker Sir, even though my party opposes the Nuclear Deal in its present form, let it be clearly understood that we are not against nuclear power as such. We are not even against nuclear cooperation with other countries, including USA, on such terms as protect all our national intereests. I am saying this because the Congress party has already started a propaganda drive that seeks to mislead the people into believing that all those who are opposed to the Nuclear Deal are opposed to nuclear power. It is a crude, simplistic and mischievous propaganda: "We want to light up every home with nuclear power. We want to bring electricity to every farm and factory with nuclear power. But the opponents of ourgovernment are coming in the way."
I wish the people in the government had not resorted to such untruths. The governmentclaims that the Nuclear Deal guarantees energy security for India. Americans, however, have left no one in doubt, as I have just said, that the deal is about putting a cap on, and then rolling back, India’s strategic programme.
In recent days, I have had discussions with several experts in the nuclear energy sector, including those who are working in thegovernment. They tell me that, even in the most optimistic scenario, the share of nuclear power in the overall power generation in India is not likely to go up from the present 3 % to beyond 6-8% even after 25 years. The additionality due to the Nuclear Deal, though useful, will not be of the magnitude that could eliminate the acute power scarcity in the country. If this is so, why is the Congress party not presenting true facts before the people?
Indeed, the arbitrary projection of nuclear power defies the UPA government’s own unenviable track record in the overall power sector. Its common minimum program (CMP) had set an ambitious objective of "Electricity for All within 5 years". It meant covering all 7.8 crore unelectrified households and all the 230,000 unelectrified villages in India's 6 lakh villages. The much-advertised Bharat Nirman Programme set a far lower objective: to electrify 100,000 villages and the 2.4 crore below poverty line (BPL) households without electricity by end March 2009.
Mr. Prime Minister, what has been the success rate of your government in this regard? As of 1 July, 2008, only 30,450 village Panchayats had confirmed electrification against agovernment claim of 49,272. This yields a success rate of just over 30% percent on the lower Bharat Nirman targets. Furthermore, in terms of BPL households, only 27 lakh BPL households out of the original target of 2.4 crore households had been electrified, thereby implying a success rate of only 11 percent. This sums up the UPAgovernment’s shoddy record in attempting to provide bijlee to the AAM ADMI.
Given this track record of non-performance, the UPA is attempting to sell thenuclear deal as a bijlii deal for the aam aadmi.
Advertisement
This trust vote is not about the Nuclear Deal alone
Mr. Speaker Sir, let me point out that this Trust Vote is not about the Nuclear Deal alone. Indeed, no Trust Vote is only about a single issue. It is always about the totality of thegovernment’s performance.
Hence, today this House should give its verdict on the UPA government’s overall performance in the last four years. It should be obvious to any unbiased observer that, on the yardstick of performance, thisgovernment has no right to continue even for a single day.
The Congress sought votes in the last election in the name of the Aam Aadmi. What has the UPAgovernment done for the Aam Aadmi in the last four years? It has made life immensely more difficulty for crores of ordinary citizens in this country due to its failure to control skyrocketing prices of all essential commodities and services. The rate of inflation has almost touched 12%. Most economists feel that even this figure does not reflect the true state of the economy, and that the real inflation is much higher.
In any case, for the aam aadmi, it is not the official figure of inflation that matters. He knows that his family is able to buy less for more money, and that the hole in his family’s meager budget is getting bigger by the month. Everything has become costlier-- food items, transportation, education, healthcare. Not only are the poor getting poorer due to price rise, but even the middle classes are becoming impoverished.
Speaking about the issue of price rise, let me tell you that the common people are wondering why our Prime Minister has no time to fix this problem, and why he is fixated by only one issue: Nuclear Deal?
Mr.
